HIRINING THE BEST

Leadership and Organizational Culture: Linking CEO Characteristics to Cultural Values

Tomas R. Giberson Æ Christian J. Resick Æ Marcus W. Dickson Æ Jacqueline K. Mitchelson Æ Kenneth R. Randall Æ Malissa A. Clark

Published online: 26 April 2009

� Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study was to empirically

examine organizational culture theorists’ assertions about the

linkages between leadership and the cultures that emerge in

the organizations they lead. Specific hypotheses were

developed and tested regarding relationships between chief

executive officers’ (CEO’s) personality traits, and the cultural

values that are shared among their organization’s members.

Design/Methodology/Approach Thirty-two CEOs com-

pleted measures of the Big-Five personality traits and

personal values. A total of 467 employees across the 32

organizations completed a competing values measure of

organizational culture.

Findings Results indicate support for several hypothe-

sized relationships between CEO personality and cultural

values. Exploratory analyses indicated that several CEO

personal values were related to culture values.

Implications Organizations need to seriously consider the

‘‘fit’’ between the current or desired organizational culture

and CEO characteristics. Organizations attempting to

change fundamental aspects of its functioning may need

significant behavioral—or personnel—changes at the top of

the organization in order to achieve those changes.

Originality/Value This is the first empirical study to

establish a link between specific CEO characteristics and

the cultural values of their organizations. This study pro-

vides evidence that CEO characteristics are felt throughout

the organization by impacting the norms that sanction or

discourage member behavior and decision making, and the

patterns of behavior and interaction among members.

Keywords CEO characteristics � Organizational culture � Leadership � ASA theory � Multi-level research

Introduction

Organizational culture is a topic of considerable interest to

organizational researchers, management consultants, and

corporate executives alike. For example, organizational

culture has been described as a management tool (Trice and

Beyer 1993), credited with creating a competitive advan-

tage (Bennis and Nanus 1985), as the reason behind merger

and acquisition failure (Donahue 2001), and for providing

the basis for success (Denison 1990). An organization’s

culture is also thought to be intricately related to its lead-

ership, particularly its upper echelon leaders (e.g., Bennis

1986; Davis 1984; Quinn and McGrath 1984; Schein 2004;

Trice and Beyer 1993). Yet, as Schneider and Smith (2004)

noted, there is plenty of theory suggesting that leaders have

an effect in their organizations, but little empirical study of

the linkages between leaders’ individual differences and

organizational characteristics and success.

Received and reviewed by former editor, George Neuman.

T. R. Giberson (&) Oakland University, 495 C Pawley Hall,

Rochester, MI 48309, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

C. J. Resick

Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

M. W. Dickson � M. A. Clark Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA

J. K. Mitchelson

Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA

K. R. Randall

Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA

123

J Bus Psychol (2009) 24:123–137

DOI 10.1007/s10869-009-9109-1

The dearth of empirical research linking leader charac-

teristics and organizational phenomena, particularly orga-

nizational culture, may be due in part to the difficulties in

obtaining measures of psychological characteristics such as

personality traits from upper echelon leaders. At the same

time, explanation may also lie in the focus of the phenomena

studied by different disciplines. In 1968, L.K. Williams

observed that micro-level characteristics such as personality

and macro-level characteristics such as culture are the

divergent interests of different disciplines (psychology and

cultural anthropology, respectively). Yet Williams went on

to note that ‘‘the simultaneous consideration of personality

and the structure and functioning of the [organiza-

tional] system’’ are critical to understanding organizational

behavior (p. 155). The present study addresses the paucity of

research by examining relationships between CEOs’ per-

sonality traits and the cultural values of the organizations

they lead. Understanding these relationships will advance

theory and practice regarding organizational culture, par-

ticularly as it relates to organizational change and

development.

Organizational Culture and the Competing Values

Model

While the concept of culture as a construct for under-

standing organizational life is in the early stages of evo-

lution (Reichers and Schneider 1990; Rousseau 1990),

societal culture has been studied for decades. Societal

culture explains what things are, how they got that way,

and how they ought to be (Kluckhohn 1942). The answers

to these questions amount to the assumptions and ideolo-

gies that define the content of a particular society’s culture

(Trice and Beyer 1993). The content, consciously or

unconsciously, defines what is and is not acceptable

behavior, and provides guidance and behavioral norms for

members to ensure that the needs of individuals and the

needs of society can coexist (Apter 1964).

In organizations, culture serves a similar function by

addressing shared meaning and interpretation of organiza-

tional events (Louis 1980; Rentsch 1990; Schein 2004).

Organizational culture is a collective phenomenon emerging

from members’ beliefs and social interactions (Schneider

1987; Trice and Beyer 1993), containing shared values,

mutual understandings, patterns of beliefs, and behavioral

expectations (Rousseau 1990) that tie individuals in an

organization together over time (Schein 2004). The beliefs

that are passed down through the organization and taught to

new members are those that have proven effective over time

(Schein), and thus become part of the shared history of the

organization. As such, culture is an integrating mechanism

that guides organizational behavior.

There appears to be a general consensus among organi-

zational researchers that culture manifests in different layers

within an organization along a continuum of accessibility,

ranging from easily observable artifacts to shared values to

deeply held ideologies and assumptions that are difficult to

access (e.g., Rousseau 1990; Schein 2004; Trice and Beyer

1993). While Schein (2004) contended that fundamental

assumptions are the essence of an organization’s culture,

Rousseau (1990) noted that values are perhaps the deepest

layer of culture that can be examined and compared

empirically. Shared values have been a primary focus of

organizational culture research (see O’Reilly and Chatman

1996), as they are believed to facilitate efficient interac-

tions between members, enabling integration and survival

(Meglino and Ravlin 1998). In the current study, we

examine organizational culture through the values shared

among members.

A number of models of cultural values have been pre-

sented in the organizational literature, each offering a dif-

ferent set of values believed to represent organizational

culture (e.g., OCI, Cooke and Lafferty 1987; OCP, O’Reilly

et al. 1991). Moreover, organizational culture theorists

argue that organizations embody a relatively narrow set of

values (Kluckhohn 1951; Schein 2004), and suggest that

specific values are most helpful in understanding organi-

zational processes (Meglino and Ravlin 1998). The com-

peting values model (CVM) of organizational culture

originally presented by Quinn and Kimberly (1984) and

further developed by Cameron et al. (2007) provides a

taxonomy of cultural values that reflect preferred structural

characteristics and desired modes of operation. The CVM of

culture posits that organizations experience competing

tensions along two dimensions: the demands for flexibility

versus stability and control, and a focus on internal main-

tenance versus external competitive positioning (Cameron

et al. 2007). These two dimensions combine to create four

sets of values associated with one of four types of organi-

zational culture, specifically Clan, Adhocracy, Hierarchy,

and Market cultures.

Clan cultures, also referred to as group cultures, combine

a focus on flexibility and internal maintenance. Adhocracy

cultures, also referred to as developmental cultures, com-

bine a focus on flexibility with an emphasis on competitive

positioning. Market cultures, also referred to as rational

cultures, combine an emphasis on stability and control with

competitive market positioning. Finally, hierarchical cul-

tures emphasize stability and internal maintenance (Cam-

eron et al. 2007; Denison and Spreitzer 1991; Quinn and

Kimberly 1984; Zammuto and O’Connor 1992). Cameron

and colleagues went on to note that decisions of upper

echelon leaders regarding internal integration mechanisms

and strategic organizational direction shape the content of

an organization’s culture toward one of the sets of values.

124 J Bus Psychol (2009) 24:123–137

123

The CVM has been rated as one of the 40 most

important management theoretical models (Ten Have et al.

2003) and is used extensively in both practical (see Cam-

eron et al. 2007), and scientific studies of organizational

culture and fit (e.g., Van Vianen 2000). Because the CVM

has been used extensively in organizational research and

allows for a succinct evaluation of culture within and

between organizations, we rely on the CVM to study

organizational culture in the current study.

