3 0 A Peer Reviewed Research JournalaWEshkar Vol. XVIII Issue .docx

3 0 A Peer Reviewed Research JournalaWEshkar Vol. XVIII
Issue 2 September 2014 WeSchool
Are Transformational leaders creative and Creative leaders
transformational? An attempted synthesis through the Big
Five Factor Model of Personality Lens
ABSTRACT
Using the Big Five Factor Model of personality, I propose to
explore the association between
transformational leadership and their creativity disposition. I go
beyond the unilateral understanding
of this association and try to explore if creative leaders may be
transformational. These two associations
shall be underscored in separate sections. Research questions
veering around these associations are
being offered underscoring the need for significant contextual
factors for an appropriate understanding
of the relationships.
KEY WORDS: Big Five Factor Model of Personality,
Transformational Leader, Creative Leader.
Stuti Saxena*
*Stuti Saxena, Research Assistant, Indian Institute of
Management, Ahmedabad, India.
Email: [email protected]
RESEARCH
INTRODUCTION

Leadership, as a research area, holds promises for
the real-world organizations where the impetus is
laid down on creativity. Similarly, organizational
creativity is abuzz among the research discussants.
Organizations' survival is contingent upon their
creative solutions in an ever-turbulent and fast-
obsolescent technological mileu. Among the
diverse variants of leadership, transformational
and transactional leadership have been of immense
interest among the research scholars. Leaders are
the very lifeline in any creative organization. In
fact, organizations prosper or fall from grace when
led by good or bad leaders-it's a bet worth going
for. Creativity is the generation of novel ideas and
leads to the production of products and services. I
seek to understand the personality of a leader who
is transformational and creative at the same time,
using the Big Five Factor Model of personality.
Hitherto, it has been established that a
transformational leader ought to be creative.
However, would a leader with a creative
personality be transformational- this remains
uncovered in the extant research. This would help
understand the role of a creative-transformational
leader, especially when it influences role-modeling.
Research questions centered on these two
associations shall be put forth for future research.
The sequence of the study follows the description
of the Big Five Factor Model of Personality;
linkage between the Big Five Factor Model of
personality with creativity; linkage between the Big
Five Factor of personality with transformational
leadership summated by a conclusion.

BIG FIVE FACTOR MODEL OF
PERSONALITY
Personality is the uniqueness of traits exhibited by
3 1A Peer Reviewed Research Journal aWEshkar Vol. XVIII
an individual which define him owing to his/her
dynamic interaction with the environment.
Personality theory has been supportive of the five-
factor view of personality (Digman, 1990;
Goldberg, 1990). The Big Five was based on
decades of research starting with Fiske in 1949
and defined using appropriate terminology by
Goldberg in 1981 (John & Srivastava, 1999). The
advantage of broad categories in the Big Five is
their bandwidth (Barrick & Mount, 1991; John &
Srivastava, 1999). As per the theory, there are
five components of personality: extraversion,
agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism and
openness to experience. These five factors of
personality encompass many correlated but
distinct lower level dimensions or traits.
Personality traits are the psychological qualities
that contribute to an individual's enduring and
distinctive patterns of feeling, thinking and
behaving (Cervone & Pervin, 2008). In fact, the
communality of the specific traits defines each of
the five broad factors. Further, these five factors

have been found consistently through diverse
research methods across time, contexts and
cultures (e.g., McCrae, Costa, del Pilar, Rolland,
& Parker, 1998). Big Five Factor model of
personality has been researched in relation to
career success (Judge, Higgins, Thorensen, &
Barrick, 1999), job satisfaction (Judge, Heller, &
Mount, 2002), job performance (Barrick &
Mount, 1991), leadership (Judge, Bono, Ilies, &
Gerhardt, 2002), performance motivation (Judge
& Ilies, 2002) apart from other personality-related
and organizational outcomes. A brief about the five
factors falls in place.
NEUROTICISM: It reflects the tendency to be
anxious, defensive, insecure, and emotional
(McCrae & Costa, 1987). Neurotics lack self-
confidence (McCrae & Costa, 1991). Neurotics
possess facets such as angry hostility, depression,
self-consciousness, impulsiveness and
vulnerability. Individuals rating high on neuroticism
typically have a pessimistic outlook in life and
focus on the negatives in themselves and in others.
Thus, neurotics are more likely to experience
depression and vulnerability to stress than those
who are low in this trait (McCrae & Costa,
1985). Neurotics have a tendency to ruminate
and focus on negative affect (Roelofs, Huibers,
Peeters, Arntz, & van Os, 2008). Neuroticists are
extremely concerned about personal competence.
They are emotionally reactive. The opposite pair
of neuroticism is emotional stability. Emotional
stability implies exercising restraint over one's
emotions. Emotional stability lends to even
temperament, self-confidence, resilience, high

tolerance of stress and well-adjustment. Such
individuals are unemotional, self-content and
highly satisfied with themselves.
EXTRAVERSION: Individuals with an
extraversion personality are social, assertive,
active, bold, energetic and adventurous.
Extraverts are dominant in their behavior and
expressive when interacting with others (McCrae
& Costa, 1987). Extraversion is also known as
surgency. Extraversion comprises of facets like
warmth, gregariousness, assertiveness, activity,
excitement seeking and positive emotions.
Extraverts also tend to be higher in positive
affectivity and activity than introverts (McCrae &
Costa, 1985). Extraverts have a keen interest in
other people and relevant external events. They
are more talkative and adventurous with good
skills in using humor. In contrast, introverts are
reserved and independent and do not prefer large
groups and gatherings (Costa & McCrae, 1992).
Introverts prefer being solitary and have low
energy and enthusiasm. Intraversion implies traits
of passivity, reservedness, and being quiet.
OPENNESS TO EXPERIENCE: Individuals
whose personality is marked by an openness to
experience possess traits like imagination,
unconventionality, autonomy, creativity and
divergent thinking (McCrae & Costa, 1987).

Openness to experience encompasses aspects like
fantasy, feelings, actions, ideas and values. They
think in an esoteric manner and fantasize a lot
while deliberating in social values (McCrae, 1996)
They show independent judgement as well as
possess autonomous thinking (Woodman, Sawyer,
& Griffin, 1993). De Young, Peterson and Higgins
(2005) have termed openness as "motivated
cognitive flexibility" owing to its encompassing
intelligence, creativity and motivation. Being high in
openness to experience is linked with being
tolerant to ambiguity and having a preference for
complexity (McCrae & Costa, 1997). Open
individuals are unconventional and broad-minded.
Openness to experience has long been established
as being related to creativity (Feist, 1998) and has
correlations with creative thinking styles, goals,
hobbies and accomplishments (Silvia, Kaufman,
Reiter-Palmon, & Wigert, 2008). Individuals
scoring high on openness to experience are
nonconformists and pride themselves on anti-
authoritarian and anti-establishment attitudes
(McCrae, 1996). Further, openness is related with
divergent thinking (McCrae, 1987), creative
achievements in science and art (Carson,
Peterson, & Higgins, 2005) as well as perception
of one's own creativity in various domains and
originality assessment. Open individuals have
intellectual curiosity and prefer variety (Costa &
McCrae, 1992). In contrast, individuals who score
low on openness are conventional in behavior and
opt for the familiar rather than the novel (Costa &
McCrae, 1992).
AGREEABLENESS: Agreeable individuals are

altruistic, warm, generous, trusting and cooperative
(McCrae & Costa, 1987; Costa & McCrae,
1992). Agreeableness includes dimensions like
trust, straightforwardness, altruism, compliance,
modesty and tender-mindedness. Agreeable
individuals are pro-social and empathetic towards
others. They are concerned with others' interests.
Being agreeable implies traits such as kindness and
friendly behavior. Such individuals have a tendency
of getting along with other people. They are willing
to compromise their personal interests with others
because of their cooperative personality.
Agreeablenes helps increase the quality of
interaction of the leaders with their followers.
However, they may also be overly submissive and
conforming (Graziano & Eisenberg, 1997). This
might emerge as a counterproductive
characteristic, at times. This is so because they
might give in to circumstances which require taking
a tough stance. Indeed, this would be
counterproductive to organizational interests. In
contrast to agreeableness, a disagreeable person
or an antagonistic individual is egocentric, skeptical
of others' intentions, and competitive rather than
cooperative (Costa & McCrae, 1992). These
individuals tend to be distrusting in their behavior
and have an attitude of opposition towards others.
They are unkind.
CONSCIENTIOUSNESS: Conscientiousness

encompasses dependability, responsibility,
dutifulness, deliberation, achievement orientation
and a concern for following established rules
(McCrae & Costa, 1987). They are cautious,
thoughtful and have a tendency to strictly adhere
to standards of conduct (Costa, McCrae, & Dye,
1991). Conscientiousness is measured in terms of
competence, order, dutifulness, achievement
striving, self-discipline and deliberation.
Conscientious individuals are precise and orderly
and involve themselves in detailed and attentive
planning (Costa & McCrae, 1992; McCrae &
Costa, 1987). Conscientiousness is also known as
dependability and implies reliability with
thoroughness. They are rarely impulsive because
they spend a lot of their time in the thought
process. Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham
(2003) have linked the dimensions of achievement
orientation, efficiency, goal-focus and
perseverance with conscientiousness. Such
individuals are able to efficiently self regulate and
channelize their impulses towards achievement.On
the other end of the spectrum, low
conscientiousness implies that individuals are
negligent, unreliable and severely careless.
CREATIVITY AND BIG FIVE FACTOR OF
PERSONALITY
Creativity is conceptualized in terms of ideation
which is defined as how individuals use or
appropriate ideas (Runco, Plucker, & Lim, 2000-

2001). Creativity is akin to an individual's ingenuity
to conceive of novel ideas to provide useful
solutions in the form of products or services.
Creativity is an individual-level construct and may
be defined as the generation of unique and
appropriate ideas, processes, or solutions
(Amabile, 1996; Ford, 1996; Shalley, 1991).
Further, creative ideas should be implementable
and result-oriented. In fact, innovation is the
appropriate outcome of creativity (Baer, 2012). In
an organizational context, these innovations should
indeed be useful and novel.
In fact, creativity appears to be a complex
construct and is a function of diverse factors which
may be linked with tangible aspects like product or
novel idea generation (Amabile, 1982; Oldham &
Cummings, 1996), the creative person (Torrance,
1974), interaction of creative thought process
(Millar, 1997; Weisberg, 1993), and the creative
environment or situation that facilitates creativity
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). For Runco (2007),
creativity emerges as a personality trait as well as a
cognitive ability. Creativity is determined by
personality apart from other factors (Munoz-
Doyague, Gonzalez-Alvarez, & Nieto, 2008).
Creative individuals have a different kind of
personality apart from possessing domain-relevant
skills (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron,
1996). Sternberg and Lubart (1991) stressed on
personality attributes as significant in as much as
these reflect traits of tolerance for ambiguity and
the willingness to be a risk-taker. Individuals with a
creative personality are mavericks in themselves.

