[advances in global leadership] advances in global leadership volume 8 || evaluating global...

EVALUATING GLOBAL

LEADERSHIP: DOES

CULTURE MATTER?

Dave Winsborough and Robert Hogan

ABSTRACT

This chapter concerns the degree to which leader personality is specific tothe geographical region in which leaders work or more generically global.In samples from several different countries (N= 11,969), we show thattop leaders are significantly different from the general population ondimensions of occupationally relevant personality, but rather similaramong themselves. In general, top leaders are more emotionally stable,and much more competitive, ambitious, outgoing, and well-informed thanthe average person. We then examine our top leader cohorts on a cultureby culture basis, and find distinct cultural differences. We close bydiscussing implications for the selection, development, and coaching oftop leaders.

Keywords: Leadership; personality; cognitive prototypes

Advances in Global Leadership, Volume 8, 45�65

Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved

ISSN: 1535-1203/doi:10.1108/S1535-120320140000008011

45

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1535-120320140000008011

INTRODUCTION

Because leadership roles are a “positional good” (Nye, 2002), becoming atop leader is like joining an exclusive club. Technological developmentmakes certain goods more accessible � for example, the internet makesinformation available to more people � but the supply of leadership rolescan’t be increased through technology. Leaders are not chosen from thebottom of the corporate pyramid; rather, gaining leadership roles dependson being able to climb an organizational hierarchy, and climbing ahierarchy depends on how a person interacts with others and the world � inother words, it depends on personality.

The Impact of Chief Executives

The iconic occupants of scarce leadership roles are Chief Executives.CEOs are influential because they have great latitude in decision making,and evidence demonstrating the influence of CEOs on their organizationsis accumulating. Mackey (2008) found that 29% of the variance in firmperformance was due to the impact of the CEO. Similarly, Nohria,Joyce, and Robertson (2003) reported that CEOs accounted for 14% ofthe variance in firm financial performance; to put that in perspective,industry sector accounts for 19% in firm performance (McGahan &Porter, 1997). Thus, choosing a leader is nearly as consequential as choosingto sell pharmaceuticals, chili sauce, or automobiles (Kaiser & Overfield,2011).

Another way to understand the impact of Chief Executives is to considerthe wide scale disaster, workforce wretchedness, and underperformancecaused by the bad ones. Carly Fiorina, the failed CEO of Hewlett Packard,executed a disastrous merger with Compaq (a rival PC manufacturer) andseriously undermined the organization’s climate and performance. HPemployees hated Fiorina so much that, after she was fired, they built a website designed to derail her planned political career.

On the other hand, CEOs who effectively act in the best interests of theirorganizations can sustain the commitment of employees even when timesare tough. For example, Rob Fyfe, CEO of Air New Zealand, managed toreduce staff numbers while simultaneously increasing staff engagement; ina difficult industry environment, Air New Zealand has carved out a reputa-tion for innovation and profitability.

46 DAVE WINSBOROUGH AND ROBERT HOGAN

The data suggest that the personality and values of leaders have sustainedimpact on their organizations (Finklestein, 2003; Kaiser & Hogan, 2007).Leader personality impacts group performance directly (e.g., throughstrategic choices about projects and people, organization design preferences,and daily decision making) and indirectly (e.g., through the people theyrecruit and the culture they create). Schein (2004) suggested that the valuesof founders and leaders have a disproportionate impact on organizationalculture, and an empirical study by Giberson et al. (2009) found that thevalues of leaders accounted for about one-third of the variance in organiza-tional values. This leads to the central question of this chapter: what are topexecutives like?

The Evolution of Leadership

The attributes and behaviors associated with effective leadership likelyevolved in the course of human evolutionary history. Leadership is funda-mentally about persuading others (who are normally selfish) to work towardcommon goals (Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan, 1994); leadership may haveevolved as a solution to the problem of how to organize collective effort andresolve the tension between selfish self-gratification and the need to cooperatefor the greater good. In this way leadership is both a resource for the good ofthe group and a key to organizational effectiveness. Having a good leaderallows followers to reap the benefits of membership in a coordinated group(Gillet, Cartwright, & Van Vugt, 2011; Van Vugt, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2008).

Living in groups requires the members to balance the conflicting needs ofgetting along with the other members while advancing their own individualselfish interests (Hogan, 2007). Socioanalytic theory suggests that peoplediffer in their ability to do this, and these differences have consequences foran individual’s career. Hogan (2007) notes that leaders are typically good atboth getting along and getting ahead.

More viscerally, leadership likely made the difference between life anddeath on the ancestral grasslands when competition for scarce resources wasconstant and deadly (Boehm, 2001). Because groups with effective leaderswere more likely to survive, people may have evolved “cognitive proto-types” that they use automatically to evaluate persons who aspire tolead (Hogan & Judge, 2012; Spisak, Nicholson, & Van Vugt, 2011). Forexample, Arvey, Rotundo, Johnson, Zhang, and McGue (2006) show thatgenetic factors account for 30% of the variance in being selected for leader-ship roles.

47Evaluating Global Leadership: Does Culture Matter?

It may also be that different cultures prefer some personal characteristicsover others. Shalhoop and Sanger (2012) found that mainland Chinesemanagers are characterized by more cooperative behaviors, a concern formanaging one’s image, and an emphasis on execution and task focus.Certain characteristics in the leadership prototypes were linked to theChinese concepts of “face.”

