Determinants of Leadership Style in Big Five Personality Dimensions

Abstract

This study addresses the inconsistency of contemporary literature on defining the link between leadership styles and personality traits. The plethora of literature on personality traits has culminated into symbolic big five personality dimensions but there is still a dearth of research on developing representative leadership styles despite the perennial fascination with the subject. Absence of an unequivocal model for developing representative styles in conjunction with the use of several non-mutually exclusive existing leadership styles has created a discrepancy in developing a coherent link between leadership and personality. This study sums up 39 different styles of leadership into five distinct representative styles on the basis of similar theoretical underpinnings and common characteristics to explore how each of these five representative leadership style relates to personality dimensions proposed by big five model.

Full text

Universal Journal of Management 4(4): 161-179, 2016 http://www.hrpub.org
DOI: 10.13189/ujm.2016.040402
Determinants of Leadership Style in Big
Five Personality Dimensions
Hamid Hassan1,*, Sarosh Asad1, Yasuo Hoshino2,3
1FAST School of Management, National University of Computer and Emerging Sciences, Pakistan
2Graduate School of Business Administration, Aichi University, Japan
3Graduate School of Systems and Information Engineering, University of Tsukuba, Japan
Copyright©2016 by authors, all rights reserved. Authors agree that this article remains permanently open access under the
terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 International License
Abstract This study addresses the inconsistency of
contemporary literature on defining the link between
leadership styles and personality traits. The plethora of
literature on personality traits has culminated into symbolic
big five personality dimensions but there is still a dearth of
research on developing representative leadership styles
despite the perennial fascination with the subject. Absence of
an unequivocal model for developing representative styles in
conjunction with the use of several non-mutually exclusive
existing leadership styles has created a discrepancy in
developing a coherent link between leadership and
personality. This study sums up 39 different styles of
leadership into five distinct representative styles on the basis
of similar theoretical underpinnings and common
characteristics to explore how each of these five
representative leadership style relates to personality
dimensions proposed by big five model.
Keywords Leadership Styles, Personality Traits, Big
Five Model
1. Introduction
Leadership-personality literature has witnessed a new
resurged attention (Johnson et al. [1]; Anderson [2]; De
Hoogh et al. [3]). This is because, despite an end to the
chapter of trait studies in determining the effectiveness of
leaders in 1960’s, divisiveness about whether leadership is
an innate phenomenon or learned behavior has always
remained a noteworthy debate in the anthology of leadership
(e.g. Kirkpatrick and Locke [4]; Johnson et al. [1]; Rowley
[5]; Ruvolo et al. [6]; Marques [7] ). This study endeavors to
identify if symbolic personality trait variants proposed by big
five personality framework can be linked with leadership,
however, by using the representative leadership styles
derived from the long list of styles presented in the
contemporary literature on leadership.
Emergence of assorted leadership styles have expanded
the literature and many researchers have endeavored to relate
selected styles with big five personality model (e.g. Van
Eeden et al. [8]; De Hoogh et al. [3]; Zopiatis and Constanti
[9]; Judge and Bono [10]). However, how personality traits
are related to leadership styles have given erratic results
(Anderson [2]). The inconsistency on formulation of a
definitive link between leadership styles and personality
traits is due to the proliferation of overlapping leadership
styles in the realm of leadership which have not been
encapsulated into a logical arrangement with reference to
common frame of reference. Linking the existing leadership
styles with big five representative personality traits thus has
given inconsistent results due to the absence of those
leadership styles which can epitomize the several styles
present in the leadership literature. Thus, instead of selecting
one or two leadership styles and linking them to big five
personality traits like previous studies, this study has
amalgamated the much discussed existing leadership styles
in five distinguished clusters each representing a distinct
leadership style and analyzed how each style relates to the
personality trait variants of the big five model.
The need to group the various leadership styles arises from
the fact that the voluminous leadership literature lacks an
unequivocal model for developing symbolic leadership
styles. Dilemma of profuse leadership styles having
overlapping areas is similar to what researchers of
personality traits confronted in the beginning years when
large number of personality traits were identified among
which only few were found consistent in different cases.
However, extensive research on personality has gradually
and suitably culminated into symbolic personality traits as
advanced by the big five model but the discussion on
leadership remains scattered which makes it impossible to
effectively link the discussion on leadership styles with
personality dimensions. Hence, it is not only important but
also necessary to organize the scattered list of leadership
styles in logical sequence to identify mutually exclusive
areas, streamline the discussion on this topic and to present a

162 Determinants of Leadership Style in Big Five Personality Dimensions
more practical configuration of leadership styles to be
compared with other structured dimensions including the
personality traits.
This research adds to the past literature by defining a new
framework of leadership entailing representative leadership
styles derived after an extensive literature review. This
framework is much required to eliminate the mutual
exclusiveness prevailing among the inordinate number of
existing leadership styles as well as to create a coherent link
with other structured frameworks including personality
dimensions. Also, extant controversies in the literature about
inconsistent results on linking personality with leadership
styles are adequately addressed by logically tracing the root
cause to overlapping leadership styles. This study also opens
up a new consideration on the possible facet of leadership
after organizing the leadership styles along main dimensions
that are able to sketch the overview of leadership. Future
researchers can use this framework to link leadership styles
with other structures.
The remainder of the paper is organized into five
additional sections. Section two, following the introduction
part, discusses the important contributions of past literature
on leadership and presents the list of leadership styles which
are subsequently organized into a logical arrangement of five
groups. Section three explains the literature review on
linking leadership with the personality traits. Section four
presents the empirical framework to test the model; linking
five representative leadership styles with the big five
personality dimensions. Section five and six highlight the
results, discussion and conclusion of study. Implications of
study are presented at the end.
2. Leadership Defined
Leadership has been an intriguing subject to sundry
throughout the history as reflected by the plethora of
literature on the subject available today (Muczyk and
Reimann [11]; Gini [12]; De Vries[13]; Zopiatis and
Constanti [9]). Although the term “leadership” was first
coined in the first half of the nineteenth century (Bass & Bass,
[14]), human endeavors knowingly or discreetly have
always abhorred a leadership void by crying out for it in
order to be rescued or simply to be led (Gardner [15]).
According to Bass & Bass [14], leadership is a “widely
discussed and popular topic” but when it comes to defining
this much conferred concept, the literature has not shed light
on a concerted definition or its constitution (Burns [16]; Jago
[17]; Muczyk and Reimann [11]; Rost, quoted in Gini [12])
and moreover has produced almost as many definitions as
the number of authors who penned down about it (Stogdill
[18]). It was not, however, the incompetency or lack of
research on the subject of leadership, by those who inscribed
about it, but the different outlook adopted about what
constitutes a leader, what does he do and how to become one
if possible at all.
Yukl [19] defines leadership as “the process of influencing
others to understand and agree about what needs to be done
and how to do it, and the process of facilitating individual
and collective efforts to accomplish shared objectives.”
Simplifying the definition, leadership is the ability to
influence a group towards the achievement of goals.
2.1. Leadership Styles
A thorough literature search was conducted to identify the
existing leadership styles and to derive a framework for
systematically arranging those styles into representative
groups. The leadership labyrinth under the realm of three
main scientific paradigms i.e. Trait, Behavior and
Contingency has extended to various styles. The constituent
leadership styles of the three paradigms, frequently
discussed and comparatively well-articulated in the literature,
include autocratic, democratic, participative, directive,
task-oriented, relations-oriented, transformational,
transactional, charismatic, laissez-faire and servant
leadership.
Autocratic leadership style, one of the primeval styles, is
characterized by outright control over the followers with
little or no concern for establishing relationship with them.
Moreover, decision making resides chiefly with the leader
who neither consults with the followers nor seeks their input
in any matter. Autocratic leaders demand obedience and
strict adherence to rules (Bass & Bass [14]) and have been
found to negatively impact group stability and effectiveness
(Van Vugt et al. [20]). Thus, followers have taken to less
fancy this style as they feel devoid of required motivational
push from the leaders (De Cremer [21]). Democratic
Leadership style is often placed at an antithetical end from
autocratic leadership style on the leadership continuum.
Democratic leaders engage in “group decision making,
active member involvement, honest praise and criticism, and
a degree of comradeship (Gastil [22]). Also, Foels et al. [23]
found in their study that democratic leadership results in
more satisfied group members as opposed to autocratic style
because members prefer leaders who allow for input in
decision making.
Involvement of subordinates in decision-making process
is also the key defining feature of a participative leader who
is considerate of his subordinates’ opinions (Rok [24]). A
participative leader seeks to share power and decision
making with subordinates as well as tries to attain a
consensus among them (Bass & Bass, [14]). Moreover,
according to Bass & Bass [14] participative leader creates a
conducive environment for his subordinates to engage in
active participation to solve problems and make informed
decisions while he, himself, remains “an active member
among equals”. Also, Huang et al. [25] found in their study
that participative leadership creates feelings of
empowerment and trust-in-supervisor for both managerial
and non-managerial subordinates and there exists a strong
association between participative leadership behavior and
task performance of managerial subordinates. In contrast to
participative leadership, directive style of leadership