Organizational Culture and Upper Echelon Leadership

Organizational culture and leadership are thought to be

highly related aspects of organizational life, because they

serve similar functions (Schein 2004), operate in similar

ways (Hanges et al. 2000), and have reciprocal influences

on each other (Schein 2004; Schneider 1987; Trice and

Beyer 1993). Furthermore, upper echelon leaders are

believed to be the primary influence on the creation and

development of organizational culture (e.g., Bennis and

Nanus 1985; Davis 1984; Kotter and Heskitt 1992; Schein

2004; Schneider 1987; Selznick 1957; Trice and Beyer

1993). For example, Miller and colleagues (1986, 1982)

found relationships between specific leader personality

characteristics (e.g., nAch, Locus of Control) and indica-

tors of their firm’s structural characteristics (e.g., central-

ization, formalization, etc.). Likewise, Tsui et al. (2006)

found that CEO’s performance building behaviors (e.g.,

vision, visibility) and institution building behaviors (e.g.,

what they pay attention to, delegation) lead to the creation

of organizational processes and structural characteristics

that strengthen organizational cultures.

Schein’s (2004) theory of culture and leadership, and

Schneider’s (1987) Attraction-Selection-Attrition (ASA)

theory provide similar perspectives on the role of leaders in

establishing, maintaining, and changing the content of an

organization’s culture. Both suggest that content formation

begins with the decisions made by organizational leaders.

A key point made by Schein (2004) is that ‘‘Organizations

do not form spontaneously. Instead they are goal oriented

and have a specific purpose’’ (p. 212). In turn, Schneider,

Goldstein, and Smith (1995) suggested that the organiza-

tion’s goals are an operationalization of the top leader’s

personality broadly defined. Thus upper echelon leaders,

and in particular founders, embed their personal charac-

teristics into their organizations by establishing the orga-

nization’s goals, which then attract people who have

similar personal characteristics as top leaders (Schneider

1987). Schein (2004) theorized that CEOs further con-

sciously and unconsciously embed their tendencies and

preferences into their organizations through a variety of

mechanisms, such as what leaders pay attention to, criteria

used to allocate rewards, and criteria used for personnel

decisions. Culture forms as this initial cadre interacts with

each other and the CEO trying to determine how best to

achieve the organization’s goals and make sense of how the

organization will operate. CEOs further reinforce cultural

content through six secondary articulation or reinforcement

mechanisms, including organizational design decisions,

stories and myths, and formal statements.

Thus, the content of an organization’s culture does not

form randomly; rather it forms through the CEO’s key

strategic and operational decisions which in turn are a

reflection of the CEO’s characteristics. These decisions

form the basis for the shared values and assumptions that

become the organization’s culture. Therefore, a relation-

ship should exist between CEO personal characteristics and

the cultures that emerge in their respective organizations.

The personality traits of leaders are likely to be a partic-

ularly useful set of personal characteristics for under-

standing the linkages between the CEO and the culture of

their firms. Personality refers to the set of characteristics

that define a person and exemplify how he or she interacts

with others (Allport 1961). Traits are one approach to

understanding personality that refer to long-term, stable

dispositions associated with a tendency to behave in a

certain manner (McCrae and Costa 1996), and guide a

person’s behavior in a given situation (Cattell 1943).

The five-factor model (FFM), or Big Five model has

become a generally accepted taxonomy of personality traits

(Mount and Barrick 1995). Goldberg (1990) suggests that

nearly all personality characteristics can be categorized

into one of the five broad traits. The Big Five traits include

agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, emotional

stability or neuroticism, and openness to experience (Costa

and McCrae 1992; Goldberg 1990). Moreover, the Big Five

model has been shown to be robust across situations and

cultures (Barrick and Mount 1991) and stable over time

(Judge et al. 1999). Finally, Judge and Cable (1997) found

that several Big Five personality traits were related to

applicant’s preferences for organizational cultures. The

linkages established by Judge & Cable between applicant

personality and culture preferences also provide some

indication of the CEO personality traits that may be related

to culture values. Next, we propose linkages between lea-

der personality traits and each of the four culture values in

the CVM.

Clan Culture Values and CEO Personality

Clan cultural values have an orientation toward collabo-

ration and combine an emphasis on flexibility and internal

maintenance (Cameron et al. 2007; Zammuto and O’Con-

nor 1992). Organizational practices in Clan cultures focus

on strengthening the sociotechnical systems, developing

human capital, and building cohesion and commitment.

J Bus Psychol (2009) 24:123–137 125

123

A key underlying assumption of this culture type is that

employee development, engagement, and commitment lead

to organizational success (Cameron et al. 2007). The firm

encourages leadership styles that are supportive and peo-

ple-oriented (Zammuto and O’Connor 1992), such as

mentors and team builders (Cameron et al. 2007).

We suggest that CEO agreeableness, emotional stability,

and extraversion are likely to be linked to Clan culture

values. Individuals with higher levels of agreeableness tend

to be cooperative and concerned about relationships with

others (Hogan and Hogan 1995). In addition, higher levels

of agreeableness among team members have been linked to

greater group cohesion (Barrick et al. 1998). Regarding

organizational characteristics, Judge and Cable (1997)

found that individuals with agreeable personality traits also

held preferences for team-oriented and supportive organi-

zational cultures. In addition, agreeable personality traits of

CEOs have been related to top management team (TMT)

dynamics that are characterized as cohesive and decen-

tralized (Peterson et al. 2003). Leaders who have high

levels of agreeableness seem likely to foster an environ-

ment of cooperation and be concerned about the develop-

ment of employees, thereby fostering a Clan culture.

Hypothesis 1a CEO agreeableness personality traits are

positively related to the extent to which their organization

is characterized by Clan culture values.

We also suggest that leaders who are more emotionally

stable are likely to lead organizations with Clan cultures.

Individuals who are more emotionally stable tend to be less

prone to anxiety and experience fewer mood swings. In terms

of leadership, low emotionally stable leaders may be too

caught up in their own anxiety to be concerned about cohe-

sion and morale among staff. In contrast, more emotionally

stable leaders will likely seek to create an organization with

good employee morale and management-employee rela-

tions. For example, Peterson and colleagues (2003) found

that more emotionally stable CEOs tended to also have top

management teams (TMTs) that were characterized by more

cohesive team dynamics.

Hypothesis 1b CEO emotional stability personality traits

are positively related to the extent to which their organi-

zation is characterized by Clan culture values.

Extraversion is a broad personality trait characterized by

two primary dimensions, sociability and assertiveness

(Watson and Clark 1997). Individuals having higher levels

of extraversion tend to be outgoing, enjoy affiliating with

others, and tend also to be energetic (Costa and McCrae

1992). Moreover, some evidence suggest that extraverted

individuals have preferences for team-based organizational

cultures (Judge and Cable 1997). CEOs with higher levels of

extraversion are likely to encourage affiliation, interaction

and group efforts, and create structures that elicit coopera-

tion and teamwork among members.

Hypothesis 1c CEO extraversion personality traits are

positively related to the extent to which their organization

is characterized by Clan culture values.

Adhocracy Culture Values and CEO Personality

Adhocracy culture values combine an emphasis on flexi-

bility with a focus on strengthening the firm’s competitive

positioning, and have an orientation toward creativity and

innovation (Cameron et al. 2007; Zammuto and O’Connor

1992). Organizational practices in adhocracy cultures focus

on growth, adaptability, and transformational change.

Employees are encouraged to push boundaries and break

rules to build future success. The key underlying assump-

tion in these organizations is that innovation and constant

change will enable the organization to create its own future

and be a market leader (Cameron et al. 2007). Inventive,

visionary, and adaptable leadership strategies are encour-

aged in organizations with adhocracy cultures (Cameron

et al. 2007; Zammuto and O’Connor 1992).

We suggest that three CEO personality traits are likely to

be related to the content of Adhocracy cultures, including

openness to experience, agreeableness, and emotional sta-

bility. Individuals having higher levels of openness to

experience tend to be characterized as unconventional,

original, and independent thinkers (Costa and McCrae

1992), which likely lead to preferences for organizations

with cultures that encourage innovation and creativity. For

example, Judge and Cable (1997) found that openness to

experience personality traits were related to preferences for

innovative cultures. Similarly, Peterson and colleagues

(2003) found that CEO openness to experience was related

to TMT dynamics that encouraged risk taking.

