The Double-Edged Sword of Leader Charisma: Understanding the Curvilinear Relationship Between Charismatic Personality and Leader Effectiveness

Abstract

This study advanced knowledge on charisma by (1) introducing a new personality-based model to conceptualize and assess charisma and by (2) investigating curvilinear relationships between charismatic personality and leader effectiveness. Moreover, we delved deeper into this curvilinear association by (3) examining moderation by the leader’s level of adjustment and by (4) testing a process model through which the effects of charismatic personality on effectiveness are explained with a consideration of specific leader behaviors. Study 1 validated HDS charisma (Hogan Development Survey) as a useful trait-based measure of charisma. In Study 2 a sample of leaders (N = 306) were assessed in the context of a 360-degree development center. In line with the too-much-of-a-good-thing effect, an inverted U-shaped relationship between charismatic personality and observer-rated leader effectiveness was found, indicating that moderate levels are better than low or high levels of charisma. Study 3 (N = 287) replicated this curvilinear relationship and further illustrated the moderating role of leader adjustment, in such a way that the inflection point after which the effects of charisma turn negative occurs at higher levels of charisma when adjustment is high. Nonlinear mediation modeling further confirmed that strategic and operational leader behaviors fully mediate the curvilinear relationship. Leaders low on charisma are less effective because they lack strategic behavior; highly charismatic leaders are less effective because they lack operational behavior. In sum, this work provides insight into the dispositional nature of charisma and uncovers the processes through which and conditions under which leader charisma translates into (in)effectiveness.

Full text

The double-edged sword of leader charisma: Understanding the curvilinear relationship
between charismatic personality and leader effectiveness
Jasmine Vergauwe a*, Bart Wille b, Joeri Hofmans c,
Robert B. Kaiser d, and Filip De Fruyt a
a Ghent University, Belgium
b University of Antwerp, Belgium
c Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium
d Kaiser Leadership Solutions, USA
In Press: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
© 2017, American Psychological Association. This paper is not the copy of record and may
not exactly replicate the final, authoritative version of the article. Please do not copy or cite
without authors permission. The final article will be available, upon publication, via its DOI:
10.1037/pspp0000147
*Address correspondence to: Jasmine Vergauwe, Department of Developmental, Personality,
and Social Psychology, Ghent University. H. Dunantlaan 2, B-9000 Gent. Belgium.
Jasmine.Vergauwe@ugent.be Tel.: +32 9 264 64 29

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 2
ABSTRACT
This study advanced knowledge on charisma by (1) introducing a new personality-based
model to conceptualize and assess charisma and by (2) investigating curvilinear relationships between
charismatic personality and leader effectiveness. Moreover, we delved deeper into this curvilinear
association by (3) examining moderation by the leader’s level of adjustment and by (4) testing a
process model through which the effects of charismatic personality on effectiveness are explained with
a consideration of specific leader behaviors. Study 1 validated HDS charisma (Hogan Development
Survey) as a useful trait-based measure of charisma. In Study 2 a sample of leaders (N = 306) were
assessed in the context of a 360-degree development center. In line with the too-much-of-a-good-thing
effect, an inverted U-shaped relationship between charismatic personality and observer-rated leader
effectiveness was found, indicating that moderate levels are better than low or high levels of charisma.
Study 3 (N = 287) replicated this curvilinear relationship and further illustrated the moderating role of
leader adjustment, in such a way that the inflection point after which the effects of charisma turn
negative occurs at higher levels of charisma when adjustment is high. Nonlinear mediation modeling
further confirmed that strategic and operational leader behaviors fully mediate the curvilinear
relationship. Leaders low on charisma are less effective because they lack strategic behavior; highly
charismatic leaders are less effective because they lack operational behavior. In sum, this work
provides insight into the dispositional nature of charisma and uncovers the processes through which
and conditions under which leader charisma translates into (in)effectiveness.
Keywords: charismatic personality, leader effectiveness, curvilinear relationships, process model, too-
much-of-a-good-thing