Implicit Leadership Theory

Implicit leadership theory suggests that people have implicit (nonconscious)beliefs about the appropriate characteristics of leaders, and that indivi-duals are seen as leader-like if their characteristics match these beliefs(Grove, 2005; Hogan et al., 1994; Hollander & Julian, 1969). Considerableresearch shows that people everywhere describe good leaders in similarterms (Grove, 2005; Hogan et al., 1994). The Global Leadership andOrganizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) study, spanning 62 coun-tries, 11 years, and 170 researchers found universal leadership attributesendorsed by all studied cultures, as well as culturally contingent leadershipcharacteristics (Grove, 2005).

Gaining leadership roles is not the same as being effective in those roles;the characteristics needed to obtain top jobs may not be the same as thoseneeded to be a good leader (Hogan, 2007; Hogan, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2010;Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gehardt, 2002). As human organizations havebecome larger and more complex, the skills needed to get to the top mayhave diverged from those associated with effectiveness. The result of this isa modern leadership failure rate of at least 50% (DeVries, 1992; Hoganet al., 1994).

Top Leader Personality

Leadership is a popular topic in applied psychology (Hogan et al., 1994),but there is little research regarding the characteristics of top executives(Sangster, 2011). Therefore our literature review (presented below) con-cerns the personality of leaders more broadly.

The development of the Five Factor Model (FFM) in the 1990s gavepersonality researchers an organizing framework that is widely supportedfrom an empirical perspective (Digman, 1990; Goldberg & Saucier, 1995;Judge et al., 2002; McCrae & Costa, 1997). The five factors include


emotional stability (calm, resilient), extraversion (assertive, outgoing), agree-ableness (considerate, diplomatic), conscientiousness (self-controlled, orga-nized), and openness (creative, curious). We note that “ambition” is missingfrom the FFM, and we regard this as a shortcoming of this otherwise veryuseful taxonomy.

A meta-analysis of 73 studies of personality and leadership found a multi-ple correlation of .54 between the standard five dimensions and leader effec-tiveness (Judge et al., 2002). This important study suggests that good leadersseem emotionally stable, extraverted, conscientious, and open minded, butnot necessarily agreeable. More recently, Abatecola, Mandarelli, andPoggesi (2011) summarized 29 studies comparing CEO personality with avariety of firm-level outcomes. They found that extraverted, agreeable andopen-minded CEOs produced better firm-level results. Additionally, highCEO emotional stability predicted better firm performance and lowemotional stability characterized firms that were more likely to fail.

Several smaller studies also investigate leader personality. Winsboroughand Sambath (2013) noted that ambition was a hallmark distinction betweenexecutives and the normal population. Nadkarni and Herrmann (2010)found that greater CEO extraversion, emotional stability, and openness,moderate agreeableness, and lower conscientiousness predicted “strategicflexibility” (a proxy for performance) in 195 Indian business process out-sourcing firms. In a descriptive study of 45 British CEOs, Cox and Cooper(1989) found that CEOs scored higher on extraversion, somewhat higher onemotional stability and openness, and slightly higher on agreeableness.Peterson, Smith, Martorana, and Owens (2003) also report that CEOs withlower emotional stability scores lead less cohesive teams. Finally, Sangster(2011) report that US executives scored higher on emotional stabilityand extraversion, and somewhat higher on conscientious and openness,compared to the US population, and that agreeableness was irrelevant.

The foregoing research concerns differences between CEO/executive per-sonality and the general population. Sangster (2011) reports two additionalfindings: an “isomorphic” effect where executives resemble one anothermore than they resemble the general population (specifically on emotionalstability), and a “polymorphic” effect where executive teams from differentorganizations differed from one another (specifically on agreeableness).Sangster (2011) explained this difference as an adaptation to differentenvironments and echoed the attraction�selection�attrition (ASA) model(Schneider, Goldstein, & Smith, 1995).

Based on these findings, we expect business executives to be differentfrom, but more homogenous than, the general population. We predict that


they will receive high scores on measures of emotional stability, ambition,extraversion, and openness. Because the findings regarding conscientious-ness and agreeableness are mixed, we expect that CEOs will score aboutaverage on these factors overall, but that there may be within-group differ-ences that reflect the influence of different environments.

Executive Derailers and Values

Two other domains of personality constructs offer a richer conceptualiza-tion of leader personality. The first concerns dysfunctional or “dark side”dispositions. Studies of managerial incompetence find that exploitation,micromanagement, irritability, and inability to delegate are associated withleadership failure (Hellervik, Hazucha, & Schneider, 1992; Peterson, 1993).The FFM reflects the “bright side” of personality � peoples’ behaviorwhen they are consciously managing their reputations; the dark side ofpersonality reflects peoples’ behavior when they are not actively managingtheir reputations (Hogan & Hogan, 2001; Moscoso & Salgado, 2004). Darkside characteristics are often “strengths overused” and leaders may beselected based on behaviors that eventually derail them; for example, confi-dence and self-assurance may turn into arrogance. We know of no researchon the dark side of executive personality; however, we expect that highscores on the FFM dimensions of emotional stability, extraversion, andopenness will have dark side resonances.

