Personality and Executive Effectiveness 1 Running Head: PERSONALITY AND EXECUTIVE EFFECTIVENESS Personality Correlates of Perceived Senior Executive Effectiveness: An Application of the Five-Factor Model Robert B. Kaiser Kaplan DeVries Inc. Author Note: Poster session presented at the 13th annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX. I am grateful to Bob Kaplan for constructive feedback on earlier versions of this manuscript. Thanks go to James M. LeBreton and S. Bart Craig for conversations that facilitated the design and methodology of the study. David DeVries is also recognized for thoughtful discussion about the meaning of the results. Correspondence about this article may be sent to the author at Kaplan DeVries Inc., 1903 Ashwood Court, Greensboro, NC, 27455. Electronic mail may be sent to Personality and Executive Effectiveness 2 Abstract Previous work has suggested how the personality correlates of effective leadership can be understood within the Five-Factor Model of trait structure. Yet this has not been demonstrated with executive samples. In this exploratory study, senior executives’ Adjective Check List scores were correlated with reliable self, superior, peer, and subordinate ratings of overall effectiveness. Analyses were interpreted within the five-factor/Big Five framework. The traits measured by the ACL scales were significantly related to coworkers’ perceptions of effectiveness, with multiple 2 R s ranging from .19 to .44 across rating sources. Moreover, the relationship between the Big Five and executive effectiveness appeared to be more complex—and somewhat contradictory— when compared to previous suggestions gleaned from research with lower level managers. Personality and Executive Effectiveness 3 Personality Correlates of Perceived Senior Executive Effectiveness: An Application of the Five-Factor Model Behavioral scientists have long been interested in the link between individual differences and leadership. Yet, at least historically, consensus on the utility of personality in understanding corporate leadership performance has been ambivalent at best (Bass, 1990; Yukl & Van Fleet, 1991). Since Stogdill’s literature review in 1974, however, there has been mounting recognition of an important relationship between personality and business leadership effectiveness(e.g., Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan, 1994; House & Aditya, 1997). There are many reasons for this surge in interest, to be sure. Perhaps the most influential reason is traceable to recent conceptual and empirical work which has raised the state-of-the-art in personality theory and research. Maddi (1980) and Hogan (1987; 1991) have called attention to the important distinction between two different meanings ascribed to the term “personality” (see also McAdams, 1992). Although these two conceptualizations of personality are undoubtedly related, albeit in ways that are not presently well understood, it is useful to recognize the distinction as the two views are clearly not equivalent. One approach is personality considered from the observer’s point of view. In this context, personality refers to the ways in which a person’s typical and largely decontextualized manifest behaviors are described (either by her self or by others) in order to convey a general sense of what she is usually like. In other words, personality from the observer’s perspective is tantamount to one’s social reputation and might be thought of as a collection of relatively static and enduring surface (Hogan, 1987) or periphery traits (Maddi, 1980). Surface traits are phenotypic in nature because they are based on observations of social behavior. Hogan has argued convincingly, as have others (e.g., McAdams, 1992), that these reputational characteristics are what is measured by most standard personality inventories. Personality and Executive Effectiveness 4 In contrast to personality from the observer’s perspective is personality from the actor’s perspective (Hogan, 1987; 1991). Here, personality is construed as the core of individuality (Maddi, 1980)—the dynamic intrapsychic structures, networks, and processes which interact with situational contingencies to motivate behavior (see also, e.g., Mischel & Shoda, 1996; Pervin, 1994). Because this view of personality invokes the notion of causality, it might be thought of as the collection of source factors which gives rise to one’s reputed personality. Source factors are not directly observable and thus can only be inferred. Fundamental to this theoretical view of personality is the recognition that behavior is a complex dynamic function of personal and contextual variables that are in an ongoing and reciprocal state of flux. Such individual difference variables include, but are not limited to: the relative situational salience of multiple and sometimes conflicting needs and motives (Allport, 1958; Epstein, 1994a; McClelland, 1985; Murray, 1938); levels of ego functioning and development (Loevinger, 1976; Vaillant, 1993) and ego-control and ego-resiliency (Block & Block, 1980); identity, life themes, and idiographic experiential history (McAdams, 1985); and, perhaps ultimately, the phenomenological experience or subjective psychological meaningfulness of situations and events (Kegan, 1983; 1994; Mischel & Shoda, 1996). It would seem apparent that personality from the actor’s perspective provides a richer and more differentiated understanding of a person’s nature than does personality from the observer’s point of view. However, the study of personality at either level of analysis can yield important and useful information (Hogan, 1991; McAdams, 1992; Mischel & Shoda, 1996). Few would deny that it is important to appreciate behavior in the context of how a person interprets the experience of reality. At the same time, few would argue that one’s reputation—a social construction based in part on the manifest expression of the internal dynamics of the actor—is