They have the tendency to think of uncommon and
novel ideas. Personality psychologists have always
been interested to study creativity (Feist, 1998).
Creative individuals are self-confident and cheerful
(Guilford, 1968). Creative personalities are
associated with tolerance of uncertainty, self-
confidence, unconventionality, originality, intrinsic
motivation, above average intelligence, and
determination to succeed (King & Anderson,
2002). Further, creative individuals have traits like
independence of judgment, motivation by
complexities, aesthetic orientation, and high risk-
taking (Barron & Harrington, 1981; Sternberg &
Lubart, 1996). Anderson (1959) reports that a
creative individual differs in terms of his thinking,
feeling and beliefs. Establishing differentiation from
others in terms of perception is the key. Further, a
creative personality varies across age and
professional fields (Prabhu, Sutton, & Sauser,
2008). Creative individuals have esthetic qualities
and broad interests. They are attracted by
complexity and prefer greater autonomy
(Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993). "Creative
people are more autonomous, introverted, open to
new experiences, norm doubting, self confident,
self accepting, driven, ambitious, dominant, hostile

and impulsive" (Feist, 1998: 299). Creativity is
also positively correlated with psychosis-
proneness (Zanes, Ross, Hatfield, Houtler, &
Whitman, 1998), self-determination and autonomy
(Sheldon, 1995), openness to experience factor of
the Five-Factor model of personality and
negatively associated with neuroticism (Gelade,
2002). In his meta-analysis, Feist (1998) found a
positive relationship between extraversion and
creativity (Feist, 1998). Barron and Harrington
(1981) stressed upon high valuation of aesthetic
qualities in experience along with broad interests,
attraction to complexity, high energy,
independence of judgment, autonomy, intuition,
self-con?dence, ability to resolve antinomies, and
having a sense of self as some of the personality
traits to characterize an individual as creative.
Thereafter, Mumford and Gustafson (1988) added
other facets to defining a creative personality such
as high empathy and capacity for status, low
socialibility, communality, and a desire to make
impression on others. A further look into the
association of a creative personality and the
dimensions of the Big Five Factor Model of
personality shall facilitate a better insight to
appreciate the dynamics involved.
Openness to experience is associated with
divergent thinking (McCrae, 1987) and creativity
(Feist, 1998). Batey and Furnham (2006) have
profiled artistic, scientific and everyday creativity
wherein openness explained the maximum
association as far as the personality trait was
concerned. Being so closely linked, research has
used the terms creativity and openness

synonymously (Digman, 1990). Being open
encourages learning and adaptability. Further,
individuals high in openness would be more open
to receiving feedback as well. In fact, it is likely
that they would generate a higher number and a
better quality of ideas. The probability of receiving
creative experiences are enhanced owing to the
enthusiasm of individuals to seek new experiences
(Batey, Chamorro-Premuzic, & Furnham, 2010).
In a study conducted in many large and small
corporate organizations, openness to experience is
positively linked with creativity (Raja, 2004).
Agreeableness is weakly related to creative
achievements (King, Walker, & Broyles,1996). At
the same time, studies have shown that highly
agreeable individuals are creative, especially in the
domains of everyday creativity (Silvia et al.,
2008). These inconsistencies may be explained
within the HEXACO model (Ashton & Lee,
2009), where the trait of agreeableness is divided
into Honesty-Humility and Agreeableness. The
former is described in terms of sincerity, honesty
and modesty; and the latter is defined in terms of
forgiveness, kindness and patience (Ashton &
Lee, 2009). It has been shown that while

agreeableness is unrelated, honesty-humility are
negatively associated with creativity (Silvia,
Kaufman, Reiter-Palmon, & Wigert, 2011).
Neurotics have mood fluctuations, tension and
are usually negatively related to creativity (Feist,
1998). Neurotics have a weaker perception of the
world as being meaningful (Gibson & Cook,
1996), as well as avoidance behaviors rather than
those oriented to achieving life goals (Elliot,
Sheldon, & Church, 1997). They lack trust and
belief in their creative abilities and their capabilities
to accomplish creative tasks (Xu & Brucks,
2011). They are unwilling to explore reality and
possess the attitude oriented toward preserving
the given conditions (DeYoung, 2010).
Surprisingly, in another study, George and Zhou
(2002) found evidence of a positive relationship
between bad mood, a correlate of neuroticism,
and creativity. The reverse dimension of
neuroticism is emotional stability which is marked
by traits like being calm, secure and non-anxious.
Creativity necessitates the ability to integrate
information efficiently and discover novel ways of
thinking that can be promoted by having a calm
demeanor and self-confidence (Sung & Choi,
2009).
It is likely that being high on conscientiousness is
less likely to be linked with creativity (Tett,
Jackson, Rothstein, & Reddon, 1994). As
creativity entails novelty and greater uncertainty,
individuals with high conscientiousness would
prefer control over the situation, planning and risk
avoidance and reduce uncertainty instead of

coming up with new solutions. In his meta-analysis,
Feist (1998) found that being high on
conscientiousness would be negatively linked with
creativity. Similarly, Barrick and Mount (1991)
concluded that agreeableness was unrelated
creativity. Conscientiousness includes two
components: achievement and dependability (De
Young, Quilty, & Peterson, 2007), which may
have different relationships with creativity.
Achievement dimension reflects the degree of
organization, persistence, and motivation of an
individual in aim-oriented tasks, which may also
involve creative activity. Achievement was
positively and dependability was negatively linked
to creative performance (Reiter-Palmon, Illies, &
Kobe-Cross, 2009).
Overall, there appears to be variability in the
association between creative personality traits vis-
à-vis the Big Five Factors of personality. A Polish
study was conducted by Karwowski, Lebuda,
Wisniewska, & Gralewski (2013) to examine the
relation of the Big Five personality factors to two
creativity self-concept variables: creative self-
ef?cacy (CSE) and creative personal identity
(CPI). Creative Self-Efficacy (CSE), a
characteristic of eminent creators, is defined as
one's confidence that one is capable of handling
problems requiring creative thinking and creative
functioning. Creative Personal Identity (CPI) stems
from perceiving oneself as a creative individual and
describes oneself (Farmer, Tierney, & Kung-
McIntyre, 2003). The strongest relations vis-à-vis
CSE were observed in the cases of openness to
Experience (positive) and neuroticism (negative);
weaker relations were noted in the cases of

extraversion, conscientiousness (both positive),
and agreeableness (negative). Similarly, CPI was
positively related to openness to experience,
extraversion, and conscientiousness, and
negatively related to neuroticism and
agreeableness.
In their longitudinal study drawing sample of a total
of 307 (inclusive of 187 females) undergraduate
psychology students from two UK universities,
creative thinking of students was found to have
positive linkage with extraversion, agreeableness
and openness (Chamorro-Premuzic, 2006).
Similarly, in a longitudinal data collected from 304
undergraduate students who were enrolled in an
introductory organizational behavior course at a
North American business school, extraversion and
openness to experience were positively linked with
creative performance (Sung & Choi, 2009) where
the potential trait-trait interaction between the Big
Five Factor model of personality was examined
vis-à-vis the motivational orientations of individuals
leading to creative performance. In yet another
sample comprising of students (158
undergraduates) from a large British university,
Batey, Chamorro-Premuzic, & Furnham (2010)

found that openness and extraversion were
positively and conscientiousness was negatively
linked with ideational behavior (IB), where
ideational behavior is defined as the behavior that
demonstrates how an individual makes use of,
appreciates and develops skills with the help of
ideas (Runco et al, 2000-2001). In another
sample consisting of 175 Spanish undergraduates
and recent graduates drawn from three university
subject domains, viz., technical & natural sciences,
social sciences, and arts, divergent thinking and
creative personality were examined (Sanchez-Ruiz
et al., 2011). Divergent thinking is usually linked
with creativity and it strives to generate new ideas,
incentives and stimuli to solve problems radically
(Im, Montoya, & Workman, Jr., 2013). It was
concluded that openness, extraversion and
conscientiousness were positively correlated to
both divergent thinking and creative personality.
Further, neuroticism was positively correlated with
divergent thinking but not with creative personality.
Additionally, extraversion was although positively
correlated to creative personality in the general
sample and in the technical and natural sciences
and social sciences group but not in the arts group.
What is apparent from the aforementioned results
is that since the sample comprised of students,
therefore, more needs to be explored by varying
the sample to include the organizational contexts.
Apart from this, it would be interesting to explore
if cultural dimensions influence creativity.
Creative cognitive style and spontaneity were
positively linked with openness to experience and
extraversion in a study to test the validity of their

