MGT 380 Week 1 Discussion 1 & 2

6/21/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUMGT380.15.1?sections=ch03,ch03sec3.1,ch03sec3.2,ch03sec3.3,ch03sec3.4,ch03sec3.5,ch03sec3.6,ch03sum… 1/20

3 Trait and Personality Factors

iStock/Thinkstock

Learning Outcomes

After completing this chapter, you should be able to:

1. Explain how traits and personality in�luence leadership behavior.

2. Identify the Big Five personality characteristics and explain how they relate to leadership.

3. Describe emotional intelligence and how this theory relates to leadership.

4. Explain how narcissism and Machiavellianism can derail leaders.

5. Describe how the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator is used to understand leadership behaviors.

6. Describe entrepreneurial leadership and decision making. Explain why “intrapreneurship” is an important leadership process.

6/21/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUMGT380.15.1?sections=ch03,ch03sec3.1,ch03sec3.2,ch03sec3.3,ch03sec3.4,ch03sec3.5,ch03sec3.6,ch03sum… 2/20

Leadership theory has evolved over time, often paralleling and re�lecting changes in our economic structure and workplace environments. In more stable preindustrial times of the 19th century when our society was largely agrarian, early leadership scholars were in search of speci�ic traits, or distinguishing qualities or characteristics of a person’s nature, that de�ined a successful leader. The pursuit of a speci�ic set of traits became known as the “Great man” theory of leadership—meaning that there was a de�initive set of qualities that made a person an exceptional leader.

Personality theory, that is, “individual differences in characteristic patterns of thinking, feeling and behaving” (American Psychological Association, 2015), also emerged in the 19th century, but it was popularized with the development of the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) in 1943, when employers started to become more selective about who they hired and why. By the 1940s, the work environment was still stable but organizations grew in size, bureaucracies emerged, and the position of “manager” and rational planning evolved. Ef�iciency and predictability were emphasized in the study of leadership and organizations.

From the 1950s through the 1970s, the work environment moved from stable to more complex. Leadership theorists turned to the study of behaviors, motivation, and how to match leaders with followers in particular contexts. During the 1960s and 1970s, as organizations continued to change, cross-functional teams and horizontal structures were created. Group processes and contingency theory emerged, that is, the study of leadership styles that “�it” with followers and the work context. But ef�iciency was still valued and leadership theory focused on transactions (exchanges) between leader and follower, rather than transformations.

From the 1970s through the 1990s, the work environment became increasingly globalized and even more complex and competitive. Leadership studies turned the focus to leaders as transformational, change champions who in�luenced followers through relationships. In recent decades, leadership theory has further evolved due to the in�luences of the Internet, information technologies, and an increasingly diverse workforce. Leadership studies began to focus on change, teams, and variations of previous leadership concepts. Now trait and personality theory, behavioral and contingency theory, leader–follower exchanges, and group and team processes are used in conjunction with one another to further our understanding of what makes effective leaders and leadership.

The increased emphasis on stakeholders and stockholders inside and outside of the organization requires a wider range of competencies, thus the emergence of ethical leadership, strategic communication, high-performance cultures, negotiation, con�lict management, and always people—individuals, teams, and groups.

So, then, what make a great leader? What distinguishes leaders from others? Are leaders born or made? These are questions we have puzzled over throughout history. In attempting to answer such questions, early theories, as previously discussed, focused on traits and personality characteristics with the hope of �inding the “magic ingredients” of leadership. Although certain traits can, according to recent research, predict the emergence and appearance of leadership, traits and personality characteristics alone cannot distinguish between effective and ineffective leadership (Robbins & Judge, 2015). However, research has shown that both traits and personality matter with regard to predicting organizational outcomes, such as leader–follower relationships, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, leadership promotion and development (Nichols & Cottrell, 2014).

Personality theory, which encompasses trait theory, provides a broader context. Personality is the combination of physical, mental, emotional, and social characteristics and traits. Traits and personality theory, shown in the dimension of leadership in Figure 1.1 (in Chapter 1) are examined more closely in this chapter. We will discuss how leadership can be developed and how certain personality traits can be learned and used to pave the way for leadership practices. As you read, consider your own personality and traits as they relate to your approach to leadership. Or, perhaps consider the personality and traits of leaders you admire and think about how they all �it into the theories presented. Assessments in this chapter provide information to help you understand your own evolving leadership style and the styles of others. To get started, take the Big Five personality assessment at http://personality-testing.info/tests /BIG5.php (http://personality-testing.info/tests/BIG5.php) . Scroll down to take either the 50-item or the 100-item version. Your results will be explained later in this chapter.

This chapter begins with discussing the trait theory and the personality approach to leadership, which today focuses heavily on the Big Five personality traits. We then examine emotional intelligence (EQ) and other leadership characteristics related to personality. Finally, we examine the popular Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) assessment that’s commonly used in the workplace. We conclude with a discussion about entrepreneurial leadership and decision making with regard to personality.

6/21/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUMGT380.15.1?sections=ch03,ch03sec3.1,ch03sec3.2,ch03sec3.3,ch03sec3.4,ch03sec3.5,ch03sec3.6,ch03sum… 3/20

Branson: Paul Kane/Getty Images News/Thinkstock; Winfrey: Jason Merritt/Getty Images Entertainment/Thinkstock

Richard Branson and Oprah Winfrey share entrepreneurial traits. Winfrey is more helping and af�iliative; Branson is more fun loving and risk taking.

3.1 Trait Theory One of the �irst modern efforts to scienti�ically study leadership was trait theory. Researchers in the early 1900s were interested in why certain people became leaders and others did not. They studied military, political, and religious �igures —Jesus, Mahatma Gandhi, Abraham Lincoln, Napoléon Bonaparte, Joan of Arc, and others—and focused on identifying leadership traits, or innate individual characteristics that might result in a good leader. Their conclusion: Great leaders were born, not made.

The “great man” theory, as it was called, would give rise to what is now known as trait theory. Initially it was called into question; researchers examining the early studies noted that although these “great men” did share some characteristics, the theory overall failed to take a leader’s situational context into account (Stogdill, 1948). In other words, people who are leaders in one situation may not be leaders in a different kind of situation. However, Stogdill would later revive the trait approach when he empirically showed that certain traits did support effective leadership across various situations (1974). These traits included dependability, cooperativeness, assertiveness, initiative, dominance, high energy, self- con�idence, stress tolerance, responsibility, achievement orientation, adaptability, cleverness, persuasiveness, organizational and speaking abilities, risk taking, and originality.

Later researchers isolated other traits. Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) found in their qualitative studies that task knowledge, con�idence, motivation, drive, cognitive ability, and integrity differentiate leaders from nonleaders. Other researchers have found that leaders have certain traits related to social intelligence, that is, the understanding and awareness of their own and others’ emotions, feelings, behaviors, and thoughts, as well as the ability to self-monitor and respond to different situations (Marlowe, 1986; Zaccaro, 2002). More recently, Zaccaro, Kemp, and Bader (2004) found higher intelligence, reasoning, and verbal and perception abilities in leaders compared to nonleaders. These researchers caution that leaders who have higher intelligence than their followers may experience problems relating to the followers because of the leaders’ advanced ideas.

