Business & Finance - Financial markets APA assignment

What do people desire in their leaders? The effect of leadership experience on desired leadership traits

Austin Lee Nichols Department of Business, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain

Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to determine how leadership experience affects the value leaders place on leadership traits. In particular, the author sought to determine if individuals with different amounts of leadership experience deferentially desire traits related to dominance and cooperation. Design/methodology/approach – Participants reported the importance of dominant and cooperative traits for an ideal leader, and reported the number of leadership roles that they had experienced. Findings – The desirability of dominance-related traits decreased as leadership experience increased, but only for women. In contrast, the desirability of cooperation-related traits remained the same, regardless of leadership experience or gender. Practical implications – Overall, these findings suggest leaders learn to desire different traits as they gain leadership experience. Implications of this research may exist in both business and political domains. In business, several leadership outcomes depend on trait desirability. In addition, interview and selection decisions may depend on the leadership experience and gender of the decision-maker. Organizations should carefully select members of the organization to make these critical hiring decisions. In politics, candidates would be wise to consider the leadership experience and gender of constituents in their self-presentation attempts. Originality/value – This research presents the first examination of the effect of leadership experience on the desirability of leader personality traits. In addition, this is one of the first studies to refocus on the dominance/cooperation dichotomy and “ideal” leadership – a promising focus for future trait research. Keywords Gender, Leadership, Experience, Personality, Traits Paper type Research paper

From serving as the captain of a little league baseball team to becoming the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, leadership experience is available throughout life and comes in many different forms. Although research has examined the effects of leadership experience on leaders’ attitudes and behaviors (e.g. Maas, 1950; Schilling, 2007), researchers have not examined how this experience affects the degree to which leaders desire certain personality traits for other leaders. If leadership experience affects trait desirability, and these desired traits predict important leadership outcomes, then leadership selection and promotion may benefit from an examination of the influence experience has on trait desirability.

To date, much research has focussed on implicit leadership theories (ILTs) to understand people’s beliefs about the traits and abilities that characterize a leader (Lord, 1985; Lord et al., 1984, 1986; Schyns and Meindl, 2005). Although some research has examined the effect of certain rater variables on a variety of traits, none has yet to focus on their past leadership experience. To narrow the current investigation, I looked at two traits with contrasting stereotypes, yet consistent importance in the leadership literature: dominance and cooperation.

Leadership & Organization Development Journal Vol. 37 No. 5, 2016 pp. 658-671 ©EmeraldGroup Publishing Limited 0143-7739 DOI 10.1108/LODJ-09-2014-0182

Received 10 September 2014 Revised 10 January 2015 5 May 2015 6 May 2015 Accepted 7 May 2015

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm

658

LODJ 37,5

Dominance and cooperation have always been two of the most important traits in leadership research. Many type theories of leadership relied on this dichotomy (e.g. Katz et al., 1950). Since the early Ohio State and Michigan studies, researchers have characterized leader behavior as either task-oriented (i.e. dominant) or relationship oriented (i.e. cooperative; Fleishman, 1953; Katz and Kahn, 1952; Katz et al., 1950). Since then, evolutionary theorizing has suggested that dominance has become less desired and useful in contemporary leadership contexts, while cooperation has become more necessary (Van Vugt, 2006, 2009a; Van Vugt and Ahuja, 2010; Van Vugt et al., 2008).

The current research sought to examine how a person’s past leadership experience affects the value s/he places on leadership traits. Individuals who select leaders often vary in their own leadership experience. Some companies assign a low-level manager to hire new leadership in their companies while other companies assign this responsibility to the head of the company. If leaders of different experience levels desire different leadership traits, the person making the decision to hire or promote may significantly affect whom the company chooses for the job. Therefore, the main research question was, “Does leadership experience affect trait desirability?” To examine this question, participants in the current study rated the desirability of 12 traits – related to either dominance or cooperation – for an ideal leader and reported their leadership experience.

Personality and leadership As defined by McCrae and Costa (1990), traits are “dimensions of individual differences in tendencies to show consistent patterns of thoughts, feelings, and actions” (p. 23). As do general trait theories (Eysenck, 1967), leadership trait theories have a long, rich history in the literature (Carlyle, 1849). Thomas Carlyle’s (1849) “great man” theory represents the first of many theories that focussed on the personality of leaders as predictors of leadership and organizational success. Despite the attention given to these early theories, Stogdill’s (1948) review of the research concluded that no one set of traits successfully and consistently distinguished between people with vs those without leadership positions.