Scale of Creative Attributes and Behavior
(SCAB), and, the study was conducted on 61
female university students enrolled in
undergraduate psychology courses (Kelly, 2006).
Creative cognitive style was defined as the
cognitive aspect of creativity which has bearing on
intelligence (divergent thinking and problem
solving). Spontaneity is featured by impulsivity and
excitement seeking. This implies that individuals
high in extraversion and openness to experience
would possess divergent thinking style and
excitement for learning and doing new things.
Creativity, in the negative sense, that is, malevolent
creativity, which is the application of original ideas
to purposely harm others in order to gain an unfair
advantage through manipulation, threat or harm
(Cropley, 2010), was found to be positively linked
with neuroticism and negatively linked with
conscientiousness (Lee & Dow, 2011). In this
study, two hundred and sixty-five college students
from a small liberal arts university participated as a
component of a partial course credit where they
performed two divergent thinking tasks ideating
on uses for a brick and a pencil. Therefore,
leaders with a neurotic personality are likely to be

a hindrance to being creative themselves and in
stimulating creativity among the followers too.
In a sample consisting of 223 incumbent managers
(147 women, 76 men) from 12 medium to large
Canadian organizations, with 173 managers from
public-sector organizations (health care,
education, utilities) and 50 from private-sector
organizations (telecommunications, recreation,
beverages, forest products, office supplies),
Scratchley & Hakstian (2000-2001) concluded
that the correlation between divergent thinking and
openness is high for an interdomain (cognitive
ability and personality) relation. This is
understandable considering the fact that being
open to varied and novel experiences which are-
often- serendipitous, would enhance divergent
thinking and catenate thoughts related with novel
dimensions.
Concluding for this section, it appears that
extraversion and openness to experience are
positively linked with creativity. However, mixed
results are found for the remaining traits. These
mixed results may be attributed to the contextual
dimensions and choice of sample and other related
factors. It is anticipated that a creative leader
should be emotionally stable and open to novel
experiences. However, some of the studies as
above have not reported linkages for
extraversion. This may be attributed to the
introverted trait of creative individuals in many
instances. Apparently, a creative leader would be
low on neuroticism and conscientiousness.

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP
AND BIG FIVE FACTOR MODEL OF
PERSONALITY
Transformational leadership is the ability of a
leader to be an instrument for inspiring his
followers to be proactive, risk-taking, initiative-
oriented, and change-oriented through sheer awe.
It has been defined in terms of the effect a leader
has on his/her followers. Transformational leaders
display individualized consideration and
intellectual stimulation. They are charismatic and
lend meaning to work such that followers'
energies are mobilized to respond quickly and
effectively to work demands as well as perform
beyond expectations (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978).
Thus, the followers are raised from their
"everyday selves" to their "better selves"
(Goodstein & Lanyon, 1999). In fact, they infuse
in their followers the commitment to the overall
collective goal and achieving excellence in these
overarching goals. It is understandable that
leadership responsibilities involve interpersonal
relationships. This calls for an understanding of
their personality in a better way.
In a sample drawn from 178 students at a large
Midwestern university, Colbert, Judge, Choi and
Wang (2012), extraversion and openness to
experience are positively linked to leadership
perception. Although research has sought to
differentiate between the core elements of
charismatic and transformational leadership, I

propose to use the two terms interchangeably.
Transformational leaders are vision-articulators for
an organization and engage in ways that reinforce
the values inherent in that organization vision. They
adopt such empowering behaviors like delegation
of responsibilities to followers, enhancing their
participation in decision-making and encouraging
them to come up with new and creative ideas
(Yukl, 1998). A transformational leader creates a
vision which helps followers to exceed their self-
interests. In sum, there are four main dimensions
attached to transformational leadership, viz.,
charisma (leadership through providing emotional
arousal, that is, a sense of mission, excitement,
and pride); inspiration (setting high expectations,
expressing important purposes in understandable
ways, and communicating a vision); individualized
consideration (developing a personal relationship
with all followers based upon their needs); and,
intellectual stimulation (providing new ideas,
creating new ways of tackling problems, and
inducing people to rethink old problems).
Identification of personality traits of
transformational leaders (Bono & Judge, 2004;
De Hoogh et al, 2005; Judge & Bono, 2000;
Ployhart et al., 2001) has been proposed in
empirical and theoretical studies. It has been
proposed that diverse personality traits may serve

as potential antecedents of transformational
leadership. In their meta-analysis of 73 samples
examined the relationship between personality and
leadership, personality is said to cause 25% of
variance in leadership wherein the Big Five Factor
model variables have a multiple correlation of 0.39
with leadership effectiveness (Judge et al., 2002).
In their sample of 131 supervisors and 467
subordinates drawn from a US division of an
international human capital management
company, Smith and Canger (2004) have
concluded that supervisor agreeableness,
extraversion and emotional stability are positively
related with subordinates' satisfaction vis-à-vis
their leader. In a study conducted with 500
managers working in a Cyprus hotel industry,
transformational leadership is positively linked
with extraversion, openness and
conscientiousness (Zopiatis & Constanti, 2012).
Therefore, an extravert personality is apt for
leadership.
Leadership is predicted by an individual's
personality because behavior is a function of
personality. Therefore, what people do is a
function of what they are (Ployhart, Lim, & Chan,
2001). Establishing a relationship between
personality and leadership has undergone several
revisions. When the personality and leadership
research had just commenced, there was no
taxonomic structure of personality to aid theory
development and testing. Thus, numerous
personality traits were investigated which led to
difficulty in the integration of results. However, it
is being unequivocally acknowledged in research

that the Five Factor Model yields a
comprehensive framework for comparing and
accumulating empirical findings. Judge and his
colleagues (2002) used the Five Factor model as
an organizing framework in their meta-analysis on
personality and leadership. They concluded that
since the model explained 16 percent of variance
in leader effectiveness, therefore, the leader
effectiveness can be predicted from personality
traits.
In fact, the Big Five Factor model has produced
diverging results for transformational leadership
(eg., Crant & Bateman, 2000; Judge & Bono,
2000; Ployhart et al., 2001). For instance, Judge
& Bono (2000) concluded that agreeableness,
extraversion and openness to experience were
better linked with transformational leadership. In
another sample comprising of managers of a
financial service organization, Crant and Bateman
(2000) concluded that only extraversion was
linked with transformational leadership. Bono and
Judge (2004) attempted to meta-analyse the Five
Factor model of personality vis-à-vis
transformational leadership (and transactional
leadership). Since there was considerable

variability in relationships (strength and direction)
across the studies included in their meta-analysis,
weak mean validities were found vis-à-vis the Big
Five Factors. This might be attributed to the
diversity in behavioral contexts. Overall,
extraversion was found to be the strongest and
most consistent personality correlate of
transformational leadership.
Extraversion was proposed to play a significant
role in influencing, persuasion and mobilizing
others as far as transformational leadership is
concerned (Bass, 1985). As leaders, their
propensity for social interaction is enhanced owing
to their assertiveness. They take charge of the
situations and are talkative instead of exhibiting
withdrawal behaviors. Leadership is associated
with being strong, bold and forceful (Offermann,
Kennedy, & Wirtz, 1994). It is likely that
individuals with a dominating personality would be
perceived as more leader-like. Since leadership
involves optimism and positive emotions (Connelly
& Ruark, 2010), it is possible that such extraverts'
positivity and energy results in their being
perceived as leaders. Hoogh, Hartog and
Koopman (2005) reported negative linkage
between extraversion and transformational
leadership in contrast to a positive relationship as
reported by Ployhart and colleagues (2001). This
may be have its bearings on the contextual
dimension. In fact, Bono and Judge (2004) have
acknowledged extraversion as "the strongest and
most consistent correlate of transformational
leadership". Judge and Bono (2000) found that
extraversion and agreeableness were positively

linked with transformational leadership. Shao and
Webber (2006) have shown in an Chinese
sample that in contrast with the Western context
as reported in the study of Judge and Bono
(2000), extraversion was found to have a
negative association with transformational
leadership. This is surprising given the collectivist
characteristic in Chinese culture.
Similarly, openness to experiences was
considered to be effective in playing a significant
role in the articulation of an attractive vision, and,
hence characteristic of charismatic leaders. In
fact, openness to experience has close
resemblance to intellect and is notably correlated
with general cognitive ability, which has been
found to be associated with leadership emergence
(Judge & Bono, 2000; McCrae & Costa, 1987).
Leaders who are high in openness would possibly
be more approachable by their subordinates.
Besides, they are likely to be more aware of the
situations and hence be more realistic. Being open
to complexity and tackling situations head-on,
leaders are able to guide followers toward the
achievement of their goals. It is also possible that
leaders with high scores on openness to
experience were less charismatic in certain
contexts. This may be possible because leaders

who tend to question the status quo and
continually seek improvements in ways to perform
the job may be considered as wavering. Hoogh,
Hartog, & Koopman (2005) and Ployhart et al
(2001) found openness to experience to be
pertinent to charismatic leadership in a dynamic
rather than in a stable environment. Similarly,
Judge, Bono and others (2002) found a positive
relationship between openness to experience and
leadership.
Further, the pro-social dimension of agreeableness
was considered to be an asset to charismatic
leaders as they would be friendly and sympathetic
as well as arouse liking in other people (Costa &
McCrae, 1992). Being agreeable implies to be
trusting, cooperative, caring and tolerant (McCrae
& Costa, 1985). While agreeable leaders are
prone to fostering an environment of cooperation
and being concerned about the development of
employees, those who rate low in this trait are
open to competition and challenges (Giberson et
al., 2009). Being overly cooperative may be
detrimental as far as leadership behavior is
concerned. However, being warm and sensitive to
others are characteristics which are related to
leadership (Bass, 1985). Judge and Bono (2004)
concluded that agreeableness may be positively
associated with charismatic leadership in their
sample covering a variety of jobs across the
industries as a part of a community service
leadership program. Contrastingly, Lim and
Ployhart (2004), in their sample comprising
military personnel, concluded that agreeableness is