The final construct domain is values; values concern the “why” of beha-vior (Hogan & Hogan, 2010; Locke, 1991). Values are reflected in whatpeople find rewarding; they concern intentions to strive for what is desired(Giberson et al., 2009; Locke, 1991). Senior leader values affect organiza-tional values (Giberson et al., 2009); however, few studies concern thevalues of senior executives as a group. In line with our earlier predictions,we expect senior business executives to share certain values. However, theASA model (Schneider et al., 1995) and the sheer variety of organizationalvalues and cultures to which executives might be attracted suggest thatthere will be distinguishable differences amongst their values.

In summary, this chapter concerns senior business leader personalitydefined in terms of (a) “bright side” interpersonal style, (b) “dark side” dis-positions, and (c) values. We test for universal personal characteristics bycomparing senior executives with the general working population, and thenwe explore potential differences among senior executives that may reflectdiffering environmental influences.


METHOD

Participants

For the “bright side” results, our participants include 4,184 US executives,1779 German executives, 992 Chinese executives, 4,864 Australian execu-tives, and 150 New Zealand executives. For the “dark side” results, ourparticipants include 1,374 US executives, 1,582 German executives, 799Chinese executives, 4,236 Australian executives, and 149 New Zealandexecutives. For the “values” results, our participants include 979 US execu-tives, 1,544 German executives, 736 Chinese executives, 3,759 Australianexecutives, and 147 New Zealand executives.

These data were gathered as part of a range of consulting activitiesincluding selection, leadership training and development assignments. Interms of age the average for the entire sample was 44.10 years (SD= 8.54),and the sample was about 75% male.

Demographic information beyond nationality is unavailable for some ofthe sample and is not reported. All assessments were completed betweenJanuary 2006 and September 2012.

Measures

We defined personality using the Hogan suite of assessment tools, whichconcern “bright side” personality, “dark side” dispositions, and values. Theassessments were designed to be used with employed adults rather thanclinical cases, and extensive research demonstrates their validity for predict-ing occupational outcomes (Hogan, Hogan, & Warrenfeltz, 2007). Thesuite contains three assessments: the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI);the Hogan Development Survey (HDS); and the Motives, Values, andPreferences Inventory (MVPI), all of which are administered online.

The HPI measures day-to-day behavioral characteristics necessary forcareer success. The HPI is based on the FFM and shows strong convergentvalidity with other FFM inventories, rs .30 to .69 (Hogan & Hogan, 2007).It consists of 206 True/False items that comprise seven scales (test�retestrs= .69 to .87): Adjustment (equivalent to FFM emotional stability),Ambition (which concerns drive and competitiveness and has no FFMcounterpart), Sociability (equivalent to FFM extraversion), InterpersonalSensitivity (equivalent to FFM agreeableness), Prudence (equivalent toFFM conscientiousness), Inquisitiveness (equivalent to FFM openness as


related to curiosity and imagination), and Learning Approach (equivalentto FFM openness as related to success in school and training).

The HDS concerns dysfunctional dispositions that can impede success(Hogan & Hogan, 2009). It consists of 168 True/False items that comprise11 scales, grouped into three core areas (test�retest rs= .64 to .75): intimi-dating behaviors (Moving Away: Excitable, Skeptical, Cautious, Reserved,and Leisurely), manipulative behaviors (Moving Against: Bold, Mischievous,Colorful, and Imaginative), and ingratiating behaviors (Moving Toward:Diligent and Dutiful).

The MVPI concerns core values. It is used to evaluate the fit between aperson’s values and the psychological requirements of the job and the cul-ture of an organization (Hogan & Hogan, 2010). The MVPI consists of 200True/False/Undecided questions forming 10 scales related to the need forRecognition, Power, Hedonism, Altruism, Affiliation, Tradition, Security,Commerce, Aesthetics, and Science (test�retest rs= .71 to .85). AppendixA contains descriptions of the scales on the inventories.

Using these assessments in multi-language and multi-cultural contextsinvolves translation issues. Meyer and Foster (2008) propose a model ofsources of variance for analyzing the problem; the model considers sampledifferences, translation differences, and cultural differences. We deal withthese issues in part by using large sample sizes and strict criteria for inclu-sion. Differences that arise from translating the assessments into languagesother than English are important. Hogan Assessment Systems uses anadaptation strategy (Van de Vijver & Lueng, 1997) for translation. Thisinvolves making adaptations to the assessment content as part of the for-ward translation process. This labor intensive process requires specializedexpertise but minimizes differences resulting from measurement artifacts.Details of this process are available from the authors (Hogan AssessmentTranslation Processes, 2009). Cultural differences in leadership profiles arethe topic of this chapter and therefore not contaminating variance.

RESULTS

Tables 1�3 contain percentile scores for the five groups of executives,based on global norms, for each inventory. The global norms used forcomparison are presented in Table 4. It is worth noting that the means andmedians are above 50. This is because the global normative sample of indi-viduals taking these assessments reflects a higher degree of employabilitythan what is found in the general population.


Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for the Hogan Personality Inventory.

China

(N= 992)

Australia

(N= 4,864)

US

(N= 4,184)

Germany

(N= 1,779)

NZ (CEOs)

(N= 150)

M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

Adjustment 52.41 24.72 55.92 27.65 53.00 28.29 66.22 24.03 72.62 22.17

Ambition 48.15 25.96 61.17 28.30 59.93 28.95 67.81 24.83 83.93 17.56

Sociability 54.54 27.93 57.54 27.12 50.59 28.99 54.87 25.13 63.02 27.47

Interpersonal sensitivity 32.41 26.50 50.72 30.88 52.08 31.01 42.99 27.08 57.73 27.50

Prudence 64.92 26.31 51.38 27.30 54.00 27.47 43.52 25.04 55.79 25.59

Inquisitive 57.52 27.65 52.81 27.36 49.73 28.02 53.53 25.22 58.49 23.91

Learning approach 64.59 25.86 57.23 28.37 53.23 29.80 62.55 25.53 72.48 22.13

53

Evaluatin

gGlobalLeadersh

ip:Does

Cultu

reMatter?