Although most researchers no longer subscribe to great man theories, leadership scholars have amassed a large amount of support for the usefulness of personality in leadership research (DeRue et al., 2011; Judge et al., 2009; Zaccaro, 2007). Recent approaches move beyond an examination of singular personality traits to a more categorical approach that groups similar traits together into personality factors (e.g. Judge et al., 2002). Despite hundreds of leadership trait studies over almost 200 years, the focus on the desirability of these traits is relatively recent (Lord et al., 1984).

ILTs presented the first examination of people’s perceptions of leadership traits (Lord, 1985; Lord et al., 1984, 1986; Schyns and Meindl, 2005). An important distinction between ILTs and the current research is the focus on “typical” vs “ideal” leaders (Nichols and Cottrell, 2014). For the most part, ILTs focus on an individual’s representation, or schema, of a “typical” leader, seeking to distinguish between traits people perceive a leader vs a follower to possess (Lord et al., 1984). Generally, ILT researchers ask participants to think of a “typical” leader and report what traits they perceive to be “characteristic” of that leader. However, research suggests that people’s ideal leader differs from their ILTs and is more useful in the prediction of many organizational outcomes (Nichols and Cottrell, 2014). Similarly, participants in the current research consider the ability to create an “ideal” leader and report what traits are most important for this leader to possess.

659

What do people desire

in their leaders?

Leadership experience In one of the first studies examining the effects of leadership experience, students demonstrated increased understanding and acceptance of young people’s behavior after a leadership experience (Maas, 1950). In addition, students who initially reported poor self-adjustment significantly improved on this dimension after their experience. This suggests leadership experience can benefit leaders’ attitudes toward their followers as well as attitudes toward themselves.

More recently, research has examined how leadership experience affects leaders’ attitudes toward leadership. Results suggest that leadership experience is positively associated with an optimistic view of leadership, suggesting leaders’ attitudes regarding leadership may change as they gain more leadership experience (Schilling, 2007). Therefore, attitudes toward others, oneself, and even the concept of leadership appear to change as people gain leadership experience.

In addition to changes in leaders’ attitudes, research has also examined how leadership experience affects leaders’ behaviors. Evidence suggests more experienced leaders are more effective than those with less experience (Avery et al., 2003). However, there are certain types of experience that best predict performance and effectiveness. Specifically, the relevance of a leader’s previous positions appear to be the most important determinant for performance, while time in service and number of previous positions does not significantly predict performance (Bettin and Kennedy, 1990). Regarding leaders’ effectiveness, the relevance of the experience and amount of experience in the subordinate’s job are the strongest predictors (Avery et al., 2003).

Overall, leadership experience clearly changes people in a variety of ways – from the way people think to the way they act. Although research has examined the effects of leadership experience on a variety of attitudes and behaviors, it has not sufficiently examined how this experience affects the traits leaders desire in other leaders.

Current research Since people’s desires and intentions often predict how they will behave, it is reasonable to expect that leaders will make selection decisions based on the desirability that they place on certain personality traits (Kashima et al., 1998). Although many leadership schemas are generally consistent across raters and time (Epitropaki and Martin, 2004), variables such as culture (Ayman and Korabik, 2010; Gerstner and Day, 1994), aspects of the leader (Offermann et al., 1994), and aspects of the rater (Roets and Van Hiel, 2009) do affect the traits inherent in people’s schemas. This suggests different people expect different qualities in their leaders. Since trait desirability significantly affects several important organizational outcomes, it is important to understand what affects trait desirability (Nichols and Cottrell, 2014). Although some research has examined the effects of situational variables on trait desirability, few have considered the role that individual differences play. The focus of the current research is to remedy this gap in the research by examining how the amount of leadership experience affects the desirability of leadership traits.

One can conceptualize experience in a variety of ways. In the current study, the measure of choice was number of positions (Bettin and Kennedy, 1990). The reasons for this choice were threefold. First, an abundance of research suggests that tenure measurements are poor predictors of leadership outcomes and do not meaningfully predict leadership (Bettin and Kennedy, 1990; Fiedler, 1970). Second, although experience relevance consistently predicts leadership outcomes, it is not applicable in the current study because the current research question did not focus on performance

660

LODJ 37,5

as an outcome, a requirement to determine a reference point by which to measure relevance. Third, number of positions best reflected the current conceptualization of experience. A leader who has experienced only his/her current position is less likely to change his/her desirability vs a leader who has experienced numerous different positions. Although simply referred to as leadership experience, it is this diversity of experiences that, I believe, changes peoples’ desires over time.