Universal Journal of Management 4(4): 161-179, 2016 163
involves instructing and commanding the subordinates and
assigning them goals in accordance with the leader’s vision
(Pearce and Sims Jr. [26]). Directive leadership style differs
from participative in that participative leadership entails
making a decision with subordinates whereas the former
deals with delegating task to subordinates after a decision
has been made (Muczyk and Reimann [11]). Bass & Bass
[14] have summarized three conditions for directive style to
be effective namely: structure is required, the leader is
equipped with necessary information and quality of the
decision outweighs the commitment of the followers.
Care for clarification of goals and objectives is also
advanced by task-oriented leadership which is additionally
characterized by planning work-unit activities, organizing
the task into steps, coordination and monitoring work-unit,
informing subordinates about an evaluating criteria and
resolving work-related problems (Tabernero et al. [27]; Yukl
[28]). The celebrated theoretical base discussing
task-oriented leader is Fiedler’s contingency theory of
leadership which proposes that task orientation should be
exercised in either highly favorable/unfavorable situations or
in situations under which the leader has extremely high/low
control (Bass & Bass [14]). Yukl [28] notes that a
task-oriented leader has its prime focus on achieving optimal
efficiency with organizational resources. Relations-Oriented
leadership style, in stark contrast to task-oriented style of
leadership, emphasizes on building leader-member
relationship, supporting, developing, recognizing and
empowering subordinates (Yukl [28]). Relations-oriented
leaders have confidence in the team’s ability and provide
complete support to the subordinates to complete the task at
hand (Tabernero et al. [27]). According to Fiedler’s
contingency theory, relations-orientation should be
exercised when situation is moderately favorable to the
leader or the leader has moderate control over situation (Bass
& Bass [14]).
In congruence with autocratic, directive, task-oriented
leadership, transactional leadership is a style which Van
Eeden et al. [8] have defined as a social exchange process in
which the leader delineates to the followers what needs to be
done to successfully honor the transaction in order to receive
reward or avoid punishment. Studied in it’s more corrective
and detailed form i.e. management by exception,
transactional leaders exercise either active or passive
management by exception. In the former, leaders specify
standards of compliance and keep an active check for
possible deviances and errors to take corrective actions
before or when they occur (Bass et al. [29]; Van Eeden et al.
[8]). In Passive management by exception, a leader does not
intervene until the problem has occurred and then resorts to
its solution (Eagly et al. [30]).
Enlarging the role of transactional leader, Bass [31]
explained transformational leadership as a style which also
focuses on followers’ motivation, understanding, maturity
and self-worth. Transformational leadership, delineated
originally in 1980s, has been attributed as a major
contribution in the anthology of leadership (Hunt [32]).
Burns [16] defines transforming leader as the one who raises
the followers’ level of consciousness, enables them to
transcend their self-interest for the sake of the organization
and increases the followers’ level of need to higher level of
achievement and self-actualization. Jung and Avolio [33]
found in their study that transformational leadership has
direct as well as indirect effects on followers’ performance
mediated through value congruence of leader and follower.
Bernard Bass has expanded the full range leadership model
(transactional and transformational) by including
laissez-faire style of leadership (Van Eeden et al. [8]). Bass
[31] termed laissez faire as non-leadership component which
emerges when leaders are unavailable for assistance or
discussion of critical junctures. Laissez-faire style reflects a
failure on the part of the leader to take responsibility for
managing (Eagly et al. [30]). Skogstad et al. [34] have
studied the dark side of laissez-faire, labeling it as a
destructive behavior instead of a zero type of leadership style,
and concluded that this style is associated with stressful
environment with high levels of role stress and interpersonal
conflict.
The above traditional approaches to leadership have been
contrasted by Yukl [35] with charismatic style of leadership
by labeling it as a style that focuses on emotions and values
rather than rational processes. Bass & Bass [14] have
deemed two main attributes to be essential for charismatic
leadership style namely: leaders should be determined,
self-confident, and emotionally expressive and on the other
hand the followers must identify with their leaders in all
situations. Along with transformational leadership,
charismatic style has been attributed as the major
contribution in transforming the leadership field (Hunt [32]).
However, Yukl [35] has proposed a conceptual flaw in these
two leadership theories due to extensively drawn analogies
of their underlying concepts in recent literature, raising the
doubt on the need of two separate styles.
A stark contrast to a conservatively held definition of
leader, servant leadership style emerged to identify a leader
as a servant instead of a hero. Postulated by Robert Greenleaf
in modern era, servant leadership is devoid of self-interest
and is primarily focused on followers (Stone et al. [36]). A
servant leader strives to serve others first (Beazley and
Gemmill [37]) by putting their interest at the forefront.
Servant leaders function as stewards who are entrusted with
the responsibility of the holistic development of their
followers to help them achieve the level of self-fulfillment
(Pekerti and Sendjaya [38]). Russell and Stone [39] in their
theoretical study identified nine attributes namely: vision,
honesty, integrity, trust, service, modeling, pioneering,
appreciation of others and empowerment to be the effective
characteristics of servant leadership.
The unabridged list of leadership styles inclusive of the
above mentioned leadership styles along with the many
others discussed in the literature are presented in Table 1
enlisting the characteristics of each style along with few
references.

164 Determinants of Leadership Style in Big Five Personality Dimensions
Table 1. List of leadership styles and their key characteristics as presented in the past literature
Leadership style
Key Characteristics
Referred by
1. Autocratic Leadership Punitive, less concerned for socio-emotional dimension of group,
dominating, dictatorial, unilateral decision making
Van Vugt et al. [20]; De Cremer [21];
Foels et al. [23]; etc.
2. Democratic Leadership Considerate, participative, concerned with maintaining
relationships with others, group decision making
Gastil [22]; Foels et al. [23]; Woods
[40] etc.
3. Laissez-Faire Leadership Lack of involvement, avoidance of responsibilities, resistance in
discussing critical issues
Eagly et al. [30] ; Bass [31] ;
Skogstad et al. [34] etc.
4. Transactional Leadership Leader-Follower exchanges, clarification of subordinate
responsibilities, contingent rewards
Van Eeden et al. [8]; Bass et al. [29];
Eagly et al. [30] ; etc.
5. Task Oriented Leadership Planning and organizing work activities, clarification of roles,
resolving work-related problems, focus on goal achievement
T
abernero et al. [27] ; Yukl [28];
Eagly and Johnson [41] etc.
6. Interpersonal Leadership Tactful, enthusiastic, encouraging, confidence builder, morale
booster, motive arouser, honest, sincere, trustworthy, extrovert
Fleming [42]; Zander [43]; Brodbeck
et al. [44] etc.
7. Transformational
Leadership
Vision, inspirational communication, intellectual stimulation,
influence, empowerment, high performance expectations
Bass [31]; Jung and Avolio [33];
Avolio et al. [46] etc.
8. Charismatic Leadership Strategic vision, unconventional behavior, agents of change,
sensitive to the needs of followers, risk orientation, extrovert
De Hoogh et al. [3]; Hunt [32]; Yukl
[35]; etc.
9. Distributed Leadership Collaborative, intuitive working relations, institutionalized
practices
Gronn [46]; Mehra et al. [47];
Mayrowetz [48] etc.
10. Participative Leadership Shared decision making, values others’ input, seek consensus,
increased autonomy and empowerment to subordinates
Bass and Bass [14]; Rok [24]; Huang
et al. [25] etc.
11. Directive Leadership Issuing instructions and commands, assigning goals, providing
members with a framework for decision making
Muczyk and Reimann [11]; Pearce and
Sims Jr. [26]; Kahai et al. [49] etc.
12. Ethical Leadership Awareness for others, considerate, honest, altruistic, caring,
principled, internal locus of control, proactive, co-operative
Walumbwa et al. [50] ; Brown and
Trevińo [51]; Toor and Ofori [52]
etc.
13. Authoritative Leadership Assertive, supportive, demanding, responsive, manipulative,
paternalistic
Martin [53]; Dinham [54]; Pellegrini
and Scandura [55] etc.
14. Authoritarian Leadership Self-oriented, rigid, defensive, apathetic, assertive, abusive,
exploitive, task-oriented, low responsiveness
Martin [53];Pellegrini and Scandura
[55]; Kiazad, et al. [56] etc.
15. Intellectual Leadership Clear vision, higher level of cognitive ability, conscientious,
proactive, free from fear, self-regulated, challenge status quo
Dealtry [57]; Andreasen [58]; Versi
[59] etc.
16. Instrumental Leadership Neurotic, require high commitment from followers, task and goal
oriented, functionalist approach
Rossel [60]; Rees and Segal[61];
Southwork [62] etc.
17. Coercive Leadership Conformity, repressed creativity, aggressive, inflexible, use of
threat, self-centered, authoritarian, fear-driven
Spector [63]; Goleman [64]; Skodvin
and Andresen [65] etc.
18. Team-oriented Leadership Collaborative, team integrator, prefers status quo, encourage
diversity, democratic, supportive, conflict manager
Kezar [66]; Javidan et al. [67]; Day et
al. [68] etc.
19. Delegative Leadership Procedural fairness, low need for dominance, shared power,
motivate subordinates, seek consensus, maintains relationships
Leana [69]; Kuhnert [70]; Krause et al.
[71]; etc.
20. Autonomous Leadership Individualistic, encourage novelty, disrupts existing policies,
facilitates knowledge transfer, responsible for task accomplishment
Elloy and Alan [72]; Taggar et al. [73];
Patanakul et al. [74] etc.
21. Coaching Leadership Facilitator, authentic, compassionate, candid, interpersonally
sensitive, develop people for future, motivating
Hicks and McCracken [75]; Nyman
and Thach [76]; Robertson [77] etc.
22. Affiliative Leadership
Motivator in stressful time, creates harmony among team,
empathetic, conflict reducer, low on consultation, relationship
oriented, visionary
Goleman [64]; Goleman et al. [78];
Bennis [79] etc.
23. Supportive Leadership
Interpersonal trust, environment conducive to psychological
well-
being of followers, employee empowerment, provides support
to followers, caring
Rafferty and Griffin [80]; Muller et al.
[81]; Schyns et al. [82] etc.
24. Relationship-Oriented
Leadership
Concern and respect for followers, express appreciation and
support, build friendly and supportive relationships
Bass and Bass [14]; Tabernero et al.
[27]; Yukl [28] etc.
25. Consultative/Advisory
Leadership
Provide professional guidance to followers, operate in less
ambiguous situation, low external and high internal locus control
Krause et al. [71]; Yousef [83];
Selart [84]; etc.
26. Humane-oriented
Leadership
Fair, altruistic, compassionate, modest, strong labor representation,
social welfare, benevolent, motivational, interpersonal relationship
Brodbeck et al. [85]; Winston and
Ryan [86]; Paris et al. [87] etc.