Contemporary researchers have argued that optimism, drive, self- con�idence, honesty, and integrity are particularly important for effective leadership (Jones, 2005). These particular traits are discussed in more depth here because they are particularly relevant to the leadership theories discussed in subsequent chapters.

Optimism refers to having a positive outlook or thinking positively. Optimistic leaders tend to see the good in people and organizations and believe in favorable results. This doesn’t mean optimistic leaders are blind to the negative; they are simply able to see possibilities and seek opportunities. Imagine if Apple® CEO Steve Jobs had stopped at Macintosh computers, or if he had allowed a power struggle with the company’s board to halt his career. (This happened in the 1970s, and Jobs went on to found another company before returning to Apple and spearheading the launch of its vanguard cell phone and tablet.) Stephen McDonnell, founder and CEO of Applegate Farms, the leading

producer of organic and natural meats and cheeses is widely quoted as arguing that optimistic attitudes are the most commonly observed characteristic in top-level executives. Optimism is a main characteristic of leaders (Daft, 2011). Furthermore, optimistic leaders instill and inspire similar attitudes in others. They demonstrate more self-con�idence, believing in themselves and showing more assurance in their own skills, abilities, decisions, and visions. Self-con�ident, optimistic leaders are not paralyzed by fear or anxiety and can therefore more readily lead others to face uncertainty and challenging situations.

Drive can be described as determination, motivation, or compulsion that leads to increased effort. Driven leaders seek achievement, show tenacity, and are perceived as ambitious ( Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991). In other words, they work hard.

6/21/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUMGT380.15.1?sections=ch03,ch03sec3.1,ch03sec3.2,ch03sec3.3,ch03sec3.4,ch03sec3.5,ch03sec3.6,ch03sum… 4/20

Chris Hondros/Getty Images News/Thinkstock

Bernie Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in prison in 2009 for running the biggest fraudulent Ponzi scheme in U.S. history. He lured investors into his investment scheme, taking $65 billion. He was charged with fraud, money laundering, perjury, and theft (Yang, 2014).

Effective leaders also often tap into their followers’ drive. A management strategy called ROWE—which stands for “results-oriented work environment” and was �irst introduced at Best Buy—evaluates employees by the results they produce, not the schedules they keep. Google cofounder and CEO Larry Page supports a “20% program,” in which professional engineers can use 20% of their time to create and team up on projects they like. Such approaches involve giving “people autonomy over what they’re doing and how they do it, an opportunity to master it and a sense of purpose in doing it in the �irst place” (Spiers, 2010; see also Pink, 2009).

Honesty can be de�ined by what it is not: lying, and knowingly and willingly deceiving others. Integrity means wholeness of character; a leader with integrity is integrated and balanced, and acts ethically. A survey of 1,500 managers identi�ied honesty and integrity as the most desired values in leaders.

Honesty, as a dimension related to ethics discussed in chapter 2, is absolutely essential to leadership. After all, if we are willing to follow someone, whether it is into battle or into the boardroom, we �irst want to assure ourselves that the person is worthy of our trust. We want to know that he or she is being truthful, ethical, and principled. We want to be fully con�ident in the integrity of our leaders. (Kouzes & Posner, 1993, p. 138– 139/2012)

Integrity and honesty are also related to the survival and success of corporations. Bernard Madoff, currently serving a 150-year prison term for $17 billion investor fraud and who in 2014 suffered a heart attack, is a recent business example of dishonesty and greed. Classic examples of corporate scandals—Enron, Tyco, WorldCom, Arthur Andersen, and other prestigious �irms—at the turn of this century have taught us that honesty counts. Enron—the former energy, commodity, and services company—speci�ically became synonymous with corporate corruption and greed after executives decided to hide the company’s true �inancial condition via suspect accounting practices. The company and its former executives paid the consequences: Enron had to divest and sell its North American power utility, gas pipeline assets, and global interests in utilities and power plants, and paid out more than $21.6 billion to its creditors between 2004 and 2010 (“Enron Creditors Recovery Corp”). Former president Ken Lay and former CEO Jeff Skilling were found guilty on multiple charges, including fraud, making false statements to accountants, and insider trading. Ken Lay died of a heart attack in 2006 before being sentenced to a life term in jail, and as of 2011, Jeff Skilling was still serving a 24-year prison sentence, that was reduced in 2013 by 10 years. However, the fallout extended far beyond those two men: Thousands of employees at Enron and the other �irms lost almost all of their pension savings.

Trait theory is based on considerable research and has broad appeal; people like to perceive leaders in terms of certain traits. However, although the traits discussed here have shown to be associated with leadership, no traits, with the exception of the Big Five discussed in the next section, have been linked to successful organizational outcomes or performance, and it is dif�icult to predict how leaders with certain traits would be effective in organizational situations. (We will discuss this more in later sections.) However, the trait theory approach does serve a purpose in the workplace. As we will discuss further in the following section on personalities, trait theory provides some insight into what makes a good leader.

6/21/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUMGT380.15.1?sections=ch03,ch03sec3.1,ch03sec3.2,ch03sec3.3,ch03sec3.4,ch03sec3.5,ch03sec3.6,ch03sum… 5/20

Digital Vision/Thinkstock

Personality is a powerful concept that can provide insights into how leaders, followers, and professionals make decisions and in�luence relationships

3.2 Personality Approach The word personality is often associated with people who are either popular and well liked or are unpopular and not very well liked—that is, we tend to say a person has a “good personality” or not. This oversimpli�ication of the concept can be misleading. As part of social science and organizational behavior studies, personality is a powerful concept that organizes individual capacities, emotions, and motives (Wang, 2010), and can provide insights into how leaders, followers, and professionals make decisions and in�luence relationships. It is a useful tool.

Are leaders made or born? There is consensus among scholars that personality is partly hereditary but also developed. Although personality can and does change, it is more changeable in adolescence according to some researchers (Hampson & Goldberg, 2006). Knowing a person’s personality pro�ile does not predict who will be an effective or ineffective leader, but as we discuss in the following sections, there are personality characteristics that do indicate effective, emergent leadership practices. Also, personality theory is another tool and concept you can use to help you better understand yourself as an evolving or current leader as well as understanding the actions and behaviors of leaders around you.

Personality theory provides a broader context of which trait theory is a part. Personality is the combination of physical, mental, emotional, and social characteristics and traits. It can be the way people act and react to others (Robbins & Judge, 2015), and it affects an individual’s perceptions and behaviors. Unlike the great man theory and early research on traits, some personality characteristics have been linked to leadership effectiveness. Leaders bene�it by knowing their personality characteristics. First, they can increase their own self-awareness and awareness of others. Research (Palmer, Green, Duncan, & Zarate, 2013), as well as practical experience, shows that leaders’ personality characteristics in�luence followers. Second, they can learn to adjust their personal style to accommodate their followers. Finally, they can adapt their communication and personal style to enhance performance. We will examine two personality theories that are among the most popularly used by corporations worldwide and are of interest to current scholars: the Big Five personality model and the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). We will also discuss emotional intelligence. But �irst let’s start with the dark side of personality.