To begin an examination of the effects of leadership experience on leader trait desirability, the current study focussed on traits related to separate aspects of leadership – dominance and cooperation. In addition to their long history in the leadership literature, these traits are more important than ever to examine due to the recent importance placed on cooperativeness in many of the newest and most popular leadership theories (e.g. authentic leadership: Avolio and Gardner, 2005; evolutionary leadership: Van Vugt et al., 2008; leader-member exchange: Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995; transformational leadership: Bass, 1985). The current examination seeks to examine if individuals desire cooperativeness (vs dominance) in a way consistent with its demonstrated importance in leadership theory and practice. In addition, the investigation examines if leadership experience affects the desirability of these traits.

Dominance and cooperation The first attempts to categorize leader behaviors resulted in two leading research universities coming to similar conclusions but using different terminology. The Ohio State studies categorized behaviors as either initiating structure or consideration while the Michigan studies labeled them production orientation and employee orientation (Fleishman, 1953; Katz and Kahn, 1952). Although these categories specifically focus on whether behaviors intend to accomplish a task or satisfy employees, dominant or cooperative personality traits elicit these behaviors.

In the current research, I define dominance as having influence in social contexts (Anderson and Kilduff, 2009). In contrast, I define cooperation as the extent to which a party will pursue mutually compatible interests rather than acting opportunistically (Parkhe, 1993). Both dominance and cooperation have emerged in the research literature as traits important for successful leaders (Bartol, 1974; De Cremer and van Knippenberg, 2005).

Leaders are responsible for directing the actions of others towards a shared goal. This becomes a very challenging task without some impression of dominance. Accordingly, I expect traits related to dominance will be highly valued in an ideal leader. In addition, because most individuals without leadership experience likely think of leaders as being “in charge,” they will likely desire a dominant leader.

Many variables affect individuals’ perceptions and valuation of their leaders (Roets and Van Hiel, 2009; Schyns and Sanders, 2007). Specifically, the current examination focusses on raters’ personal leadership experience. It is likely that dominance becomes less desired as leadership experience increases because leaders may learn that dominance alone in not sufficient to be an effective leader. Therefore, I expect that the desirability of dominance in leaders will either remain constant or decrease as leaders gain leadership experience:

H1. As leadership experience increases, the desirability of leader dominance will decrease.

It also seems necessary for leaders to be cooperative in achieving the “shared goal,” and successful leaders often express traits related to cooperation (De Cremer and

661

What do people desire

in their leaders?

van Knippenberg, 2005). In addition, evolutionary views of leadership suggest leadership has evolved from a more dominant focussed role to a more cooperative position (Van Vugt, 2006, 2009a; Van Vugt and Ahuja, 2010; Van Vugt et al., 2008). Although leaders may be able to motivate through sheer dominance alone, hands-on leadership experience likely teaches leaders that motivating others is easier when the leader is cooperative, an idea consistent with evolutionary theorizing (Van Vugt, 2006, 2009a; Van Vugt and Ahuja, 2010; Van Vugt et al., 2008). In addition, interpersonally skilled leaders often find more success than aloof, uncooperative leaders (Bennis and Nanus, 1985; Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995; Kouzes and Posner, 2007; Walumbwa et al., 2008). Thus, people should either consistently desire cooperation or increasingly desire it as they gain leadership experience:

H2. As leadership experience increases, the desirability of leader cooperativeness will increase.

Recent evolutionary perspectives have also explored gender differences in leadership (Balliet et al., 2011; Van Vugt, 2009b; Van Vugt et al., 2007; Van Vugt and Spisak, 2008). Specifically, the male warrior hypothesis suggests that men and women evolved different propensities for aggression or cooperation based on the role they have historically played in small groups –men have evolved to be more competitive while women have evolved to be more cooperative (Balliet et al., 2011; Van Vugt, 2009b; Van Vugt et al., 2007; Van Vugt and Spisak, 2008). The research on gender and power also suggests that men place more importance on values related to power and dominance while women place more importance on benevolence and other cooperative values (Schwartz and Rubel, 2005). Combined with the greater accessibility that men generally have to power resources (Ragins and Sundstrom, 1989), it is reasonable to expect gender to moderate the effect of experience on leader trait desirability. As men evolve into mature leaders, they likely value dominant traits in their leaders while devaluing cooperative traits. In contrast, as women gain leadership experience, they may value cooperativeness more and dominance less:

H3. As leadership experience increases, the desirability of leader dominance will increase for men but decrease for women.