Hypothesis 2a CEO openness to experience personality

traits are positively related to the extent to which their

organization is characterized by Adhocracy culture values.

CEOs with lower levels of agreeableness may foster an

organization characterized by an Adhocracy culture. Indi-

viduals who score lower on agreeableness tend not to shy

away from conflict or competition (Costa and McCrae 1992).

Some evidence indicates that less agreeable individuals have

preferences for aggressive and outcome-oriented cultures

(Judge and Cable 1997). Leaders low on agreeableness are

likely to emphasize the importance of the organization’s

ability to compete with other firms, and encourage people to

take chances that may help the organization prosper.

Hypothesis 2b CEO agreeableness personality traits are

negatively related to the extent to which their organization

is characterized by Adhocracy culture values.

126 J Bus Psychol (2009) 24:123–137

123

Finally, we suggest that CEO emotional stability is

likely to be negatively related to adhocracy cultures. Peo-

ple with lower levels of emotional stability tend to be

excitable and experience a greater range of emotions than

those who have higher levels of emotional stability (Hogan

and Hogan 1995). Leaders with lower emotional stability

may crave the excitement of the drive to be a market lea-

der, and create less stable internal processes that encourage

change, innovation, and growth.

Hypothesis 2c CEO emotional stability personality traits

are negatively related to the extent to which their organi-

zation is characterized by Adhocracy culture values.

Market Culture Values and CEO Personality

Market culture values have an orientation toward competi-

tive position and combine an emphasis on stability with

external market positioning (Cameron et al. 2007; Zammuto

and O’Connor 1992). Organizational practices in Market

cultures emphasize a focus on satisfying customer and key

shareholder demands, competing aggressively to expand

market share, and rapidly responding to the demands of

the market place (Cameron et al. 2007). The organization

is structured to deliver maximum returns and profit-

ability (Zammuto and O’Connor 1992). A key underlying

assumption in Market cultures is that aggressive competition

and customer-focused practices increase market share and

organizational effectiveness (Cameron et al. 2007). Lead-

ership styles that are goal oriented, directive, and hard-

driving are encouraged in Market cultures (Cameron et al.

2007; Zammuto and O’Connor 1992).

Three CEO personality traits are also likely to be reflected

in Market culture values including, extraversion, agree-

ableness, and emotional stability. Individuals with high

extraversion scores tend to be outgoing and dominant

(Hogan and Hogan 1995), and have a strong social presence

(Gough 1987). Moreover, extraverted individuals have been

found to have preferences for aggressive cultures and out-

come-oriented cultures (Judge and Cable 1997). Extraverted

CEOs seem likely to encourage aggressive competition and

to reward employees for producing results, thereby fostering

a Market culture.

Hypothesis 3a CEO extraversion is positively related to

the extent to which their organization is characterized by

Market culture values.

In contrast, CEOs with lower levels of agreeableness

may also foster Market cultures. Individuals lower on

agreeableness do not shy away from competition, and they

tend to be aggressive and less concerned about getting along

with others for the sake of getting along (Costa and McCrae

1992). Leaders having lower levels of agreeableness likely

desire organizational cultures which focus not on relation-

ships between individuals, but rather on rewarding com-

petence, goal achievement, and efficiency-in short, reward

fulfilling a performance-based contract between the com-

pany and employee, rather than rewarding affiliation and

cohesion, which is consistent with Market culture values

(Zammuto and O’Connor 1992). Moreover, Judge and

Cable (1997) found that individuals with less agreeable

personality traits tended to prefer more aggressive and

outcome-oriented cultures. It stands to reason that less

agreeable CEOs would foster an environment that promotes

aggressive competition and focuses on results.

Hypothesis 3b CEO agreeableness personality traits are

negatively related to the extent to which their organization

is characterized by Market culture values.

Finally, CEO emotional stability appears likely to be

negatively related to Market cultures. As noted previously,

people with lower levels of emotional stability tend to

experience a wide range of emotions (Hogan and Hogan

1995) and may desire to work in a dynamic environment

because they provide excitement and stimulation. Addi-

tionally, less emotionally stable individuals are likely to be

concerned or even aware of how their actions affect others.

In turn, less emotionally stable CEOs may enjoy the

excitement of aggressive competition and form an intense

performance focus without considering issues such as

employee development, cohesion, and/or morale. As a

result, there is likely to be a link between lower levels of

CEO emotional stability and Market cultures.

Hypothesis 3c CEO emotional stability personality traits

are negatively related to the extent to which their organi-

zation is characterized by Market culture values.

Hierarchical Culture Values and CEO Personality

Hierarchical culture values have an orientation toward

control and combine an emphasis on stability with internal

maintenance (Cameron et al. 2007; Zammuto and O’Con-

nor 1992). Organizational strategies are inwardly focused

and based on the key assumption that control and efficiency

lead to success (Cameron et al. 2007). Organizational

practices emphasize standardization, minimizing errors and

uncertainty, and increasing consistency. Cautious, conser-

vative, and logical leadership and decision-making styles

emphasizing organizational predictability are encouraged

(Cameron et al. 2007; Zammuto and O’Connor 1992).

We suggest that four CEO personality traits are likely to

be reflected in Hierarchical organizational culture values,

including agreeableness, emotional stability, extraversion,

J Bus Psychol (2009) 24:123–137 127

123

and openness to experience. Consistent with hierarchical

culture values and their respective bureaucratic structures

and processes (Zammuto and O’Connor 1992), less

agreeable individuals have a tendency to be suspicious of

others and their motives (Graziano et al. 2007). In contrast,

agreeable individuals are more likely to make decisions

taking into account the needs and unique circumstances of

others, and will respond to the needs of others, rather than

comply with rules and regulations (Tobin et al. 2000). As a

result, we suggest that CEOs who score low on agree-

ableness will be more likely to emphasize and are therefore

likely to rely on rules, regulations, and oversight through

multiple management levels to ensure compliance with

organizational needs.

Hypothesis 4a CEO agreeableness personality traits are

negatively related to the extent to which their organization

is characterized by hierarchical culture values.

Individuals who have higher levels of emotional sta-

bility tend to be efficient in decision making, and less

impulsive and excitable (Costa and McCrae 1992). Emo-

tionally stable CEOs will likely desire to create a stable and

controlled work environment, and have less interest in the

excitement of aggressive competition. Along these lines,

CEO emotional stability has also been linked to greater

legalism (or formal rules focus) among TMTs. Therefore,

we suggest that CEO emotional stability is likely to be

associated with an organization’s culture being character-

ized by greater hierarchical values.

Hypothesis 4b CEO emotional stability personality traits

are positively related to the extent to which their organi-

zation is characterized by hierarchical culture values.

In contrast, lower levels of CEO extraversion seem

likely to be related to hierarchical organizational cultures.

In contrast to individuals higher on extraversion, individ-

uals lower on extraversion tend to be less sociable and

assertive, and are less likely to seek excitement and arousal

(Costa and McCrae 1992; Eysenck 1990). Regarding

organizational culture preferences, less extraverted indi-

viduals have been found to prefer organizational cultures

that are less aggressive (Judge and Cable 1997). CEOs who

are less extraverted seem likely to put into places polices

and structures that reduce uncertainties and create a stable

and efficient environment.

Hypothesis 4c CEO extraversion personality traits are

negatively related to the extent to which their organization

is characterized by hierarchical culture values.

Finally, individuals who are lower on openness to expe-

rience tend to be seen as less spontaneous, less adventurous,

and more cautious and conservative (Costa and McCrae

1992). Peterson and colleagues (2003) found that CEOs

characterized by lower levels of openness tended to have

TMTs characterized by having more rigid and risk adverse

dynamics. These characteristics and dynamics are consistent

with the practices and strategies that characterize Hierar-

chical cultures. We suggest that CEOs with lower levels of

openness to experience seem likely to put in place policies,

processes, rules, and structures that minimize risk taking,

and emphasize consistency and control of operations.