Dark Side of Personality

In an attempt avoid glorifying the nature of leadership and the personalities of those who lead, scholars have written about the “dark side” of personality. We will point out some of these critiques in different chapters throughout the text, but let’s touch on what the dark side of personality actually means.

Slattery (2009), for example, de�ines the dark side of leadership as “an ongoing pattern of behaviour exhibited by a leader that results in overall negative organisational outcomes based on the interactions between the leader, follower and the environment. Organisational goals, morale and follower satisfaction are thwarted through the abuse of power and self- interest of the leader” (p. 4). Other authors have referred to the dark side of leaders as “toxic,” “destructive,” “petty tyrants,” “aversive,” “arrogant,” and derailed (Slattery, 2009).

Other scholars, such as Hogan and Hogan (2001), provided 11 dark side personality traits: excitable, skeptical, cautious, reserved, leisurely, bold, mischievous, colorful, imaginative, diligent, and dutiful. Ashforth (1994) noted that the signs of dark side leadership also include behaviors such as “self-aggrandisement, belittling followers, lack of consideration for others, a forcing style of con�lict,” punishment for no reason, discouraging initiatives, and undermining organizational goals and the well-being of followers (Slattery, 2009, p. 3).

This is all to say that personality is complex. Personal beliefs, values, and motivation, in addition to situational and relational factors, all play a part in helping us understand leadership and how particular personalities manifest

6/21/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUMGT380.15.1?sections=ch03,ch03sec3.1,ch03sec3.2,ch03sec3.3,ch03sec3.4,ch03sec3.5,ch03sec3.6,ch03sum… 6/20

themselves. Having a charming personality could compel followers, but we need to be mindful of where it is we’re being led.

The Big Five Personality Characteristics

The Big Five personality characteristics—which have also been referred to as “traits”—are the product of decades of research (Digman, 1990) and have shown the most promising empirical results related to leadership effectiveness. The model condenses 25 years of research into �ive general characteristics (or factors) that make up personality. Studies con�irm that there is a relationship between these characteristics and job performance (Barrick & Mount, 2004; Oh & Berry, 2009). According to this model, any individual’s personality you wish to describe is based on the following characteristics:

1. Extraversion: The extent to which a person is outgoing, excitable, sociable, talkative, assertive, and emotionally expressive. Highly extroverted leaders can also exert high-energy, take-charge, determined attitudes and behaviors. Extraversion also relates to dominance, that is, leaders who are assertive, competitive, and have a take-charge approach to getting things done. Opposite the spectrum of extraversion is introversion—individuals who are more often energized by re�lecting through thinking and taking time to observe and process information, and who relate to individuals more comfortably than to large groups. Extraversion has been shown to be the most predictive characteristic of effective emergent leadership (Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002). Note that being too assertive and dominant can also result in decreased leader effectiveness (Ames & Flynn, 2007).

2. Agreeableness: The extent to which a person shows trust, cooperation, compassion, kindness, affection, and understanding. Agreeableness is also related to being sensitive, af�iliative, and sociable (Jokisarri & Nurmi, 2009), that is, paying attention to others, forming relationships, and being friendly and approachable. This trait is related to emotional intelligence, discussed later in the chapter. Agreeable people are generally more liked than disagreeable individuals, are more “compliant and rule abiding, less likely to get into accidents, and more satis�ied in their jobs” (Robbins & Judge, 2015, p. 127). However, agreeable people participate in citizenship behavior, contributing to organizational performance and not showing organizationally deviant behavior (Ilies, Fulmer, Spitzmuller, & Johnson, 2009).

3. Conscientiousness: The extent to which a person is thoughtful, goal directed, dependable, organized, and mindful of details. Conscientiousness and openness, next to extraversion, indicate a strong association to leadership. Because conscientiousness and extraversion are also positively related to leadership self-ef�icacy (Ng, Ang, & Chan, 2008)—that is, an individual’s belief about her or his ability to produce outcomes—it follows that this personality characteristic, and that of extraversion, are also related to leadership performance (Robbins & Judge, 2015).

4. Neuroticism (Adjustment): The extent to which a person is emotionally unstable, anxious, moody, irritable, less self-con�ident, and prone to sudden emotional outbursts. A question for leaders and followers with regard to this dimension is how to manage one’s emotions. Effective management of emotions results in self-control, stability, calmness, and maintaining composure in dif�icult and crisis situations. Composure and being relaxed is also associated with higher self-con�idence, more positive attitudes, and being able to offer constructive and uplifting feedback. At the opposite end of this spectrum, as noted above, is a loss of self-control and self- con�idence, symptoms of which often manifest as nervousness and irritability that can lead to negativity, narcissistic behaviors, and even hostility.

5. Openness: The extent to which a person is imaginative, �lexible, insightful, and intellectually curious and sensitive. Being open to new experiences encourages creativity, innovation, and the ability to deal with complexity and ambiguity—all are important characteristics needed for change and exploration. A study by Palmer et al. (2013) showed that participants’ personalities who are more extraverted and open to new experiences “believe Directive Leadership contributed to being an outstanding leader and, conversely, that the more extraverted and open to new experiences the participants, the less they believed Bureaucratic Leadership contributed to outstanding leadership, and the more they believed that Self- Serving Leadership inhibited outstanding leadership” (p. 62). At the same time, those who are more open to experiences may also be more prone to workplace accidents (Clark & Robertson, 2008). The opposite end of the spectrum of openness is close-mindedness which indicates in�lexibility, not having resilience, and not being able to adapt to change—characteristics that do not contribute to effective leadership in�luence and performance.

6/21/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUMGT380.15.1?sections=ch03,ch03sec3.1,ch03sec3.2,ch03sec3.3,ch03sec3.4,ch03sec3.5,ch03sec3.6,ch03sum… 7/20

Big Five Continuum

Another way of understanding the Big Five model is to view the characteristics on a continuum, that is, to what extent and under what conditions are you extraverted or introverted, agreeable or antagonistic, conscientious or lacking integrity and dependability, able or unable to control your emotions, and open or closed to new experiences?

1. Extraversion ................................................................................................................. Introversion 2. Agreeableness ............................................................................................................. Antagonism 3. Conscientiousness........................................................................................ Unscrupulousness 4. Neuroticism/Adjustment ......................................................................... Emotional stability 5. Openness to experience................................................................................ Closed-mindedness

A meta-analysis—an analysis that combines and synthesizes the results of several separate and related studies—of leadership and personality studies between 1967 and 1998 found that four of the traits from the Big Five theory were strongly associated with being an effective leader: in order of strongest effect, extraversion and conscientiousness, openness, and low neuroticism. Studies have also largely supported the idea that the Big Five theory is universally applicable across cultures, despite differences in language, history, religion, political systems, and other cultural features (Paunonen et al., 1996; Triandis & Suh, 2002; Yamagata et al., 2006). As will be discussed in later chapters, culture affects behaviors and values, which in turn can affect how coworkers interact with one another. The Big Five theory has provided evidence for accessing personality characteristics across cultures.