Universal Journal of Management 4(4): 161-179, 2016 165
27. Expressive Leadership Anti-authoritarian, interpersonally sensitive, grant autonomy,
relationship motivated leadership, socio-emotional
Rossel [60]; Rees and Segal [61];
Southwork [62] etc.
28. Visionary Leadership
Emotionally expressive, interpersonally sensitive, foresight,
proactive, inspirational, guides and empowers followers, changes
status quo
Westley and Mintzberg [88]; Brown
and Anfara [89]; Groves [90]etc.
29. Pacesetting Leadership Sets high standard and expects excellence from subordinates,
authoritative, high on conscientiousness
Goleman [64]; Bennis [79]; Giritli and
Oraz [91] etc.
30. Narcissist Leadership Self-centered, status conscious, conflict inducer, unsympathetic,
haughty, exploitive, seek attention, aggressive, unforgiving nature
Rosenthal and Pittinsky [92]; Brunell
et al. [93]; Ouimet [94]; etc.
31. E-leadership Swift, more towards autonomy, flexible in dynamic environment,
expertise in building and leading networks
Avolio et al. [95]; Pulley and Sessa
[96]; Gurr [97] etc.
32. Achievement-Oriented
Leadership
Maintain high level of performance, set challenging goals, strive for
excellence, show confidence in followers, high internal locus of
control
Griffin [98]; Dragoni[99]; Muller and
Turner [100] etc.
33. Authentic Leadership Morally courageous, pro-social behavior, reliable, honest, social
justice and equality, optimistic, self-disciplined, self-expressive
Avolio and Gardner [101]; Cooper et
al. [102]); Hannah et al. [103] etc.
34. Servant Leadership Steward, follower-centric, altruistic, commitment for growth of
people, strong spiritual values and beliefs
Beazley and Gemmill [37]; Pekerti
and Sendjaya[38]; Russell and Stone
[39]; etc.
35. Citizen Leadership Egalitarian, commitment for growth of people, bring constructive
change, democratic, inspirational, innovative, team oriented
Perreault[104]; Langone [105];
Booker [106]etc.
36. Aversive Leadership Relies on coercive power, authoritarian, cynical, exploitive, engage
in intimidation and dispensing reprimands, aggressive
Pearce and Sims Jr. [26]; Bligh et al.
[107]; Thoroughgood et al. [108] etc.
37. Empowering Leadership
Concerned with employee performance and satisfaction, grant
autonomy, share power, agreeable, team-oriented, encourage
self-development
Pearce and Sims Jr. [26]; Sims Jr. et al.
[109]; Vecchio et al. [110]; Martin et
al. [111] etc.
38. Opinion Leadership Dominant, persistent, social; confident, high degree of social
maturity innovativeness, withstand powerful social inhibitors
Robertson and Myers [112]; Myers
and Robertson [113]; Chan and Misra
[114] etc.
39. Self-Protective Leadership
Status-conscious, self-centered, conflict-inducing, procedural and
face-saving
Javidan et al. [67]
2.2. Representative Leadership Styles
Thirty nine leadership styles which stemmed from
scrutinizing the literature are placed in five distinct groups in
order to develop an unequivocal model of symbolic
leadership styles. The existing long list of styles makes it
impossible to effectively link the discussion on leadership
styles with other frame of reference such as personality
dimensions. Therefore, it is essential to organize the
scattered list of leadership styles in logical sequence. Such an
effort can identify the overlapping as well as mutually
exclusive areas to streamline the discussion on this topic.
Thus, to fill this void in the past literature this study
amalgamates the several leadership styles into limited
number of representative styles based on their common
characteristics to present a more practical configuration of
leadership styles to be compared with other frame of
reference.
Researchers of personality traits confronted with a similar
challenge at first when they had to deal with exorbitant
number of personality traits among which only few were
found consistent in different cases. However, extensive
research on personality has gradually and suitably
culminated into symbolic personality traits proposed by the
big five model. As a result, discussion on personality
framework is well-structured around the five dimensions of
big five model. On the other side, an imbricated list of
leadership styles presents a challenge to be arranged along
the representative dimensions. This study proposes an
unequivocal model of representative leadership styles to
enable the comparison of leadership styles with other
structured dimensions including the personality traits.
The proposed assortment will also aid to eliminate the
existing controversies in the past literature which is
brimming with leadership styles, however, without catering
to their mutual exclusiveness. Therefore, to bring more
consistency in the leadership literature, this study has
derived five representative styles which are non-mutually
exclusive. Also, these representative styles have been
developed utilizing a common frame of reference i.e. focus
on leader and centralization of decision making. The
leadership styles (LS1 to LS4) can be seen along a
continuum of focus and centralized decision-making
gradually shifting from leader to subordinates. LS5 is an
exceptional case and is included due to its importance to
understand a complete model of leadership.
The five groups are indicative of five distinct leadership
styles whose characteristics are given in Table 2. The six
critical areas have been selected to see the difference in five
different styles. i. e. role of the leader, leader’s concern for

166 Determinants of Leadership Style in Big Five Personality Dimensions
others, distance from followers, his decision making style,
follower’s motivation and leader’s focus on followers’
growth; as they all are essential components of the leadership
pie. Based on these characteristics of representative
leadership styles, an amalgamation of the 39 leadership
styles identified in five distinct clusters are given in Table 3.
Table 2. Representative Leadership Styles
LS1 LS2 LS3 LS4 LS5
Role of Leader
Clearly define
instructions and
performance standards
Encourage
participation
Seek highest
standards of
excellence
Assist followers Leave followers to
do task themselves
Leader’s concern for
others
Little High High Very High Little or None
Distance from followers High Moderate Low Low High
Leader’s decision making
style Unilateral
Shared decision
making through
followers
Shared decision
making by
persuasion
Shared decision
making in the
interest of
followers
Minimal or no role in
decision making
Followers’ motivation
Followers are incapable
of performing tasks
themselves and are
moderately motivated
Followers are equal
with the leader and
are highly
motivated
Followers identify
with the leaders
and are highly
motivated
Followers try to
reach their level of
self-fulfillment
Followers are
frustrated and
unmotivated
Focus on followers’
growth
None as leader
emphasizes followers
only to follow
instructions
Moderate as leader
provides training
and development to
the followers
Moderately high as
leader focus on the
competence
development of
followers
High as leader’s
top priority is to
help others
achieve their goals
None as leader
remains uninvolved
* LS1-LS5 indicates leadership styles 1-5
Tab le 3. Leadership styles clustered into five representative styles based on common characteristics
LS1 LS2 LS3 LS4 LS5
Autocratic Participative Transformational Servant
Laissez-faire
Transactional Interpersonal Visionary Citizen
Task-oriented Coaching Charismatic Authentic
Directive Affiliative Achievement-oriented Humane-oriented
Authoritarian Supportive Pacesetting Ethical
Aversive Relations-oriented Empowering
Narcissist Authoritative E-leadership
Instrumental Consultative-advisory Distributed
Coercive Democratic Intellectual
Self-protective Expressive Opinion
Team-oriented Autonomous
Delegative
* LS1-LS5 indicates leadership styles 1-5

Universal Journal of Management 4(4): 161-179, 2016 167
3. Leadership and Personality
Do leaders emerge due to their personality? What traits
predict the emergence of leaders in a group, their
advancement to higher levels and their effective performance?
Is it important to remember that some traits relevant to one
criterion are relevant not for the other? Many classical and
contemporary research studies have given answers to these
questions differently and have discussed the relativity of
personality traits with leadership styles (Kirkpatrick and
Locke [4]; Anderson [2] etc.). One of the earliest approaches
to understanding leadership was the trait approach
emphasizing on the personality of leaders. Underlying this
approach was the assumption that some people are born
leaders endowed with certain personality traits, not
possessed by others.
From 1900 till 1950 extensive research was conducted on
the relationship of genetic makeup with leadership success.
From 1904 to 1948, R. M. Stogdill reviewed 124 trait studies
and examined trait approach and uncovered many traits that
appeared consistent with leadership effectiveness like
dependability, sociability, intelligence, initiative, persistence,
self-confidence, consciousness, integrity, cooperativeness
and adaptability showed a positive correlation between
(Yukl [19]). However, Stogdill’s review did not shed light on
the basic premise of the trait approach that a person must
possess a particular set of traits to become a successful leader.
His studies showed that importance of particular trait is often
relative to the situation (Anderson [2]). In 1974, Stogdill
reviewed 163 more trait studies but he maintained that there
is still no evidence for universal leadership traits and their
relationship with the effectiveness of leadership (Yukl [19]).
An extensive research program was also conducted by
McClelland and his associates from 1953 to 1985. The
studies were around three social needs of a person: power,
achievement and affiliation. A person with high need of
power finds satisfaction in exercising influence over
emotions, attitudes and behavior of others. Those who are
‘socialized power oriented’ are confident and have
self-control, while those who ‘personalized power oriented’
are selfish and dominating (Boyatzis et al. [113]). On the
other hand, a person who is achievement oriented gains
satisfaction through accomplishment of difficult tasks and
attaining standards of excellence by developing a better way
of doing things and person with strong need for affiliation is
usually sensitive to rejection and hostility and always seeks
acceptance by society (Winter [114]). Thus, McClelland and
his associates concluded that leadership effectiveness in
large organization is related to high need for socialized
power and need for achievement and low need for affiliation.
In 1983, M. M. Lombardo and M.W. McCall noticed that
managers who had deep technical expertise at middle
management lacked strategic aptitude when they were
promoted to executive level, thus they got derailed. They
conducted research at Center for Creative Leadership and
interviewed 21 derailed managers and found differences
between personality traits and leader behavior of successful
managers and the sample of derailed managers. The reason
interpreted for derailment of sample managers was that
overdoing one leadership behavior is effective at one level
and can become ineffective at other (McCall and Lombardo
[115]; Kaiser and Hogan[116]). In the last decade of the
millennium, Bernard Bass found that leaders with
moderately high achievement motivation are more effective
than those with low or high achievement motivation (Yukl,
[19]).
Turning to contemporary researches from 2000 to 2006,
Timothy A. Judge, Joyce E. Bono, Remus Ilies and Megan
W. Gerhardt are the prominent names who analyzed trait
perspective of leadership and used five-factor model for
examining predictors of leadership and the effect on
leadership styles. The results given by the meta-analysis of
their research study showed the importance of five
personality traits to determine the leadership style (Ng
Kok-Yee et al. [117]; Judge et al. [118]).
3.1. Personality Assessment and Big five model
During the era of classical research studies of leadership
and personality, there was no taxonomic model for
personality assessment to develop and test theories. In 1934,
L. L. Thurstone pioneered measurement of personality by
providing raters with 60 trait adjectives to rate adjectives
they might use to describe someone they knew well. He
found five common factors that emerged in the account of
inter-correlation of trait adjectives (Wiggins and Trapnell
[119]; Burns [16]). Following Thurstone, Gordon Allport in
1936 categorized the vast number of traits in major
categories (John et al. [120]).
In 1943, Cattel entered the field following the work by
Allport and published his findings on personality assessment
model of 16PF in 1950. According to him, human
personality consists of 16 major traits of personality. In 1947,
Eysenck’s scale for personality measurement was introduced
and became popular (Digman [121-122]). In the same
decade J. P. Guilford also attempted to study, understand and
test the trait approaches developed by early researchers and
gave major reviews of his structural research programs and
presented Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey
(GZTS), an approach to measure 10 traits personality
(Rushton and Irwing [123]).
In 1961 Ernest C. Tupes and R. E. Christal investigated
the factor model of traits by rating peers on 20 trait adjectives
and generalized the five-factor model of personality having
broad constructs of surgency, conscientiousness,
agreeableness, neuroticism and culture (John et al. [120];
Wiggins and Trapnell [119]; Judge and Bono [10]).
Continuing with the history of five-factor model, John
Digman (1963-1986) is the famous name among many
researchers for the long standing interest in this regard.
Digman’s early studies suggested that small number of
factors can sufficiently explain personality as a whole and
his further analyses show that these factors were around the
dimensions of five-factor model (Wiggins and Trapnell