Hypothesis 4d CEO openness to experience personality

traits are negatively related to the extent to which their

organization is characterized by hierarchical culture values.

Organizational Culture Values and CEO Values

Aside from personality traits, personal values are another

set of CEO personal characteristics that are likely to be

embedded in the culture of the organizations they lead.

Rokeach (1973) defines values as ‘‘an enduring belief that a

specific mode of conduct or end-state of existence is per-

sonally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse

mode of conduct or end state of existence’’ (p. 5). Values

represent desires or preferences (Kluckhohn 1951) that

determine what is and what is not personally rewarding

(Locke 1991) and lead to intentions and tendencies to

engage in actions to obtain that which is desired (McC-

lelland 1985; Rokeach 1973). Moreover, values are thought

to direct more deeply held individual differences such as

personality traits (McClelland 1985), and motivate and

direct a person’s behavior (Locke 1991).

While a number of taxonomies of personal values (e.g.,

Schwartz and Bilsky 1987; Smith et al. 2002) and work-

related values (e.g., Cable and Edwards 2004; Hogan and

Hogan 1996; Ravlin and Meglino 1987) exist, researchers

have not gained consensus on a generally accepted model of

values. The model presented by Smith and colleagues

(2002), provides a comprehensive taxonomy containing 10

values, including aesthetic, affiliation, benevolence, eco-

nomic, hedonistic, power, status, theoretical, security, and

tradition, and has been used in recent organizational research

(e.g., Giberson et al. 2005; Klein et al. 2004). Because of the

limited research on leaders’ personal values, we do not

propose specific hypothesized relationship. Rather, we use

Smith and colleagues (2002) taxonomy and conduct

exploratory analyses of the relationship between CEOs’

personal values organizational culture values. Table 1

contains definitions, sample items, and internal consistency

reliabilities for each of the 10 values included in their

taxonomy.

128 J Bus Psychol (2009) 24:123–137

123

Method

Participants

The organizations and CEOs were recruited to participate

in this study through three mechanisms: (a) one of two

invited 15-min presentations regarding culture and leader-

ship delivered by the first author at monthly meetings of

business leaders, (b) contacts with clients from previous

consulting engagements, or (c) personal referrals. The 15-

min presentations did not focus on the nature of the

hypotheses of this study. A total of 53 CEOs expressed

interest in participating in the study. A total of 33 of these

53 organizations agreed to participate in the study in a

follow up phone call from the first author, of which com-

plete data sets were provided by 32 organizations. Thus, of

the 53 organizations approached, 33 agreed to participate

(62%), and of those 33 who started, 32 (97%) followed

through with the study. Each participating CEO

subsequently received a report summarizing the overall

results of the study, and his/her organization’s specific

results (Table 2).

The participating organizations came from a diverse

range of industries, sizes, and ages, and thus represented a

relatively heterogeneous sample. In terms of size, organi-

zations consisted of small to mid-sized organizations,

ranging in size from 8 to 1,000 employees (Mdn = 27),

with annual revenues of $400,000 to $310,000,000 (Mdn =

$13,250,000). Organizations were located primarily in the

Midwestern U.S., represented 10 different industries, and

had been in existence from 6 months to 131 years

(Mdn = 22 years).

Individual participants included the 32 CEOs and 467

employees (255 male and 212 female) representing several

organizational levels. Excluding the CEO, the number of

participants from each organization ranged from 7 to 30

(M = 14.5). The number of participants for each organi-

zation was generally reflective of the relative size of the

Table 1 Value scale definitions and sample items

Value Items a Definition and sample itemsa

Aesthetic 6? .69 Associated with an interest in art, literature, music, and other creative outlets

• Appreciating art, music, and literature Affiliation 5? .63 Associated with a need for frequent social contact, and a lifestyle organized around close friendships

and interaction with others

• Being with others rather than being alone Benevolence 6? .82 Associated with a desire to help others, improve society, and a lifestyle organized around donating

time and money to make the world a better place

• Providing aid to the needy or less fortunate Economic 6? .85 Associated with an interest in earning money, realizing profits, and a lifestyle organized around

gaining wealth and financial planning

• Being financially successful Hedonistic 5? .73 Associated with a desire for pleasure, excitement, variety, and a lifestyle organized around having fun

and entertainment

• Enjoying life to its fullest Power 7? .76 Associated with a desire for control and to influence and being in charge of others

• Increasing your social status Security 6?, 2- .81 Associated with a need for structure, order, predictability, and a lifestyle organized around planning

for the future and minimizing risk, uncertainty, and criticism

• Receiving recognition for accomplishments Status 5? .72 Associated with the need to be recognized and respected by others, and a lifestyle organized around

attaining symbols and positions of status

• Being recognized as important Theoretical 8? .57 Associated with an interest in new ideas, new technology, an analytical approach to problem solving,

and a lifestyle organized around learning, exploring, and understanding how things work

Satisfying curiosity about how things work

Tradition 8? .79 Associated with concern for morality, high standards, appropriate social behavior and a lifestyle

guided by specific, established principles

• Being respectful of authority figures

Note: Only items with a = .70 or greater were included for subsequent analyses a

Each item is rated with a 1–5 importance scale, where 1 = Very unimportant and 5 = Very important

J Bus Psychol (2009) 24:123–137 129

123

organizations; thus, the largest organization (headcount of

1,000) returned 30 packets, the organization with 8

employees returned 8 packets. CEOs had been with their

organization from less than 1 year to 11 or more years,

with the majority of leaders having 11 or more years of

service with their organizations. In addition, 18 of the 32

CEOs were the actual organizational founder. CEOs ranged

in age categories from 25–30 to 51 years and over, with the

majority in the 41–50 and 51 years and over categories.

Employee participants ranged in age categories from 18–24

to 51 years and over, with the majority of participants in

the 31–40 years age category. Employee participants had

been with their organization from less than 1 year to 11 or

more years, with the majority of participants in the 5–

10 year range. Each of the employee participants was

asked by the CEO or a designee of the CEO (e.g., HR

professional) to participate in the study by providing an

information packet addressed jointly from the first author

and the CEO. Organizations were provided the number of

participant packets requested, with a required minimum of

7 suggested by the first author. The response rate for each

organization ranged from 92 to 100%, with a modal

response rate of 100% and an average response rate of

96%. The percentage of participants responding from the

total employees within each respective organization ranged

from 3 (in our largest organization) to 100% (in our

smallest two organization) (M = 35%, Mdn = 26%).

Measures

Personality

Personality was measured using Goldberg’s (2000) 50-item

Big-Five personality inventory, which contains five

10-item subscales including: extraversion, agreeableness,

conscientiousness, emotional stability, and intellect or

openness to experience. This freely available inventory

provides a short scale that addresses the Big-Five markers

(Goldberg 1992, 1997). Acceptable internal consistency

reliabilities were reported for each of the scales, with

alphas ranging from .79 to .87. Responses were anchored

along a 5-point response scale of 1 = strongly disagree to

5 = strongly agree.

