For Prof.Goodman Only

The Big Five Personality Dimensions

Over time, psychologists and organizational behavior researchers have condensed countless personality traits into a list of five major personality dimensions, known as the Big Five ( Barrick and Mount, 1991 ;  Digman, 1990 ;  Norman, 1963 ). Research shows that these five dimensions are consistent components of personality not only in the United States, but in several other cultures as well (e.g.,  Alessandri, 2011 ).  Table 4-4  summarizes the key elements of the Big Five personality dimensions.

Table 4-4 Big Five Personality Dimensions

Personality Dimensions	Description
Conscientiousness	Degree to which a person is dependable, responsible, organized, and plans ahead
Extraversion/Introversion	Degree to which a person is sociable, talkative, assertive, active, and ambitious
Openness to experience	Degree to which a person is imaginative, broad minded, curious, and seeks new experiences
Emotional stability	Degree to which a person is anxious, depressed, angry, and insecure
Agreeableness	Degree to which a person is courteous, likable, good natured, and flexible
Sources: Based on descriptions provided by W. T. Norman, “Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 66 ( 1963 ): 547–583; J. M. Digman, “Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model,” Annual Review of Psychology 41 ( 1990 ): 417–440; and M. R. Barrick and M. Mount, “The five big personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis,” Personnel Psychology 44, no. 1 ( 1991 ): 1–76.

A number of the Big Five personality dimensions have links to work-relevant behaviors such as academic ( Poropat, 2009 ) and career success ( Seibert and Kraimer, 2001 ), the performance of managers who work abroad ( Caligiuri, 2000 ), and use of different types of power ( Karkoulian, Messarra, and Sidani, 2009 ). Additionally, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and emotional stability are found to be related to ethical leadership ( Kalshoven, Den Hartog, and De Hoogh, 2011 ).

However, none alone strongly predicts performance or leadership effectiveness.

Of the five dimensions, conscientiousness is the most strongly correlated to job performance. This connection makes sense: Individuals who are dependable, organized, and hard working tend to perform better in their job. Extraversion is the Big Five dimension with the second-highest correlation to job-related behaviors and is particularly important in jobs that rely on social interaction, such as management or sales ( Anderson, Spataro, and Flynn, 2008 ). It is much less essential for employees working on an assembly line or as computer programmers. Unlike conscientiousness, which can apply to all job levels or occupations, extroversion is not an essential trait for every job, although it appears to be much celebrated in today’s businesses. Susan Cain, author of the book “Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking,” believes that the United States has a bias for extroversion and the ideal person is considered to be extroverted. ( 2013 ). However, introverts can be highly effective. The ability to thoughtfully reflect and listen to others is a highly valuable trait in leaders. Lisa Petrilli, CEO of C-Level strategies, who considers herself to be an introvert, says: “We get our energy from what people refer to as our inner world. That’s very powerful. Ideas really do run businesses” ( Vanderkam, 2012 ).

Openness to experience can help performance in some instances, but not in others. For example, being open to new experiences can help employees and managers perform well in training because they will be motivated to explore fresh ideas and to learn ( Goldstein, 1986 ), and it might help them to be more successful in overseas assignments ( Ones and Viswesvaran, 1999 ). Neville Isdell, CEO of Coca-Cola until 2008 believes that openness to experience is key to leadership. He thinks that students should also learn about cultural differences through a variety of experiences including travel ( Bisoux, 2008b ). In describing the qualities he looks for in new Coca-Cola hires, he adds, “ . . . they also must have a sense of curiosity. They must want to travel and discover new societies and see the world. Curious people are engaged.” Ken Chenault, CEO of AmEx, suggests that being open to change and able to adapt to it are the most important characteristic today’s leaders need to have: “It’s not the strongest or the most intelligent who survive, but those most adaptive to change” ( Chester, 2005 ). But the same eagerness to explore new ideas and ways of doing things can be an impediment to performance on jobs that require careful attention to existing processes and procedures.

As one would expect, emotional stability also is related to job behaviors and performance. At the extreme, individuals who are neurotic are not likely to be able to function in organizations. Some degree of anxiety and worrying, however, can help people perform well because it spurs them to excel. Andy Grove’s (former executive at Intel) book Only the Paranoid Survive: How to Exploit the Crisis That Challenges Every Company and Career is an indication of the sense of anxiety he instilled at Intel to make sure employees perform and the organization excels. Finally, although agreeableness is a highly desirable personality trait in social situations, it generally is not associated with an individual’s work-related behaviors or performance. Furthermore, some recent research suggests that leaders who are higher on emotional stability, extroversion, and agreeableness, while low on conscientiousness, have followers with higher job satisfaction and job commitment ( Smith and Canger, 2004 ).

The most important managerial implication of the Big Five dimensions is that despite the reliability and robustness of the Big Five as measures of personality, no single trait is linked strongly to how well a leader or manager will perform in all types and levels of jobs. The links to leadership that do exist are relatively weak, and even a broad personality measure such as the Big Five alone cannot account for success or failure in the complex leadership process.