168 Determinants of Leadership Style in Big Five Personality Dimensions
[119]).
The proliferation of personality traits identified over the
period of five decades had resulted in efforts to define
personality traits in broad categories that could better help in
research studies and in development of personality theories.
The one such promising effort was also referred to creation
of Big-Five model which gained popularity in 1980s and has
rich history of academic credibility as it was widely used in
the time of extensive research on personality in
organizational context (Houghton et al. [124]). Also in recent
years the researchers and leadership scholars have showed
increasing interest in using this framework to facilitate
interpretation of results in massive and confusing literature
of leadership traits. Many, if not all, scholars believe that the
domain of personality is a composite of five meta-constructs
that contain all relevant traits (Crant and Bateman [125]).
The personality dimensions put forth by the Big Five
model are extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness,
emotional stability and openness to experience. Extraversion
is characterized by traits like sociability, assertiveness,
gregariousness and activeness. Extravert people are talkative,
expressive and interactive and are more engaged in
inspirational and personal appeal. On the other hand, people
who are low on this dimension are introverts, who remain
dethatched from people and avoid taking responsibilities
(Cable and Judge [126]). The trait of agreeableness includes
people who are warm-natured, trust worthy, cooperative,
compliant, compassionate, and supportive. It is a state where
the leader’s trustworthiness is the most important factor
among the subordinates (Sorenson et al. [127]).
Conscientiousness encompasses dependability,
responsibility, achievement orientation and deliberation. It
entails following established rules and includes people who
are persistent and organized (Perrewé and Spector, [128];
Judge et al., [118]; De Hoogh et al., [3]). Emotional Stability
is the dimension opposite to neuroticism and people high on
this trait are calm, self-confident, and secure whereas
neurotic people are anxious, depressed, fearful, and lack
self-confidence and self-esteem. The leaders who incline
towards changing the status quo require high emotional
stability (Judge and Bono, [10]). The last dimension is
openness to experience which includes people who are
imaginative, thoughtful, curious, perceptive and creative.
People high on this dimension are non-conformists,
unconventional, accept challenges and bear risk. These
people are learning-oriented and show more readiness and
openness to training (Barrick & Mount, [125]).
4. Empirical Framework
This research has a twofold structure; one is the theoretical
base for which extensive literature was explored to identify
published studies of personality-leadership. An electronic
search was conducted to find different leadership styles for
the purpose of grouping them into a logical categorization
which will eliminate their mutual exclusiveness. The
theoretical ground has been augmented with an empirical
perspective in order to deduce the relationship of
representative leadership styles with personality traits.
Participants of the research include department
heads/managers and their subordinates which for the purpose
of this study are assumed as leaders and followers
respectively. The scope of the research covers thirty-five
organizations belonging to different industries such as
software, banking, pharmaceutical, education and
construction and on average each had 50 employees in total.
From each organization one manager (mostly the topmost in
the hierarchy/ or owner) with at least ten employees working
directly under him/her was selected to measure personality.
On the other hand, of the total number of subordinates of a
manager, ten were randomly selected to rate the leadership
style of their manager. Thus, the total sample included 35
managers or leaders and 350 subordinates.
The leaders were surveyed directly to identify their
personality type but their leadership style was assessed
indirectly by surveying the subordinates. This indirect
interrogation was done to eliminate any chances of biasness
and to introduce more accuracy in determining the
leadership-personality link. Survey with leaders from
industry and their respective ten subordinates marked the
beginning of the data collection. Two questionnaires were
designed in order to measure perceived leadership style and
personality traits of the leaders.
4.1. Assessment of Leadership Style
A separate questionnaire for the subordinates was
prepared and given to ten subordinates from each
organization to rate their respective leader’s leadership style
on a 5-point response scale ranging from 1 (Strongly
disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). The five broad categories of
leadership styles, from LS1 to LS5, were measured for each
leader by presenting 5 statements for each broad category to
the subordinates to represent their strength of agreeableness
and disagreeableness against each statement. The
questionnaire included twenty-five questions in total where
items 1-5 measured LS1 which reflect giving clear
instructions, setting performance standards and use of
unilateral decision making; 6-10 measured LS2 which reflect
seeking subordinates’ input, encouraging participation and
focus on building relationships; 11-15 measured LS3 which
reflect having strong vision, encouraging subordinates to
achieve challenging goals and explaining to them the
outcome of their efforts; 16-20 measured LS4 which reflect
prioritizing subordinates’ interest and their personal
development and helping them to achieve their goals and the
rest measured LS5 which reflect little concern for
subordinates, leave them to make decisions and to solve
problems. The total twenty-five statements were rated by the
subordinates to assess what they perceived to be their
leader’s style of leadership.
4.2. Personality Assessment of Leader
The leaders were surveyed to assess their personality type.
The questionnaire for the leaders was adapted from the

Universal Journal of Management 4(4): 161-179, 2016 169
standard big five personality assessment questionnaire. The
Big Five personality traits of leaders were measured with six
statements; some worded positively while others negatively
for each of five-factor construct of extraversion,
conscientiousness, agreeableness, emotional Stability and
openness to experience. Total thirty statements were
presented to leaders to represent their strength of
agreeableness and disagreeableness against each statement
on a 5-point response scale ranging from 1 (Strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The first six items on the
questionnaire inquired about extraversion, followed by
conscientiousness, agreeableness, emotional stability and
openness to experience.
5. Results and Discussion
The subordinates were surveyed to identify what they
deemed to be the dominant leadership style of their
respective leaders. Ten subordinates from each organization
who were directly reporting to a particular leader completed
the questionnaire. To identify the dominant leadership style
of a leader, the responses of the subordinates were averaged
out. High score on a leadership style is considered as the
dominant leadership style of a leader whilst the lowest score
represents that leader least has that leadership style. Table 4
indicates the responses of the subordinates for their
respective leaders for all leadership styles. The data is
arranged according to the highest score in a specific
leadership style from LS1 to LS5. Highlighted figures show
the highest scores among the five comparative leadership
styles for each leader in the sample. Seven leaders score high
on LS1, eight on LS2, eleven on LS3, five on LS4 and four
on LS5.
However, further analysis was conducted to increase the
reliability of using the highest average rating as the dominant
style of the leaders by running one way anova for
comparison of means and post-hoc tests.
Table 4. Av erage rating of leaders assigned to them by their subordinates on all five representative leadership styles
LS1
LS2
LS3
LS4
LS5
Leader 17
4.40
1.28
2.26
1.34
3.30
Leader 18
4.62
1.30
2.14
1.32
3.46
Leader 19
3.60
2.58
2.60
2.42
2.16
Leader 23
3.92
2.82
2.86
2.52
2.48
Leader 28
3.86
2.82
2.88
2.42
1.90
Leader 30
3.90
2.90
2.92
2.62
2.04
Leader 32
4.24
2.98
2.84
2.68
2.20
Leader 8
3.56
3.90
3.58
3.72
2.80
Leader 13
3.78
3.84
3.64
3.58
2.72
Leader 14
3.50
3.94
3.86
3.68
2.80
Leader 20
2.46
3.78
3.46
3.04
2.28
Leader 24
2.20
3.92
3.30
3.08
1.76
Leader 27
2.30
3.92
3.84
2.94
1.4
Leader 29
2.14
4.08
2.94
3.34
1.64
Leader 31
2.38
3.94
3.38
2.72
1.38
Leader 1
3.04
3.82
4.04
3.68
2.28
Leader 2
3.50
3.76
4.30
3.80
1.82
Leader 3
3.58
3.78
4.34
3.74
2.12
Leader 4
3.30
3.82
4.00
3.58
2.04
Leader 5
3.30
3.86
4.24
3.84
2.78
Leader 6
3.14
3.30
3.42
3.18
2.92
Leader 7
3.00
3.72
3.84
3.56
2.64
Leader 9
3.18
3.68
4.04
3.96
1.98
Leader 11
3.70
4.16
4.28
4.08
2.04
Leader 12
3.20
3.76
4.08
3.80
3.14
Leader 15
3.64
3.92
4.22
3.68
3.04
Leader 16
3.92
4.64
4.66
4.78
2.28
Leader 21
2.36
3.38
3.24
4.14
1.46
Leader 25
2.44
3.48
3.42
4.00
1.58
Leader 26
2.38
3.58
3.42
4.32
1.50
Leader 33
2.60
3.34
3.06
4.26
1.52
Leader 10
2.60
2.56
2.36
2.40
2.88
Leader 22
2.92
2.58
2.60
2.50
4.02
Leader 34
3.00
2.58
2.66
2.56
3.22
Leader 35
3.04
2.62
2.54
2.46
3.46
* LS1-LS5 indicates leadership styles 1-5
**In each of the 35 cases, ten subordinates were presented with 25 questions, 5 each for one leadership style, to rate their leader on the 5 representative
leadership styles. The scores of all ten subordinates were averaged out and the highest average score on a leadership style is assumed as the dominant
leadership style of the particular leader.