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 3
The topic of charisma is characterized both by ambiguity and intense debate. Vivid
questions about this intriguing and everyday-life construct involve its underlying nature (e.g.,
Bono & Judge, 2004; Resick, Whitman, Weingarden, & Hiller, 2009) as well as its
consequences, particularly in, but not limited to, organizational contexts. Is charisma
something that can be measured independently from those perceiving a person as charismatic?
If it is, can we identify a cluster of personality characteristics that meaningfully predicts
others’ ratings of charisma? And finally, is it always beneficial for leaders in organizational
contexts to demonstrate high levels of charisma? The overall objective of our work was to
investigate these open questions.
Although most of us can easily imagine a charismatic person, and are able to tell
whether someone is charismatic or not, to date, charisma is still a fuzzy construct in the
scientific literature. At the core of the debate lies the question: Does charisma represent a
personal characteristic of the leader (e.g., Judge, Piccolo, & Kosalka, 2009; Riggio, 2009) or
is it an attribution based on relational processes (e.g., Conger, Kanungo, & Menon, 2000;
Howell & Shamir, 2005)? Traditional models of charismatic leadership, such as Conger and
Kanungo’s (1987) model, conceptualize charisma as an attribution based on follower
perceptions of their leader’s behavior. Stated differently, according to these models, charisma
only exists “in the eye of the beholder”. More recently, however, increased attention is being
devoted to trait-perspectives on leadership (e.g., Judge et al., 2009; Zaccaro, 2012), referring
to charisma as a constellation of personal characteristics that allows an individual to influence
other people by affecting their feelings, opinions, and behaviors (Riggio, 2009). As a
compromise, the literature now acknowledges that charismatic leaders have certain
characteristics that distinguish them from non-charismatic leaders (DuBrin, 2012). In other
words, individual differences in personality play an important role in the level of charisma
that is attributed to a specific leader. Previous efforts to uncover this dispositional nature of
charisma have mainly focused on Big Five personality traits (Bono & Judge, 2004), showing

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 4
only modest associations. The starting point of our work was the aim to provide an in-depth
investigation of the dispositional nature of charisma, by establishing a trait-based model of
charisma that can be assessed independently from the observer’s perspective.
Turning to the outcomes of charisma, we can say that organizational research has
generally shown that charisma is positively related to individual- , group- , and firm-level
outcomes. Charismatic leaders have the ability to inspire followers towards higher levels of
performance and to instill deep levels of commitment, trust, and satisfaction (e.g., Conger et
al., 2000; Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Shamir, 2002; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). As a result,
they are generally perceived as more effective by their subordinates compared to less
charismatic leaders (Amirul & Daud, 2012; Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996).
However, in the light of recent theoretical advances in organizational-behavior and
management literatures, it can be questioned whether this positive association between
charisma and leader effectiveness is appropriately represented by a continuous and linear
relationship. Specifically, the now widely established too-much-of-a-good-thing (TMGT)
effect (Pierce & Aguinis, 2013) has challenged the assumption that more of a desirable trait is
always better. The alternative to this linear model is a perspective in which ordinarily
beneficial antecedents are no longer advantageous when taken too far. Studies have indeed
indicated that, after a certain point, too much leader assertiveness (Ames & Flynn, 2007), too
much leader-member exchange (Harris & Kacmar, 2006), and too much contingent-reward
leadership (Harris & Russell, 2013) can be detrimental for leadership outcomes. In the context
of charisma, the critical question arises whether a leader can be too charismatic, meaning that
from a certain point more charisma may no longer be advantageous or may even become a
hindrance with respect to his or her effectiveness. Therefore, our work extended the available
literature in this domain by investigating curvilinear relationships between charismatic
personality and leader effectiveness.

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 5
A central tenet in the TMGT principle is that the inflection point—or the point after
which further increases in the “desirable trait” become counterproductive— is context-
specific or depends on specific boundary conditions (Pierce & Aguinis, 2013). With regard to
this context, charismatic leaders are more likely to emerge in situations of crises (Pillai &
Meindl, 1998) and in environments characterized by a high degree of challenge and
opportunities for change (Shamir & Howell, 1999). In this respect, a leader’s typical way of
coping with stressful situations has been put forward as a boundary condition that influences
the likelihood that charisma also translates into beneficial outcomes (Hogan & Hogan, 2007).
Our work therefore investigated the role of leaders’ levels of adjustment as a condition under
which the curvilinear relationship between charisma and effectiveness may vary.
Finally, an overview of the literature indicates that the mechanisms that explain any
relationship between leader charisma and effectiveness are still unclear. Moreover, because
the nature of the meta-theoretical TMGT principle is more descriptive than exploratory, the
presence of a curvilinear relationship would not explain why charisma can backfire. That is,
whereas the TMGT principle offers a prediction about the functional form of the association
between charisma and effectiveness, it provides no account for the specific mechanisms that
intervene in this relationship. Thus, explanatory frameworks underlying the TMGT effect
become increasingly important (Busse, Mahlendorf, & Bode, 2016). As a final objective, our
work also investigated specific leader behaviors as mechanisms through which leader
charisma can result in leader (in)effectiveness.
In sum, our aim was to enhance the understanding of charisma and its role in leader
contexts in four different ways. In Study 1 we made a case for HDS charisma (Hogan
Development Survey; Hogan & Hogan, 2009), as a new personality-based model to
conceptualize and assess charisma (objective 1). In Study 2, this measure of charisma was
related to leader effectiveness, with particular attention to curvilinear relationships, as this
may signal a too-much-of-a-good-thing effect (objective 2). Besides replicating this