In addition to the assessment source offered earlier, take the brief Five Factor Personality Test (at http://www.personalitytest.org.uk (http://www.personalitytest.org.uk/) ), then re�lect on your experiences and personal style at work, at home, and with friends. Do your experiences agree with or differ from your Big Five assessment results? In what ways can this assessment be helpful to you as a developing leader?

6/21/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUMGT380.15.1?sections=ch03,ch03sec3.1,ch03sec3.2,ch03sec3.3,ch03sec3.4,ch03sec3.5,ch03sec3.6,ch03sum… 8/20

3.3 Emotional Intelligence (EQ) Emotional intelligence, abbreviated EI or EQ (as in IQ, only here we are discussing emotional elements of intelligence), is a person’s ability to be self-aware (recognize one’s emotions when experienced), notice emotions in others, and manage emotional cues and information. An emotionally intelligent leader is able to effectively manage oneself and others ( Goleman, 2000) and is further able to use the power of emotional energy to inspire, motivate, understand, and improve the morale of organization members and teams. One researcher attributed Abraham Lincoln’s enormous power as a president to emotional intelligence, not to IQ, charisma, or political ability (Kauffman & Coutu, 2009). Another study, which examined the successes and failures of 11 U.S. presidents (from Franklin Roosevelt to Bill Clinton), found that the main characteristic differentiating the successful (e.g., Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Reagan) from the unsuccessful (e.g., Johnson, Carter, and Nixon) was emotional intelligence (Smola & Sutton, 2002). Emotional intelligence can be learned and practiced.

One research study indicated that effective leaders use different components of emotional intelligence. Goleman (2000) grouped these various capabilities into four basic classi�ications, as shown in Figure 3.1: self-awareness, self- management, social awareness, and relationship management.

Figure 3.1: Emotional intelligence—four dimensions

Self-awareness is the foundation for the other three emotional capabilities. When leaders are not self-aware, it is doubtful they can be aware of others. Being self-aware means being able to see and understand your emotions and feelings and how they affect you in your work and private life. As a result, you can accurately evaluate your weaknesses and strengths. You also have more self-con�idence and trust in your own instincts, particularly when there are no answers from other sources. A self-aware leader is better able to “see reality” in complex situations and in other people.

Self-management, the second important capability, is the ability to control moods, emotions, and desires that can be problematic and disruptive. This doesn’t mean suppressing, avoiding, disguising, or denying these feelings; it means understanding them (Weisinger, 1998). Thus, those around you can be assured that you will be consistently authentic and honest with them—without being an emotional time bomb. You also will be known for honoring your responsibilities and overcoming obstacles easily because you can adapt to different situations without letting your emotions get in the way (Daft, 2011). Leaders who cannot do this can self-destruct professionally. They may offend or blame followers or

6/21/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUMGT380.15.1?sections=ch03,ch03sec3.1,ch03sec3.2,ch03sec3.3,ch03sec3.4,ch03sec3.5,ch03sec3.6,ch03sum… 9/20

Chris Carlson/Associated Press

Social awareness is the ability to understand others and be empathetic. Former Los Angeles Lakers coach, now President of the New York Knicks, Phil Jackson, has shown professional intimacy, organizational awareness, and a service orientation to his players and to the organization he’s with.

important partners by projecting their fears and insecurities onto them. They may act immorally and illegally by not controlling their desires or moods. Consider politicians who have had emotional outbursts, committed unethical acts, or been caught lying and consequently been pressured to quit because they lost the public’s trust, their legitimacy, and their in�luence. It takes years to build a credible reputation, and moments to lose it.

Social awareness is the ability to understand others. A socially aware leader is empathetic: able to put oneself in other people’s situations and show compassion and concern, while keeping an objective perspective. Frost (2004) called this - process the ability to show “professional intimacy.” Socially aware leaders are also better able to understand the context of an organizational situation—they can more clearly see the big picture of their organization—while understanding the needs of clients, employees, and other external stakeholders. Former Los Angeles Lakers coach Phil Jackson, who has worked with some of the sport’s great players, emphasized social awareness in his coaching style. As a former professional basketball player himself, Jackson was able to empathize with the men he coached. He practiced meditation and settled his team down with moments of quiet re�lection, strengthening the team’s common bond, and helping players become more aware of each other’s capabilities. Jackson recognized that a strong, cohesive team is the key to the big picture: an NBA championship. Jackson won 11 NBA championship titles as a coach and player—the most in the league’s history (Abbott, 2010).

Relationship management is the capability to emotionally connect with others, build positive relationships, and express kindness, compassion, and sensitivity. Successful leaders are good communicators able to create and sustain relationships, thus building broad networks of people and setting the stage for unprecedented collaboration. We have already established that leaders inspire trust. As a result, they are able to in�luence others, setting the tone for a caring or high-achieving company culture, managing con�lict, leading change, and guiding people to achieve extraordinary visions and organizational goals.

Emotional intelligence has had mixed empirical results with regard to leadership effectiveness, but continues to be studied and used by practitioners. It is important to note that EQ, while important to leadership, is not a substitute for IQ (mental ability) (Dubrin, 2015). Leaders need logical and emotional abilities in solving problems and in�luencing others. Neither IQ nor EQ is more important than the other; both are essential for effective leadership and followership. Leadership studies have provided suf�icient evidence over the last century to argue that there is no best way, style, or characteristic to lead and in�luence people to accomplish organizational goals.

Please take Assessment 3.1 for your EQ score and compare your results with the other assessments you have taken. Remember, there is no right or wrong style. These assessments can help you identify your strengths and areas for development as an evolving leader.

Assessment 3.1: Emotional Intelligence

Instructions

For each of the following questions, please indicate the degree to which each statement characterizes you.

1—Never like me. 2—Occasionally like me. 3—Sometimes like me. 4—Frequently like me. 5—Always like me.