negatively linked with charismatic leadership. This
was probably owing to the fact that during
turbulent times, overly agreeable individuals may
be overly accommodating and hence ill-suited to
deal with the critical situations. Thus, being over-
conforming and submissive may be detrimental to
being a transformational leader. It may be
important to be able to understand subordinates'
perspective and infuse their work with meaning,
which is one of the characteristics of charismatic
leadership (Bass, 1985). Further, expressing
concern for others may also help charismatic
leaders to attend to individual needs of their
followers. Agreeableness is also linked with a
preference for participative style of management
(Stevens & Ash, 2001). For ensuring participation
and sharing sensitive information as well as
delegate, one needs to be trusting and straight
forward.
Conscientious individuals are considered to be
thorough, organized, laborious and persevering
(McCrae & Costa, 1985). Being inclined to
exhibit procedural behaviors, individuals high in
conscientiousness are likely to be goal-oriented,
coordinate ideas, expedite work and maintain the
agenda. It is probable that individuals with high
conscientiousness may be positively linked with
transformational leadership. Bono and Judge
(2004) found a positive relationship between
conscientiousness and charismatic leadership in
their meta-analysis. They might inspire their
followers to perform beyond expectation by
setting high standards and acting dutifully
themselves. However, such an emphasis on order

was negatively related to leadership effectiveness
in novel situations (Diener, Larsen, & Emmons,
1984).
Transformational leaders possess self-confidence
(Bass, 1985), and, hence, it is likely that
neuroticism may not characterize charismatic
leaders. Quite understandably, individuals high on
neuroticism trait are likely to express anger and
hostility which would make it difficult for them to
establish relationships with others (Weisband &
Atwater, 1999). They are also likely to be erratic
in their behaviors and emotional responses owing
to their tendencies toward insecurity and
depression. Further, it is difficult to predict the
behaviors and reactions of such individuals
thereby leaving a negative perception of their
leader. Neurotics are likely to fail the tests of
competency and trustworthiness. Their ruminating
tendencies may lead to leaving unwanted
behaviors that are unexpected of a leader. Lim
and Ployhart (2004) found a negative relationship
between neuroticism and charismatic leadership.
However, Judge and Bono (2000) and Crant and
Bateman (2000) could not vindicate an
unequivocal relationship between neuroticism and

transformational leadership. Again, this difference
may be attributed to the selection of the sample in
both the studies wherein in the case of military
personnel, the tendency to remain calm, secure
and non-anxious is important. In a sample of 398
university students studying introductory
psychology classes, transformational leadership
was positively linked with neuroticism apart from
extraversion, agreeableness and openness to
experience (Yang, 2009). This positive linkage
may be attributed to the choice of the sample. In a
sample which comprised participants from the
Singapore Armed Forces (N=376), extraversion
was positively and neuroticism was negatively
linked with transformational leadership.
In sum, no conclusive statements may be gleaned
from the aforesaid section. There are mixed results
for the relationship of transformational leadership
and the Big Five Factor model of personality. As
observed in the case of creativity vis-à-vis the five
dimensions, this may be attributable to the context
and the sample selection along with the relevant
parameters. Broadly, neuroticism should be
negatively and extraversion may be positively
linked with the traits characterized by a
transformational leader.
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP
AND CREATIVE LEADERS: SYNTHESIS
In several reviews, creativity has been identified
as an important skill of an effective leader (e.g.,
Bass, 1990). In fact, leadership and creativity are
regarded as critical components for effective

functioning of organizations. For successful
implementation of creative ideas and innovation,
appropriate leadership is pertinent. It has been
underscored that leaders can serve as the
facilitators for letting the followers to express their
creative ideas and efforts in addition to serving as
mentors, coaches and provided the required
resources at the same time (Jaskyte, 2008).
However, it needs to be ascertained whether the
transformational leader-the focus of this study- is
creative; whether a creative individual is apt to be
a transformational leader. Apart from appreciating
the two associations, it is also the endeavor to
underscore the intervening variables which might
effect these two associations. Interactionist
perspective is being appreciated in creativity and
transformational leadership contexts both.
Creativity is as much a function of environmental
factors as is transformational leadership.
Extending the two associations, I now propose
the commonalities between the two interaction
systems and the additional factors which might
influence the two associations separately. That is,
the study shall now develop research questions
veering around the environmental factors which
might enable a creative leader to function as a

transformational leader, and, the factors which
would enable a transformational leader to function
as a creative leader.
In a study by Rank et al (2004), moderate
extraversion and moderate transformational
leadership are linked with creativity. In sum,
following research questions emerge from the
study so far:
1a. Will a creative leader be transformational
when s/he ranks high on extraversion?
1b. Will a transformational leader be creative
when s/he ranks high on extraversion?
when s/he ranks low on neuroticism?
when s/he ranks low on neuroticism?
when s/he ranks high on conscientiousness?
when s/he ranks low on conscientiousness?
when s/he ranks high on openness to
experiences?
when s/he ranks high on openness to
experiences?

when s/he ranks high on agreeableness?
5b. Will a transformational leader be creative when
s/he ranks low on agreeableness?
I propose that the aforementioned research
questions may be further refined by exploring the
situational contexts which might influence
transformational leadership and creativity.
Creativity is supposed to be the resultant of
environmental factors wherein the interaction of the
individual and situational factors takes place (e.g.,
Amabile, 1996; Csikszentmihalyi, 1988; George
& Zhou, 2001; Mumford & Gustafson, 1988).
Similarly, Rhodes (1961) suggested that creativity
is a function of the environment in which creativity
occurs, apart from the involvement of cognitive
processes, the individual who creates and the
product that results from creative capacity. Some
of the contextual factors which might bear
relationship between being creative and
transformational are work environment (Hoogh,
Hartog, & Koopman, 2005; Walter, 2012). Such
work environments may encompass tangible
(nature and scope of work, resource availability)
and intangible (working conditions, organizational
policies, cooperation and support at work,
autonomy) aspects. Overall, it is proposed that in
the presence of congenial work environment, the
aforementioned research questions shall be
supported contingent upon the choice of sample
and other relevant factors.
DISCUSSION

The present study holds relevance in more than
one ways. For one, transformational leaders are
usually looked upon as role-models of the
followers. Does it not behoove that such a leader
should be creative as well for being a role-model
for his creative followers? Or, is it possible that a
non-creative leader may be able to lead his
followers better when it comes to workplace
creativity? Further, will a creative leader be able to
"transform" his/her followers? In other words, will
a creative leader also be a transformational
leader? Alternatively, what other types of leaders
(transactional; servant; authentic, for instance) are
required for sustaining and building upon
workplace creativity? Taking an example of role-
modeling to better understand the need for
congruency between the transformational and
creative personality traits in a leader, where
leaders are considered as role-models by their
followers, I propose that a creative-
transformational leader would be most
appropriate for propelling creativity (Exhibit 1).
Role-modeling propels creativity through creative
emulation (Jaussi, & Dionne, 2003). As depicted
in Exhibit 1, the greater the congruency between

the creative and transformational dimensions of a
leader's personality, the greater the perception of a
leader as their ideal role-model.
Exhibit 1: Congruency between the Creative and
Transformational dimensions of a leader
using the Big Five Factor Model of personality
achievement of goals. Expertise role-modeling
would result when the leader is perceived as
creative and brimming with new-fangled ideas,
and, the followers would prefer to approach him
and invite his/her participation in the ideation
process including its overall assessment.
However, such a leader who lacks in
transformational leadership would not be able to
take charge if things go awry. Therefore, the
followers may need to depend upon their own
ingenuity and intrinsic motivation to propel
When a follower perceives that his leader is
transformational and creative, s/he holds such a
leader in awe and gives unconditional regard to
such a leader for his domain-expertise as well as
visionary style (Revered role-modeling).
Followers would appreciate the fact that their
leader is inspiring and a visionary, however, the
lack of creativity attributes in a leader would
result in a detached role-modeling. Such a leader
would not be approached when the followers are
in doubt vis-à-vis their ideas; they would defer to
his propensity to instill the inspiration in

(Big Five Factor Model of
Personality lens for
understanding
organizational creativity)
Creativity traits in a leader
Absence of creativity traits in a
leader
Leader with transformational
leadership traits
Revered Role-Modeling Detached Role-Modeling
Leader without transformational
leadership traits
Expertise Role-Modeling
Extraneous/Absent Role-
Modeling
themselves if their ideas fall flat. Finally, leaders
who do not have transformational leadership style

and are lacking in creativity in themselves are liable
to be accepted as role-models for extraneous
reasons (personal reasons; hierarchical position;
transactional leadership style; organizational
culture; etc.).
Finally, are there situational factors which would
impinge upon the aforementioned associations?
Future research should be better able to explain
workplace creativity vis-à-vis leadership. Future
research should also be able to delve in cross-
cultural dimensions for understanding the
relationships referred in this study. Further, role-
modeling dimension of transformational leader
aiming at improving the creativity of the
organization is called for explaining the differences
in the public and the private sectors. I began this
paper trying to explore the fundamental
relationship between transformational leader and
creativity to ascertain if a transformational leader
has creativity traits and vice-versa, using the Big
Five Factor Model of personality perspective.
Mixed observations were noted and I understand
that this variability has a large bearing on the
methodology adopted in the extant research. I also
underscored the need for a congruency between a
transformational and a creative leader's traits
giving an example of how followers would
perceive their leaders differently if the congruency
is visibly absent or distanced. I conclude saying
that for organizational creativity, a creative-cum-
transformational leader is apt under contingent
work-related contexts.
REFERENCES