We summarize these results beginning with an overview of the sample todetermine whether it is the same as, or different from, the global popula-tion norm. We then make five observations at each country level.

First, as hypothesized, these five groups score higher than the generalpopulation on the bright side dimensions of emotional stability, ambition,extraversion, and conscientiousness. They are somewhat higher onopenness, and resemble the average on Interpersonal Sensitivity � all of

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for the Hogan Development Survey.

China

(N= 799)

Australia

(N= 4,236)

US

(N= 1,374)

Germany

(N= 1,582)

NZ (CEOs)

(N= 149)


Excitable 72.64 22.18 56.97 27.54 55.48 26.91 59.23 23.75 38.11 22.99

Skeptical 68.34 25.17 57.44 27.66 59.56 26.42 65.84 24.29 45.09 26.10

Cautious 71.69 22.12 64.29 26.24 56.61 27.07 56.85 27.00 42.99 25.12

Reserved 49.52 32.14 59.44 27.42 55.73 28.00 59.85 25.28 51.47 26.81

Leisurely 63.35 27.26 63.51 28.31 54.68 29.67 60.86 28.69 49.97 27.53

Bold 80.37 21.85 52.00 29.28 57.71 28.49 56.52 25.98 51.05 27.80

Mischievous 71.09 24.13 62.27 27.52 58.89 26.72 71.22 24.16 64.36 27.58

Colorful 60.98 31.12 57.17 29.84 53.91 29.09 61.03 29.73 70.27 25.36

Imaginative 73.33 23.20 60.70 26.78 58.40 26.90 63.79 24.94 62.81 23.70

Diligent 55.96 30.01 53.82 32.28 55.81 29.81 41.47 30.21 45.28 29.16

Dutiful 60.44 29.26 51.17 29.90 50.37 27.93 41.92 25.84 41.66 27.29

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics for the Motives, Values, and PreferencesInventory.

China

(N= 736)

Australia

(N= 3,759)

US

(N= 979)

Germany

(N= 1,544)

NZ (CEOs)

(N= 147)


Recognition 55.37 29.50 41.05 29.24 41.47 28.60 38.38 25.39 32.83 27.41

Power 61.11 28.80 43.52 30.94 55.51 30.54 44.90 27.69 53.52 31.90

Hedonism 73.29 22.66 67.78 26.49 57.35 27.98 51.12 25.73 47.55 27.73

Altruistic 60.38 28.17 39.68 27.62 38.25 27.23 32.49 24.77 42.76 29.00

Affiliation 57.31 31.10 50.21 29.85 50.17 28.91 59.79 27.72 56.03 27.20

Tradition 67.03 23.37 40.00 24.85 53.89 28.74 44.72 26.02 47.73 26.67

Security 55.70 28.01 37.11 29.84 45.55 29.05 38.64 25.49 24.94 22.72

Commerce 52.82 27.76 45.36 29.49 52.62 28.46 42.31 25.05 44.54 27.57

Aesthetics 67.51 23.66 49.15 28.31 43.36 27.55 48.70 27.03 59.57 25.49

Science 69.16 26.32 48.61 30.08 50.92 29.02 54.73 27.47 52.43 28.67


which is consistent with the published literature (e.g., Sangster, 2011;Winsborough & Sambath, 2013). The executives also score higher than thegeneral population on the dark side dimensions of intimidating and manipu-lating, but not ingratiating, behaviors. In terms of values, these executivesscore higher than the general population on Power and Hedonism, andlower on Security (a pattern of values associated with business success andupward mobility). In overall terms, these people aspire to status (MVPIPower, Hedonism, and Low Security), seem resilient (HPI Adjustment),ascendant (HPI Ambition), strategic and smart (HPI Inquisitive andLearning Style), and can be intimidating (HDS Excitable and Skeptical) andmanipulative (HDS Bold, Mischievous, Colorful, and Imaginative).

Table 4. Descriptive Statistics for Hogan Global Normative Sample.