1. I empathize with other people when they have problems. ___________

2. I go out of my way to help someone in need. ___________

6/21/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUMGT380.15.1?sections=ch03,ch03sec3.1,ch03sec3.2,ch03sec3.3,ch03sec3.4,ch03sec3.5,ch03sec3.6,ch03su… 10/20

3. Most people feel comfortable talking to me about their personal feelings. ___________

4. People enjoy spending time with me. ___________

5. It is easy for me to openly express warm and loving feelings toward others. ___________

6. When someone is annoying me, I stop to think about the other person’s situation rather than losing my temper.

___________

7. In most cases I give people a second chance. ___________

8. I think about how I can improve my relationships with those people with whom I don’t get along.

___________

9. I think about why I don’t like a person. ___________

10. When someone makes me uncomfortable, I think about why I am uncomfortable. ___________

11. I can be assertive and forceful in situations where others are trying to take advantage of me. ___________

12. I can delay grati�ication in pursuit of my goals. ___________

13. When I am anxious about a challenge, I still can prepare for it. ___________

14. I am able to stay motivated when things do not go well. ___________

15. I keep myself focused on my goals. ___________

16. Overt human suffering makes me feel uncomfortable. ___________

17. Criticism is dif�icult for me to accept. ___________

18. Having car trouble makes me feel stressed. ___________

19. I lose control when I do not win in a sporting contest. ___________

20. Traf�ic jams cause me to lose control. ___________

Scoring

Sum your scores for questions 1–5, and divide by 5.

My “perception, appraisal, and expression of emotions” score is _______.

Sum your score for questions 6–10 and divide by 5.

My “emotional facilitation of thinking” score is _______.

Sum your score for questions 11–15 and divide by 5.

My “understanding and analyzing emotions, and employing emotional knowledge” score is _______.

For questions 17–20, reverse-score each item by subtracting your score from 6. Next, sum your new scores for these four questions, add in your score to question 16, then divide by 5.

My “re�lective regulation of emotions” score is _______.

Finally, sum your four scores together and divide by 4. My overall (global) emotional intelligence score is _______.

Interpretation

Thorndike (1920) provided an intelligence framework that identi�ied three types of intelligence: social, concrete, and abstract. His conceptualization of social intelligence is the underpinning for the contemporary reference to emotional intelligence. Emotional intelligence involves the ability to perceive emotions, to access and generate emotions to assist thought, to understand emotions and emotional knowledge, and to regulate emotions

6/21/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUMGT380.15.1?sections=ch03,ch03sec3.1,ch03sec3.2,ch03sec3.3,ch03sec3.4,ch03sec3.5,ch03sec3.6,ch03sum… 11/20

re�lectively to promote emotional and intellectual growth” (Tapia, 2001). This de�inition links intelligence and emotion and promotes the dual ideas that emotion can make thinking more intelligent and that one can think intelligently about emotions.

According to Tapia (2001), your �irst score re�lects your ability to appraise emotions in yourself and others (empathy). The second score deals with emotions when thinking is prioritized by directing attention to important information. (Are your emotions suf�iciently vivid and available so they can be used as aids to judgment and memory concerning feelings?) Your third score deals with your ability to label emotions and understand complex feelings. Your fourth and �inal score concerns your ability to stay open to feelings (both those that are pleasant and those that are unpleasant). Overall, the global scale for emotional intelligence attempts to assess your perception, assimilation, understanding, and management of emotion.

A high score on each of the four dimensions is re�lective of a high level of emotional intelligence on that particular dimension. A score equal to or greater than 4 on each dimension and on the global assessment suggests a high level of emotional intelligence. A score equal to or less than 2 on each dimension and on the global assessment suggests a low level of emotional intelligence.

Source: Measuring Emotional Intelligence, Psychological Reports, 88 (2001) pp. 353—364, Copyright 2001 Ammons Scienti�ic Ltd. These 20 items re�lect a subset of the Tapia (2001) and Tapia & Burry-Stock (1998) instrument for the measurement of emotional intelligence and are shown here to illustrate the measure and highlight the construct’s meaning. Tapia and Burry-Stock’s 41-item measure can be found in: M. Tapia & J. Burry- Stock. 1998. Emotional Intelligence Inventory. Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of Alabama.

6/21/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUMGT380.15.1?sections=ch03,ch03sec3.1,ch03sec3.2,ch03sec3.3,ch03sec3.4,ch03sec3.5,ch03sec3.6,ch03su… 12/20

3.4 Other Personality-Related Leadership Characteristics Other personality attributes are also important predictors of leadership behaviors. The following characteristics help you better understand and evaluate leadership effectiveness in others and in yourself: self-concept, locus of control, narcissism, Machiavellianism, entrepreneurial leadership, risk taking, and decision making.

Self-Concept

Self-concept is a person’s overall understanding about herself or himself that includes attitudes, feelings, self-esteem, and self-con�idence. Those who have a positive self-concept see themselves as capable and in control of themselves and their environment, and have con�idence in their judgments, ideas, and skills. Those with a negative self-concept and core evaluation question their capabilities, see themselves as powerless, and tend not to value or like themselves (Barry & Friedman, 1998; Robbins & Judge, 2011). Leaders who have negative or weak, insecure self-concepts can limit others’ career development and personal growth, as well as sabotage their own reputations.

Self-concept can also affect the way leaders view, in�luence, and lead others. McGregor (1960) observed two types of general attitudes that leaders have about subordinates: Theory X and Theory Y. Theory X leaders, whose assumptions may be characterized as “command and control,” see people as lazy and unmotivated to work and thus believe followers have to be controlled, directed, coerced, and micromanaged. These types of leaders are more production and task oriented and can be short-tempered, impatient, and autocratic when it comes to followers’ feelings and concerns. Theory Y leaders, on the other hand, whose assumptions may be characterized as commitment and trust oriented, see people as being more interested in assuming responsibility and more willing and ready, in the right working environments, to give full effort, attention, creativity, and energy to helping achieve organizational goals. Such leaders tend be more consideration and people oriented. Research evidence regarding attitudes and leadership success generally supports McGregor’s two classi�ications, but his theory requires more study.

Locus of Control

Why do some leaders tend to take credit for success but blame others for mistakes, while other leaders assume responsibility for whatever happens under their leadership? This tendency can be described in terms of an individual’s locus of control. Locus is another word for site or location, so locus of control literally refers to where a person thinks control, or responsibility, lies. Leaders with a high internal locus of control believe what happens to them is a result of their own actions and they take responsibility accordingly. Leaders with a high external locus of control believe outside forces determine what happens to them and tend to blame others for mistakes and mishaps. These people are less likely to succeed in effectively leading others.

A leader who exhibits a high internal locus of control owns and takes responsibility for a decision he or she makes, its outcome, and its consequences. Take a quick online quiz to get a sense of your locus of control (http://www.psych.uncc.edu/pagoolka/LC.html (http://www.psych.uncc.edu/pagoolka/LC.html) ).

Narcissism

Narcissists have a grandiose sense of self-importance. They are arrogant and are always seeking admiration and attention. More extreme narcissists believe the world revolves around them. Oracle’s® CEO Larry Ellison has been described as having a high level of narcissistic tendencies. One of his executives said, “The difference between God and Larry is that God does not believe he is Larry” (Maccoby, 2000, p. 70). It is not surprising that some narcissists are more charismatic than other leaders (Sosik, Chun, & Zhu, 2014).