1. Amabile, T. M. 1982. Social Psychology of
Creativity: A Consensual Assessment
Technique. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 43: 997-1013.
2. Amabile, T. M. 1996. Creativity in
context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
3. Amabile, T.M., Conti, R., Coon, H.,
Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. 1996. Assessing
the work environment for creativity.
Academy of Management Journal, 39(5):
1154-1184.
4. Anderson, H. H. 1959. Creativity and its
cultivation. NY: Harper & Brothers.
5. Ashton, M.C., & Lee, K. 2009. The
HEXACO-60: A short measure of the major
dimensions of personality. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 91: 340-345.
6. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. 1990.
Transformational leadership
development: Manual for the Multifactor
leadership questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
7. Baer, M. 2012. Putting creativity to work:
The implementation of creative ideas in
organizations. Academy of Management
Journal, 55(5): 1102-1119.
8. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. 1991. The
big five personality dimensions and job

performance: A meta analysis. Personnel
Psychology, 44: 1-27.
9. Barron, F., & Harrington, D. M. 1981.
Creativity, Intelligence, and Personality.
Annual Review of Psychology, 32: 439-
476.
10. Bass, B. 1985. Leadership and
performance beyond expectations. New
York, NY: Free Press.
11. Batey, M., Chammoro-Premuzic, T., &
Furnham, A. 2010. Individual differences in
ideational behavior: Can the Big Five and
psychometric intelligence predict creativity
score? Creativity Research Journal,
22(1): 90-97.
12. Batey, M., & Furnham, A. 2006. Creativity,
intelligence, and personality: A critical review
of the scattered literature. General, social,
and general psychology monographs,
132(4): 355-429.
13. Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. 2004.
Personality and transformational and

transactional leadership: a meta-analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 89: 901-
910.
14. Burns, J. 1978. Leadership. New York,
NY: Harper and Row.
15. Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A.
2003. Personality traits and academic
performance. European Journal of
Personality, 17: 237-250.
16. Carson, S.H., Peterson, J.B., & Higgins,
D.M. 2005. Reliability, validity, and factor
structure of the Creative Achievement
Questionnaire. Creativity Research
Journal, 17: 37-50.
17. Cervone, D., & Pervin, L. A. 2008.
Personality: Theory and research (10th
Ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.
18. Chammoro-Premuzic, T. 2006. Creativity
versus conscientiousness: Which is a better
predictor of student performance? Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 20: 521-531.
19. Colbert, A.E., Judge, T.A., Choi, D., &
Wang, G. 2012. Assessing the trait theory of
leadership using self and observer ratings of
personality: The mediating role of
contributions to group success. The
Leadership Quarterly, 23: 670-685.
20. Connelly, S., & Ruark, G. 2010. Leadership

style and activating potential moderators of
the relationships among leader emotional
displays and outcomes. Leadership
Quarterly, 21: 745-764.
21. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. 1992.
Revised NEO Personality Inventory
(NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor
Inventory professional manual. Odessa,
FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
22. Costa, P. T., Jr., McCrae, R. R., & Dye, D.
A. 1991. Facet scales for agreeableness and
conscientiousness: a revision of the NEO
Personality Inventory. Personality and
Individual Differences, 12: 887-898.
23. Crant, J.M., & Bateman, T.S. 2000.
Charismatic leadership viewed from above:
The impact of proactive personality,
Journal of Organizational Behavior,
21(1): 63-75.
24. Cropley, A. J. 2010. The dark side of
creativity. What is it? In A. J. Cropley, J. C.
Kaufman, & M. A. Runco (Eds.), The dark
side of creativity: 1-14. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

25. Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1988. Society, culture,
and person: A systems view of creativity. In
R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of
creativity: Contemporary psychological
perspectives: 325-339. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
26. De Hoogh, A.H.B., Den Hartog, D.N., &
Koopman, P. 2005. Linking the Big Five-
Factors of personality to charismatic and
transactional leadership: Perceived dynamic
work environment as a moderator. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 26(7): 839-
865.
27. DeYoung, C.G. 2010. Personality
neuroscience and the biology of traits. Social
and Personality Psychology Compass,
4: 1165-1180.
28. DeYoung, C., Peterson, J., & Higgins, D.
2005. Sources of openness/intellect:
Cognitive and neuropsychological correlates
of the fifth factor of personality. Journal of
Personality, 73(4): 825?858.
29. DeYoung, C.G., Quilty, L.C., & Peterson,
J.B. 2007. Between facets and domains: 10
aspects of the Big Five. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 93:
880-896.
30. Diener, E., Larsen, R. J., & Emmons, R. A.
1984. Person x situation interactions: Choice

of situations and congruence response
models. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 47: 580-592.
31. Digman, J. M. 1990. Personality structure:
The emergence of the five-factor model.
Annual Review of Psychology, 41: 417-
440.
32. Elliot, A.J., Sheldon, K.M., & Church, M.A.
1997. Avoidance personal goals and
subjective well-being. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 23: 915-927.
33. Farmer, S.M., Tierney, P., & Kung-
McIntyre, K. 2003. Employee creativity in
Taiwan: An application of role identity theory.
Academy of Management Journal, 46(5):
618-630.
34. Feist, G. J. 1998. A meta-analysis of
personality in scientific and artistic creativity.
Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 4: 290-309.
35. Ford, C.M. 1996. A Theory of Individual
Creative Action in Multiple Social Domains.
Academy of Management Review, 21:
1112-42.
36. Gelade, G. A. 2002. Creative style,
personality, and artistic endeavor. Genetic,
Social, and General Psychology
Monographs, 128: 213-234.

37. George, J.M., & Zhou, J. 2002.
Understanding when bad moods foster
creativity and good ones don't: The role of
context and clarity of feelings. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87(4): 687-697.
38. Giberson, T., Resick, C., Dickson, M.,
Mitchelson, J., Randall, K., & Clark, M.
2009. Leadership and organizational culture:
Linking CEO characteristics to cultural
values. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 24(2): 123-137.
39. Gibson, L.M., & Cook, M.J. 1996.
Neuroticism and sense of coherence.
Psychological Reports, 79: 343-349.
40. Goldberg, L. R. 1990. An alternative
'description of personality': The Big-Five
factor structure. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 59: 1216-1229.
41. Goodstein, L.D., & Lanyon, R.I. 1999.
Applications of personality assessment to the
workplace: A review. Journal of Business
and Psychology, 13(3): 291-322.

42. Graziano, W. G., & Eisenberg, N. 1997.
Agreeableness: a dimension of personality. In
R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.),
Handbook of personality psychology:
795-824. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
43. Guilford, J. 1968. Intelligence, creativity
and their educational implications. San
Diego, CA: Robert R. Knapp.
44. Im, S., Montoya, M.M., & Workman Jr.,
J.P. (2013). Antecedents and consequences
of creativity in product innovation teams.
Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 30(1), 170-185.
45. Jaskyte, K. 2008. Employee creativity in
U.S. and Lithuanian nonprofit organization.
Nonprofit Management and Leadership,
18: 465-483.
46. Jaussi, K.S., & Dionne, S.D. (2003).
Leading for creativity: The role of
unconventional leader behavior. The
Leadership Quarterly, 14, 475-498.
47. John, O., & Srivastava, S. 1999. The Big
Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement,
and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin,
& O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of
personality: Theory and research: 102-
138. New York: Guilford Press.
48. Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. 2000. Five-
factor model of personality and

transformational leadership. Journal of
Applied Psychology: 85, 751-765.
49. Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., &
Gerhardt, M. W. 2002. Personality and
leadership: A qualitative and quantitative
review. Journal of Applied Psychology,
87: 765-780.
50. Judge, T., Higgins, C., Thoresen, C., &
Barrick, M. 1999. The Big Five personality
traits, general metal ability, and career
success across the life span. Personal
51. Judge, T., Heller, D., & Mount, M. 2002.
Five-factor model of personality and job
satisfaction: a meta-analysis. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87(3): 530-541.
52. Judge, T. A. & Ilies, R. 2002. Relationship
of personality to performance motivation: A
meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied
53. Karwowski, M., Lebuda, I., Wisniewska,
E., & Gralewski, J. 2013. Big Five
personality traits as the predictors of creative
self-efficacy and creative personal identity:
Does gender matter? Journal of Creative
Behavior, 47(3): 215-232.

54. Kelly, K.E. 2006. Relationship between the
Five-Factor Model of personality and the
scale of creative attributes and behavior: A
validational study. Individual Differences
Research, 4(5): 299-305.
55. King, N., & Anderson, N. 2002.
Managing innovation and change: A
guide for organizations. London:
Thomson.
56. King, L., Walker, L., & Broyles, S. 1996.
Creativity and the five-factor model.
Journal of Research in Personality, 30:
189-203.
57. Lee, S.A., & Dow, G.T. 2011. Malevolent
creativity: Does personality influence
malicious divergent thinking? Creative
Research Journal, 23(2): 73-82.
58. Lim, B. C., & Ployhart, R. E. 2004.
Transformational leadership: Relations to the
Five-Factor Model and team performance in
typical and maximum contexts. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 89: 610-621.
59. McCrae, R. R. 1987. Creativity, divergent
thinking, and openness to experience.
Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 52: 1258-1265.