H4. As leadership experience increases, the desirability of leader cooperativeness will decrease for men but increase for women.

Method Participants In all, 195 participants (68 percent women) ranging in age from 18 to 81 years (M¼ 33.02, SD¼ 13.06) participated via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk; Buhrmester et al., 2011). MTurk is an online webpage on which researchers can post-studies, offering some compensation for completion, and people from around the world have the option to complete the study at their convenience. In addition to being used commonly in research (e.g. Basford, 2014; Phillips et al., 2014), research has thoroughly examined and supported its use (Buhrmester et al., 2011; Casler et al., 2013). Participants had experienced between 0 and 16 leadership positions (M¼ 2.35, SD¼ 2.69), and the majority of them were white (54 percent; Asian – 10 percent; Black – 4 percent; Hispanic – 2 percent; other – 30 percent).

Materials and procedure Participants rated the desirability of 12 individual traits related to either dominance or cooperativeness. The instructions participants read were, “We are interested in the

662

LODJ 37,5

characteristics people value in others. That is, if you were to create an ideal Leader, what characteristics would you most want this person to have?” The instructions then read, “Please think for a few minutes about the characteristics that you would want this Leader to have.” Participants then rated the desirability of these 12 individual traits for this “ideal leader” on a nine-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“not at all important”) to 9 (“extremely important”); the specific nature of the leadership context and the gender of the leader was not unspecified. Six of these traits related to dominance: dominant, assertive, ambitious, goal oriented, self-assured, and self-confident, α¼ 0.73, while six related to cooperation: cooperative, fair, agreeable, pleasant, supportive, and helpful, α¼ 0.76). In addition to alpha values, the results of a principal components analysis with varimax rotation suggested that a two-factor solution fit the data well, and supported the treatment of these 12 items as two six-item factors in the following analyses (see Table I).

Next, participants reported the number of leadership positions they have had by responding to “How many different leadership positions have you held (e.g. managerial/ supervisory positions, religious leadership, community service leadership)?” Again, the operationalization of experience was the number of positions (Bettin and Kennedy, 1990) and represents the amount of different experiences that participants had. Although experience in the current study consisted of a single item, this should not be viewed as a methodological limitation, as most experience studies have measured the concept with a single item (e.g. Solansky, 2014). In addition, substantial evidence suggests that measuring a construct with a single item can be just as valid and reliable as using longer scales (Nagy, 2002). Finally, participants answered demographic questions, were debriefed, and dismissed. See Table II for means, standard deviations, and correlations among all variables of interest.

Results The analyses began by focussing on the effects of several demographic variables on leadership positions to ensure the measure of leadership experience did not serve as a proxy for another participant-related variable. Logically, older participants reported experience in more leadership positions, r¼ 0.18, p¼ 0.01. However, there were no significant differences in leadership positions between males and females, t(190)¼ 0.45, p¼ 0.65 (Males:M¼ 2.48, SD¼ 2.81; Females:M¼ 2.30, SD¼ 2.64). In addition, neither

Component 1 2

Helpful 0.784 0.195 Pleasant 0.742 0.209 Supportive 0.724 0.254 Agreeable 0.695 0.282 Cooperative 0.647 0.195 Fair 0.397 −0.056 Self-confident −0.032 0.786 Self-assured 0.128 0.762 Goal oriented 0.176 0.594 Ambitious 0.313 0.577 Dominant 0.108 0.557 Assertive 0.325 0.542

Table I. Results of the

principal components analysis with

varimax rotation

663

What do people desire

in their leaders?

participant ethnicity, F(4, 185)¼ 0.66, p¼ 0.62, η2¼ 0.01, nor education, F(4, 184)¼ 1.25, p¼ 0.29, η2¼ 0.03, predicted leadership experience. Therefore, age was the only measured variable that related to participants’ reported number of leadership positions.

Primary analyses A repeated measures analysis of variance with trait type (cooperative or dominant) as the within-subjects independent variable, participant gender as the between-subjects categorical independent variable, number of leadership positions as the continuous between-subjects independent variable, and trait desirability as the dependent variable examined the effects of leadership experience on trait desirability (see Table III). The results revealed a significant trait type× leadership positions× participant gender interaction, F(1, 188)¼ 4.09, p¼ 0.04, η2¼ 0.02 (see Figures 1 and 2).