Most would agree that Ellison is a successful leader—Oracle is among the top software companies in the world—but narcissists are generally less favorable leaders. Narcissists in the workplace talk down to and belittle people who challenge them, and tend to create toxic environments. In extreme cases, narcissistic leaders can literally destroy companies. We can return to Enron as an example, as former CEO Jeff Skilling could possibly have been such an extreme narcissist. He manipulated �inancial statements and information to suit his needs and formed a clique around himself of

6/21/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUMGT380.15.1?sections=ch03,ch03sec3.1,ch03sec3.2,ch03sec3.3,ch03sec3.4,ch03sec3.5,ch03sec3.6,ch03su… 13/20

Superstock/Superstock

The term Mach is derived from Niccolò Machiavelli’s 16th- century book The Prince and refers to those who gain and use power without regard to consequences. Machiavelli wrote “the ends justify the means.”

Enron traders and aggressive followers whom he liked and could manipulate. He acted in his own self-interest, without regard to ethics or other people, and forced Enron’s spectacular downfall.

Manufacturing conglomerate Tyco provides another example. The company came under �ire in 2002 when it was discovered that then-chairman and CEO Dennis Kozlowski was using company money for personal luxuries. For example, Kozlowski hosted lavish parties imitating ancient Roman settings and once gave a $2 million birthday party for his wife on the Italian island of Sardinia, at Tyco’s expense. He was also found to have purchased a $6,000 shower curtain with company funds (Crawford, 2005). Kozlowski was sentenced in 2005 to a lengthy prison sentence for stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from Tyco, but the company spent years working to repair its reputation.

However, as we saw with Oracle’s Ellison, narcissists do not necessarily leave scandals in their wake. In a Harvard Business Review article, Maccoby (2000) described what he called “productive narcissists”:

Leaders such as former General Electric chairman and CEO Jack Welch or �inancier and philanthropist George Soros are examples of productive narcissists. They are gifted and creative strategists who see the big picture and �ind meaning in the risky proposition of changing the world and leaving behind a legacy. Indeed, one reason we look to productive narcissists in times of great transition is that they have the audacity to push through the massive transformations that society periodically undertakes.

Maccoby (2000) noted that productive narcissists may become unproductive when they become “unrealistic dreamers”—people who are unable to see things as they really are. Productive narcissists can become unrealistic dreamers because they are poor listeners, are sensitive to criticism, lack empathy, dislike mentoring, and possess an intense desire to compete. Exhibiting these types of behaviors and lack of skills does not contribute to effective goal attainment or meaningful in�luence on followers.

Maccoby (2000) suggests that such individuals �ind a trusted sidekick who can help anchor them—and that they get therapy.

Machiavellianism (Mach)

Machiavellianism (Mach) is named for Niccolò Machiavelli, who, in the 16th century, wrote a book about how to get and use power. The term Mach (short for Machiavellianism) refers to those who gain and use power without regard to the consequences. Machiavelli once noted “let the ends justify the means.”

Take Bill, for instance. Bill is a real go-getter. He is the youngest supervisor for a large �inancial services �irm, and has had two promotions in the last two years. A vice president who knows Bill commented, “Bill is a nice guy, but he’ll do anything it takes to get ahead. I know he’s thrown a couple of guys who were competing for his position under the bus. We like that spirit and energy, but it may do him in if he isn’t careful.” Bill may be what theorists call a high Mach, or someone who shows more Machiavellian behaviors. High Machs tend to be more aggressive and, in terms of ethics, act in nonconstructive ways in the workplace with their manipulative behavior (O’Boyle, Forsyth, Banks, & McDaniel, 2012; Hartog & Belschak, 2012). Take the Mach assessment (at http://www.amanet.org/training/articles/Ethical- Leadership-Self-Assessment-How-Machiavellian-Are-You.aspx (http://www.amanet.org/training/articles/Ethical- Leadership-Self-Assessment-How-Machiavellian-Are-You.aspx) and see how you score.

Research shows that high Machs are more manipulative. They tend to persuade others rather than be persuaded. High Machs like their work less than low Machs and are often more stressed and involved in deviant work behaviors (Christie & Geis, 1970)—but they also tend to win.

Scoring high on the Mach assessment does not mean that you are immoral or sinister. A high Mach score may indicate that you are more detached and not as personally engaged with others. High Machs may see life as a game and use pragmatic and manipulative means to excel. Thus, high Machs seem to prosper when face-to-face interaction is prevalent over

6/21/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUMGT380.15.1?sections=ch03,ch03sec3.1,ch03sec3.2,ch03sec3.3,ch03sec3.4,ch03sec3.5,ch03sec3.6,ch03su… 14/20

indirect communication; when situations have minimal rules and regulations, allowing for more improvisation; and when winning can be achieved without emotional involvement in details (Christie & Geis, 1970). High Machs, then, succeed more in situations where the ends justify the means, where regulations are ambiguous to nonexistent, and where the stakes (monetary or other material gain) are high. Whether or not they cross the line from ethical to unethical or legal to illegal behaviors and actions is not an inherent part of being a high Mach. It may simply be one risk a high Mach faces. See “Take the Lead: The Conundrum of the Superstar Employee.”

Take the Lead Credits

6/21/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUMGT380.15.1?sections=ch03,ch03sec3.1,ch03sec3.2,ch03sec3.3,ch03sec3.4,ch03sec3.5,ch03sec3.6,ch03su… 15/20

Paula Loop de�ines the concept personal brand and discusses its importance in today’s job market. She addresses the goal of creating a personal brand that is unique, authentic, and accurate.

Personal Branding in Today's Job Market

Critical Thinking Questions

What is a personal brand? Do leaders and professionals have a personal brand in organizations? Explain and offer an example. Why is deliberating creating and nurturing a personal/professional brand as a leader important? Explain how personality theory and the MBTI help create a personal/professional brand.

3.5 Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) Personality affects perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors. Understanding our own personality and the personality of others with whom we live and work can help everyone, because personality affects job satisfaction, relationships, and performance (Yukl, 2011). Although personality assessments are not the only way of discovering who we are, the more reliable and valid ones, such as the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), add additional insights into our strengths and areas for development. Generally, personality assessments provide a range of scores on particular dimensions. For example, a person is not completely scored as an extrovert or introvert, but will typically score a certain percentage higher of one dimension than another.

A goal of taking and understanding any assessment, particularly the ones in this chapter, is personal and professional development. What we do not know, we cannot manage, improve, or perhaps change. As you read and take the assessments here, as in other chapters of this text, re�lect on these scores with the goal of self- improvement and developing your leadership potential.

The Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) personality assessment offers a more complete pro�ile of how different personality dimensions, taken together, can help leaders evaluate and gain insights into the general effectiveness and ineffectiveness of their behaviors. The MBTI is the most widely used assessment worldwide (Kennedy & Kennedy, 2004). Almost 90% of Fortune 100 companies report using this instrument, including AT&T, 3M, General Electric, Citigroup, Apple, and FedEx. It is also used by the U.S. armed forces and other organizations. Although research does not validate the MBTI’s effect on leadership effectiveness, the assessment is used to help leaders better understand and appreciate themselves and their followers.

