CHAPTER THREE Psychological influences on leadership style
INTRODUCTION
A historical review of the leadership literature can be found in general management texts and will not be provided here (see, for example: Fulop & Linstead 1999; Hughes et al. 1999; Robbins et al. 2000; Wood et al. 2001). Generally, however, researchers have constructed a range of theories to explain their views of leadership, including trait theory, behavioural theories, reward and punishment theory, situational contingency theories, path–goal theory, and attribution, to name just a few (Wood et al. 2001).
More recently, the focus has been placed on questioning whether leadership itself is a useful concept at all. This has arisen from the question of whether ‘followership’ explains leadership effectiveness, suggesting that the relationship between the follower and leader impacts on both and has enduring effects. Grossman and Valiga (2000) state that:
Whatever explanations for effective leadership are provided, two vital factors require our focus: the people interacting and being, and the situation or context in which behaviour occurs. This is why this chapter focuses on the role of personality and intelligence, and the way in which personality influences a leader’s capacity to handle conflict constructively in the professional setting. First let us consider a typology of leadership styles that takes a macroview of leader characteristics within particular contexts. These leadership styles are autocratic, bureaucratic, participative and laissez-faire (Mullins 1993).
The bureaucratic style, on the other hand, requires the leader to tell subordinates what to do, but in a way that is ‘by the book’. Procedure and policy manuals, rules and regulations support the bureaucrat. Traditional hospital settings use this approach abundantly. There are certain advantages in this style because technically it guarantees consistency in the performance of procedures, in the treatment of personnel and in setting standards. The disadvantages include the lack of recourse when commonsense dictates that there should be an exception to the rule. When we are personally frustrated by this, we call it ‘red tape’. Furthermore, if rules are ambiguous, productivity decreases, morale drops, and subordinates may become frustrated and resentful.
The disadvantages include that decision-making can take a long time; it may not result in effective and efficient attainment of goals; that participation may be compromised by group pressures and dynamics so that the decision is ‘watered down’ to the lowest common denominator (Mullins 1993; Robbins et al. 2000).
Typically, a leader who uses the laissez-faire style sets the goal to be achieved, provides the rules of the game, and becomes accessible to the group for guidance and clarification if and when required. The advantages of this style are that it allows for full utilisation of the talents and energies of group members who have been delegated full responsibility for decision-making and problem-solving. The disadvantages include a high level of risk because the leader must have thorough knowledge of the level of competence and personal integrity of group members in order for this mode of leadership to be successful. Note that there is no recognition of the potential for followership within these leadership styles (Mullins 1993).
PERSONALITY AND LEADERSHIP
There are several factors considered to shape leadership functioning and style. Researchers have established relationships between personality and key aspects of organisational behaviour, including leadership and managerial style (Wood et al. 2001). While different situations may require different styles of leadership (as indicated above), there are also other influential factors, including age, experiences, gender, marital status, number (if any) of dependents, seniority in the organisation, intellectual abilities, values, physical abilities and the ability/job fit.
Personality refers to the unique and relatively stable patterns of behaviour, thoughts and emotions shown by individuals, or ‘the overall profile or combination of traits that characterise the unique nature of the person’ (Wood et al. 2001, p.98). These are responsible for how we behave in our professional settings, because they affect the way we interact with others, and the situations encountered. While personality is generally persistent and resistant to change, it can be shaped by external pressures and may therefore vary across situations. Behaviour, however, is the result of both personality and nature of the situation experienced, known as an interactionist perspective of organisational behaviour (Ivancevich et al. 1997).
Factors affecting personality
There are three major factors affecting personality, although there is controversy about the degree to which each factor may be influential. These include heredity—factors determined at conception; environment, for example, culture, social conditioning, birth order and gender; and the situation, since different demands in different situations may call forth different aspects of personality.