Personal Values

A recently developed values measure (Smith et al. 2002)

was used in the current study. This instrument is a 64 item

measure of 10 personal values, which include: aesthetic,

affiliation, benevolence, economic, hedonistic, power,

security, status, theoretical, and tradition. Responses were

anchored along a 5-point response scale, 1 = very unim-

portant to 5 = very important. Internal consistency reli-

abilities ranged from a = .57 to a = .85, and only the seven values whose internal consistencies met or exceeded

Table 2 Means, standard deviations, and correlations among all leader personality and values and organizational culture values

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Personality

1. Extraversion 3.65 .59 24 00 12 32 19 10 01 11 -46 -02 -12 -02 22 -09 -12

2. Agreeableness 4.17 .58 15 43* 35* 61** -10 15 -27 07 -15 -02 47** -23 -29 -17

3. Conscientiousness 3.82 .71 16 -02 23 -03 -26 07 15 03 30 -04 -01 -14 13

4. Emotional stability 3.58 .64 12** 08 -12 -33 -14 -12 -38* -03 31 -15 -27 -06

5. Openness 3.78 .54 42* 13 -23 10 -21 19 -09 09 -02 -10 -03

Values

6. Benevolence 4.14 .35 -06 -26 00 -03 02 -02 40 42* -21 02

7. Economic 3.42 .55 18 56** 31 48** 19 -26 11 13 12

8. Hedonistic 3.22 .53 32 18 15 -04 -21 24 10 -02

9. Power 3.80 .44 16 59** 27 -26 31 -06 06

10. Security 3.58 .41 41* 31 -06 -02 -06 12

11. Status 3.10 .60 24 -33 05 21 20

12. Tradition 3.40 .59 03 02 02 -06

Culture values

13. Clan 163.98 55.12 -36* -31 -64**

14. Adhocracy 100.34 33.74 -23 -30

15. Market 132.42 41.53 -05

16. Hierarchical 102.49 35.89

Note: Numbers on diagonal equal coefficient alpha; N = 32 for all correlations

* p \ .05, two-tailed; ** p \ .01, two-tailed

130 J Bus Psychol (2009) 24:123–137

123

a = .70 were included for subsequent analyses. Descrip- tive statistics, definitions, and sample items are presented

in Table 1.

Culture Values

The Competing Values Instrument (CVI; Zammuto and

Krakower 1991) was used to measure organizational cul-

ture. Quinn and Kimberly (1984) asserted that organizations

are unlikely to have a value system completely character-

ized by one of the four cultural values (described earlier),

and are more likely to hold a combination of values, with

certain values emphasized more strongly than others. The

CVI was designed to assess the extent to which an organi-

zation’s culture is characterized by each of four culture

values, including Clan, Adhocracy, Hierarchical, and

Market. The instrument presents descriptions of four orga-

nizations across five categories, specifically, the organiza-

tion’s character, leadership, bases of commitment, focus,

and rewards. Within each of the categories, respondents are

asked to determine the relative degree to which each of the

four descriptions describe their own organization by dis-

tributing 100 points across the four descriptions of organi-

zations within the five categories. While we are aware that

some researchers have suggested caution in the use of ip-

sative scales, the CVI instrument captures the extent to

which the organizational environment is characterized by

each of the four culture values, and is more consistent with

the competing values model than a Likert-scale based

measure. Moreover, Saville and Willson (1991) compared

computer generated personality scales using both ipsative

scales and normative scales, and they found that ipsative

and normative data produced similar results when corre-

lated with ‘‘true’’ scores, as well as external rating criteria.

These results were replicated using field data. As a result,

we used the CVI as an appropriate measure of organiza-

tional culture.

Procedure

CEOs completed a form indicating their willingness to

participate in the study, as well as an organizational back-

ground questionnaire providing information regarding the

organization’s size, revenues, industry classification, and

the founding of the organization. Leaders were instructed

to request the voluntary, anonymous participation of

employees whom the leader had influenced their selection

into the organization. A participant package was then pre-

pared for each organization containing an instruction sheet

for the leader, a leader package, the number of employee

participant packages requested by the CEO and a tracking

sheet. Each participant and leader package included a

participant demographic questionnaire, the personality

measure, the values measure, and the culture survey. In all

packets (leader and employee participant) participants first

provided demographic information (to ensure completion),

with the values, personality, and culture measures included

in random order to control for order effects. Those partici-

pants who agreed to participate completed their surveys,

sealed them in a provided envelope, and returned them to

the leader or the leaders’ designate to return to the first

author.

All organizational analyses were then conducted at the

organization level. Employee responses to the CVI scales

were aggregated by calculating the mean response across all

members of the organization (excluding the CEO), followed

by intra-class correlation analysis to justify aggregation.

Finally, we used hierarchical linear modeling (HLM; Bryk

and Raudenbush 1992) to test our hypotheses and explor-

atory relationships. Specifically, we utilized an intercepts-

as-outcomes model in which organizational culture scores

provided by employees were effectively regressed onto

organizational leader personality scores.

Results

Organizational culture represents a higher-order construct

or shared property of the organization (Klein and Koz-

lowski 2000), and was operationalized by taking the mean

of members’ responses to the CVI scales. To provide evi-

dence that culture values are shared by the organization’s

members and thus represent an organization-level con-

struct, within-organization agreement must be shown to

exist among members. Intra-class correlation coefficients

ICC (1) and ICC (2) were calculated for the CVI responses

to determine the level of member agreement. ICC (1)

provides an estimate of the portion of total variance in a

measure accounted for by membership in a group, and ICC

(2) indicates the reliability of the group (i.e., organization)

means (Bliese 2000). ICC (1) scores ranged from .17 to .29

and ICC (2) scores ranged from .75 to .86. ICC (2) is a

measure of both inter-rater reliability and inter-rater

agreement (Lebreton and Senter 2008). Lebreton & Senter

suggest that ICC (2) values of .71–.90 suggest strong inter-

rater agreement, thereby justifying aggregation. Further,

all F statistics from the ANOVA equations used to calcu-

late ICC (1) & (2) were significant providing evidence of

within-organization agreement and justification for aggre-

gating individual responses to create organizational scores

(Klein and Kozlowski 2000).

Hypothesis 1a suggests that CEO agreeableness per-

sonality traits are positively related to the extent to which

their organization is characterized by Clan culture values.

Support was found for Hypothesis 1a, as the slope coeffi-

cient for the leaders’ agreeableness scores (predictor)

J Bus Psychol (2009) 24:123–137 131

123

(b1 = .096, t(30) = 4.12, p \ .05) was significant sug- gesting that organizational Clan culture scores were related

to leaders’ agreeableness scores. Hypothesis 1b suggests

that CEO emotional stability personality traits are posi-

tively related to the extent to which their organization is

characterized by Clan culture values. Support was found

for Hypothesis 1b, as the slope coefficient for the leaders’

emotional stability scores (predictor) (b1 = .074, t(30) = 4.46, p \ .05) were significant suggesting that organiza- tional Clan culture scores were related to leaders’ emo-

tional stability scores. Finally, Hypothesis 1c suggests that

CEO extraversion personality traits are positively related to

the extent to which their organization is characterized

by Clan culture values. Support was not found for this

hypothesis, as leader extraversion scores were not signifi-

cantly related to organizational Clan culture scores (b1 = .045, t(30) = 1.42, p = ns).

Hypothesis 2a suggests that CEO openness to experi-

ence personality traits are positively related to the extent to

which their organization is characterized by Adhocracy

culture values. The slope coefficient was not significant

(b1 = .033, t(30) = 1.52, p = ns) suggesting leader openness to experience was not related to the Adhocracy

culture scores. While results were in the hypothesized

direction (b1 = -.025, t(30) = -1.31, p = ns), support was not found for Hypothesis 2b which suggested that

agreeableness traits are negatively related to the extent that

culture would be characterized by Adhocracy values.

Finally, support was found for Hypothesis 2c, which sug-

gests that CEO emotional stability personality traits are

negatively related to the extent to which their organization

is characterized by Adhocracy culture values (b1 = -.025, t(30) = -2.16, p \ .05) (Table 3).

Support was not found for Hypothesis 3a, which suggests

that CEO extraversion is positively related to the extent to

which their organization is characterized by Market culture

values (b1 = -.037, t(30) = -1.49, p = ns). However, support was found for Hypothesis 3b, which suggests CEO

agreeableness personality traits are negatively related to the

extent to which their organization is characterized by

Market culture values (b1 = .062, t(30) = -3.26, p \ .05). Support was also found for Hypothesis 3c, which suggests

that CEO emotional stability personality traits are nega-

tively related to the extent to which their organization is

characterized by Market culture values (b1 = -.044, t(30) = -2.88, p \ .05).