Scale N M SD Median

HPI adjustment 145,787 52.44 29.68 51

HPI ambition 145,786 54.63 30.89 58

HPI sociability 145,782 53.01 29.15 57

HPI interpersonal sensitivity 145,782 57.28 30.76 69

HPI prudence 145,772 53.34 29.14 52

HPI inquisitive 145,782 52.91 29.13 55

HPI learning approach 145,764 54.87 29.60 59

HDS excitable 67,582 57.06 26.03 55

HDS skeptical 67,572 55.81 27.91 53

HDS cautious 67,582 55.91 27.02 58

HDS reserved 67,582 56.52 27.83 66

HDS leisurely 67,576 55.84 27.96 54

HDS bold 67,539 55.04 28.85 57

HDS mischievous 67,573 55.30 28.65 64

HDS colorful 67,553 54.53 29.08 57

HDS imaginative 67,563 55.63 28.36 63

HDS diligent 67,579 55.90 29.77 53

HDS dutiful 67,581 55.97 28.67 57

MVPI aesthetics 48,234 51.88 28.41 54

MVPI affiliation 48,237 53.10 29.32 52

MVPI altruistic 48,233 52.09 29.05 50

MVPI commercial 48,237 52.21 29.19 53

MVPI hedonistic 48,236 52.25 28.86 56

MVPI power 48,234 52.21 29.04 55

MVPI recognition 48,237 51.93 28.85 53

MVPI scientific 48,235 51.77 28.94 54

MVPI security 48,237 52.08 28.88 53

MVPI tradition 48,236 52.42 29.00 56


Our second point concerns the personality and leadership style of theChinese executive sample. As a group, on the HPI, they receive much lowerscores for Ambition and Interpersonal Sensitivity, and much higher scoresfor Prudence. On the HDS, they receive much higher scores for Excitable,Cautious, Bold, and Dutiful. And on the MVPI they receive much higherscores for Hedonism, Altruism, Tradition, Security, Aesthetics, andScience. Executives with this pattern of scores will not seem particularlyleader-like. Subordinates will see them as persons who approach their jobswith confident intensity, who have high standards of performance and acareful attention to detail, and who treat them (the subordinates) in a bluntand direct manner. Executives with this pattern of scores are superb organi-zational citizens, skilled at keeping superiors happy, and careful not tomake mistakes or rock the boat. They create and work best in cultures thatemphasize rationality, data-based decision making, high quality, attractivelooking work products, and a concern for the welfare of the less fortunate.

Our third point concerns the personality and leadership style of the NewZealand sample. On the HPI they receive high scores for Adjustment,Ambition, Interpersonal Sensitivity, and Learning Style. On the HDS, theyreceive low scores for Excitable, Skeptical, Cautious, Leisurely, and Bold,and a high score for Colorful. On the MVPI, they receive low scores forRecognition and Security. Executives with this pattern of scores will seemunusually leader-like: confident, driven, competitive, smart and strategic,with excellent people skills. They will create and work best in cultures thatemphasize modesty, risk taking, and a no nonsense business focus, butwithout obsessing about profits.

Our fourth point concerns the personality and leadership style of theGerman sample. Their HPI and HDS scores seem impressively leader-like;however, the MVPI reveals low scores for Power and Commerce. Thispattern of scores characterizes people who make a strong first impressionbut are privately satisfied and not driven to push for results. But themost interesting thing about the German data is the degree to which it con-tradicts the stereotype of conformity and respect for authority. Theseexecutives receive low scores for HPI Prudence, HDS Diligent and Dutiful,and MVPI Tradition � quite a rebellious profile for an executive sample:fractious, unruly, limit testing, and suspicious of authority. These rebellioustendencies are consistent with creativity and entrepreneurship.

Our fifth point concerns the personality and leadership style of theAustralian sample. The HPI and HDS results suggest these Australianexecutives seem somewhat bland � careful not to make mistakes or callattention to themselves � they seem to specialize in fitting in. Their MVPI


scores, however, are consistent with the stereotype of Australians as laidback, fun-seeking, irreverent, and highly sociable party animals.

Our final point concerns the personality and leadership style of theAmerican sample. They receive the lowest scores of any executive group onHPI Sociability, Inquisitive, and Learning Approach, HDS Mischievous,Colorful, and Imaginative, and MVPI Altruism and Aesthetics, and thesecond highest score (after the Chinese) for Commerce. The HPI and HDSresults suggest that the American executives rival the Australians in termsof blandness and the ability to fit in and not make waves. They don’t seemparticularly leader-like, but they do seem to lack curiosity and imagination.The MVPI results suggest that the American sample fits the stereotypeof greedy capitalists with low scores on Altruism (concern for the less fortu-nate) and Aesthetics (concern about quality), and high scores on Commerce(money).

DISCUSSION

In our view, leadership is an evolutionary adaption promoting effectivegroup performance. A corollary is that not everyone can be a leader;moreover, if too many individuals compete for the leadership role, groupperformance will suffer (Van Vugt et al., 2008). Thus, we predicted thatbusiness leaders will differ from the rest of us but would resemble eachother in distinctive ways (cf. Hogan & Judge, 2012; Spisak et al., 2011).

Our results confirm that senior business executives are both differentfrom, and more homogeneous than, the rest of the working population(Sangster, 2011; Winsborough & Sambath, 2013). We also identified mean-ingful differences amongst executive groups by national origins. Analogousto the findings of the GLOBE study (Grove, 2005), our results support anoverall executive cognitive prototype, as well as sub-prototypes, which mayhave arisen from different environmental influences that shape the charac-teristics that followers deem necessary for leadership success.

The Executive Profile

Bright Side CharacteristicsOur executive samples receive higher scores on HPI Adjustment, Ambition,and Learning Approach. This means that, in terms of their day-to-day


style, they seem more confident, even tempered, driven, competitive, andsmart than most people. They value achievement and being in charge; morethan the rest of us, they epitomize the word drive. From an evolutionaryperspective, we should prefer leaders who have a sense of what’s going on,who want to achieve, and who are resilient when the going gets tough.