For example, let’s say you’re a hiring manager and you have two quali�ied candidates to choose from for a leadership position. In his former company, Terrence was a company vice president. He is shy and soft-spoken, but is known for his behind-the-scenes skill of quietly in�luencing others for the good of the company. The other candidate, Sarah, on the other hand, is far more outspoken and can even be confrontational. She has a knack for persuading others to work harder. Who is the more effective leader?

There is no obvious answer to this question, except for perhaps “it depends.” It depends on parts of all the leadership theories, concepts, and approaches in this book. We will discuss this in more depth throughout the text, but for now we will consider this question from the perspective of these two individuals’ personalities. The MBTI can help break down these personalities to �igure out what is the right �it for particular organizational goals and cultures.

The MBTI consists of 100 questions. It classi�ies individuals as:

Extraverted (E) or Introverted (I). Extraverts are generally sociable, outgoing, and assertive. They gain energy from being around others. Introverts are generally quieter and sometimes shy and gain energy by focusing internally on their thoughts and feelings.

Building a Strong Personal Brand

  0:00 / 5:48 1x © Infobase. All Rights Reserved. Length: 05:48

6/21/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUMGT380.15.1?sections=ch03,ch03sec3.1,ch03sec3.2,ch03sec3.3,ch03sec3.4,ch03sec3.5,ch03sec3.6,ch03su… 16/20

Comstock/Stockbyte/Thinkstock

Level 5 Leadership is de�ined as a blend of deep personal humility and intense professional will.

Intuitive (N) or Sensing (S). Intuitive types focus on the big picture and look for patterns and relationships. They are visionaries. Sensing types use their �ive senses to gather information. They are more fact and detail oriented. Feeling (F) or Thinking (T). Feeling types focus on emotions, values, and others’ feelings. Thinking types focus on logic and objectivity in making decisions. Perceiving (P) or Judging (J). Perceiving types desire more information and data in order to make a decision. They enjoy ambiguity and complexity. Judging types like closure, certainty, and deadlines in making decisions quickly on limited data.

Personalities are thus described in terms of varying combinations of these four categories. Each has its own strengths, weaknesses, and typical behaviors, which come with potential positive and negative consequences. If you take the MBTI assessment online, re�lect on how accurately the pro�ile describes you. Can you observe how your personality may relate to your leadership style and in�luence?

It is possible that you are not completely in one category or another. For example, you may fall somewhere in between being an extravert and an introvert, but your results label you an extravert because you happen to lean more in that direction. Note, also, that these types are not unchangeable. As individuals age and gain more experience and expertise, their types usually change.

Answer the MBTI questions at http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes2.asp (http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes2.asp) and read your pro�ile from the 16 types at http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personalitytype/mbti-basics/the-16-mbti-types.asp (http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/the-16-mbti-types.asp) . Re�lect on your results as you read this text.

There is no magic combination of letters that guarantees a better leader, but studies have revealed some trends. Limited research suggests that judging and thinking appear most related to effective leadership. Most leaders studied are judging types, and even organizations that would seem to value “feeling” more highly—such as counseling centers—tend to select thinking types as managers (Daft, 2011). A book titled Pro�iles of Genius, by Landrum (1993), examined 13 founders of highly successful companies, such as Sony®, Microsoft®, Apple, and Honda, and found that most were NTs (intuitive thinkers)—a type found in only 5% of the U.S. population.

Other tentative research �indings include:

Intuitive leaders are the majority in �ields and organizations that involve long-term planning and breaking new ground. Sensing types are the majority in the construction, manufacturing, and banking �ields, where immediate and tangible preferences are valued over intuitive styles (Daft, 2011).

Of course, not all successful leaders or managers come from the same mold or �it the same stereotypes. Darwin Smith, who was CEO of the paper-products company Kimberly-Clark from 1971 to 1991, was described as “shy, awkward, shunning attention.” However, Good to Great author Jim Collins (2005) described Smith as having what Collins termed “Level 5 leadership,” a blend of “deep personal humility” with “intense professional will.” Collins wrote that Smith “showed iron will” as he turned the company into a “worldwide leader in its industry, generating stock returns 4.1 times greater than the general market.” It might be that Smith, like the shy vice president Bob in our hypothetical example at the beginning of this discussion, had other characteristics (like iron will) that may or may not have been re�lected in a personality assessment. He could also have had the right mix of experience, attitudes, and skills that matched the organization (Kimberly-Clark) at the right time in its life cycle. Had Smith taken the MBTI, he might have con�irmed that his personality pro�ile identi�ied his organizational style accurately.

6/21/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUMGT380.15.1?sections=ch03,ch03sec3.1,ch03sec3.2,ch03sec3.3,ch03sec3.4,ch03sec3.5,ch03sec3.6,ch03su… 17/20

3.6 Entrepreneurial Leadership What do leaders like Elon Musk, Melinda Gates, Jeff Bezos, Oprah Winfrey, Beyonce Knowles-Carter, Richard Branson, and Taylor Swift have in common? They are entrepreneurial risk takers who innovate.

Entrepreneurial leaders organize and initiate new, innovative ventures and business practices, assuming much of the responsibility and risk in hope of maximum reward (Daft, 2011; Kuratko & Hodgetts, 1998). These people can range from business magnates like those mentioned above to small-business owners who may not be in the news. Some college and university students have become entrepreneurial leaders: Microsoft’s Bill Gates, Google’s Larry Page and Sergey Brin, and Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg were university students when they started their companies. All had the same thing in common: vision, enterprise, and a willingness to take risks. They also think and act outside the box. Their behaviors can be harmful or dangerous, yet at the same time hold the potential for positive outcomes. It could be argued that without risk, there is little reward. But taking risks does not assume success. Take the assessment on risk taking and entrepreneurial thinking to see how entrepreneurial you are.

Decision Making

Shepherd, Trenton, and Patzelt (2014) reviewed 602 articles, distilled them to 156, and summarized characteristics of entrepreneurs as individuals who are highly diverse and different in their beliefs and desires, which

help explain why some choose to become entrepreneurs and why others choose managerial or other employment-related roles. Relative to nonen trepreneurs, entrepreneurs have higher levels of individualism, openness to change, and self-enhancement and lower levels of power, conformity, security (Holt, 1997), and collectivism (Tan, 2001). Compared to nonentrepreneurs, entrepreneurs also appear to have a more versatile thinking style that balances both linear (i.e., analytic, rational, logical) and nonlinear (i.e., intuitive, creative, emotional) approaches to thinking about a situation (Groves, Vance, & Choi, 2011). Moreover, entrepreneurs are more likely to see situations as relating to personal strengths, representing an opportunity, and representing potential for gain than nonentrepreneurs. (Palich & Bagby, 1995)

These authors present a complex and nuanced picture of entrepreneurial decision making which includes differences in gender, national and cultural heritage, perceptions, emotions and affect, experiences, environmental context and assessments of risk, level of self-ef�icacy, and meta-cognitive thinking. Moreover, entrepreneurs can also be prone to certain biases, such as “overoptimism, overcon�idence, and overreliance on experience.”