60. McCrae, R. R. 1996. Social consequences
of experiential openness. Psychological
Bulletin, 720: 323-337.
61. McCrae, R.R., Costa, P. T., Jr., del Pilar, G.
H., Rolland, J. P., & Parker, W. D.
1998.Cross-cultural assessment of the Five-
Factor Model: the revised NEO
Personality Inventory. Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, 29: 171-188.
62. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. 1987.
Validation of the five-factor model of
personality across instruments and observers.
Adding liebe und arbeid: the full Five-Factor
Model and well-being. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 17: 227-232.
Updating Norman's "adequate taxonomy":
Intelligence and personality dimensions in
natural language and in questionnaires.
65. McCrae, R. R. & Costa P. T. 1997.
Conceptions and correlates of Openness to
Experience. In: R. Hogan, J.A. Johnson, and
S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of
personality psychology: 825-847. San

Diego: Academic Press.
66. Millar, G. W. 1997. The creativity man: E.
Paul Torrance. NJ: Ablex.
67. Munoz-Doyague, M., González-Álvarez, N.,
& Nieto, M. 2008. An examination of
individual factors and employees' creativity:
The case of Spain. Creativity Research
Journal, 20: 21-33.
68. Mumford, M.D., & Gustafson, S.B. 1988.
Creativity syndrome: Integration, application,
and innovation. Psychological Bulletin,
103(1): 27-43.
69. Offermann, L. R., Kennedy, J. K., Jr., &
Wirtz, P.W. 1994. Implicit leadership
theories: Content, structure, and
generalizability. The Leadership Quarterly,
5: 43-58.
70. Oldham, G.R., & Cummings, A. 1996.
Employee creativity: Personal and contextual
factors at work. Academy of Management
Journal, 39(3): 607-634.

71. Ployhart, R. E., Lim, B., & Chan, K. 2001.
Exploring relations between typical and
maximum performance ratings and the Five-
Factor Model of personality. Personnel
72. Prabhu, V., Sutton, C., & Sauser, W. 2008.
Creativity and certain personality traits:
Understanding the mediating effect of intrinsic
motivation. Creativity Research Journal,
20(1): 53?66.
73. Raja, U. 2004. The relationship of the
Big Five Personality dimensions to
personal and organizational outcomes:
Answering the questions Who? & When?
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Concordia
University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
74. Rank, J., Pace, V.L., & Frese, M. 2004.
Three avenues for future research on
creativity, innovation, and initiative. Applied
Psychology: An International Review,
53(4): 518-528.
75. Reiter-Palmon, R., Illies, J.J., & Kobe-
Cross, L.M. 2009. Conscientiousness is not
always a good predictor of performance: The
case of creativity. International Journal of
Creativity and Problem Solving, 19: 27-
45.
76. Roelofs, J., Huibers, M., Peeters, F., Arntz,
A., & van Os, J. 2008. Rumination and
worrying as possible mediators in the relation

between neuroticism and symptoms of
depression and anxiety in clinically
depressed. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 46: 1283-1289.
77. Runco, M. 2007. Correcting the research on
creativity. Creativity Research Journal,
19(4): 321?327.
78. Runco, M. A., Plucker, J. A., & Lim, W.
2000-2001. Development and psychometric
integrity of a measure of ideational behavior.
Creativity Research Journal, 13: 393-
400.
79. Sanchez-Ruiz, M.J., Hernandez-Torrano,
D., Perez-Gonzalez, J.C., & Batey, M., &
Petrides, K.V. 2011. The relationship
between trait intelligence and creativity
across subject domains. Motivation &
Emotion, 35: 461-473.
80. Scratchley, L.S., & Hakstian, A.R. 2000-
2001. The measurement and prediction of
managerial creativity. Creativity Research
Journal, 13(3 & 4): 367-384.
81. Shalley, C.E. 1991. Effects of productivity
goals, creativity goals, and personal
discretion on individual creativity. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 76(2): 179-185.
82. Shao, L. and Webber, S. 2006. A cross-
cultural test of the five-factor model of

personality and transformational leadership.
Journal of Business Research, 59(8):
936-944.
83. Sheldon, K. M. 1995. Creativity and self-
determination in personality. Creativity
Research Journal, 8(1): 25-36.
84. Silvia, P.J., Kaufman, J.C., Reiter-Palmon,
R., & Wigert, B. 2011. Cantankerous
creativity: Honesty-Humility, Agreeableness,
and the HEXACO structure of creative
achievement. Personality and Individual
Differences, 51: 687-689.
85. Silvia, P.J., Winterstein, B.P., Willse, J.T.,
Barona, C.M., Cram, J.T., Hess, K.I.,
Martinez, J.L., & Richard, C.A. 2008.
Assessing creativity with divergent thinking
tasks: Exploring the reliability and validity of
new subjective scoring methods. Psychology
of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Art, 2:
68-85.
86. Smith, M.A., & Smith, J.M. 2004. Effects of
supervisor "Big Five" personality on
subordinate attitudes. Journal of Business
and Psychology, 18(4): 465-481.

87. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. L. 1991. An
investment theory of creativity and its
development. Human Development, 34: 1-
31.
88. Sternberg, R.J. & Lubart, T.L. 1996.
Investing in creativity. American
Psychologist, 51(7): 677-688.
89. Stevens, C.D., & Ash, R.A. 2001. Selecting
employees for fit: Personality and preferred
managerial style. Journal of Managerial
Issues, 13(4): 500-517.
90. Sung, S.Y., & Choi, J.N. 2012. Effects of
team knowledge management on the
creativity and financial performance of
organizational teams. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 118: 4-13.
91. Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., Rothstein, M., &
Reddon, J. R. 1994. Meta-analysis of
personality-job performance relations: A
reply to Ones, Mount, Barrick, and Hunter.
Personnel Psychology, 44: 157-172.
92. Torrance, E. P. 1974. Norms technical
manual: Torrance Tests of Creating
Thinking. Lexington, MA: Ginn & Co.
93. Walter, C. 2012. Work environment barriers
prohibiting creativity. Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 40: 642-648.

94. Weisberg, R. W. 1993. Creativity: Beyond
the myth of genius. New York, NY:
Freeman.
95. Weisband, S., & Atwater, L. 1999.
Evaluating self and others in electronic and
face-to-face groups. Journal of Applied
96. Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin,
R. W. 1993. Toward a theory of
organizational creativity. Academy of
Management Review, 18: 293-321.
97. Xu, H., & Brucks, M.L. 2011. Are neurotics
really more creative? Neuroticism's
interaction with mortality salience in
determining creative interest. Basic and
Applied Social Psychology, 33: 88-99.
98. Yang, L. 2009. Narcissistic leadership in
organizations. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Guelph.
99. Yukl, G. 1998. Leadership in

Organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall
100. Zanes, J., Ross, S., Hatfield, R., Houtler, B.,
Whitman, D. 1998. The relationship between
creativity and psychosis-proneness.
Personality and Individual Differences,
24: 879-881.
101. Zopiatis, A., & Constanti, P. 2012.
Extraversion, openness and
conscientiousness- The route to
transformational leadership in the hotel
industry. Leadership and Organization
Development Journal, 33(1): 86-104.
Q U O T E S
What we hope ever to do with ease,
we must learn first to do with diligence.
Samuel Johnson
Be great in act, as you have been in thought.
William Shakespeare
It takes less time to do things right than to explain why you did
it wrong.
Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Champions keep playing until they get it right.
Billie Jean King
Copyright of Aweshkar Research Journal is the property of Prin.
Welingkar Institute of
Management Development & Research and its content may not
be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.
Leadership: Theory and Practice - 7TH 16
by: Northouse, Peter G.
2 Trait Approach
Description
Of interest to scholars throughout the 20th century, the trait
approach was one of the first systematic attempts to study
leadership. In the early 20th century, leadership traits were
studied to determine what made certain people great leaders.
The theories that were developed were called “great man”
theories because they focused on identifying the innate qualities
and characteristics possessed by great social, political, and
military leaders (e.g., Catherine the Great, Mohandas Gandhi,
Indira Gandhi, Abraham Lincoln, Joan of Arc, and Napoleon
Bonaparte). It was believed that people were born with these
traits, and that only the “great” people possessed them. During
this time, research concentrated on determining the specific
traits that clearly differentiated leaders from followers (Bass,
1990; Jago, 1982).
In the mid-20th century, the trait approach was challenged by

research that questioned the universality of leadership traits. In
a major review, Stogdill (1948) suggested that no consistent set
of traits differentiated leaders from nonleaders across a variety
of situations. An individual with leadership traits who was a
leader in one situation might not be a leader in another
situation. Rather than being a quality that individuals possess,
leadership was reconceptualized as a relationship between
people in a social situation. Personal factors related to
leadership continued to be important, but researchers contended
that these factors were to be considered as relative to the
requirements of the situation.
Heroic Women
What Traits Do Leaders Have?
The trait approach has generated much interest among
researchers for its explanation of how traits influence leadership
(Bryman, 1992). For example, an analysis of much of the
previous trait research by Lord, DeVader, and Alliger (1986)
found that traits were strongly associated with individuals’
perceptions of leadership. Similarly, Kirkpatrick and Locke
(1991) went so far as to claim that effective leaders are actually
distinct types of people in several key respects.
The trait approach has earned new interest through the current
emphasis given by many researchers to visionary and
charismatic leadership (see Bass, 1990; Bennis & Nanus, 1985;
Nadler & Tushman, 1989; Zaccaro, 2007; Zaleznik, 1977).
Charismatic leadership catapulted to the forefront of public
attention with the 2008 election of the United States’ first
African American president, Barack Obama, who is perceived
by many to be charismatic, among many other attributes. In a
study to determine what distinguishes charismatic leaders from
others, Jung and Sosik (2006) found that charismatic leaders
consistently possess traits of self-monitoring, engagement in
impression management, motivation to attain social power, and
motivation to attain self-actualization. In short, the trait

approach is alive and well. It began with an emphasis on
identifying the qualities of great persons, shifted to include the
impact of situations on leadership, and, currently, has shifted
back to reemphasize the critical role of traits in effective
leadership.
Although the research on traits spanned the entire 20th century,
a good overview of this approach is found in two surveys
completed by Stogdill (1948, 1974). In his first survey, Stogdill
analyzed and synthesized more than 124 trait studies conducted
between 1904 and 1947. In his second study, he analyzed
another 163 studies completed between 1948 and 1970. By
taking a closer look at each of these reviews, we can obtain a
clearer picture of how individuals’ traits contribute to the
leadership process.
Stogdill’s first survey identified a group of important leadership
traits that were related to how individuals in various groups
became leaders. His results showed that the average individual
in the leadership role is different from an average group
member with regard to the following eight traits: intelligence,
alertness, insight, responsibility, initiative, persistence, self-
confidence, and sociability.
The findings of Stogdill’s first survey also indicated that an
individual does not become a leader solely because that
individual possesses certain traits. Rather, the traits that leaders
possess must be relevant to situations in which the leader is
functioning. As stated earlier, leaders in one situation may not
necessarily be leaders in another situation. Findings showed that
leadership was not a passive state but resulted from a working
relationship between the leader and other group members. This
research marked the beginning of a new approach to leadership
research that focused on leadership behaviors and leadership
situations.
Great Man Theory
Impression Management