In particular, the results show that Ambition is a distinctive marker ofexecutive personality. The conventional wisdom of personality researchersis that Ambition is part of FFM extraversion and conscientiousness(McCrae & Costa, 1997). We have always disagreed with this view:extraversion primarily concerns talking, conscientiousness primarily con-cerns following rules; in contrast, ambition concerns wanting to win. Thus,we believe that Ambition is uniquely related to leadership emergence.Executives work hard not because they are following a rule but becausedoing so enables them to get ahead. In addition, the mixed findings fromempirical research regarding leader conscientiousness (Judge et al., 2002;Nadkarni & Herrmann, 2010, Sangster, 2011) is probably due to definitionissues. Our finding that executives are more driven to be in charge is intui-tive and expected. We also distinguish wanting to lead from leadershipcompetence: being in charge is not the same as being effective. Padilla,Hogan, and Kaiser (2007) note the dangers associated with an unbridledneed to get ahead, a point that raises the issue of derailment and what todo about it.

Dark Side CharacteristicsUnder pressure, people tend to become anxious and uncertain. In contrast,executives tend to remain calm (see the scores for HDS Excitable,Skeptical, Cautious, and Reserved in Table 2) � a finding that parallelsprevious research on leader personality (Judge et al., 2002; Nadkarni &Herrmann, 2010; Peterson et al., 2003; Sangster, 2011). In addition, beingeven-tempered predicts a more strategic orientation that leads to improvedfirm performance (Abatecola et al., 2011). Our results underscore thisfinding.

Kaiser and Overfield (2011) suggest that derailers are often strengthsoverused. Thus, the propensity toward self-aggrandizement associated withhigh HPI Adjustment scores should be reflected in the HDS scores for thissample. Indeed, our executive sample received high scores for HDSMischievous, Colorful, and Imaginative, suggesting that they tend to bedramatic, flirtatious, attention-seeking, socially dominant, and manipula-tive. They often confuse activity with productivity and are intuitive ratherthan strategic decision makers. They tend to be described as entertaining,


forceful, unfocused, and melodramatic (Hogan & Hogan, 2009). The scoreson Colorful are nearly as high as those for Ambition and constitute a sec-ond distinctive marker.

Executive ValuesIn terms of values, the five groups are similar within groups and quite dif-ferent between groups. This variability in executive values is consistent withSchneider’s (Schneider et al., 1995) view (which we support) that, overtime, organizational culture becomes homogenous as like-minded peoplestay and those with different values leave.

The Subtribes ValuesA. MVPI scores show that the Chinese executives value good food and

boon companionship (Hedonism), rationality and data-based decisionmaking (Science), attractive and high quality work products (Aesthetics),respect for established authority (Tradition), winning (Power), andconcern for the less fortunate (Altruism). This predicts an organiza-tional culture focused on winning by being smart and doing high qualitywork, while remaining compassionate and conservative. They are notdriven by the profit motive.

B. The MVPI scores show that the New Zealand executives value risktaking and entrepreneurship (Security), self-reliance (Altruism), humi-lity (Recognition), attractive and high quality work products(Aesthetics), and solid relationships with clients and coworkers(Affiliation). They are not driven by a desire to win, and seem relativelyindifferent to profits � perhaps thinking that if they do everythingright, the profits will take care of themselves.

C. The MVPI scores of the German executives show that they value net-working and relationships (Affiliation), self-reliance (Altruism), risk-taking and innovation (Security, Tradition), and modesty (Recognition).Like the New Zealanders, they are not driven by desires to win or tomake lots of money.

D. The MVPI scores for the Australian executives show that they stronglyvalue good food and good times, self-reliance (Altruism), modesty(Recognition), and are independent and suspicious of authority(Tradition). Like the Germans and New Zealanders, they are notfocused on winning or making money.

E. The MVPI scores for the American executives are also distinct, andshow that they value winning (Power) and making money (Commerce)almost as much as the Chinese, but differ from the Chinese in that the


Americans are unconcerned about the welfare of the less fortunateand instead encourage a culture of rugged self-reliance (Altruism). Inaddition, the American executives are the least concerned of any groupwith the quality and appearance of work products (Aesthetics).

Practical Implications

Executive SelectionThese results have three implications for executive selection. The firstconcerns the difference between leadership emergence (looking the part)and leadership performance (effectiveness). The personality dimensionson which the executives in our sample were elevated are associated withmaking positive initial impressions, and this may or may not correlate withactual performance. Those involved in executive selection would be wellserved to look beyond initial impressions and remember that there is a haloeffect associated with extraversion (e.g., Grant, Gino, & Hoffman, 2011).

The second implication concerns fit rather than ability. Our data showthat there are different executive “types” who are likely to be attracted to,and be more successful in, certain kinds of organizations. In particular,Chinese managers display tendencies associated with the concepts of “face”and “guan xi” (where influence and relative worth are derived from one’ssocial network). Specifically, the Chinese had higher scores for MVPIAltruism (Helping others) and Tradition (paternalism and respect forauthority) than the other nationalities. They also had higher scores on theHDS Dutiful scale, which concerns not rocking the boat and obeyingsuperiors.

The third implication concerns executive development. Our data suggestsome specific development needs for executives. Humans are sensitive tostatus differences, and subordinates necessarily treat bosses with respect toget ahead themselves. The result is that executives may think their staff seesthem as visionary and infallible. This suggests three broad developmentneeds that executives and their advisors should keep in mind.

The Dark Side of Charisma. The members of our sample are dominant,self-assured, and often charismatic � characteristics that can lead to a feel-ing that the rules do not apply. Leaders need to remember that followersexpect them to behave with integrity and follow the same rules. One of theside effects of being a senior leader is that people seek to please them, shieldthem from unpleasant truths, and only feed them positive information.