Personality and Executive Effectiveness 5 not important. In the context of leadership in corporate institutions, one’s relatively enduring or characteristic ways of behaving and his or her resultant reputation can have a dramatic impact on innumerable social processes and managerial outcomes. The present research explores the link between reputational personality traits and perceptions of senior executive effectiveness. The Five-Factor Model of Trait Structure The development and refinement of the Five-Factor Model (a.k.a. the Big Five) has provided a powerful and widely adopted framework for organizing and understanding phenotypic reputational personality traits. This hierarchical model of personality trait structure can be thought of as a sort of Rosetta Stone for interpreting within a common conceptual system the wide array of specific traits identified by personality theorists and test constructors (John, 1990; McCrae, 1989; McCrae & John, 1992). It is not a theory of personality per se; rather the Five-Factor Model (FFM) is an empirical way of summarizing—at a relatively abstract and broad level—the pattern of covariation among objective measures of personality constructs. As demonstrated in factor analyses of personality trait scales conducted by Fiske (1949) and Tupes and Christal (1961) and later popularized by McCrae and Costa (1987), Digman and Innouye (1986), and Goldberg (1993), the FFM holds that five general factors can comprehensively account for the intercorrelations among the domain of specific reputational personality traits, regardless of how they are measured. These five broad-band, relatively abstract, and fundamental taxonomic dimensions are often identified as: Extraversion (including such traits as activity, assertiveness, gregariousness, positive emotionality), Agreeableness (friendliness, trust, sympathy, cooperation), Conscientiousness (responsibility, organization, persistence, achievement), Neuroticism or (low) Emotional Stability (insecurity, anxiousness, vulnerability, negative emotionality), and Openness to Experience or Intellectance (imagination, Personality and Executive Effectiveness 6 curiosity, unconventionality, broad-mindedness). The ubiquitous finding of these five factors in repeated factor analyses of trait personality data suggests that most, if not all, reputational trait scales can be understood as a specific “taste” representing a particular blend of “ingredients” from one or more of the Big Five classes of trait dimension “flavors.” The FFM and leadership effectiveness. A compelling argument for the usefulness of the FFM in understanding leader effectiveness was offered by Hogan et al. (1994). Casting cumulative studies of objective personality measures and various effectiveness criteria in terms of the FFM, they concluded that potent leaders, more so than less effective leaders, tend to be regarded as assertive, talkative, and active (Extraversion); better adjusted, more stable and resilient (Emotional Stability); responsible, organized, and achievement-oriented (Conscientiousness); and likable, supportive, and trustworthy (Agreeableness). Although a generally insightful discussion, close reading of Hogan et al.’s review and integration indicates that, while we do indeed know a good deal about reputational personality traits and leadership effectiveness in general, we are far less informed about these phenomena in the specific context of the corporate executive suite. Perhaps understandably given the elite nature of this population, published quantitative data linking objective measures of personality and explicit measures of effectiveness at senior executive levels is virtually non-existent. (Not one study in the Hogan et al., [1994] review was of senior executive personality and effectiveness.) It remains an open question whether or not findings linking reputational personality to leadership outcomes in middle-management samples generalize to the senior executive population. Senior leadership and personality. Middle-management and senior corporate management functions place unique sets of demands upon incumbent leaders (e.g., Jaques & Clement, 1991; Personality and Executive Effectiveness 7 McCall, Lombardo, & Morrison, 1988). It seems prudent, then, to question the tenability of assuming that the personality correlates of effectiveness in lower levels are the same as those at the highest levels. For example, it is well documented that some personal qualities associated with success in lower levels and rapid career progression can also undermine performance in senior positions (Hogan, 1994; Kaplan, 1996; Leslie & Van Velsor, 1996; Lombardo & McCauley, 1988; Lombardo, Ruderman, & McCaulley, 1988; McCall et al., 1988). Quite frequently managers are promoted based on a solid track record of bottom-line results, but when they reach senior levels, relationship problems often become apparent and can overshadow tangible accomplishments. Hogan (1994; Hogan, Raskin, & Fazzini, 1990) has suggested narcissism is usually the culprit here. Because of a strong motive to justify beliefs of personal superiority and a concomitant lack of regard for others, he argues, these darkly charismatic managers achieve appealing tangible results at exorbitant human costs. Although these managers are perennially rewarded for results with promotions and increased responsibility, the human costs eventually become too great for the organization to bear, and another derailment case is added to the tally. Kaplan has developed the notion of “expansiveness” as a drive of highly ambitious executives that, in extreme measures, can stall a career. Based on years of action-research, Kaplan (1991a) concluded many high-achieving managers are compelled to and, at least early on, reinforced to continually expand their realm of mastery and develop a sense of worth based on personal accomplishments. But when expansiveness runs unmitigated, an otherwise brilliant executive can become too