Hypothesis 4a suggests that CEO agreeableness per-

sonality traits are negatively related to the extent to which

their organization is characterized by hierarchical culture

values. This hypothesis was not supported (b1 = -.009, t(30) = -.44, p = ns). Similarly, no support was found for

Hypothesis 4b, which suggests that CEO emotional sta-

bility personality traits are positively related to the extent

to which their organization is characterized by hierarchical

culture values (b1 = .01, t(30) = .51, p = ns). Support was found for Hypothesis 4c, which suggests that CEO

extraversion personality traits are negatively related to the

extent to which their organization is characterized by

hierarchical culture values (b1 = -.04, t(30) = -2.18, p \ .05). Finally, support was found for Hypothesis 4d., which suggests that CEO openness to experience person-

ality traits are negatively related to the extent to which their

organization is characterized by hierarchical culture values

(b1 = -.05, t(30) = -3.24, p \ .05).

Table 3 Level 1 analyses of the relationship between leader per- sonality and organizational culture

Hypothesis Coefficient SE t Variancea p

Clan culture

Intercept b0 .326 .019 17.07 .010 .00

1a. Agreeableness b1 .096 .023 4.12 .025 .00

1b. Emotional stability b1 .074 .029 4.46 .025 .00

1c. Extraversion b1 .045 .031 1.42 .025 .17

Non-hypothesized Big 5 traits

Conscientiousness b1 -.019 .034 -.56 .025 .58

Openness b1 .221 .029 .76 .025 .45

Adhocracy culture

Intercept b0 .200 .012 17.1 .000 .00

2a. Openness b1 .033 .021 1.52 .011 .14

2b. Agreeableness b1 -.058 .019 -1.31 .011 .20

2c. Emotional stability b1 -.039 .018 -2.16 .011 .04

Non-hypothesized Big 5 traits

Extraversion b1 .029 .020 1.45 .011 .16

Conscientiousness b1 .008 .015 .50 .011 .62

Market culture

Intercept b0 .267 .015 18.17 .006 .00

3a. Extraversion b1 -.037 .025 -1.49 .016 .15

3b. Agreeableness b1 -.062 .019 -3.26 .016 .00

3c. Emotional stability b1 -.044 .015 -2.88 .016 .00

Non-hypothesized Big 5 traits

Openness b1 .004 .026 .16 .016 .97

Conscientiousness b1 .000 .027 .02 .016 .99

Hierarchical culture

Intercept b0 .208 .013 16.53 .004 .00

4a. Agreeableness b1 -.009 .021 -.44 .020 .66

4b. Emotional stability b1 .010 .019 .51 .020 .62

4c. Extraversion b1 -.038 .017 -2.18 .020 .04

4d. Openness b1 -.051 .016 -3.24 .020 .00

Non-hypothesized Big 5 traits

Conscientiousness b1 .011 .015 .73 .020 .47

Note: df = 31 for intercept calculations, df = 30 for hypothesis testing a

Variance in level 1 parameter estimates and chi-square test of

significant variance

132 J Bus Psychol (2009) 24:123–137

123

We explored the relationships among several leader

values and organizational culture utilizing HLM in the

same fashion as the hypothesized personality traits. In

general, few statistically significant relationships were

identified. CEO status values were negatively and signifi-

cantly related to the extent to which the culture was

characterized as having clan culture values (b1 = -.069, t(30) = -2.88, p \ .05). CEO status values were also found to be significantly related to the extent to which the

culture was characterized as having market culture values

(b1 = .056, t(30) = -2.63, p \ .05). No significant rela- tionships were found between leader values and Adhocracy

or Hierarchical culture values (Table 4).

Discussion

The inter-relationship between organizational leadership

and culture is a core assumption within the field of orga-

nizational behavior (see Bennis and Nanus 1985; Davis

1984; Kotter and Heskitt 1992; Schneider 1987; Selznick

1957; Trice and Beyer 1993). Schein (2004) even con-

tended that creating and managing organizational culture is

the most important function of top-level leaders. However,

there is a paucity of empirical evidence to support this

assumption (Schneider and Smith 2004), and the few

studies that have been conducted focused on the linkages

between leader characteristics and more superficial layers

of organizational culture such as structural characteristics

(e.g., Miller and Droge 1986; Miller et al. 1982). The

present study provides initial empirical evidence that

organizational culture values are, at least to some extent, a

reflection of the CEO’s personality. Below, we elaborate

further on these findings, and discuss the implications for

theory, research, and practice.

Consistent with our hypotheses, we found that several of

the CEOs’ personality traits were significantly related to

the extent to which members viewed their organizations as

characterized by different culture values. CEO agreeable-

ness and emotional stability, in particular, appear to have

important linkages with culture values captured by the CVI

model. Agreeableness was positively related to the extent

to which members viewed their culture as characterized by

Clan values, and negatively related to the extent to which

members viewed their culture as reflecting Adhocracy and

Market values. Clan values emphasize internal process,

while both Adhocracy and Market cultures emphasize

external competitiveness. It seems theoretically reasonable

that CEO’s who score high on agreeableness will foster a

culture aimed at building morale and cohesion, while those

who score lower on agreeableness would be more likely to

foster cultures that focus on competitiveness and perfor-

mance, and the results of this study support this

relationship. CEO emotional stability exhibited a similar

pattern of relationships, as higher levels of CEO emotional

stability were linked to the more internally focused Clan

values, while lower levels of emotional stability were

linked to the more externally focused Adhocracy and

Market culture values. Perhaps CEOs who carry somewhat

higher levels of anxiety channel that anxiety into their

Table 4 Level 1 analyses of the relationship between leader values and organizational culture

Coefficient SE t Variancea p

Clan culture

Intercept b0 .326 .019 17.07 .010 .00

Benevolence b1 .079 .047 1.69 .025 .10

Economic b1 -.009 .033 -.27 .025 .79

Power b1 -.016 .037 -.44 .025 .66

Security b1 -.043 .037 -1.17 .025 .25

Status b1 -.069 .024 -2.88 .025 .01

Tradition b1 .035 .038 .92 .025 .36

Hedonistic b1 .000 .032 .00 .025 .99

Adhocracy culture

Intercept b0 .200 .012 17.1 .000 .00

Benevolence b1 -.030 .033 -.92 .011 .36

Economic b1 .009 .021 .44 .011 .66

Power b1 .041 .025 1.63 .011 .11

Security b1 -.014 .030 -.45 .011 .65

Status b1 .010 .021 .46 .011 .64

Tradition b1 -.012 .021 -.54 .011 .59

Affiliation b1 .006 .025 .26 .011 .78

Market culture

Intercept b0 .267 .015 18.17 .006 .00

Benevolence b1 -.038 .038 -1.00 .016 .33

Economic b1 .018 .027 .66 .016 .52

Power b1 .016 .029 .54 .016 .60

Security b1 .046 .029 1.62 .016 .12

Status b1 .056 .021 .63 .016 .01

Tradition b1 -.020 .030 -.67 .016 .51

Hedonistic b1 -.010 .030 -.33 .016 .74

Hierarchical culture

Intercept b0 .208 .013 16.53 .004 .00

Benevolence b1 -.012 .042 -.30 .020 .77

Economic b1 -.018 .024 -.74 .020 .47

Power b1 -.041 .026 -1.56 .020 .13

Security b1 .010 .030 .32 .020 .75

Status b1 .003 .023 .15 .020 .89

Tradition b1 -.004 .023 -.17 .020 .86

Hedonistic b1 -.006 .024 -.26 .020 .79

Note: df = 31 for intercept calculations, df = 30 for hypothesis testing a

Variance in level 1 parameter estimates and chi-square test of

significant variance

J Bus Psychol (2009) 24:123–137 133

123

organization’s culture by creating pressure for change and

innovation to ensure a competitive position in the mar-

ketplace. Finally, as expected, CEOs with lower levels of

openness to experience also had employees who viewed

their organizations’ culture as characterized by higher

levels of hierarchical values. It seems logical that CEO’s

who are less open to trying new things would foster cul-

tures that encourage stability and control of operations.