Good executive remain skeptical of their own hype. Carly Fiorina is anexample of failing to do this.

Balancing Risk and Reward. The combination of stable mood, competitivedrive, and low anxiety help leaders manage the demands of the ChiefExecutive role, grow organizations, and embrace change. Yet a lack oftimidity, a tendency to be easily bored, and excessive self-confidence maymake executives too risk tolerant. Optimism encourages persistence in theface of obstacles, but it can also lead to adopting overly ambitious goals orsticking with failing people and projects in the face of evidence that it istime to let go. Executives should build in checks and balances, such asconsulting with a cautious person for advice.

Operating in Teams. Our final point about development is to consider theimplications of having several highly ambitious people on the same team.The HPI ambition scale is a core element of executive personality.Ambition concerns winning, and executives who fail to direct their effortsoutside may begin to compete with members of their own team. Sadly,this is a common and destructive feature of life on the executive floor; thestruggles for control and visibility at Microsoft seem responsible for thatorganization to underperform and miss opportunities (Vanity Fair, 2012).

REFERENCES

Abatecola, G., Mandarelli, G., & Poggesi, S. (2011). The personality factor: How top manage-

ment teams make decisions � A literature review. Journal of Management and

Governance, 15, 1�28.

Arvey, R. D., Rotundo, M., Johnson, W., Zhang, Z., & McGue, M. (2006). The determinants

of leadership role occupancy: Genetic and personality factors. The Leadership

Quarterly, 17, 1�20.

Boehm, C. (2001). Hierarchy in the forest: The evolution of egalitarian behavior (2nd ed.).

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Cox, C. J., & Cooper, C. L. (1989). The making of the British CEO: Childhood, work experi-

ence, personality, and management style. The Academy of Management Executive, 3,

241�245.

DeVries, D. L. (1992). Executive selection: Advances but no progress. Leadership in Action,

12, 1�5.

Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual

Review of Psychology, 41, 417�440.

Finklestein, S. (2003). Why smart executives fail. New York, NY: Portfolio Books.


Giberson, T. R., Resick, C. J., Dickson, M. W., Mitchelson, J. K., Randall, K. R., & Clark,

M. A. (2009). Leadership and organizational culture: Linking CEO characteristics to

cultural values. Journal of Business Psychology, 24, 123�137.

Goldberg, L. R., & Saucier, G. (1995). So what do you propose we use instead? A reply to

Block. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 221�225.

Grant, A. M., Gino, F., & Hoffman, D. A. (2011). Reversing the extraverted leadership advan-

tage: The role of employee proactivity. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 528�550.

Grove, C. N. (2005). Leadership style variations across cultures: Overview of GLOBE research

findings. Retrieved from http://www.grovewell.com/pub-GLOBE-leadership.html

Hellervik, L. W., Hazucha, J. F., & Schneider, R. J. (1992). Behavior change: Models,

methods, and a review of the evidence. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.),

Handbook of industrial/organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 823�895). Palo Alto, CA:

Davies Black.

Hogan Assessment Systems. (2009). The development and technical review of translations for the

HPI, HDS, and MVPI. Tulsa, OK: Author.

Hogan, J., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2010). Management derailment: Personality assessment

and mitigation. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), American Psychological Association handbook of

industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 555�575). Washington, DC:

American Psychological Association.

Hogan, R. (2007). Personality and the fate of organizations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership: Effectiveness

and personality. American Psychologist, 49, 493�504.

Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2001). Assessing leadership: A view of the dark side. International

Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 40�51.

Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2007). Hogan personality inventory manual (3rd ed.). Tulsa, OK:

Hogan Assessment Systems.

Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2009). Hogan development survey manual. Tulsa, OK: Hogan

Assessment Systems.

Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2010). Motives, values, and preferences inventory manual. Tulsa, OK:

Hogan Assessment Systems.

Hogan, R., Hogan, J., & Warrenfeltz, R. (2007). The Hogan guide: Interpretation and use of

Hogan inventories. Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.

Hogan, R., & Judge, T. (2012). Personality and leadership. Unpublished manuscript.

Hollander, E. P., & Julian, J. W. (1969). Contemporary trends in the analysis of leadership

processes. Psychological Bulletin, 71, 387�397.

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gehardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership:

A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 765�780.

Kaiser, R., & Hogan, R. (2007). The dark side of discretion: Leader personality and

organizational decline. In R. Hooijberg, J. G. Hunt, J. Antonakis, K. B. Boal, &

N. Lane (Eds.), Being there even when you are not: Leading through strategy, systems

and structures (Vol. 4, pp. 177�197). London: Elsevier Science.

Kaiser, R. B., & Overfield, D. V. (2011). Strengths, strengths overused, and lopsided

leadership. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 63, 89�109.

Locke, E. A. (1991). The motivation sequence, the motivation hub and the motivation core.

Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 50, 288�299.

Mackey, A. (2008). The effect of CEOs on firm performance. Strategic Management Journal,

29, 1357�1367.


http://www.grovewell.com/pub-GLOBE-leadership.html

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal.

American Psychologist, 52, 509�516.

McGahan, A. M., & Porter, M. E. (1997). How much does industry matter, really? Strategic

Management Journal, 18(Special Issue), 15�30.

Meyer, K. D., & Foster, J. L. (2008). Considerations for creating multi-language personality

norms: A three-component model of error. International Journal of Testing, 8(4),

384–399.