absorbed in strivings for personal success and alienate coworkers while losing sight of organizational needs. Personality and Executive Effectiveness 8 In a recent review of the study of leadership, House and Aditya (1997) suggested that high achievement motivation—a non-conscious urge for personal accomplishment and excellence (McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell, 1958)—contributes to high performance in lower levels and poor performance in high-level executive positions. Like Kaplan’s expansive executives, the highly achievement motivated senior leaders described by House and Aditya (1997) are thought to be so personally involved in performance that they are hesitant to delegate authority and responsibility, a critical component to effectively negotiating the myriad and highly complex demands of a senior role in a large organization (Jaques & Clement, 1991; Nelson, 1988). As a result, a consistent record of excellent performance in middle management ranks can slowly wane at the senior level of large corporations when what is in the best interest of meeting organizational needs is subordinated in the service of satisfying personal achievement needs. It is important to note that the reputational (i.e., surface) personality correlates of leadership effectiveness identified in the Hogan et al. (1994) review—high Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, Extraversion, and Agreeableness—appear partially at odds with current theory on the deeper-seated (i.e., source) cognitive/affective antecedents of poor executive performance. For example, the motivating dynamics of Kaplan’s (1991a) expansive drive conceptually manifest into reputational characteristics in the form of high Conscientiousness, perhaps also with elements of high Extraversion, as does House and Aditya’s (1997) interpretation of achievement motivation. Thus, extremely high Conscientiousness may reflect, to some degree, extreme expansiveness and inordinate achievement motivation, both of which are thought to contribute to poor performance in senior corporate management positions. Personality and Executive Effectiveness 9 The present study was an attempt to relate self-reports of senior executive reputational personality traits to perceptions of effectiveness and thus sketch a rough bridge between the large literature base on middle managers and the lacking literature on top level managers. The effort was exploratory—hypothesis generating rather than hypothesis testing—as no specific a priori hypotheses were explicitly examined. However, it was anticipated that taxonomic application of the FFM would provide a useful way of framing the link between reputational personality and executive effectiveness. Method Participants The present data was gathered for the purpose of assessment to be used in developmental feedback. The sample is comprised of a total of 48 senior executives who participated in a long- term individualized leadership development process (see Kaplan, 1998 for further description of the process). Most were 45 to 60 year-old white men (2 were women) holding such titles as Vice President, COO, and CEO in private sector firms based in the U.S. Effectiveness ratings were collected from a variety of co-workers who were demographically similar to the target executives. A total of 100 superiors, 208 peers, and 319 subordinates provided ratings for 40, 41, and 45 target executives, respectively. Forty-two executives provided self-ratings. Measures Personality. Participants completed a battery of self-report personality inventories as part of the developmental process. For the purposes of this study, the Adjective Check List (ACL, Gough & Heilbrun, 1983) was used to operationalize personality. The ACL contains 300 adjectives and respondents are asked to check those terms that will allow a “comprehensive, analytic, and differentiated portrait” of himself or herself (Gough & Heilbrun, 1983, p. 1). The Personality and Executive Effectiveness 10 results are scored to produce 37 scales representing reputational traits derived from diverse origins such as Murray’s (1938) classic need-press theory of personality, Berne’s (1961) psychodynamic theory of transactional analysis, and Welsh’s (1975) structural theory which portrayed creativity and intelligence as two fundamental dimensions of personality. The scales, a brief description of each, and descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1, which is further described below in the procedures section. Effectiveness. Effectiveness ratings were collected for each target from the target and a median total of 14 (range of 10 to 31) coworkers—on average, a median of 2 superiors (range of 1 to 8), 5 peers (range of 2 to 16), and 7 subordinates (range of 2 to 13). Each coworker was requested, during a semi-structured interview about the target’s leadership performance, to “Please give a rating of X’s overall effectiveness as an executive on a ten-point scale. Briefly explain.” Murphy and Cleveland (1995) have noted that superiors, peers, and subordinates each have a unique and qualitatively different relationship with a given manager and thus are likely to hold different perceptions of that manager. Accordingly, ratings from these sources were treated separately. Although single-item measures such as the present effectiveness measure are not inherently deficient (Judge & Ferris, 1993), they are potentially susceptible to unreliablity. Thus, the psychometric qualities of the effectiveness ratings were critically examined. Specifically, the measurement properties of the ratings were evaluated in terms of interrater agreement and interrater reliability within rating sources (c.f. Fleenor, Fleenor, & Grossnickle, 1996) and convergent validity between rating sources. James’ rwg statistic was used to determine the level of agreement within rating sources. This index is appropriate when a group of raters rate a single target on a single construct and the