Two of the CEO personality traits, extraversion and

conscientiousness, were not significantly related to cultures

emphasizing any of the four CVI values. For conscien-

tiousness, we did not hypothesize relationships a priori

because the primary aspects of this trait, dependability and

achievement focus, did not appear to clearly align with any

of the characteristics of the four CVI values. However, we

did expect that extraversion would be related to an

emphasis on several cultural values. Perhaps CEO extra-

version is more important for the interpersonal relation-

ships that they form with staff members, and thus is

channeled into the way the leader interacts with others,

rather than their desires regarding how their organizations

should operate. Alternatively, perhaps CEO extraversion is

associated with culture values that were not captured by the

CVI model. Future research is needed to better understand

the relationship (or lack thereof) between CEO extraver-

sion and culture values using both larger sample sizes, as

well as a wider range of culture values.

Findings regarding CEO personal values and culture

values were less promising. CEO status values were sig-

nificantly and positively related to the extent to which

members viewed their culture as characterized by clan

culture values, and significantly and negatively related to

the extent to which members viewed their culture as

reflecting rational culture values. Clan values emphasize

internal operations and flexibility, and rational values

emphasize external competitiveness and control. These

cultural values are opposites in the CVI model. The few

relationships found for leader and cultural values may be

due to the less-developed measure of personal values

(compared to the five factor model measure used), or

simply due to the lack of relationships between leader and

organizational culture values. As personal values come to

be agreed upon; similar to the five factor model of per-

sonality perhaps relationships between these phenomena

will be found.

Future research should develop conceptual rationale for

these relationships, and examine whether these relation-

ships emerge in a different sample of CEOs and organiza-

tions. Along these lines, it is important to recognize that the

findings of the current study provide initial evidence of a

link between leadership and culture values. Future research

is needed to replicate and thus confirm these relationships

across different samples of organizations.

Limitations

There are several limitations of this study that need to be

addressed. The first limitation focuses on the size and nature

of the sample. The organizations that participated were a

volunteer sample, and the extent to which these results may

generalize to a random sample of organizations is unclear.

Further, in some cases the employee participants were a

small subset of the organization, and may not represent the

entire organization’s perspective of the culture. In addition,

the employee participants were not randomly sampled from

each organization and most were instead invited by the

CEO. Consistent with theory proposed by Schein (2004)

and Schneider et al. (1995) regarding the culture creation

process, and importance of leaders selecting similar others,

we instructed leaders to include those individuals whom

they had some influence on their selection. Follow-up

questioning with approximately 50% of the CEOs surveyed

revealed that the degree of leader influence ranged from

direct selection decisions to more casual meetings of can-

didates before they were hired to give the ‘‘ok’’. However,

this approach may have influenced the significant relation-

ships, and raise concerns about the generalizability of the

results. The ASA process (Schneider 1987) and leadership

theorists (e.g., Schein 2004) suggest and research has sub-

stantiated (e.g., Giberson et al. 2005) that leaders tend to

hire in their own image. Therefore, it seems reasonable that

the individuals selected by the CEO to represent the orga-

nization in this study would also hire individuals similar to

themselves, who may view the organization and its culture

in similar ways. Future research should address these lim-

itations using more random samples of organizations and

employee participants. In addition, we suggest that future

research should include two employee samples, one being

randomly sampled and one including individuals whom the

leader had influence on their selection to determine whether

the two groups view the organization’s culture similarly or

differently.

The results are also based on a small sample of orga-

nizations. While data were compiled from 499 individual

participants, analyses are based on a sample of only 32

separate organizations. The small sample undoubtedly

limited the power of the statistical analyses.

The measures selected for this study, particularly the

personal values inventory and CVI culture inventory, may

be additional limitations. The CVI uses an ipsative scale,

meaning that the scores given to each cultural type are

dependent on the scores given to the other cultural types

(Meade 2004). As a result, the variance for each of the CVI

dimensions is not independent, which may have reduced

the amount of variability within dimensions; consequently,

this may have reduced the magnitude of the correlations.

This dependence violates one of the basic assumptions of

134 J Bus Psychol (2009) 24:123–137

123

classical test theory, independence of error variance, which

may have implications for both the statistical analyses and

interpretation of ipsative scores (Baron 1996; Bartram

1996). As for the measure of personal values, the Smith

et al. (2002) inventory of personal values is a relatively

new measure that may not have captured the values most

likely to be embedded in an organization’s culture. Mea-

sures of work values such as that presented by Cable and

Edwards (2004) may be a better gauge of values that CEOs

embed into their organizations. Additionally, the CVI

addressed a narrow range of culture values that may not

have adequately captured the range of values that define an

organization’s culture. Future research should include

measures of culture values that address a wider range of

values. Additionally, future research should use commen-

surate measures of CEO values and culture values.

Despite these limitations, this study makes an important

contribution to the leadership and culture literatures. As

L. K. Williams (1968) noted, studies such as this which

include both micro- and macro-level constructs are essen-

tial to understand and explain organizational behavior.

Moreover, this study has several strengths including a

cross-organization sample representing over 10 industries

with a wide range of sizes and ages. Obtaining personality

and values data from 32 CEOs as well as culture values

data from members of their organizations is a challenging

task, and may explain why so few researchers have tackled

this phenomenon in the past. Additionally, relationships

were identified after controlling for size, age, and founder

status of the CEO.

Conclusions and Suggestions for Future Research

Schein (2004) provides specific prescriptions for developing

and changing cultures based upon the theoretical relationship

between leader characteristics and organizational culture.

Given empirical support for his fundamental assumptions,

additional research could take a longitudinal approach to

investigate the process of culture creation, including the

means by which cultures develop and change, and specific

strategies for managing culture. The results of this study

suggest that relationships exist between leader characteris-

tics and cultural values, which may indicate an underlying

process; however, they do not reveal the steps contained in

the process itself. Researchers could empirically and clini-

cally track the steps organizational founders and leaders take

to embed their characteristics and assumptions into the

organizations they lead. The choices and decisions founders

make throughout the first few years of their organization’s

lifecycle are likely of particular interest. Using a longitudinal

perspective will help to identify the intricacies in the culture

formation process.

This study also suggests that leaders may play a critical

role in the success or failure of organizational change and

development initiatives, which likely proves a significant

challenge for such ‘‘change leaders.’’ Schneider and Smith

(2004) describe the ‘‘myth of infinite flexibility’’ (p. 364,

emphasis in original); that is, leaders can change their

impact on the organization simply by becoming aware of

the need to change. Perhaps organizational initiatives that

require a change in culture also require a change in lead-

ership if the CEO’s personal values and personality char-

acteristics are not aligned with the new direction of the

organization. Imposed changes that are inconsistent with

the CEO’s personal characteristics will likely go unsup-

ported, as leaders may be unable or unwilling to make

decisions consistent with needed changes. As a result,

perhaps organizations need to ‘‘change leaders’’ to match

the requirements of evolving organizational requirements.

Future theory and research should focus on the role of

leader personality and values in change initiatives.

In conclusion, this study provides some evidence that

CEOs’ personality and values affect not only their actions

and decisions, but also the social environment (i.e., the

culture) of the organizations they lead. As a result, the per-

sonality of top-level leaders is felt throughout the organi-

zation by impacting the types of people who join and remain

with the organization, norms that sanction or discourage

member behavior and decision making, and patterns of

behavior and interaction among members.

References

Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern, growth in personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Apter, D. E. (1964). Introduction: Ideology and discontent. In D. E.

Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 153–192). New York: Free Press.

Baron, H. (1996). Strengths and limitations of ipsative measurement.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69, 49–56.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality

dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x.

Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K.

(1998). Relating member ability and personality to work-team

processes and team effectiveness. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 377–391. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.3.377.

Bartram, D. (1996). The relationship between ipsatized and normative

measures of personality. Journal of Occupational and Organi- zational Psychology, 69, 25–39.

Bennis, W. (1986). Leaders and visions: Orchestrating the corporate

culture. In M. A. Berman (Ed.), Corporate culture and change. New York: The Conference Board Inc.

Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders. Harper & Row, Pub: New York.

Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and

reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In

J Bus Psychol (2009) 24:123–137 135

123

K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, exten- sions, and new developments (pp. 349–381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Cable, D. M., & Edwards, J. R. (2004). Complementary and

supplementary fit: A theoretical and empirical integration. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 822–834. doi:10.1037/0021- 9010.89.5.822.

Cameron, K. S., Quinn, R. E., Degraff, J., & Thakor, A. (2007).