Entrepreneurs, compared to nonentrepreneurs (Shepherd et al., 2014), tend to show traits and characteristics higher in individualism, openness to change, and self-enhancement; while demonstrating lower levels of power, conformity, security (Holt, 1997), and collectivism (Tan, 2001). Obviously not all entrepreneurs are alike, but these characteristics serve as a starting point for understanding differences between entrepreneurial and nonentrepreneurial traits and behaviors.

Figure 3.2 illustrates Shepherd’s et al. (2014, p. 14) four dimensions that in�luence entrepreneurial opportunity decision making, based on research in this �ield. The �irst dimension that in�luences opportunity assessment is the individual characteristics of the entrepreneur: their personalities, emotional makeup, biases, and perceptions of the environments.

The second decision entrepreneurs make—whether or not to enter an entrepreneurial career—is in�luenced by individual “aspirations and attitudes, abilities, and opportunity costs.” Besides the �inancial factors needed to start a new venture, Shepherd et al. (2014) state that “perceptions of the self (e.g., identity, abilities, and desires), perceptions of the environment (e.g., hostile, muni�icent), and decision-making tools” (p. 14) are important in�luencers. The third in�luencing factor, or whether or not to exploit an opportunity, involves the degree of planning, the organizational context, the funding, and how the entrepreneur perceived through his or her moral lens and values the anticipated outcomes of the opportunity decision. Finally, whether or not an entrepreneur decides to exit an opportunity depends on the performance of the business as well as personal circumstances and investment reasons. Shepard et al. (2014) also note that other factors such as gender differences, risk assessment, cultural background, and external environment factors also in�luence an entrepreneur’s opportunity assessment decision making.

6/21/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUMGT380.15.1?sections=ch03,ch03sec3.1,ch03sec3.2,ch03sec3.3,ch03sec3.4,ch03sec3.5,ch03sec3.6,ch03su… 18/20

Figure 3.2: Map of entrepreneurial decision-making research

Intrapreneurs

It is important to note that to assume that entrepreneurs only start companies would be limiting the de�inition of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurs who work inside established organizations are called intrapreneurs. Intrapreneurs take risks to create new solutions to develop, extend, and change products and services for competitive advantage. For example, the yellow Post-It notes that are now taken for granted were invented by scientists Spencer Silver and Art Fry, who both worked at 3M. Silver developed the adhesive, and it was Fry who thought to apply this “low-stick” adhesive to a piece of paper. However, even after they designed and readied the Post-It® prototype, it reportedly would be several years before 3M was willing to recognize its value. Silver and Fry were probably one of the �irst intrapreneurs. 3M later instituted a “bootlegging” program, enabling innovative engineers to take time off while at work to experiment with entrepreneurial products. Intrapreneurs may not be as visible as entrepreneurs but they serve a valuable service and function to organizations in terms of all the roles discussed in Chapter 1.

Like the study of leadership, and Figure 1.1, the roadmap for this text, to understand entrepreneurial leadership and intrapreneurs also involves examining the dimensions of persons, processes, and systems—leaders in their environmental contexts.

6/21/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUMGT380.15.1?sections=ch03,ch03sec3.1,ch03sec3.2,ch03sec3.3,ch03sec3.4,ch03sec3.5,ch03sec3.6,ch03su… 19/20

Summary & Resources

Chapter Summary Trait theory and personality theory are central to the study of leadership. It has been said that many organizational cultures re�lect and mimic the personality of their leader(s). The Big Five personality traits are, to date, the most empirically signi�icant cross-cultural indicators of emergent leadership characteristics, job performance, and job satisfaction. Extraversion, conscientiousness, openness, agreeableness, and neuroticism (adjustment) are important indicators of leadership. In addition, the MBTI is one of the most globally used assessments. Although it alone cannot predict effective leadership or leaders, it is useful in developing self-awareness and in helping leaders gain insight into their personalities.

The dark side of leadership can be de�ined as “an ongoing pattern of behaviour exhibited by a leader that results in overall negative organisational outcomes based on the interactions between the leader, follower and the environment. Organisational goals, morale and follower satisfaction are thwarted through the abuse of power and self-interest of the leader” (Slattery, 2009, p. 4). Being aware of the dark side of leadership and being able to take reasonable courses of action are important to followers, the organization, and one’s well-being in an organization. For publicly traded companies the shareholders’ wealth and resources are at stake, and for nonpro�its and other organizations, the well- being of employees and safe-guarding of resources may be at risk. Sometimes toxic leadership and destructive behaviors can be controlled and corrected; sometimes not. Human Resources executives are good resources when it is suspected that top-level leaders may be placing an organization at risk. Attorneys for the organization and members of the board of directors are other such resources.

Other personality characteristics and frameworks, such as EQ (emotional intelligence), self-concept, locus of control, narcissism, Machiavellianism (Mach), and entrepreneurial and intrapreneurial leadership, are also helpful tools and concepts for understanding personal dimensions of leaders and of ourselves. While environmental and contextual factors in�luence entrepreneurial behavior, we also need to understand the personal and emotional makeup of leaders to gage how effectively they relate to themselves and to others in achieving performance goals.

Web Resources Edgar Schein on Corporate Culture

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZB3jJlGWuk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZB3jJlGWuk)

A leading organizational culture thinker discusses his latest thinking on corporate culture.

Critical Thinking Questions 1. What leadership traits are still important to consider when evaluating a leader’s personal effectiveness? Explain. 2. Can leaders who do not show high levels on the positive dimensions of the Big Five personality characteristics be

effective in their roles? Explain. 3. Argue the pros and cons of the importance of emotional intelligence to effective leadership. 4. Explain how your MBTI pro�ile offers both effective results and potential derailments to your effectiveness as a

leader. 5. Offer examples of leaders in the current business and general news that exemplify different dimensions of the Big

Five personality characteristics. Then explain how the characteristics you identi�ied are helping or hindering their effectiveness.

6. Identify a leader(s) in the news who has exhibited “dark side” characteristics. Explain the situation and evidence that this is the case. Were there any consequences from that leader’s negative or destructive behaviors?

7. Compare and contrast your own evolving or current leadership style with the characteristics of entrepreneurial leaders. Use concepts from the text in your comparison and contrast.

6/21/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUMGT380.15.1?sections=ch03,ch03sec3.1,ch03sec3.2,ch03sec3.3,ch03sec3.4,ch03sec3.5,ch03sec3.6,ch03su… 20/20

Key Terms

Big Five personality traits

Emotional Intelligence (EQ)

entrepreneurial leadership

external locus of control

internal locus of control

intrapreneurs

locus of control

Machiavellianism (Mach)

Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)

narcissism

personality

self-awareness

self-concept

self-management

social awareness

Theory X

Theory Y

traits