170 Determinants of Leadership Style in Big Five Personality Dimensions
5.1. One Way Anova and Post Hoc Analysis
One-way anova test for comparison of means was run to maintain that the difference in means of five leadership styles is
significant and hence one style with highest mean value is the dominant leadership style. The results of one-way Anova for
each of the eighteen cases are presented in Table 5.
Table 5. One-way Anova for comparison of means
Leader Source SS df MS F Prob> F
1
Between Groups 511.12 4 127.78 20.77 0.000
Within Groups 276.90 45 6.15
2
Between Groups 899.88 4 224.97 23.68 0.000
Within Groups 427.50 45 9.50
3
Between Groups 687.92 4 171.98 29.72 0.000
Within Groups 260.40 45 5.79
4
Between Groups 603.72 4 150.93 28.79 0.000
Within Groups 235.90 45 5.24
5
Between Groups 324.28 4 81.07 5.93 0.001
Within Groups 614.70 45 13.66
6
Between Groups 35.12 4 8.78 1.03 0.401
Within Groups 382.80 45 8.51
7
Between Groups 261.92 4 65.48 5.93 0.001
Within Groups 497.20 45 11.05
8
Between Groups 176.92 4 44.23 5.30 0.001
Within Groups 375.40 45 8.34
9
Between Groups 715.32 4 178.83 10.25 0.000
Within Groups 785.40 45 17.45
10
Between Groups 42.40 4 10.60 0.89 0.475
Within Groups 533.60 45 11.86
11
Between Groups 859.12 4 214.78 31.74 0.000
Within Groups 304.50 45 6.76
12
Between Groups 166.88 4 41.72 5.94 0.000
Within Groups 316.10 45 7.02
13
Between Groups 206.92 4 51.73 10.42 0.000
Within Groups 223.40 45 4.96
14
Between Groups 207.48 4 51.87 3.03 0.027
Within Groups 771.10 45 17.14
15
Between Groups 189.60 4 47.40 18.25 0.000
Within Groups 116.90 45 2.59
16
Between Groups 1100.68 4 275.17 141.68 0.000
Within Groups 87.40 45 1.94
17
Between Groups 1785.08 4 446.27 64.14 0.000
Within Groups 313.10 45 6.96
18
Between Groups 2088.72 4 522.18 61.19 0.000
Within Groups 384.00 45 8.53
19 Between Groups 300.12 4 75.03 17.10 0.000
Within Groups 197.40 45 4.38

Universal Journal of Management 4(4): 161-179, 2016 171
20 Between Groups 407.88 4 101.97 17.05 0.000
Within Groups 269.10 45 5.98
21 Between Groups 1061.88 4 265.47 64.12 0.000
Within Groups 186.30 45 4.14
22 Between Groups 401.68 4 100.42 27.69 0.000
Within Groups 163.20 45 3.62
23 Between Groups 341.80 4 85.45 25.60 0.000
Within Groups 150.20 45 3.33
24 Between Groups 752.72 4 188.18 22.00 0.000
Within Groups 384.90 45 8.55
25 Between Groups 933.88 4 233.47 55.94 0.000
Within Groups 187.80 45 4.17
26 Between Groups 1220.40 4 305.10 67.43 0.000
Within Groups 203.60 45 4.52
27 Between Groups 967.08 4 241.77 38.05 0.000
Within Groups 285.90 45 6.35
28 Between Groups 520.48 4 130.12 25.15 0.000
Within Groups 232.80 45 5.17
29 Between Groups 931.72 4 232.93 44.36 0.000
Within Groups 236.30 45 5.25
30 Between Groups 453.88 4 113.47 23.01 0.000
Within Groups 221.90 45 4.93
31 Between Groups 956.80 4 239.20 46.96 0.000
Within Groups 229.20 45 5.09
32 Between Groups 576.32 4 144.08 58.68 0.000
Within Groups 110.50 45 2.45
33 Between Groups 1011.88 4 252.97 71.73 0.000
Within Groups 158.70 45 3.52
34 Between Groups 85.48 4 21.37 5.42 0.001
Within Groups 177.50 45 3.94
35 Between Groups 176.48 4 44.12 13.34 0.000
Within Groups 148.80 45 3.30
*Assuming α=0.05, the results for each case are significant if P value is < α
** Between groups effects are due to experiment whereas the within group effects indicate an unsystematic variation in the data
Since the P value is < α=0.05 for all leaders except in the
case of leader 6 and 10, H1 is accepted i.e. at least one of the
five leadership styles is different from the other four and the
difference in means is significant at α=5%. Rejection of null
hypothesis leads to acceptance of H1 and thus post-hoc test
can be conducted to determine the dominant leadership style.
Acceptance of null hypothesis in case of leader 6 and 10
leads to rejection of H1 and thus post-hoc test cannot be
conducted to determine which leadership style is dominant.
Post-Hoc Analysis follows one-way anova analysis for
comparing means only when the null hypothesis i.e. all the
means are same and the perceived difference among them is
meaningless is rejected. This analysis allows for identifying
which means are different as well as the size of the difference.
The highest difference will indicate the style with highest
mean and thus will represent the dominant leadership style.
The output of post-hoc analysis for all leaders except 6 and
10 are given in Table 6.

172 Determinants of Leadership Style in Big Five Personality Dimensions
Table 6. Post-hoc analysis
Leader
Leader Style
Contra st
Std. Err.
t
Prob> │t│
1 3 vs 5 8.80 1.11 7.93 0.000
2
3 vs 5
12.40
1.38
9.00
0.000
3
3 vs 5
11.10
1.06
10.32
0.000
4
3 vs 5
9.80
1.02
9.57
0.000
5
3 vs 5
7.30
1.65
4.42
0.001
7
3 vs 5
6.00
1.49
4.04
0.002
8
2 vs 5
5.50
1.29
4.26
0.001
9
3 vs 5
10.30
1.87
5.51
0.000
11 3 vs 5 11.20 1.16 9.63 0.000
12
3 vs 5
4.70
1.19
3.97
0.027
13
2 vs 5
5.60
0.99
5.62
0.000
14
2 vs 5
5.70
1.85
3.08
0.028
15
3 vs 5
5.90
0.72
8.19
0.000
16
4 vs 5
12.50
0.62
20.06
0.000
17 2 vs 1 -15.60 1.18 -13.22 0.000
18
2 vs 1
-16.60
1.31
-12.71
0.000
19
5 vs 1
-7.20
0.93
-7.69
0.000
20 5 vs 2 -7.50 1.09 -6.86 0.000
21
5 vs 4
-13.40
0.90
-14.73
0.000
22
5 vs 4
7.60
0.85
8.92
0.000
23
5 vs 1
-7.20
0.81
-8.81
0.000
24
5 vs 2
-10.80
1.30
-8.26
0.000
25
5 vs 4
-12.10
0.91
-13.24
0.000
26
5 vs 4
-14.10
0.95
-14.82
0.000
27
5 vs 2
-12.60
1.12
-11.18
0.000
28
5 vs 1
-9.80
1.01
-9.63
0.000
29
5 vs 2
-12.20
1.02
-11.90
0.000
30
5 vs 1
-9.30
0.99
-9.36
0.000
31 5 vs 2 -12.80 1.00 -12.68 0.000
32
5 vs 1
-10.20
0.70
-14.55
0.000
33
5 vs 4
-13.70
0.83
-16.31
0.000
34 5 vs 4 3.30 0.88 3.72 0.005
35
5 vs 4
5.00
0.81
6.15
0.000
*Assuming α=0.05, the results for each case are significant if P value is < α
** The contrast indicates that difference between the two styles in each case is the highest as compared to other possible comparisons with other styles.
The result indicates that the given the highest difference
with a p value less than α=0.05, it can be maintained that due
to the significant difference of means the highest mean is
indeed representative of the dominant leadership style of
leaders. Based on the post-hoc analysis of 33 cases,
dominant leadership style has been determined for each of
leader. However, the results for Leader 6 and 10 are not
significant and in these cases subordinates are unable to
differentiate clearly between the leadership styles of their
respective leaders. Thus, these two cases are an exception to
existing outcomes of the dominant leadership styles of the
leaders. The results indicate that out of 35 cases, LS1 is the
dominant style of leaders 17,18,19,23,28,30 and 32; LS2 is
the dominant style of leaders 8, 13,14,20,24,27,29 and 31;
LS3 is the dominant leadership style of leaders 1,2 ,3 ,4,
5,6,7,9,11,12 and 15; LS4 is the dominant style of leaders
16,21,25,26 and 33; and LS5 is the dominant style of leader
10,22,34 and 35.
The data was collected also from leaders to assess their
personality type by using the big five personality framework.
The questionnaire given to leaders entailed 30 statements,
six each for the five-factor constructs of the model. However,
out of these six statements three were positively worded and
the other three negatively. To take this into account, data for
negatively worded statements was reverse coded and big five
personality scores for each leader were computed. Highest
score on a personality construct is considered as the
dominant personality trait of a leader whilst the lowest score
represents that leader least has that personality type. The big
five personality scores of leaders are given in Table 7
followed by descriptive statistics for the five personality
constructs in Table 8

Universal Journal of Management 4(4): 161-179, 2016 173
Table 7. Big five personality scores of leaders in the sample*
Leadership style
Leader
Extraversion
Conscientiousness
Agreeableness
Emotional Stability
Openness to Experience
1 17 3.33 4.67 3.50 3.00 2.33
1
18
3.50
4.83
3.50
2.67
2.33
1
19
3.00
4.50
3.00
2.83
2.00
1
23
3.60
4.67
2.33
3.00
2.50
1
28
2.67
3.83
3.33
2.67
2.50
1
30
2.83
4.00
2.67
2.33
2.33
1
32
3.00
4.83
2.50
3.00
2.30
2
8
3.83
3.67
4.00
3.83
3.67
2 13 3.67 2.83 4.17 3.00 3.00
2
14
3.17
3.67
3.83
3.00
3.33
2
20
3.00
4.16
2.83
2.83
3.33
2
24
2.83
3.33
3.00
3.17
2.83
2
27
2.67
4.83
4.16
2.83
3.33
2
29
3.33
2.30
2.67
3.50
3.33
2 31 3.00 2.67 2.50 3.00 3.50
3
1
3.83
4.67
3.83
3.67
3.00
3
2
3.50
4.50
4.00
3.83
3.83
3 3 3.00 5.00 4.00 2.83 4.00
3
4
2.67
4.30
4.00
3.67
3.17
3
5
2.83
2.33
3.17
3.67
3.33
3
6
3.50
3.83
3.00
3.50
3.50
3
7
3.83
5.00
3.33
2.67
4.00
3
9
3.50
4.00
3.67
4.00
3.50
3
11
3.00
3.67
3.50
3.00
3.33
3
12
4.00
3.50
3.83
3.83
4.00
3
15
3.67
4.33
4.00
4.00
3.33
4
16
3.50
5.00
5.00
3.00
3.83
4
21
3.00
4.00
4.00
2.83
4.00
4 25 2.83 4.16 4.00 3.17 3.17
4
26
3.33
4.83
4.17
3.83
3.83
4
33
3.50
4.33
4.33
4.00
3.33
5 10 4.33 4.33 4.00 3.00 3.83
5
22
2.50
2.50
3.67
2.83
3.50
5
34
2.33
3.33
2.33
2.17
3.00
5 35 2.33 2.83 2.83 2.83 2.83
* All leaders were presented with 30 statements, six each for the five personality constructs, to rate him/herself on a five point response scale ranging from
1(Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). Highest score on a personality construct is assumed as the dominant personality type of the leader.
Table 8. Descriptive statistics of big five personality scores of leaders in
the sample
Mean Median
Std.
Deviation
Variance
Extraversion
3.21
3.17
0.48
0.23
Conscientiousness 3.97 4.16 0.80 0.64
Agreeableness 3.50 3.67 0.65 0.42
Emotional Stability 3.17 3.00 0.49 0.24
Openness to
Experience
3.22 3.33 0.56 0.31
*All the personality constructs lie on the upper end for mean and median.
The variation is comparatively high for conscientiousness whereas the rest
of the constructs lie close to the mean due to low variance.
Leadership style 1 leans towards autocracy and high
task-orientation. Followers are explicitly given instructions
for achievement of specified goals. LS1 is the dominant
leadership style of leader 17, 18, 19, 23, 28, 30 and 32
belonging to same kind of organizations. All leaders scored
high on conscientiousness and moderately low on openness
to experience. Thus it can be maintained that these leaders
are highly reliable and prefer status quo. Moreover, leaders
with LS1 fell between moderately high to high on
extraversion and agreeableness. However, leaders ranged
between moderately low to moderately high on emotional
stability. Thus, results of all leaders show that LS1
consistently relates to high conscientiousness, moderately
high extraversion and agreeableness and moderately low
openness to experience.
Leadership style 2 is characterized by participation,
employee focus and shared decision making. LS2 is the
dominant leadership style of eight leaders out of the sample
of 35 who belonged to different type of firms. All the leaders