Proactive Personality

Do you know someone who routinely identifies opportunities, challenges the status quo, takes initiatives, and perseveres even when blocked by obstacles? No matter what happens, that person stays positive and keeps going. Chances are that the person has a proactive personality (see  Self-Assessment 4-3 ). Proactives take control to influence events in their lives and attribute things that happen to them, particularly positive events, to their own efforts or abilities ( Crant, 2000 ; see  Figure 4-3 ). Such people focus on changing their environment rather than being constrained by it (Bateman and Crant, 1993). Research indicates that proactives have more job satisfaction and a more positive outlook about their career and life ( Crant, 2000 ;  Li, Liang, and Crant, 2010 ;  Seibert, Crant, and Kraimer, 1999 ), have higher life satisfaction ( Greguras and Diefendorff, 2010 ), and are more entrepreneurial (Becherer and Maurer, 1999). The construct has been linked to job performance to a higher extent than the Big Five dimensions ( Fuller and Marler, 2009 ), and there is some cross-cultural research that indicates its applicability in cultures other than the United States and Britain ( Joo and Ready, 2012 ;  Kim, Hon, and Crant, 2009 ). Furthermore, proactivity involves both the setting of goals and the motivation to achieve them (Parker, Bindl, and Strauss, 2010).

Figure 4-3 Characteristics of Proactives

Shelly Provost, a partner at the venture incubator Lamp Post Group, describes fearless entrepreneurs who are often considered proactives as people who speak up, inject energy and enthusiasm into their activities, and are positive, focused and hard working. She says: “The grittiest people don’t just work longer and harder, although that is part of the equation. They keep a laser focus on their goal and say, ‘no thanks,’ to anything that gets in their way” (Haden, 2012). These are all qualities of proactive people. All these characteristics have implications for leadership especially during times when organizations are in need of change and revival. Being proactive is likely to help a leader identify opportunities, encourage followers toward action, and be more motivated to achieve goals, all important aspects of leadership.

Type A

We all know people who appear intense and in a hurry, always busy, and worried about getting things done. These are some of the characteristics of Type A individuals (see  Self-Assessment 4-4 ). Type As are described as people who trying to do more and more in less and less time. As compared with Type Bs, they are involved in a whirlwind of activity. At the heart of the Type A construct is the need for control ( Smith and Rhodewalt, 1986 ;  Strube and Werner, 1985 ). Although the construct was developed in relations to coronary problems as a risk factor for coronary disease, it made its way to psychology and management as a personality factor with implications for work-related behaviors. Generally, when compared to Type Bs, who tend to have less need for control, Type A individuals show a high need for control, a factor that manifests itself in four general characteristics ( Figure 4-4 ).

Figure 4-4 Type A Characteristics and Behaviors

The first Type A characteristic, time urgency, leads Type A individuals to be concerned with time. Being in a hurry, impatience with delays, and worries about time are aspects of time urgency. Jordan Zimmerman, CEO of Zimmerman Advertising, starts his day at 3:30 AM. with a three-hour exercise regimen that he believes gives him energy ( Buchanan, 2010 ). Krissi Bar, founder of the consulting firm Barr Corporate Success, forces herself to work faster: “If I think something is going to take me an hour, I give myself 40 minutes. By shrinking your mental deadlines, you work faster and with greater focus” ( Buchanan, 2010 : 66). Carol Bartz, CEO of Yahoo until 2011, was known for her impatience, need for control, fiery temper, and secrecy (Kamer, 2011). She says she does not like to take too much time to think through issues: “This fits my impatient nature of ‘doing’ very well, and my belief that it’s always worth spending energy on ‘doing’ something better” (Sellers, 2009). The second Type A characteristic is competitiveness. Type A individuals are generally highly competitive in work, social, and sport situations. They measure their outcomes against others and keep track of their performance; getting ahead and winning are major concerns. Legendary Boston Celtics basketball star Larry Bird demonstrated many of the Type A characteristics. When talking about playing against Magic Johnson and his relationship with the LA Lakers star, he states: “I had to have him there as someone I can compare myself to” (Heistand, 2010). The third characteristic, polyphasic behaviors, involves doing several things at once. Although everyone is likely to undertake several activities when pressured, Type As often do so even when not required to by work or other deadlines. For example, they might make a list of specific activities to undertake during a vacation. The last Type A characteristic is hostility. It is the only characteristic still found by researchers to be tied to coronary problems and other health problems ( Alspach, 2004 ). It is manifested in explosive speech, diffused anger, intolerance for delays or mistakes, and a generally fiery, aggressive ( Baron, Neuman, and Geddes, 1999 ), and sometimes malicious style of interaction ( Strube et al., 1984 ). These four sets of characteristics are triggered by the Type A’s need for control and are aimed at providing the Type A with a sense of control over the environment.