To dissect this interaction, I adopted a two-stage least squares regression approach, as this technique controls for both endogeneity and common method bias (Antonakis et al., 2010; Podsakoff et al., 2012). Specifically, I performed 2SLS regressions with participant’s age and if they had previously hired an employee before or not as the instrumental variables, number of leadership positions as the independent (endogenous) variable, and either the desirability of cooperative traits or dominant traits as the dependent variable. Results suggested that, as leadership experience

Source Type III sum of squares df Mean square F p η2

Tests of within-subjects effects Trait 0.21 1.00 0.21 0.29 0.59 0.00 Trait× gender 0.01 1.00 0.01 0.01 0.91 0.00 Trait× lead positions 0.54 1.00 0.54 0.76 0.39 0.00 Trait× gender× lead positions 2.90 1.00 2.90 4.09 0.04 0.02 Error (trait) 133.19 188.00 0.71

Tests of between-subjects effects Intercept 8,750.81 1.00 8,750.81 4,335.47 0.00 0.96 Gender 10.34 1.00 10.34 5.13 0.02 0.03 Lead positions 2.14 1.00 2.14 1.06 0.30 0.01 Gender× lead positions 1.37 1.00 1.37 0.68 0.41 0.00 Error 379.46 188.00 2.02

Table III. Results of ANOVA

Variable Mean (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Age 33.02 (13.06) 2. Education 4.49 (1.28) 0.00 3. Ethnicity 3.45 (1.13) −0.12 0.20** 4. Gender 0.68 (0.47) 0.13 −0.08 −0.17* 5. Hired 0.62 (0.49) 0.18* 0.17* −0.06 0.01 6. Lead positions 2.35 (2.69) 0.18* 0.06 −0.10 −0.03 0.26** 7. Cooperative (α¼ 0.73) 6.83 (1.26) 0.00 −0.13 0.00 0.22** −0.08 −0.09 8. Dominant (α¼ 0.76) 6.92 (1.11) −0.12 −0.05 0.07 0.08 0.00 −0.08 0.47** Notes: *po0.05; **po0.01

Table II. Correlations among all variables of interest

664

LODJ 37,5

increased, the desirability of dominance-related traits decreased for women, β¼−0.60, p¼ 0.03. However, leadership experience did not affect men’s desire for dominant traits in a leader, β¼ 0.92, p¼ 0.19. Additionally, experience did not change men’s, β¼−0.11, p¼ 0.83, or women’s, β¼−0.33, p¼ 0.21, views of cooperativeness.

Discussion Experience in a leadership role affords people many unique opportunities and changes people in a number of ways – from changes in attitudes to changes in

7.5

7.3

7.1

6.9

6.7

6.5

6.3

6.1

5.9

5.7

5.5 1 2 3

Leadership Experience

Dominant Cooperative

D es

ira bi

lit y

4 5 6 7

Figure 1. Effect of leadership

experience on trait desirability

among men

7.5

7.3

7.1

6.9

6.7

6.5

6.3

6.1

5.9

5.7

5.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Leadership Experience

Dominant Cooperative

D es

ira bi

lit y

Figure 2. Effect of leadership

experience on trait desirability among women

665

What do people desire

in their leaders?

behaviors (Maas, 1950; Bettin and Kennedy, 1990). One additional change that may occur with leadership experience is a transformation in the desire people place on certain characteristics for an ideal leader. This becomes especially important to consider when leaders with varying experiences make leadership hiring and promotion decisions. The results of the current research suggest this change, in fact, does occur but only for women. As leadership experience increased, the desirability of dominant traits decreased for women while the desirability of cooperative traits remained stable for both men and women.

These findings highlight a change that may occur in people as they obtain leadership experience. That is, people may learn more about what it takes to be a good leader as they gain more leadership experience. This creates a change in the desirability of different leadership traits. The traits examined here – dominance and cooperation – are traits important in leaders, yet many with little experience may only view dominance as a central leadership trait. This view may come from the history of leadership roles and practices required many years ago (Van Vugt, 2006, 2009a; Van Vugt and Ahuja, 2010; Van Vugt et al., 2008). It appears, as people gain leadership experience, they may come to more accurately desire the traits found to be important in leaders.

Limitations and future directions One limitation of the current research is that it relied on participants self-reported leadership experience. That is, there is no proof that a participant reporting ten past leadership positions in fact had ten positions. However, these types of claims are rarely verifiable despite the populations sampled from or the nature of the research. In addition, as responses were confidential and compensation did not rely on their reported leadership experience in the current study, participants had little reason to respond dishonestly.