174 Determinants of Leadership Style in Big Five Personality Dimensions
scored moderately high to high on extraversion, emotional
stability and openness to experience. In rest of the two
personality constructs, the results lacked consistency in that
few leaders fell in the same range whereas others output
range completely differed. Thus, results of all leaders with
LS2 show that LS2 consistently relates to high extraversion,
emotional stability and openness to experience.
Leaders with leadership style 3 are visionaries and make
use of shared decision making persuading their subordinates
to believe in their vision and strategy. This was the most
prominent leadership style of the sample as 11 leaders had
LS3 as their dominant leadership style. Consistent results
were also found in conscientiousness as all leaders rated very
high on this trait with an exception of only one. The 11
leaders have moderately high to high scores on extraversion,
agreeableness, emotional stability and openness to
experience. Thus, results of all eleven leaders show that LS3
is consistently related to all personality traits among which
high conscientiousness is the dominant trait.
Leadership style 4 is characterized by stewardship,
assisting subordinates and making decisions in their interest.
Subordinates are encouraged to achieve level of
self-fulfillment with the guidance of the leader. 5
participants out of the sample of 35 had LS4 among which 4
ran their own charity school system and fifth had initiated his
microfinance organization that lent to the poor without
interest charges. The leaders scored very high on
conscientiousness and agreeableness and moderately high to
high on extraversion, emotional stability and openness to
experience. The results of the leader depicts that LS4 is
related to high conscientiousness and agreeableness and
moderately high with the rest of the personality traits.
Leadership style 5 is considered being devoid of
leadership as the leader does not exercise his leadership.
Followers are mostly frustrated and unmotivated under this
kind of leadership. Only 4 leaders out of the sample of 35 had
leadership style 5, two of which belonged to organizations
which had been operating since one year only. Three out of
four leaders scored moderately low on extraversion and one
rated high on it. All four rated moderately high to high on
openness to experience and moderately low to moderately
high on emotional stability. However, on the remaining two
personality constructs the results were varied considerably.
Thus, the leaders deem themselves to be open. However, the
subordinates may have attributed LS5 as their style due to
their low extraversion and emotional stability. The results of
the leaders with LS5 depict that LS5 consistently relates to
moderately low extraversion and moderately high openness
to experience. The consistency of results can’t be maintained
for other three personality constructs. However, results of
LS5 need further probation due to availability of only four
cases with this particular leadership style.
6. Conclusions
Fascination with leadership with regard to determining the
predictors of effective leadership has and will continue to
interest researchers. The past literature lacks a framework for
developing symbolic leadership styles which are needed in
order to link leadership with structured frame of references
such as the personality traits advanced by the big five model.
The personality literature witnessed a similar dilemma at the
beginning of the research on personality traits when large
number of personality traits were identified among which
only few were found consistent in different cases. However,
the problem was resolved when extensive research on the
subject eliminated the need to use several traits and instead
formulate symbolic personality traits which were advanced
by the big five model. The discussion on leadership, in
contrast, remains scattered which makes it impossible to
effectively link the discussion on leadership styles with
personality dimensions. This research study has added to the
anthology of leadership-personality literature by determining
if personality traits can predict leadership styles of leaders by
formulating and using representative leadership styles.
The several leadership styles scattered in the voluminous
leadership literature were identified and grouped in five
groups based on their common characteristics. Such an effort
was conducted to identify the mutually exclusive areas to
streamline the discussion on this topic. The thirty-nine
leadership styles found in the literature search were
amalgamated in 5 representative styles to present a more
practical configuration of leadership and fill the void in the
leadership literature which needs culmination into symbolic
leadership styles. Also, since the personality research is well
structured and has suitably culminated into symbolic
personality traits proposed by the big five model, it was
reasonable to identify the symbolic leadership styles prior to
relating a structured personality framework with
unstructured leadership styles.
The study was able to explore association of
representative leadership styles with personality traits and
support the long standing thesis that personality has an
impact on leader’s effectiveness (Hogan et al. [130];
Anderson [2]).The findings suggest that leadership styles are
to some extent associated with personality types. Personality
has an impact on the leadership style of the leaders and, thus,
should be considered while examining the effectiveness of
leadership. However, precise impact of personality needs to
be further examined. In this study, association of LS1 and
LS3 with high conscientiousness and LS2 with high
extraversion, emotional stability and openness to experience
is significant but the results of rest of the leadership styles
cannot be generalized due to small sample size.
7. Implications
This study has systematically endeavored to link the
personality traits with the leadership styles; however, it is
recommended that further research be conducted to probe
into linking the personality with leadership by using
representative in lieu of existing scattered leadership styles.

Universal Journal of Management 4(4): 161-179, 2016 175
This would help researchers and practitioners see a better
and organized shape of leadership styles grouped in five
distinct dimensions. Further research in this direction can not
only include additional dimensions but also add to existing
dimensions by bringing in more leadership styles under the
existing framework. Managerial implications of study
include selecting right type of leaders for relevant jobs
through personality test as well as developing leaders for the
future. Nowadays, significant number of organizations
utilize personality tests for the recruitment of managers.
However, the traces of personality test with the leadership
requirements of future are rarely considered. The findings of
study will help to fine tune the managerial induction
according to the leadership requirements of organization in
future.
REFERENCES
[1] Johnson, A. M., Vernon, P. A., McCarthy, J. M., Molson, M.,
Harris, J. A., & Jang, K. L. (1998). Nature vs nurture: Are
leaders born or made? A behavior genetic investigation of
leadership style. Twin research, 1, 216-223. doi:
10.1375/twin.1.4.216.
[2] Anderson, J. A. (2006). Leadership, personality and
effectiveness. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 35, 1078–
1091. doi: 10.1016/j.socec.2005.11.066.
[3] De Hoogh, A. H., Den Hartog, D. N., & Koopman, P. L.
(2005). Linking the Big Five‐Factors of personality to
charismatic and transactional leadership; perceived dynamic
work environment as a moderator. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 26, 839-865. doi: 10.1002/job.344.
[4] Kirkpatick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Leadership: do
traits matter?. The executive, 5, 48-60. doi:
10.5465/AME.1991.4274679.
[5] Rowley, J. (1997). Academic leaders: made or born?.
Industrial and Commercial Training, 29, 78-84. doi:
10.1108/00197859710165065.
[6] Ruvolo, C. M., Peterson, S. A., & LeBoeuf, J. N. (2004).
Leaders Are Made, Not Born< em> The Critical Role of a
Developmental Framework to Facilitate an Organizational
Culture of Development</em>. Consulting psychology
journal: practice and research, 56, 10-19. doi:
10.1037/1061-4087.56.1.10.
[7] Marques, J. F. (2010). Awakened leaders: born or made?.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 31,
307-323. doi: 10.1108/01437731011043339.
[8] Van Eeden, R., Cilliers, F., & Van Deventer, V. (2008).
Leadership styles and associated personality traits: Support
for the conceptualisation of transactional and
transformational leadership. South African Journal of
Psychology, 38, 253-267. doi:
10.1177/008124630803800201.
[9] Zopiatis, A., & Constanti, P. (2012). Extraversion, openness
and conscientiousness: The route to transformational
leadership in the hotel industry. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 33, 86-104. doi:
10.1108/01437731211193133.
[10] Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of
personality and transformational leadership. Journal of
applied psychology, 85, 751-765. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.751.
[11] Muczyk, J. P., & Reimann, B. C. (1987). The case for
directive leadership. The Academy of Management Executive,
1, 301-311. doi: 10.5465/AME.1987.4275646.
[12] Gini, A. (1997). Moral leadership: An overview. Journal of
Business Ethics, 16, 323-330. doi:10.1023/A:1017959915472.
[13] De Vries, M. F. K. (1994). The leadership mystique. The
Academy of Management Executive, 8, 73-89. doi:
10.5465/AME.1994.9503101181.
[14] Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2009). The Bass handbook of
leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications.
New York,NY: Simon and Schuster
[15] Gardner, J. W. (1990). On Leadership. New York, USA: The
Free Press.
[16] Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper &
Row.
[17] Jago, A. G. (1982). Leadership: Perspectives in theory and
research. Management science, 28, 315-336. doi:
10.1287/mnsc.28.3.315.
[18] Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of
theory and research. New York, NY: Free Press.
[19] Yukl, G. (2009). Leadership in Organizations. New Delhi:
Dorling Kindersley.
[20] Van Vugt, M., Jepson, S. F., Hart, C. M., & De Cremer, D.
(2004). Autocratic leadership in social dilemmas: A threat to
group stability. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
40, 1-13. doi:10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00061-1.
[21] De Cremer, D. (2006). Affective and motivational
consequences of leader self-sacrifice: The moderating effect
of autocratic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 79-93.
doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.10.005.
[22] Gastil, J. (1994). A definition and illustration of democratic
leadership. Human Relations, 47, 953-975. doi:
10.1177/001872679404700805.
[23] Foels, R., Driskell, J. E., Mullen, B., & Salas, E. (2000). The
effects of democratic leadership on group member
satisfaction an integration. Small Group Research, 31,
676-701. doi: 10.1177/104649640003100603.
[24] Rok, B. (2009). Ethical context of the participative leadership
model: taking people into account. Corporate Governance, 9,
461-472. doi: 10.1108/14720700910985007.
[25] Huang, X., Iun, J., Liu, A., & Gong, Y. (2010). Does
participative leadership enhance work performance by
inducing empowerment or trust? The differential effects on
managerial and non ‐managerial subordinates. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 31, 122-143. doi: 10.1002/job.636.
[26] Pearce, C. L., & Sims Jr, H. P. (2002). Vertical versus shared
leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change
management teams: An examination of aversive, directive,