Moscoso, S., & Salgado, J. F. (2004). “Dark side” personality styles as predictors of task,

contextual, and job performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12,

356�362.

Nadkarni, S., & Herrmann, P. (2010). CEO personality, strategic flexibility, and firm perfor-

mance: The case of the Indian business process outsourcing industry. Academy of

Management Journal, 53, 1050�1073.

Nohria, N., Joyce, W., & Robertson, B. (2003). What really works. Harvard Business Review,

80(7), 42�52.

Nye, J. V. C. (2002). Economic growth. Part II: Irreducible inequality. Library of Economics

and Liberty, April 1. Retrieved from http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/

Nyepositional.html

Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, vulner-

able followers, and conducive environments. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 176�194.

Peterson, D. B. (1993). Measuring change: A psychometric approach to evaluating individual

training outcomes. In V. Arnold (Chair), Innovations in training evaluation: New

measures, new designs. Symposium conducted at the Eighth Annual Conference of the

Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychologists.

Peterson, R. S., Smith, B., Martorana, P. V., & Owens, P. D. (2003). The impact of CEO

personality on TMT dynamics: One mechanism by which leadership affects organiza-

tional performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 795�808.

Sangster, A. (2011). The personality profile of top executives. In M. A. Carpenter (Ed.), The

handbook of research on top management teams (pp. 73�90). Cheltenham: Edward

Elgar.

Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Schneider, B., Goldstein, H., & Smith, D. B. (1995). The ASA framework: An update.

Personnel Psychology, 48, 747�773.

Shalhoop, J. H., & Sanger, M. (2012). Understanding leadership in China: Leadership profiles

of state owned enterprises, multinational corporations and major economic trading

partners. In W. H. Mobley, Y. Wang, & M. Li (Eds.), Advances in global leadership

(Vol. 7). Bingley, UK: Emerald Books.

Spisak, B. R., Nicholson, N., & Van Vugt, M. (2011). Leadership in organizations: An

evolutionary perspective. In G. Saad (Ed.), Evolutionary psychology in the business

sciences (pp. 165�190). Berlin: Springer.

Van de Vijver, F., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis of comparative research.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Van Vugt, M., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2008). Leadership, followership, and evolution:

Some lessons from the past. American Psychologist, 63, 182�196.

Winsborough, D. L., & Sambath, V. (2013). Not like us: An investigation into the personalities

of NZ CEOs. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 63, 182�196.


http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/Nyepositional.html

http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/Nyepositional.html

APPENDIX A

Scale Definition

HPI, HDS, and MVPI Scale Descriptions

Hogan personality inventory (Hogan & Hogan, 2007, p. 19)

Adjustment The degree to which a person appears calm and self-accepting.

Ambition The degree to which a person seems socially self-confident, leader-like,

competitive, and energetic.

Sociability The degree to which a person seems to need and/or enjoy interacting

with others.

Interpersonal

Sensitivity

The degree to which a person is seen as perceptive, tactful, and socially

sensitive.

Prudence The degree to which a person seems conscientious, conforming, and

dependable.

Inquisitive The degree to which a person is perceived as bright, creative, and interested

in ideas.

Learning

Approach

The degree to which a person seems to value educational achievement for

its own sake.

Hogan development survey (Hogan & Hogan, 2009, p. 13)

Excitable Concerns seeming moody and inconsistent, being enthusiastic about

new persons or projects and then becoming disappointed with them.

Skeptical Concerns seeming cynical, distrustful, overly sensitive to criticism, and

questioning others’ true intentions.

Cautious Concerns seeming resistant to change and reluctant to take chances for fear

of being evaluated negatively.

Reserved Concerns seeming socially withdrawn and lacking interest in or awareness

of the feelings of others.

Leisurely Concerns seeming autonomous, indifferent to other people’s requests, and

becoming irritable when they persist.

Bold Concerns seeming unusually self-confident, unwilling to admit mistakes or

listen to advice, and unable to learn from experience.

Mischievous Concerns seeming to enjoy taking risks and testing the limits.

Colorful Concerns seeming expressive, dramatic, and wanting to be noticed.

Imaginative Concerns seeming to act and think in creative and sometimes unusual ways.

Diligent Concerns seeming careful, precise, and critical of the performance of others.

Dutiful Concerns seeming eager to please, reliant on others for support, and

reluctant to take independent action.

HPI, HDS, and MVPI Scale Descriptions and Sample Items

Motives, values, and preferences inventory (Hogan & Hogan, 2010, p. 15)

Recognition Responsiveness to attention, approval, praise, and a need to be recognized.

Power Desire for success, accomplishment, status, competition, and control.

Hedonism Orientation toward fun, pleasure, and enjoyment.

Altruistic


APPENDIX A. (Continued )

Scale Definition

Concern about the welfare of others, especially the less fortunate, a desire

to help them, and in some way, contribute to the development of a better

society.

Affiliation Desire for and enjoyment of social interaction.

Tradition Dedication to ritual, history, and old-fashioned values.

Security Desire for certainty, predictability, order, and control in one’s life.

Commerce Interest in business and business-related matters such as accounting,

marketing, management, and finances.

Aesthetics Interest in art, literature, music, the humanities, and a lifestyle guided by

questions of culture, good taste, and attractive surroundings.

Science Desire for knowledge, an enthusiasm for new and advanced technologies,

and a curiosity about how things work.


[advances in global leadership] advances in global leadership volume 8 || evaluating global...

Documents