Stogdill’s second survey, published in 1974, analyzed 163 new
studies and compared the findings of these studies to the
findings he had reported in his first survey. The second survey
was more balanced in its description of the role of traits and
leadership. Whereas the first survey implied that leadership is
determined principally by situational factors and not traits, the
second survey argued more moderately that both traits and
situational factors were determinants of leadership. In essence,
the second survey validated the original trait idea that a leader’s
characteristics are indeed a part of leadership.
Similar to the first survey, Stogdill’s second survey also
identified traits that were positively associated with leadership.
The list included the following 10 characteristics:
1. drive for responsibility and task completion;
2. vigor and persistence in pursuit of goals;
3. risk taking and originality in problem solving;
4. drive to exercise initiative in social situations;
5. self-confidence and sense of personal identity;
6. willingness to accept consequences of decision and action;
7. readiness to absorb interpersonal stress;
8. willingness to tolerate frustration and delay;
9. ability to influence other people’s behavior; and
10. capacity to structure social interaction systems to the
purpose at hand.
Mann (1959) conducted a similar study that examined more than
1,400 findings regarding traits and leadership in small groups,
but he placed less emphasis on how situational factors
influenced leadership. Although tentative in his conclusions,
Mann suggested that certain traits could be used to distinguish
leaders from nonleaders. His results identified leaders as strong
in the following six traits: intelligence, masculinity, adjustment,
dominance, extraversion, and conservatism.
Everyday Leaders
Trait Leadership

SOURCES: Adapted from “The Bases of Social Power,” by J. R.
P. French, Jr., and B. Raven, 1962, in D. Cartwright
(Ed.), Group Dynamics: Research and Theory (pp. 259–269),
New York: Harper and Row; Zaccaro, Kemp, & Bader (2004).
Lord et al. (1986) reassessed Mann’s (1959) findings using a
more sophisticated procedure called meta-analysis. Lord et al.
found that intelligence, masculinity, and dominance were
significantly related to how individuals perceived leaders. From
their findings, the authors argued strongly that traits could be
used to make discriminations consistently across situations
between leaders and nonleaders.
Both of these studies were conducted during periods in
American history where male leadership was prevalent in most
aspects of business and society. In Chapter 15, we explore more
contemporary research regarding the role of gender in
leadership, and we look at whether traits such as masculinity
and dominance still bear out as important factors in
distinguishing between leaders and nonleaders.
Yet another review argues for the importance of leadership
traits: Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991, p. 59) contended that “it is
unequivocally clear that leaders are not like other people.”
From a qualitative synthesis of earlier research, Kirkpatrick and
Locke postulated that leaders differ from nonleaders on six
traits: drive, motivation, integrity, confidence, cognitive ability,
and task knowledge. According to these writers, individuals can
be born with these traits, they can learn them, or both. It is
these six traits that make up the “right stuff” for leaders.
Kirkpatrick and Locke contended that leadership traits make
some people different from others, and this difference should be
recognized as an important part of the leadership process.
Leadership Presence
Florence Nightingale

In the 1990s, researchers began to investigate the leadership
traits associated with “social intelligence,” characterized as
those abilities to understand one’s own and others’ feelings,
behaviors, and thoughts and to act appropriately (Marlowe,
1986). Zaccaro (2002) defined social intelligence as having
such capacities as social awareness, social acumen, self-
monitoring, and the ability to select and enact the best response
given the contingencies of the situation and social environment.
A number of empirical studies showed these capacities to be a
key trait for effective leaders. Zaccaro, Kemp, and Bader (2004)
included such social abilities in the categories of leadership
traits they outlined as important leadership attributes (see Table
2.1).
Table 2.1 provides a summary of the traits and characteristics
that were identified by researchers from the trait approach. It
illustrates clearly the breadth of traits related to
leadership. Table 2.1 also shows how difficult it is to select
certain traits as definitive leadership traits; some of the traits
appear in several of the survey studies, whereas others appear in
only one or two studies. Regardless of the lack of precision
in Table 2.1, however, it represents a general convergence of
research regarding which traits are leadership traits.
What, then, can be said about trait research? What has a century
of research on the trait approach given us that is useful? The
answer is an extended list of traits that individuals might hope
to possess or wish to cultivate if they want to be perceived by
others as leaders. Some of the traits that are central to this list
include intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity,
and sociability (Table 2.2).
Intelligence
Intelligence or intellectual ability is positively related to
leadership. Based on their analysis of a series of recent studies
on intelligence and various indices of leadership, Zaccaro et al.
(2004) found support for the finding that leaders tend to have
higher intelligence than nonleaders. Having strong verbal
ability, perceptual ability, and reasoning appears to make one a

better leader. Although it is good to be bright, the research also
indicates that a leader’s intellectual ability should not differ too
much from that of the subordinates. If the leader’s IQ is very
different from that of the followers, it can have a
counterproductive impact on leadership. Leaders with higher
abilities may have difficulty communicating with followers
because they are preoccupied or because their ideas are too
advanced for their followers to accept.
Emotional and Other Intelligences
An example of a leader for whom intelligence was a key trait
was Steve Jobs, founder and CEO of Apple who died in 2011.
Jobs once said, “I have this really incredible product inside me
and I have to get it out” (Sculley, 2011, p. 27). Those visionary
products, first the Apple II and Macintosh computers and then
the iMac, iPod, iPhone, and iPad, have revolutionized the
personal computer and electronic device industry, changing the
way people play and work.
In the next chapter of this text, which addresses leadership from
a skills perspective, intelligence is identified as a trait that
significantly contributes to a leader’s acquisition of complex
problem-solving skills and social judgment skills. Intelligence
is described as having a positive impact on an individual’s
capacity for effective leadership.
Self-Confidence
Self-confidence is another trait that helps one to be a leader.
Self-confidence is the ability to be certain about one’s
competencies and skills. It includes a sense of self-esteem and
self-assurance and the belief that one can make a difference.
Leadership involves influencing others, and self-confidence
allows the leader to feel assured that his or her attempts to
influence others are appropriate and right.
Again, Steve Jobs is a good example of a self-confident leader.
When Jobs described the devices he wanted to create, many
people said they weren’t possible. But Jobs never doubted his
products would change the world, and, despite resistance, he did

things the way he thought best. “Jobs was one of those CEOs
who ran the company like he wanted to. He believed he knew
more about it than anyone else, and he probably did,” said a
colleague (Stone, 2011).
Determination
Many leaders also exhibit determination. Determination is the
desire to get the job done and includes characteristics such as
initiative, persistence, dominance, and drive. People with
determination are willing to assert themselves, are proactive,
and have the capacity to persevere in the face of obstacles.
Being determined includes showing dominance at times and in
situations where followers need to be directed.
Political Leadership
Steve Jobs
Dr. Paul Farmer has shown determination in his efforts to
secure health care and eradicate tuberculosis for the very poor
of Haiti and other third world countries. He began his efforts as
a recent college graduate, traveling and working in Cange,
Haiti. While there, he was accepted to Harvard Medical School.
Knowing that his work in Haiti was invaluable to his training,
he managed to do both: spending months traveling back and
forth between Haiti and Cambridge, Massachusetts, for school.
His first effort in Cange was to establish a one-room clinic
where he treated “all comers” and trained local health care
workers. Farmer found that there was more to providing health
care than just dispensing medicine: He secured donations to
build schools, houses, and communal sanitation and water
facilities in the region. He spearheaded vaccinations of all the
children in the area, dramatically reducing malnutrition and
infant mortality. In order to keep working in Haiti, he returned
to America and founded Partners In Health, a charitable
foundation that raises money to fund these efforts. Since its
founding, PIH not only has succeeded in improving the health
of many communities in Haiti but now has projects in Haiti,