Type A characteristics are neither bad nor good. Type As and Type Bs possess certain traits and behaviors that can either be helpful or provide obstacles to being effective leaders; situational requirements are the key. The relationship of Type A to leadership has not been extensively studied, but a number of findings that link Type A behavior to work-related behaviors provide interesting insights. The results of one study suggest that being Type A affects the way CEOs approach organizational strategy ( Nahavandi, Mizzi, and Malekzadeh, 1992 ). Type A executives see more threats in the environment of their organizations and set challenging strategies that still provide them with a sense of control. Furthermore, compared with Type Bs, Type As tend to be poor delegators and generally prefer to work alone ( Miller, Lack, and Asroff, 1985 ). They like to maintain control over all aspects of their work. The lack of delegation can be damaging to a leader and often is considered a major pitfall of management. Furthermore, with the increasing focus on cooperation, use of teams, and empowerment as a leadership style, the inability to delegate can present an obstacle to successful leadership.

Leading Change Jeffrey Katzenberg’s Transformation

Jeffrey Katzenberg could be a poster child for the ambitious, impatient, competitive, angry, and highly successful Type A executive. He held top jobs at Paramount pictures and Disney, where he was responsible for hits such as Aladdin and The Lion King, before being publicly and unceremoniously fired from Disney in 1994. Katzenberg then teamed up with Steven Spielberg and David Geffen to start Dream Works Animation SKG, which has produced even bigger hits, including the Shrek movies and Monsters vs. Aliens. He recently extended his contract as CEO of DreamWorks Animation to 2017 with an annual base salary of $2.5 million (Sniderm, 2012). Aside from his amazing talent and continued success, Katzenberg had a reputation for being demanding, sometimes unreasonable, and having very public outbursts of anger, lashing out at colleagues and Hollywood stars. A Disney official states: “He was a screamer, and he was a shredder and a very tough force to be reckoned with” (Borden, 2009: 106).

Katzenberg seems to have changed, to a great extent as a result of his firing in 1994. He believes that the event was a wake up call that taught him to welcome change (Ten minutes, 2010). Katzenberg fully admits to his drive, which started early in his life. When describing some early leadership experiences he says: “The thing we all actually wished we had more of was time. I’ve never forgotten that. I’m always very punctual, and when I’m not, I have high, high anxiety” ( Bryant, 2009l ). But he has learned to temper his impatience, having become aware of its effects on followers. He uses what he calls a “five-second tape delay” to “self-edit” before he expresses his opinion and is careful to consider that others may not want to work at the same pace he does: “Something that I was kind of oblivious to for a long period of time is that I ended up setting a pace for everyone else, and they assumed if the boss is working 24/7, then we all must work 24/7. That’s not such a good thing because not everyone loves it as much as I do, and it’s not actually how you get the best out of people” ( Bryant, 2009l ). Although still not mellow by most people’s standards, Katzenberg has altered his behavior to focus on valuing those who work for him and keeping some balance in his life and with his wife of 34 years. His biggest leadership lesson is to cultivate his followers: “I started to realize that if I wanted to stay surrounded by great people, I had to get out of their way and create the room and make sure they started to get the recognition and the credit and everything that goes with it. Honestly, it allowed me to stay around longer” ( Bryant, 2009l ).

Sources: Borden, M. 2010. The redemption of an ogre. Fast Company December/January: 104–108; Bryant, A. 2009l. The benefit of a boot out the door. New York Times—Corner Office, November 7.  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/business/08corner.html?_r=1  (accessed on March 2, 2010); Ten minutes that mattered, 2010.  Forbes.com  February 5.  http://www.forbes.com/2010/02/04/disney-dreamworks-shrek-intelligent-technology-katzenberg.html  (accessed on March 2, 2010).

As can be seen in the example of Jeffrey Katzenberg, Type As tend to set high-performance goals and have high expectations for themselves and those around them. Such high expectations may lead to faster promotions at lower organizational levels ( Stewart-Belle and Lust, 1999 ). When taken in a leadership context, such high expectations can lead to high performance and high quality, as well as to overload and burnout when carried to an extreme. The consistency of the findings that Type As like to maintain control, are active and hard working, and tend to be impatient with delays and with their coworkers, however, allows us to consider the potential implications for leadership. These behaviors are similar to the high energy and motivation that  Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991)  propose as central leadership traits. Type A leaders are likely to be intense and demanding, set high-performance standards, and be intolerant of delays and excuses. They also might find it difficult to delegate tasks or work in a team environment. Some recent research suggests that Type As and Type Bs both prefer working in teams made up of others similar to them ( Keinan and Koren, 2002 ). Other research indicates that Type As and Type Bs may be effective in different types of jobs ( Rastogi and Dave, 2004 ). Yet, although some Type A characteristics appear to define effective leaders (i.e., drive, ambition, and energy) others aspects, such as impatience with delays and a tendency to jump into action, are characteristics that do not serve leaders well. One recent study found that Type A personality is related to depression and lower individual performance over time ( Watson, 2006 ).