Personality traits
Much research has gone into what determines personality and how it is expressed (Robbins et al. 1998). These include personality traits such as being shy, aggressive, lazy or ambitious. Research suggests that personality traits must be considered in their situational context (Greenberg & Baron 1995). A whole range of personality traits are said to exist, for example, in charismatic or transformational leaders, or effective managers. Another aspect is the personality type, such as extroversion, where we attend to the world of objects, people, or external ideas, or introversion, where we focus on our inner thoughts, feelings and ideas. Extroverts are generally considered effective salespeople, public relations professionals and teachers, while introverts are more likely to be research scientists, academics or librarians (Robbins et al. 1998).
The ‘Big Five’ personality dimensions
Another theory is that there are five dimensions of personality, sometimes referred to as the ‘Big Five’ personality dimensions (Greenberg & Baron 1995; Hughes et al. 1999). These include:
introversion and extroversion: a dimension ranging from being sociable, talkative assertive and active at one end, to retiring, sober, reserved and cautious at the other;
Research has found that conscientiousness is a good predictor of work performance in all types of jobs; emotional stability, however, is not related to performance and extroversion is highly related to job success for people in managerial and sales positions (Robbins et al. 2000). Barrick and Mount (1993) explored the extent to which autonomy in the job influences the relationship between personality dimensions and performance in managerial jobs. The opposite ends of the autonomy continuum would include an assembly-line worker versus a mobile district nurse, whose position is individually paced, with little job structuring and minimal supervision. The position of district nurse would provide more scope for the expression of personality.
The major finding of McCrae and Costa’s (1997) study was that managers with higher scores of conscientiousness and extroversion performed better in jobs with high autonomy when compared with those managers in jobs that were low in autonomy. Managers with lower scores in agreeableness performed better in jobs with high autonomy when compared with those managers low in autonomy. Autonomy therefore appears to be an important moderating variable in the relationship between personality and performance.
As a predictor of behaviours at work, the ‘Big Five’ model has received some endorsement from researchers in recent years, although some disagreement exists. Robertson (1998) argues that while the ‘Big Five’ structure has created remarkable consensus among psychologists, there is no particular theory to account for or support its existence. He concluded that research has not demonstrated that the model can be viewed as an adequate taxonomy. Hough (1992), on the other hand, suggests that the ‘Big Five’ model needed to be expanded and proposed a nine factor structure. The debate continues.
Myers-Briggs personality types
extraversion/introversion (E) and (I), which refers to how we focus our attentions and what gives us energy;
the amount of control, judgement (J) and perception (P) we have, which refers to our lifestyle orientation (Wood et al. 2001; Robbins et al. 1998).With respect to this theory, personality ‘style’ has been shown to be a significant factor in the strategic decision-making of leaders and managers. For example, ‘sensing–feeling’ types want hard data and are less willing to take risks; ‘intuitive–feeling’ types are more likely to make a decision without considering all facts in the situation; and ‘intuitive–thinking’ types test the logic of the decision and often require more hard data on which to base their decisions. Kummerow et al. (1997) suggest that ‘leaders and followers have different styles and needs based in part on their personality preferences’ (p.52). As a leader with a preferred style, it is important to be aware of the strengths and limitations of that style, and take into account the needs of your followers in order that they work most effectively with you, and you with them. Kummerow et al. (1997) note that:
Exploration of the Myers-Briggs typology as an explanation of your personality can be an insightful exercise for those who hold nursing leadership positions, or who aspire to them.
Locus of control
Locus of control refers to the degree to which leaders believe they are in charge of their own fate and are able to affect their own lives (Behling 1998). Leaders who believe they can control their own lives or their fate are said to have an ‘internal orientation’, as they demonstrate internal control. Those who believe that what happens to them is out of their control, or controlled by outside forces, are labelled as ‘externals’, having an external orientation.
Those who have an internal locus of control:
are motivated to achieve and make greater attempts to control their environment (Robbins et al. 1998).Leaders with an internal orientation do well in managerial and professional jobs which require complex information processing and learning, and are suited to jobs requiring initiative and independence of action (Robbins et al. 1998).
Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel
Full access? Get Clinical Tree