Lesotho, Malawi, Peru, Russia, Rwanda, and the United States,
and supports other projects in Mexico and Guatemala (Kidder,
2004; Partners In Health, 2014).
Integrity
Integrity is another of the important leadership traits. Integrity
is the quality of honesty and trustworthiness. People who adhere
to a strong set of principles and take responsibility for their
actions are exhibiting integrity. Leaders with integrity inspire
confidence in others because they can be trusted to do what they
say they are going to do. They are loyal, dependable, and not
deceptive. Basically, integrity makes a leader believable and
worthy of our trust.
In our society, integrity has received a great deal of attention in
recent years. For example, as a result of two situations—the
position taken by President George W. Bush regarding Iraq’s
alleged weapons of mass destruction and the impeachment
proceedings during the Clinton presidency—people are
demanding more honesty of their public officials. Similarly,
scandals in the corporate world (e.g., Enron and WorldCom)
have led people to become skeptical of leaders who are not
highly ethical. In the educational arena, new K–12 curricula are
being developed to teach character, values, and ethical
leadership. (For instance, see the Character Counts! program
developed by the Josephson Institute of Ethics in California
at www.charactercounts.org, and the Pillars of Leadership
program taught at the J. W. Fanning Institute for Leadership in
Georgia at www.fanning.uga.edu.) In short, society is
demanding greater integrity of character in its leaders.
Terry Fox
Consultant Nurses
Sociability
A final trait that is important for leaders is sociability.
Sociability is a leader’s inclination to seek out pleasant social
relationships. Leaders who show sociability are friendly,

outgoing, courteous, tactful, and diplomatic. They are sensitive
to others’ needs and show concern for their well-being. Social
leaders have good interpersonal skills and create cooperative
relationships with their followers.
An example of a leader with great sociability skills is Michael
Hughes, a university president. Hughes prefers to walk to all his
meetings because it gets him out on campus where he greets
students, staff, and faculty. He has lunch in the dorm cafeterias
or student union and will often ask a table of strangers if he can
sit with them. Students rate him as very approachable, while
faculty say he has an open-door policy. In addition, he takes
time to write personal notes to faculty, staff, and students to
congratulate them on their successes.
Although our discussion of leadership traits has focused on five
major traits (i.e., intelligence, self-confidence, determination,
integrity, and sociability), this list is not all-inclusive. While
other traits indicated in Table 2.1 are associated with effective
leadership, the five traits we have identified contribute
substantially to one’s capacity to be a leader.
Until recently, most reviews of leadership traits have been
qualitative. In addition, they have lacked a common organizing
framework. However, the research described in the following
section provides a quantitative assessment of leadership traits
that is conceptually framed around the five-factor model of
personality. It describes how five major personality traits are
related to leadership.
Five-Factor Personality Model and Leadership
Over the past 25 years, a consensus has emerged among
researchers regarding the basic factors that make up what we
call personality (Goldberg, 1990; McCrae & Costa, 1987).
These factors, commonly called the Big Five, are neuroticism,
extraversion (surgency), openness (intellect), agreeableness,
and conscientiousness (dependability). (See Table 2.3.)
Extraversion

SOURCE: Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description
of personality”: The big-five factor structure. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216–1229.
To assess the links between the Big Five and leadership, Judge,
Bono, Ilies, and Gerhardt (2002) conducted a major meta-
analysis of 78 leadership and personality studies published
between 1967 and 1998. In general, Judge et al. found a strong
relationship between the Big Five traits and leadership. It
appears that having certain personality traits is associated with
being an effective leader.
Specifically, in their study, extraversion was the factor most
strongly associated with leadership. It is the most important
trait of effective leaders. Extraversion was followed, in order,
by conscientiousness, openness,and low neuroticism. The last
factor, agreeableness, was found to be only weakly associated
with leadership.
Emotional Intelligence
Another way of assessing the impact of traits on leadership is
through the concept of emotional intelligence, which emerged in
the 1990s as an important area of study in psychology. It has
been widely studied by researchers, and has captured the
attention of many practitioners (Caruso & Wolfe, 2004;
Goleman, 1995, 1998; Mayer & Salovey, 1995, 1997; Mayer,
Salovey, & Caruso, 2000; Shankman & Allen, 2008).
Emotional Intelligence
As the two words suggest, emotional intelligence has to do with
our emotions (affective domain) and thinking (cognitive
domain), and the interplay between the two.
Whereas intelligence is concerned with our ability to
learn information and apply it to life tasks, emotional
intelligence is concerned with our ability to
understand emotions and apply this understanding to life’s
tasks. Specifically, emotional intelligence can be defined as the
ability to perceive and express emotions, to use emotions to
facilitate thinking, to understand and reason with emotions, and

to effectively manage emotions within oneself and in
relationships with others (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2000).
There are different ways to measure emotional intelligence. One
scale is the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test
(MSCEIT; Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 2000). The MSCEIT
measures emotional intelligence as a set of mental abilities,
including the abilities to perceive, facilitate, understand, and
manage emotion.
Goleman (1995, 1998) takes a broader approach to emotional
intelligence, suggesting that it consists of a set of personal and
social competencies. Personal competence consists of self-
awareness, confidence, self-regulation, conscientiousness, and
motivation. Social competence consists of empathy and social
skills such as communication and conflict management.
Shankman and Allen (2008) developed a practice-oriented
model of emotionally intelligent leadership, which suggests that
leaders must be conscious of three fundamental facets of
leadership: context, self, and others. In the model, emotionally
intelligent leaders are defined by 21 capacities to which a leader
should pay attention, including group savvy, optimism,
initiative, and teamwork.
There is a debate in the field regarding how big a role emotional
intelligence plays in helping people be successful in life. Some
researchers, such as Goleman (1995), suggested that emotional
intelligence plays a major role in whether people are successful
at school, home, and work. Others, such as Mayer, Salovey, and
Caruso (2000), made softer claims for the significance of
emotional intelligence in meeting life’s challenges.
As a leadership ability or trait, emotional intelligence appears
to be an important construct. The underlying premise suggested
by this framework is that people who are more sensitive to their
emotions and the impact of their emotions on others will be
leaders who are more effective. As more research is conducted
on emotional intelligence, the intricacies of how emotional
intelligence relates to leadership will be better understood.
Emergent Leadership

How Does the Trait Approach Work?
The trait approach is very different from the other approaches
discussed in subsequent chapters because it focuses exclusively
on the leader, not on the followers or the situation. This makes
the trait approach theoretically more straightforward than other
approaches. In essence, the trait approach is concerned with
what traits leaders exhibit and who has these traits.
The trait approach does not lay out a set of hypotheses or
principles about what kind of leader is needed in a certain
situation or what a leader should do, given a particular set of
circumstances. Instead, this approach emphasizes that having a
leader with a certain set of traits is crucial to having effective
leadership. It is the leader and the leader’s traits that are central
to the leadership process.
The trait approach suggests that organizations will work better
if the people in managerial positions have designated leadership
profiles. To find the right people, it is common for
organizations to use trait assessment instruments. The
assumption behind these procedures is that selecting the right
people will increase organizational effectiveness. Organizations
can specify the characteristics or traits that are important to
them for particular positions and then use trait assessment
measures to determine whether an individual fits their needs.
The trait approach is also used for personal awareness and
development. By analyzing their own traits, managers can gain
an idea of their strengths and weaknesses, and can get a feel for
how others in the organization see them. A trait assessment can
help managers determine whether they have the qualities to
move up or to move to other positions in the company.
A trait assessment gives individuals a clearer picture of who
they are as leaders and how they fit into the organizational
hierarchy. In areas where their traits are lacking, leaders can try
to make changes in what they do or where they work to increase
their traits’ potential impact.
Near the end of the chapter, a leadership instrument is provided

that you can use to assess your leadership traits. This
instrument is typical of the kind of assessments that companies
use to evaluate individuals’ leadership potential. As you will
discover by completing this instrument, trait measures are a
good way to assess your own characteristics.
Introvert Contributions
Strengths
The trait approach has several identifiable strengths. First, the
trait approach is intuitively appealing. It fits clearly with our
notion that leaders are the individuals who are out front and
leading the way in our society. The image in the popular press
and community at large is that leaders are a special kind of
people—people with gifts who can do extraordinary things. The
trait approach is consistent with this perception because it is
built on the premise that leaders are different, and their
difference resides in the special traits they possess. People have
a need to see their leaders as gifted people, and the trait
approach fulfills this need.
A second strength of the trait approach is that it has a century
of research to back it up. No other theory can boast of the
breadth and depth of studies conducted on the trait approach.
The strength and longevity of this line of research give the trait
approach a measure of credibility that other approaches lack.
Out of this abundance of research has emerged a body of data
that points to the important role of various traits in the
leadership process.
Another strength, more conceptual in nature, results from the
way the trait approach highlights the leader component in the
leadership process. Leadership is composed of leaders,
followers, and situations, but the trait approach is devoted to
only the first of these—leaders. Although this is also a potential
weakness, by focusing exclusively on the role of the leader in
leadership the trait approach has been able to provide us with a
deeper and more intricate understanding of how the leader and
the leader’s traits are related to the leadership process.

Last, the trait approach has given us some benchmarks for what
we need to look for if we want to be leaders. It identifies what
traits we should have and whether the traits we do have are the
best traits for leadership. Based on the findings of this
approach, trait assessment procedures can be used to offer
invaluable information to supervisors and managers about their
strengths and weaknesses and ways to improve their overall
leadership effectiveness.
Criticisms
In addition to its strengths, the trait approach has several
weaknesses. First and foremost is the failure of the trait
approach to delimit a definitive list of leadership traits.
Although an enormous number of studies have been conducted
over the past 100 years, the findings from these studies have
been ambiguous and uncertain at times. Furthermore, the list of
traits that has emerged appears endless. This is obvious
from Table 2.1, which lists a multitude of traits. In fact, these
are only a sample of the many leadership traits that were
studied.
Character Traits
Another criticism is that the trait approach has failed to take
situations into account. As Stogdill (1948) pointed out more
than 60 years ago, it is difficult to isolate a set of traits that are
characteristic of leaders without also factoring situational
effects into the equation. People who possess certain traits that
make them leaders in one situation may not be leaders in
another situation. Some people may have the traits that help
them emerge as leaders but not the traits that allow them to
maintain their leadership over time. In other words, the
situation influences leadership. It is therefore difficult to
identify a universal set of leadership traits in isolation from the
context in which the leadership occurs.
A third criticism, derived from the prior two criticisms, is that
this approach has resulted in highly subjective determinations
of the most important leadership traits. Because the findings on

3 0 A Peer Reviewed Research JournalaWEshkar Vol. XVIII Issue .docx

3 0 A Peer Reviewed Research JournalaWEshkar Vol. XVIII Issue .docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 3 0 A Peer Reviewed Research JournalaWEshkar Vol. XVIII Issue .docx

Similar to 3 0 A Peer Reviewed Research JournalaWEshkar Vol. XVIII Issue .docx (20)

More from rhetttrevannion

More from rhetttrevannion (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

3 0 A Peer Reviewed Research JournalaWEshkar Vol. XVIII Issue .docx