Competing values leadership: Creating value in organizations. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Cattell, R. B. (1943). Fluctuation of sentiments and attitudes as a

measure of character integration and temperament. The Amer- ican Journal of Psychology, 56, 559–594. doi:10.2307/1417504.

Cooke, R. A., & Lafferty, J. C. (1987). The organizational culture inventory. Plymouth, MI: Human Synergistics Inc.

Costa, P. T., Jr, & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Davis, S. M. (1984). Managing corporate culture. New York: Ballinger.

Denison, D. R. (1990). Corporate culture and organizational effectiveness. New York: Wiley.

Denison, D. R., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1991). Organizational culture and

organizational development: A competing values approach.

Research in Organizational Change and Development, 5, 1–21. Donahue, K. B. (2001). How to ruin a merger: Five people-

management pitfalls to avoid. Harvard Management Update, 6(9), 1–4.

Eysenck, H. J. (1990). Biological dimensions of personality. In L. A.

Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 244–276). New York: The Guilford Press.

Giberson, T. R., Resick, C. J., & Dickson, M. W. (2005). Embedding

leader characteristics: An examination of homogeneity of

personality and values in organizations. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 1002–1010. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.5. 1002.

Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative ‘‘description of personality’’:

The big-five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216–1229. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.6. 1216.

Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five

factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–42. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.26.

Goldberg, L. R. (1997). A broad-bandwidth, public-domain, person-

ality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-

factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F.

Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7). The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.

Goldberg, L. R. (2000). International Personality Item Pool. [On- Line]. Available: http://www.ipip.org, May 2000.

Gough, H. G. (1987). California psychology inventory administra- tor’s guide. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Graziano, W. G., Habashi, M. M., Sheese, B. E., & Tobin, R. M.

(2007). Agreeableness, empathy, and helping: A person 9 situ-

ation perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(4), 565–582. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.4.565.

Hanges, P. J., Lord, R. G., & Dickson, M. W. (2000). An information

processing perspective on leadership and culture: A case for

connectionist architecture. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 133–161. doi:10.1111/1464-0597.00008.

Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (1995). Hogan personality inventory manual. Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.

Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (1996). Motives. values, and preferences inventory manual. Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.

Judge, T. A., & Cable, D. M. (1997). Applicant personality,

organizational culture, and organizational attraction. Personnel Psychology, 50, 359–393. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1997. tb00912.x.

Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999).

The big five personality traits, general mental ability, and career

success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52, 621–652. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1999.tb00174.x.

Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2000). From micro to meso:

Critical steps in conceptualizing and conducting multilevel

research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 211–236. doi: 10.1177/109442810033001.

Klein, K. J., Lim, B., Saltz, J. L., & Mayer, D. M. (2004). How do they

get there? An examination of the antecedents of centrality in team

networks. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 952–963. Kluckhohn, C. (1942). Myths and rituals: A general theory. The

Harvard Theological Review, 35, 45–79. Kluckhohn, C. (1951). Values and value orientations in the theory of

action. In T. Parsons & E. Shils (Eds.), Toward a general theory of action (pp. 388–433). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Kotter, J. P., & Heskitt, J. L. (1992). Corporate culture and performance. New York: The Free Press.

Lebreton, J. M. & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about

interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 815–852.

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

and the motivation core. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 288–299. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91) 90023-M.

Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense making: What newcomers

experience in entering unfamiliar organizational settings. Admin- istrative Science Quarterly, 25, 226–251.

McClelland, D. C. (1985). Human motivation. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1996). Toward a new generation of

personality theories: Theoretical contexts for the five-factor

model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 51–87). New York: Guilford Press.

Meade, A. W. (2004). Psychometric problems and issues involved

with creating and using ipsative measures for selection. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 531–552. doi:10.1348/0963179042596504.

Meglino, B. M., & Ravlin, E. C. (1998). Individual values in

organizations: Concepts, controversies, and research. Journal of Management, 24, 351–389. doi:10.1016/S0149-2063(99)80065-8.

Miller, D., & Droge, C. (1986). Psychological and traditional

determinants of structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 539–560. doi:10.2307/2392963.

Miller, D., Kets de Vries, M. F. R., & Toulouse, J. M. (1982). Top

executive locus of control and its relationship to strategy-

making, structure, and environment. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 237–253. doi:10.2307/255988.

Mount, M. K., & Barrick, M. R. (1995). The big five personality

dimensions: Implications for research and practice in human

resources management. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 13, pp. 153– 200). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

O’Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. A. (1996). Culture as social control:

Corporations, cults and commitment. In B. Staw & L. Cummings

(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 18, pp. 157– 200). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

O’Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and

organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to

136 J Bus Psychol (2009) 24:123–137

123

assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 487–516. doi:10.2307/256404.

Peterson, R., Smith, D. B., Martorana, P., & Owens, P. (2003). The

impact of chief executive officer personality on top management

team dynamics: One mechanism by which leadership affects

organizational performance. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 795–808. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.795.

Quinn, R. E., & Kimberly, J. R. (1984). Paradox, planning, and

perseverance: Guidelines for managerial practice. In J. R.

Kimberly & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Managing organizational transitions (pp. 295–313). Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin.

Quinn, R. E., & McGrath, M. R. (1984). The transformation of organizational culture: A competing values perspective. Paper presented at the Conference of Organizational Culture and

Meaning of Life in the Workplace, Vancouver.

Ravlin, E. C., & Meglino, B. M. (1987). Effects of values on

perceptions and decision making: A study of alternative work

values measurers. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 666– 673. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.72.4.666.

Rentsch, J. R. (1990). Climate and culture: Interaction and qualitative

differences in organizational meanings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 668–681.

Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: The Free Press.

Rousseau, D. M. (1990). Assessing organizational culture: The case

for multiple methods. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture (pp. 153–192). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Saville, P., & Willson, E. (1991). The reliability and validity of

normative and ipsative approaches in the measurement of

personality. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 219–238. Schein, E. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.).

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437–453. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1987.tb00 609.x.

Schneider, B., Goldstein, H. W., & Smith, D. B. (1995). The ASA

framework: An update. Personnel Psychology, 48, 747–773. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01780.x.

Schneider, B., & Smith, D. B. (2004). Personality and organizational

culture. In B. Schneider & D. B. Smith (Eds.), Personality and

organization (pp. 347–369). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a psychological

structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 550–562. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.53.3.550.

Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration. Harper & Row, Pub: New York.

Smith, D. B., Dickson, M. W., Grojean, M., & Hanges, P. J. (2002).

Development and validation of a new measure of personal values. Working Paper. Houston, TX: Rice University.

Ten Have, S., Ten Have, W., Stevens, F., & van der Elst, M. (2003).

Key management models: What they are and when you use them. Upper Saddlewood River, NJ: FT Press.

Tobin, R. M., Graziano, W. G., Vanman, E., & Tassinary, L. (2000).

Personality, emotional experience, and efforts to control emotions.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(4), 656–669. Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1993). The cultures of work

organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Tsui, A. S., Zhang, Z.-X., Want, H., Xin, K. R., & Wu, J. B. (2006).

Unpacking the relationship between CEO leadership behavior and

organizational culture. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 113–137. Van Vianen, A. E. M. (2000). Person-organization fit: The match

between newcomers’ and recruiters’ preferences for organiza-

tional cultures. Personnel Psychology, 53, 113–149. Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Extraversion and its positive

emotional core. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.),

Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 767–793). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Williams, L. K. (1968). Personality and organizational behavior

studies. In B. P. Indik & F. K. Berrien (Eds.), People, groups, and organizations (pp. 154–171). New York: Teachers College Press.

Zammuto, R. F., & Krakower, J. Y. (1991). Quantitative and

qualitative studies of organizational culture. Research in Orga- nizational Change and Development, 5, 83–114.

Zammuto, R. F., & O’Connor, E. J. (1992). Gaining advanced

manufacturing technologies’ benefits: The roles of organiza-

tional design and culture. Academy of Management Review, 17, 701–728.

J Bus Psychol (2009) 24:123–137 137

123

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