As recent research suggests that it is important to consider traits and behaviors (DeRue et al., 2011), future research can advance this research by also examining behaviors, in addition to traits. Specifically, research might consider examining how experience affects the desirability of certain leadership behaviors. In addition, it would be interesting to understand if experience affects the desirability of traits more or less than behaviors.

Future research would also benefit from examining different types of leadership experience. Past research suggests certain effects of leadership experience may rely on the type of experience gained (Avery et al., 2003). Likewise, the type of experience gained by leaders may have an effect on the desirability of different traits. Future research should consider exactly why leadership experience causes this change in trait desirability, and what makes this unique to women. I have suggested leaders learn what is important in a successful leader as they progress through their leadership experiences, and it is possible that men and women have difference experiences as leaders. Future research will need to test this and any alternative hypotheses.

The greatest benefit to this line of research would be data that allow researchers to make stronger causal claims regarding the relationships observed in the current research. The current design was cross-sectional, leaving the possibility that trait preferences could predict leadership experience. Although it is much less practical to expect that people accumulate more leadership positions because they value certain leadership traits, it is possible, and future research must examine this. Specifically, longitudinal studies that follow leaders throughout their careers would provide

666

LODJ 37,5

extremely rich data that allow for within-individual examinations of the effects of leadership experience on personality and provide clarity regarding the causal relationship. Combining longitudinal investigations with multisource data would be especially useful to this investigation.

Finally, research must determine if hiring decisions reflect the observed change in leader trait desirability. If leadership experience does affect hiring decisions, companies will need to consider these findings when choosing who is best suited to hire new leaders. As people gain leadership experience, the desirability of traits may become more similar to the traits found to be important to leadership success. If so, companies would be wise to assign leaders with high levels of experience to make hiring decisions regarding leadership positions.

Implications In all, research suggests that positive outcomes result for leaders whose personality more closely relates to the personality desired by subordinates (Nichols and Cottrell, 2014). In addition, the attributes desired by interviewers often play into their hiring decisions (Garcia et al., 2008), as people generally act based on their own desires and intentions (Kashima et al., 1998). Multiple rounds of interviews with multiple people making the final decision often protect higher positions of leadership against this bias. However, when only one person conducts interviews, as is often the case for lower leadership positions, the hiring decision for the position may highly depend on the person interviewing the candidate. Depending on the position the company seeks to fill, the leadership experience of the person making the hiring decision may vary. If trait desirability also varies based on leadership experience, as the current findings suggest, simply changing interviewers may change the hiring decision. Likewise, if the gender of the decision-maker affects what traits they desire, companies should consider gender when choosing interviewers and other hiring personnel.

Findings from the current study result in similar implications for promotion decisions. Interviewer choice may have a large effect on the ultimate decision of who advances to the next level within organizations. Female decision-makers whom have previously held many leadership positions may be more likely to promote people who are less dominant. This is especially important when combined with past research suggesting that the leaders people have previously had affects their promotion decisions (Pazy, 1992). Together, these two sets of results suggest that organizations must take care in choosing people to make promotion decisions, and that opportunities exist to choose people who will highly weight certain characteristics when making promotion decisions.

This research also has possible political implications. It is possible that people consider the congruence between the traits they desire and the traits candidates exhibit when choosing for whom to vote. Therefore, the traits political candidates exhibit may determine how successful they are at obtaining these votes. If the desirability of certain traits changes with the voters’ leadership experience, so may the chances that they elect certain candidates to their desired positions. Political candidates would want to consider the experience of their audience when addressing voters. Winning the vote of the CEO of a Fortune 500 company may require the presentation of different traits than those needed to win the vote of an entry-level manager at the same company. Just as candidates present different impressions to voters in different areas of the voting region, tailoring their messages based on leadership experience may provide a new and fruitful approach to campaigning.

667

What do people desire

in their leaders?

Conclusion Knowing which traits people find important in a leader has possible implications for the selection of a variety of leaders. The current research suggests the more leadership experience female leaders have, the less they desire dominance, while cooperation remains consistently desired regardless of experience. Male leaders, on the other hand, consistently desire both dominance and cooperation. Future research needs to further this line of research and determine why this change occurs and how companies can best utilize this information.

References

Anderson, C. and Kilduff, G.J. (2009), “Why do dominant personalities attain influence in face-to-face groups?”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 2, pp. 491-503.

Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P. and Lalive, R. (2010), “On making causal claims: a review and recommendations”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 1086-1120.

Avery, D.R., Tonidandel, S., Griffith, K.H. and Quiñones, M.A. (2003), “The impact of multiple measures of leader experience on leader effectiveness: new insights for leader selection”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 56 No. 8, pp. 673-679.

Avolio, B.J. and Gardner, W.L. (2005), “Authentic leadership development: getting to the root of positive forms of leadership”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 315-338.

Ayman, R. and Korabik, K. (2010), “Leadership: why gender and culture matter”, American Psychologist, Vol. 65 No. 3, pp. 157-170.

Balliet, D., Li, N., Macfarlan, S. and Van Vugt, M. (2011), “Sex differences in cooperation: a meta-analytic review of social dilemmas”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 137 No. 6, pp. 881-909.

Bartol, K.M. (1974), “Male versus female leaders: the effect of leader need for dominance on follower satisfaction”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 225-233.

Basford, T.E. (2014), “Supervisor transgressions: a thematic analysis”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 79-97.

Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectation, Free Press, New York, NY.

Bennis, W. and Nanus, B. (1985), Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge, Harper Collins, New York, NY.

Bettin, P.J. and Kennedy, J.K. (1990), “Leadership experience and leader performance: some empirical support at last”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 219-228.

Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T. and Gosling, S.D. (2011), “Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality data?”, Perspectives on Psychological Science, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 3-5.

Carlyle, T. (1849), On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History, Houghton-Mifflin, Boston, MA.

Casler, K., Bickel, L. and Hackett, E. (2013), “Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via Amazon’s MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 2156-2160.

De Cremer, D. and van Knippenberg, D. (2005), “Cooperation as a function of leader self-sacrifice, trust, and identification”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 355-369.

DeRue, D.S., Nahrgang, J.D., Wellman, N. and Humphrey, S.E. (2011), “Trait and behavioral theories of leadership: an integration and meta‐analytic test of their relative validity”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 7-52.

668

LODJ 37,5

Epitropaki, O. and Martin, R. (2004), “Implicit leadership theories in applied settings: factor structure, generalizability, and stability over time”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 2, pp. 293-310.

Eysenck, H. (1967), The Biological Basis of Personality, Thomas, Springfield, IL.

Fiedler, F.E. (1970), “Leadership experience and leader performance – another hypothesis shot to hell”, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 1-14.

Fleishman, E.A. (1953), “Leadership climate and human relations training”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 205-222.

Garcia, M.F., Posthuma, R.A. and Colella, A. (2008), “Fit perceptions in the employment interview: the role of similarity, liking, and expectations”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 2, pp. 173-189.

Gerstner, C. and Day, D. (1994), “Cross-cultural comparison of leadership prototypes”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 121-134.

Graen, G.B. and Uhl-Bien, M. (1995), “Relationship-based approach to leadership: developing of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory over 25 years: applying a multi level domain theory”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 219-247.

Judge, T.A., Piccolo, R.F. and Kosalka, T. (2009), “The bright and dark sides of leader traits: a review and theoretical extension of the leader trait paradigm”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 855-875.

Judge, T.A., Bono, J.E., Ilies, R. and Gerhardt, M. (2002), “Personality and leadership: a qualitative and quantitative review”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 4, pp. 765-780.

Kashima, Y., McKintyre, A. and Clifford, P. (1998), “The category of the mind: folk psychology of belief, desire, and intention”, Asian Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 289-313.

Katz, D. and Kahn, R.L. (1952), “Some recent findings in human relations research in industry”, in Swanson, G.E., Newcomb, T.M. and Hartley, E.L. (Eds), Readings in Social Psychology, Holt Rinehart and Winston, New York, NY.

Katz, D., Maccoby, N. and Morse, N. (1950), Productivity, Supervision, and Morale in an Office Situation, Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, MI.

Kouzes, J.M. and Posner, B.Z. (2007), The Leadership Challenge, 4th ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Lord, R.G. (1985), “An information processing approach to social perceptions, leadership perceptions and behavioral measurement in organizations”, in Staw, B.M. and Cummings, L.L. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 7, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 87-128.

Lord, R.G., De Vader, C.L. and Alliger, G.M. (1986), “A meta-analysis of the relation between personality traits and leadership perceptions: an application of validity generalization procedures”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 402-410.

Lord, R.G., Foti, R.J. and de Vader, C.L. (1984), “A test of leadership categorization theory: internal structure, information processing, and leadership perceptions”, Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 343-378.