176 Determinants of Leadership Style in Big Five Personality Dimensions
transactional, transformational, and empowering leader
behaviors. Group dynamics: Theory, research, and practice, 6,
172-197. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.6.2.172.
[27] Tabernero, C., Chambel, M. J., Curral, L., & Arana, J. M.
(2009). The role of task-oriented versus relationship-oriented
leadership on normative contract and group performance.
Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 37,
1391-1404. doi: 10.2224/sbp.2009.37.10.1391.
[28] Yukl, G. (2012). Effective Leadership Behavior: What We
Know and What Questions Need More Attention. The
Academy of Management Perspectives, 26, 66-85. doi:
10.5465/amp.2012.0088.
[29] Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003).
Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational
and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88, 207-218. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.207.
[30] Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & Van Engen, M.
L. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire
leadership styles: a meta-analysis comparing women and men.
Psychological bulletin, 129, 569. doi:
10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.569.
[31] Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional–transformational
leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national
boundaries?. American Psychologist, 52, 130. doi:
10.1037/0003-066X.52.2.130.
[32] Hunt, J. G. (1999). Transformational/charismatic leadership's
transformation of the field: An historical essay. The
Leadership Quarterly, 10, 129-144. doi:
10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00015-6.
[33] Jung, D. I., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). Opening the black box: An
experimental investigation of the mediating effects of trust
and value congruence on transformational and transactional
leadership. Journal of organizational Behavior, 21, 949-964.
doi:
10.1002/1099-1379(200012)21:8<949::AID-JOB64>3.0.CO
;2-F.
[34] Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S., Torsheim, T., Aasland, M. S., &
Hetland, H. (2007). The destructiveness of laissez-faire
leadership behavior. Journal of occupational health
psychology, 12, 80-92. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.12.1.80.
[35] Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in
transformational and charismatic leadership theories. The
leadership quarterly, 10, 285-305. doi:
10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00013-2
[36] Stone, A. G., Russell, R. F., & Patterson, K. (2004).
Transformational versus servant leadership: A difference in
leader focus. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 25, 349-361. doi: 10.1108/01437730410538671.
[37] Beazley, D., & Gemmill, G. (2006). Spirituality and Servant
Leader Behavior. Journal of Management, Spirituality &
Religion, 3, 258-270. doi: 10.1080./14766080609518629.
[38] Pekerti, A. A., & Sendjaya, S. (2010). Exploring servant
leadership across cultures: comparative study in Australia and
Indonesia. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 21, 754-780. doi:
10.1080/09585191003658920.
[39] Russell, R. F., & Stone, A. G. (2002). A review of servant
leadership attributes: Developing a practical model.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23,
145-157. doi:10.1108/01437730210424.
[40] Woods, P. A. (2004). Democratic leadership: drawing
distinctions with distributed leadership. International Journal
of Leadership in Education, 7, 3-26. doi:
10.1080/1360312032000154522.
[41] Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership
style: A meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 108, 233-256.
doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.108.2.233.
[42] Fleming, R. K. (1992). An integrated behavioral approach to
transfer of interpersonal leadership skills. Journal of
Management Education, 16, 341-353. doi:
10.1177/105256299201600306.
[43] Zander, L. (1997). The license to lead: An 18 country study of
the relationship between employees' preferences regarding
interpersonal leadership and national culture. Stockholm,
Institute of International Business (IIB): Stockholm School of
Economics.
[44] Brodbeck, F. C., Frese, M., Akerblom, S., Audia, G., Bakacsi,
G., Bendova, H., & Wunderer, R. (2000). Cultural variation
of leadership prototypes across 22 European countries.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73,
1-29. doi: 10.1348/096317900166859.
[45] Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re‐
examining the components of transformational and
transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership.
Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 72,
441-462. doi: 10.1348/096317999166789.
[46] Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis.
The leadership quarterly, 13, 423-451. doi:
10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00120-0.
[47] Mehra, A., Smith, B. R., Dixon, A. L., & Robertson, B.
(2006). Distributed leadership in teams: The network of
leadership perceptions and team performance. The
Leadership Quarterly, 17, 232-245. doi:
10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.02.003.
[48] Mayrowetz, D. (2008). Making sense of distributed
leadership: Exploring the multiple usages of the concept in
the field. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44, 424-435.
doi: 10.1177/0013161X07309480.
[49] Kahai, S. S., Sosik, J. J., & Avolio, B. J. (2004). Effects of
participative and directive leadership in electronic groups.
Group & Organization Management, 29, 67-105. doi:
10.1177/1059601103252100.
[50] Walumbwa, F. O., Mayer, D. M., Wang, P., Wang, H.,
Workman, K., & Christensen, A. L. (2011). Linking ethical
leadership to employee performance: The roles of leader–
member exchange, self-efficacy, and organizational
identification. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 115, 204-213. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.11.002.
[51] Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A
review and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17,
595-616. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.004.
[52] Toor, S. U. R., & Ofori, G. (2009). Ethical Leadership:
Examining the Relationships with Full Range Leadership
Model, Employee Outcomes, and Organizational Culture.
Journal of Business Ethics, 90, 533-547.doi:

Universal Journal of Management 4(4): 161-179, 2016 177
10.1007/s10551-009-0059-3.
[53] Martin, A. J. (2005). The role of positive psychology in
enhancing satisfaction, motivation, and productivity in the
workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management,
24, 113-133. doi: 10.1300/J075v24n01_07.
[54] Dinham, S. (2007). Authoritative leadership, action learning
and student accomplishment. Available online
http://research.acer.edu.au/research_conference_2007/3/.
[55] Pellegrini, E. K., & Scandura, T. A. (2008). Paternalistic
leadership: A review and agenda for future research. Journal
of Management, 34, 566-593. doi:
10.1177/0149206308316063.
[56] Kiazad, K., Restubog, S. L. D., Zagenczyk, T. J., Kiewitz, C.,
& Tang, R. L. (2010). In pursuit of power: The role of
authoritarian leadership in the relationship between
supervisors’ Machiavellianism and subordinates’ perceptions
of abusive supervisory behavior. Journal of Research in
Personality, 44, 512-519. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2010.06.004.
[57] Dealtry, R. (2001). Managing intellectual leadership in
corporate value. Journal of Workplace Learning, 13, 119-124.
doi: 10.1108/13665620110388424.
[58] Andreasen, A. R. (2005). Marketing scholarship, intellectual
leadership, and the zeitgeist. Journal of Public Policy &
Marketing, 24, 133-136. doi: 10.1509/jppm.24.1.133.63892.
[59] Versi, A. (2013, March 20). Taking the intellectual leadership
on Africa. African Business. Available online
http://africanbusinessmagazine.com/management/taking-the-
intellectual-leadership-on-africa/.
[60] Rossel, R. D. (1970). Instrumental and expressive leadership
in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly,
15, 306-316. doi: 10.2307/2391620.
[61] Rees, C. R., & Segal, M. W. (1984). Role Differentiation In
Groups The Relationship Between Instrumental and
Expressive Leadership. Small Group Research, 15, 109-123.
doi: 10.1177/104649648401500106.
[62] Southworth, G. (1993). School leadership and school
development: reflections from research. School Organization,
13, 73-87. doi: 10.1080/0260136930130107.
[63] Spector, P. E. (1982). Behavior in organizations as a function
of employee's locus of control. Psychological bulletin, 91,
482-497. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.91.3.482.
[64] Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard
business review, 78(2), 78-93.
[65] Skodvin, T., & Andresen, S. (2006). Leadership revisited.
Global Environmental Politics, 6, 13-27.
doi:10.1162/glep.2006.6.3.13.
[66] Kezar, A. (1998). Trying Transformations: Implementing
Team‐Oriented Forms of Leadership. New directions for
institutional research, 1998, 57-72. doi: 10.1002/ir.10005.
[67] Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., De Luque, M. S., & House, R. J.
(2006). In the eye of the beholder: Cross cultural lessons in
leadership from Project GLOBE. The Academy of
Management Perspectives, 20, 67-90.
doi:10.5465/AMP.2006.19873410.
[68] Day, D. V., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. (2006). Leadership in
team-based organizations: On the threshold of a new era. The
Leadership Quarterly, 17, 211-216. doi:
10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.02.001.
[69] Leana, C. R. (1986). Predictors and consequences of
delegation. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 754-774.
doi: 10.2307/255943.
[70] Kuhnert, K. W. (1994). Transforming leadership: Developing
people through delegation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
[71] Krause, D. E., Gebert, D., & Kearney, E. (2007).
Implementing Process Innovations The Benefits of
Combining Delegative-Participative With
Consultative-Advisory Leadership. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 14, 16-25. doi:
10.1177/1071791907304224.
[72] Elloy, D. F. & Alan, R. (1997). The Effect of Superleader
Behavior on Autonomous Work Groups in a Government
Operated Railway Service. Public Personnel Management,
26(2), 257-272.
[73] Taggar, S., HACKEW, R., & Saha, S. (1999). Leadership
emergence in autonomous work teams: Antecedents and
outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 52, 899-926. doi:
10.1111/j.1744-6570.1999.tb00184.x.
[74] Patanakul, P., Chen, J., & Lynn, G. S. (2012). Autonomous
teams and new product development. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 29, 734-750. doi:
10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00934.x.
[75] Hicks, R., & McCracken, J. (2011). Coaching as a leadership
style. Physician executive, 37(5), 70-72.
[76] Nyman, M., & Thach, L. (2002). Coaching as a new
leadership development option. Supervision, 63(9), 23-26.
[77] Robertson, J. (2009). Coaching leadership learning through
partnership. School Leadership and Management, 29, 39-49.
doi: 10.1080/13632430802646388.
[78] Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & Mckee, A. (2002). Primal
leadership: realizing the power of emotional intelligence.
Harvard Business School Press, USA.
[79] Bennis, W. (2003). The emotionally intelligent workplace:
How to select for, measure, and improve emotional
intelligence in individuals, groups, and organizations. C.
Cherniss, & D. Goleman (Eds.). San Francisco: John Wiley &
Sons.
[80] Rafferty, A. E., & Griffin, M. A. (2006). Refining
individualized consideration: Distinguishing developmental
leadership and supportive leadership. Journal of occupational
and organizational psychology, 79, 37-61. doi:
10.1348/096317905X36731.
[81] Muller, J., Maclean, R., & Biggs, H. (2009). The impact of a
supportive leadership program in a policing organisation from
the participants' perspective. Work: A Journal of Prevention,
Assessment and Rehabilitation, 32, 69-79. doi:
10.3233/WOR-2009-0817.
[82] Schyns, B., van Veldhoven, M., & Wood, S. (2009).
Organizational climate, relative psychological climate and
job satisfaction: The example of supportive leadership
climate. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 30,
649-663. doi: 10.1108/01437730910991664.
[83] Yousef, D. A. (2000). Organizational commitment: A