McCrae, R.R. and Costa, P.T. Jr (1990), Personality in Adulthood, Guilford, New York, NY.

Maas, H.S. (1950), “Attitudinal changes of youth group leaders in teacher training: a preliminary study”, Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 43 No. 9, pp. 660-669.

Nagy, M. (2002), “Using a single-item approach to measure facet job satisfaction”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 75 No. 1, pp. 77-86.

Nichols, A.L. and Cottrell, C.A. (2014), “What do people desire in their leaders? The role of leadership level on trait desirability”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 711-729.

669

What do people desire

in their leaders?

Offermann, L.R., Kennedy, J.K. and Wirtz, P.W. (1994), “Implicit leadership theories: content, structure, and generalizability”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 43-58.

Parkhe, A. (1993), “Strategic alliance structuring: a game theoretic and transaction cost examination of interfirm cooperation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 794-829.

Pazy, A. (1992), “Sex‐linked bias in promotion decisions: the role of candidate’s career relevance and respondent’s prior experience”, Psychology of Women Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 209-228.

Phillips, J.M., Gully, S.M., McCarthy, J.E., Castellano, W.G. and Kim, M.S. (2014), “Recruiting global travelers: the role of global travel recruitment messages and individual differences in perceived fit, attraction, and job pursuit intentions”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 153-201.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2012), “Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 63, pp. 539-569.

Ragins, B.R. and Sundstrom, E. (1989), “Gender and power in organizations: a longitudinal perspective”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 105 No. 1, pp. 51-88.

Roets, A. and Van Hiel, A. (2009), “The ideal politician: impact of voters’ ideology”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 60-65.

Schilling, J. (2007), “Leaders’ romantic conceptions of the consequences of leadership”, Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 56 No. 4, pp. 602-623.

Schwartz, S.H. and Rubel, T. (2005), “Sex differences in value priorities: cross-cultural and multimethod studies”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 6, pp. 1010-1028.

Schyns, B. and Meindl, J.R. (2005), Implicit Leadership Theories: Essays and Explorations, Information Age, Charlotte, NC.

Schyns, B. and Sanders, K. (2007), “In the eyes of the beholder: personality and the perception of leadership”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 37 No. 10, pp. 2345-2363.

Solansky, S. (2014), “Education and experience impact leadership development psychological empowerment”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 35 No. 7, pp. 637-648.

Stogdill, R.M. (1948), “Personal factors associated with leadership: a survey of the literature”, The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 35-71.

Van Vugt, M. (2006), “Evolutionary origins of leadership and followership”, Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 354-371.

Van Vugt, M. (2009a), “Despotism, democracy, and the evolutionary dynamics of leadership and followership”, American Psychologist, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 54-56.

Van Vugt, M. (2009b), “Sex differences in intergroup competition, aggression, and warfare: the male warrior hypothesis”,Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 1167 No. 1, pp. 124-134.

Van Vugt, M. and Ahuja, A. (2010), Selected: Why Some People Lead, Why Others Follow and Why it Matters, Profile Books, London.

Van Vugt, M. and Spisak, B.R. (2008), “Sex differences in the emergence of leadership during competitions within and between groups”, Psychological Science, Vol. 19 No. 9, pp. 854-858.

Van Vugt, M., De Cremer, D. and Janssen, D.P. (2007), “Gender differences in cooperation and competition: the male-warrior hypothesis”, Psychological Science, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 19-23.

670

LODJ 37,5

Van Vugt, M., Hogan, R. and Kaiser, R.B. (2008), “Leadership, followership, and evolution: some lessons from the past”, American Psychologist, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 182-196.

Walumbwa, F.O., Avolio, B.J., Gardner, W.L., Wernsing, T.S. and Peterson, S.J. (2008), “Authentic leadership: development and validation of a theory-based measure”, Journal of Management, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 89-126.

Zaccaro, S.J. (2007), “Trait-based perspectives of leadership”,American Psychologist, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 6-16.

About the author Austin Lee Nichols, PhD is an Assistant Professor (Visiting) at the University of Central Florida. Prior to his current position, he served as a Faculty Member at the University of Florida, KEDGE Business School (formerly Euromed Management), Peking University HSBC School of Business, the University of Navarra, and North South University. He completed his PhD in Social Psychology and MS in Management at the University of Florida. His research interests include leadership, personality, impression management, and methodology. Austin Lee Nichols can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected]

671

What do people desire

in their leaders?

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.