178 Determinants of Leadership Style in Big Five Personality Dimensions
mediator of the relationships of leadership behavior with job
satisfaction and performance in a non-western country.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15, 6-24. doi:
10.1108/02683940010305270.
[84] Selart, M. (2005). Understanding the role of locus of control
in consultative decision-making: a case study. Management
Decision, 43, 397-412. doi: 10.1108/00251740510589779.
[85] Brodbeck, F. C., Frese, M., & Javidan, M. (2002). Leadership
made in Germany: Low on compassion, high on performance.
The Academy of Management Executive, 16, 16-29. doi:
10.5465/AMR.2002.6640111.
[86] Winston, B. E., & Ryan, B. (2008). Servant leadership as a
humane orientation: Using the GLOBE study construct of
humane orientation to show that servant leadership is more
global than western. International Journal of Leadership
Studies, 3(2), 212-222.
[87] Paris, L. D., Howell, J. P., Dorfman, P. W., & Hanges, P. J.
(2009). Preferred leadership prototypes of male and female
leaders in 27 countries. Journal of International Business
Studies, 40, 1396-1405. doi: 10.1057/jibs.2008.114.
[88] Westley, F., & Mintzberg, H. (1989). Visionary leadership
and strategic management. Strategic management journal, 10,
17-32. doi: 10.1002/smj.4250100704.
[89] Brown, K. M., & Anfara, V. A. (2003). Paving the way for
change: Visionary leadership in action at the middle level.
Nassp Bulletin, 87, 16-34. doi:
10.1177/019263650308763503.
[90] Groves, K. S. (2006). Leader emotional expressivity,
visionary leadership, and organizational change. Leadership
& Organization Development Journal, 27,
566-583.doi:10.1108/01437730610692425.
[91] [91]Giritli, H., & Oraz, G. T. (2004). Leadership styles: some
evidence from the Turkish construction industry.
Construction Management and Economics, 22, 253-262. doi:
10.1080/01446190310001630993.
[92] Rosenthal, S. A., & Pittinsky, T. L. (2006). Narcissistic
leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 617-633. doi:
10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.005.
[93] Brunell, A. B., Gentry, W. A., Campbell, W. K., Hoffman, B.
J., Kuhnert, K. W., & DeMarree, K. G. (2008). Leader
emergence: The case of the narcissistic leader. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1663-1676. doi:
10.1177/0146167208324101.
[94] Ouimet, G. (2010). Dynamics of narcissistic leadership in
organizations: Towards an integrated research model. Journal
of Managerial Psychology, 25, 713-726. doi:
10.1108/02683941011075265.
[95] Avolio, B. J., Kahai, S., & Dodge, G. E. (2001). E-leadership:
Implications for theory, research, and practice. The
Leadership Quarterly, 11, 615-668. doi:
10.1016/S1048-9843(00)00062-X.
[96] Pulley, M. L., & Sessa, V. I. (2001). E-leadership: tackling
complex challenges. Industrial and Commercial Training, 33,
225-230. doi: 10.1108/00197850110405379.
[97] Gurr, D. (2004). ICT, Leadership in Education and E‐
leadership. Discourse: studies in the cultural politics of
education, 25, 113-124. doi:
10.1080/0159630042000178518.
[98] Griffin, R. W. (1980). Relationships among individual, task
design, and leader behavior variables. Academy of
Management Journal, 23, 665-683. doi: 10.2307/255555.
[99] Dragoni, L. (2005). Understanding the emergence of state
goal orientation in organizational work groups: the role of
leadership and multilevel climate perceptions. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 90, 1084-1113. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1084.
[100] Müller, R., & Turner, R. (2010). Leadership competency
profiles of successful project managers. International Journal
of Project Management, 28, 437-448. doi:
10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.09.003.
[101] Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership
development: Getting to the root of positive forms of
leadership. The leadership quarterly, 16, 315-338. doi:
10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.001.
[102] Cooper, C. D., Scandura, T. A., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2005).
Looking forward but learning from our past: Potential
challenges to developing authentic leadership theory and
authentic leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 475-493. doi:
10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.008.
[103] Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2011).
Relationships between authentic leadership, moral courage,
and ethical and pro-social behaviors. Business Ethics
Quarterly, 21, 555-578. doi: 10.5840/beq201121436.
[104] Perreault, G. E. (1997). Citizen leader: A community service
option for college students. NASPA Journal, 34(2), 147-156.
[105] Langone, C. A. (2004). The use of a citizen leader model for
teaching strategic leadership. Journal of Leadership
Education, 3, 82-88. doi: 10.12806/V3/I1/AB3.
[106] Booker, S. L. (2006). From the classroom to the council
chamber: How town ‐gown collaborations can support
citizen leadership. National Civic Review, 95, 37-42. doi:
10.1002/ncr.156.
[107] Bligh, M. C., Kohles, J. C., Pearce, C. L., Justin, J. E., &
Stovall, J. F. (2007). When the romance is over: Follower
perspectives of aversive leadership. Applied Psychology, 56,
528-557. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2007.00303.x.
[108] Thoroughgood, C. N., Hunter, S. T., & Sawyer, K. B. (2011).
Bad apples, bad barrels, and broken followers? An empirical
examination of contextual influences on follower perceptions
and reactions to aversive leadership. Journal of business
ethics, 100, 647-672. doi: 10.1007/s10551-010-0702-z.
[109] Sims Jr, H. P., Faraj, S., & Yun, S. (2009). When should a
leader be directive or empowering? How to develop your own
situational theory of leadership. Business Horizons, 52,
149-158. doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2008.10.002.
[110] Vecchio, R. P., Justin, J. E., & Pearce, C. L. (2010).
Empowering leadership: An examination of mediating
mechanisms within a hierarchical structure. The Leadership
Quarterly, 21, 530-542. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.03.014.
[111] Martin, S. L., Liao, H., & Campbell, E. M. (2013). Directive
versus Empowering Leadership: A Field Experiment
Comparing Impacts on Task Proficiency and Proactivity.
Academy of Management Journal, 56, 1372-1395.
doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0113.

Universal Journal of Management 4(4): 161-179, 2016 179
[112] Robertson, T. S., & Myers, J. H. (1969). Personality
correlates of opinion leadership and innovative buying
behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 6, 164-168. doi:
10.2307/3149667.
[113] Myers, J. H., & Robertson, T. S. (1972). Dimensions of
opinion leadership. Journal of Marketing Research, 9, 41-46.
doi: 10.2307/3149604.
[114] Chan, K. K., & Misra, S. (1990). Characteristics of the
opinion leader: A new dimension. Journal of Advertising, 19,
53-60. doi: 10.1080/00913367.1990.10673192.
[115] Boyatzis, R. E., Goleman, D., & Rhee, K. (2000). Clustering
competence in emotional intelligence: Insights from the
Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI). Handbook of
emotional intelligence, 343-362. Available online
www.eiconsortium.org/pdf/eci_acticle.pdf.
[116] Winter, D. G. (1991). A motivational model of leadership:
Predicting long-term management success from TAT
measures of power motivation and responsibility. The
Leadership Quarterly, 2, 67-80. doi:
10.1016/1048-9843(91)90023-U.
[117] McCall Jr., M. W. & Lombardo., M.M. (1983). "What Makes
A Top Executive? Two Behavioral Scientists From A
Leading Think Tank Map The Pitfalls Along The Path To The
Executive Suite." Army Organizational Effectiveness Journal
8(1): 51-55. Available online
http://armyoe.com/uploads/1984_vol8_number1.pdf#page=5
4.
[118] Kaiser, R. B., & Hogan, J. (2011). Personality, leader
behavior, and overdoing it. Consulting Psychology Journal:
Practice and Research, 63, 219- 242 .doi: 10.1037/a0026795.
[119] Ng, K. Y., Ang, S., & Chan, K. Y. (2008). Personality and
leader effectiveness: a moderated mediation model of
leadership self-efficacy, job demands, and job autonomy.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 733-743.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.4.733.
[120] Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002).
Personality and leadership: a qualitative and quantitative
review. Journal of applied psychology, 87, 765-780. doi:
10.1037//0021-9010.87.4.765.
[121] Wiggins, J. S., & Trapnell, P. D. (1997). Personality structure:
The return of the big five.
doi:10.1016/B978-012134645-4/50029-9.
[122] John, O. P., Angleitner, A., & Ostendorf, F. (1988). The
lexical approach to personality: A historical review of trait
taxonomic research. European journal of Personality, 2,
171-203. doi: 10.1002/per.2410020302.
[123] Digman, J. M. (1989). Five robust trait dimensions:
Development, stability, and utility. Journal of Personality, 57,
195-214. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1989.tb00480.x.
[124] Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of
the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41,
417-440. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ps.41.020190.002221.
[125] Rushton, J. P., & Irwing, P. (2009). A general factor of
personality in 16 sets of the Big Five, the Guilford–
Zimmerman Temperament Survey, the California
Psychological Inventory, and the Temperament and Character
Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 47,
558-564. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2009.05.009.
[126] Houghton, J. D., Bonham, T. W., Neck, C. P., & Singh, K.
(2004). The relationship between self-leadership and
personality: A comparison of hierarchical factor structures.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19, 427-441.
doi:10.1108/02683940410537963.
[127] Crant, J. M., & Bateman, T. S. (2000). Charismatic leadership
viewed from above: The impact of proactive personality.
Journal of organizational Behavior, 21, 63-75. doi:
10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(200002)21:1<63::AID-JOB8>3.0.
CO;2-J.
[128] Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Managers' upward
influence tactic strategies: The role of manager personality
and supervisor leadership style. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 24, 197-214. doi: 10.1002/job.183.
[129] Sorenson, G. J., Goethals, G. R., & MacGregor Burns, J.
(Eds.). (2004). Encyclopedia of Leadership. New Delhi:
Sage.
[130] Perrewé, P. L., & Spector, P. E. (2002). Personality research
in the organizational sciences. Research in personnel and
human resources management, 21, 1-63. doi:
10.1016/S0742-7301(02)21001-4.
[131] 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.
[132] Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know
about leadership: Effectiveness and personality. American
Psychologist, 49, 493-504. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.49.6.493.