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 6
curvilinear relationship, Study 3 delved deeper into this association by examining adjustment
as a potential moderator (objective 3) and by testing a process model in which the effects of
charismatic personality on effectiveness can be explained through specific leader behaviors
(objective 4). An integrative research model, including these four objectives, is presented in
Figure 1.
Insert Figure 1 about here
A Trait-Based Perspective on Charisma
Conceptualizing charisma in terms of personality raises the question of which traits to
consider. Investigating the relationship between charisma and the five-factor model of
personality, Bono and Judge (2004) found that the highly charismatic leader tends to score
high on extraversion and low on neuroticism. Nevertheless, their results also showed that the
Big Five explained only 12% of the variability in charisma, which made the authors conclude
that charisma might have dispositional antecedents that cannot be captured by the Big Five.
The current study proposes the HDS charismatic cluster, named after the personality
instrument used to assess the personality of leaders (i.e., the Hogan Development Survey;
Hogan & Hogan, 2009), as a useful trait-based measure of charisma. The HDS is an
empirically validated personality instrument grounded in socioanalytic theory (Hogan, 2007).
A central premise of the theory is that personality is conceptualized as an individual’s
reputation—that is, in terms of attributions observers make about that person’s characteristic
behavior. In addition, socioanalytic theory identifies a dark side to reputation, referring to
attributes that may be beneficial in some contexts but counterproductive in other contexts.
The four personality tendencies constituting this charismatic cluster—i.e., Bold, Mischievous,
Colorful, and Imaginative—have been selected based on their conceptual overlap with the
construct of charisma and have previously been referred to as the “charismatic cluster”
(Kaiser & Hogan, 2007; Kaiser, LeBreton, & Hogan, 2015; VanBroekhoven, 2011).

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 7
Generally, however, it has been labeled the “moving against” people factor (Horney, 1950),
referring to the tendency to overwhelm, co-opt, intimidate, manipulate, and persuade as a
technique for managing insecurities and self-doubts (Hogan & Hogan, 2009). This factor
resembles what Tellegen (1985) calls “positive affectivity” and has been related to
management potential (Furnham, Trickey, & Hyde, 2012), leadership performance (Benson &
Campbell, 2007), and innovative potential (Zibarras, Port, & Woods, 2008). Moreover, there
is convincing empirical evidence linking each of these traits separately to charismatic
leadership.
A first crucial feature of the charismatic personality concerns self-confidence (Bass,
1998; Bono & Judge, 2004; House & Howell, 1992). Self-confidence allows leaders to
convey that they are credible in their conviction that high-performance expectations can be
achieved (Dóci & Hofmans, 2015; Judge & Bono, 2000). This feature is captured in the HDS
Bold scale. Second, charismatic persons are captivating, and this relates to a tendency to be
expressive, energetic, and optimistic about the future (Bono & Judge, 2004). Charismatic
leaders are extraverted and inspirational, with excellent rhetoric abilities (e.g., Emrich,
Brower, Feldman, & Garland, 2001), which allow them to evoke enthusiasm, confidence, and
commitment in their followers (Bass, 1998). This second dimension is captured in the HDS
Colorful scale. Third, charismatic persons stand out because of their tendency to explore the
unknown, persuading themselves and others to keep on pushing the limits. Charismatic
leaders usually enjoy challenging the status quo and taking risks (Conger, Kanungo, Menon,
& Mathur, 1997; House & Howell, 1992; Shamir et al., 1993), which is captured in the
Mischievous scale of the HDS. Fourth and finally, charismatic leaders are visionary (Judge &
Bono, 2000; House & Howell, 1992) and are seen as thinking in creative ways (Mueller,
Goncalo, & Kamdar, 2011). This is captured in the HDS Imaginative scale.
In the light of the “trait versus attribution” debate described above, evidence for the
construct validity of the HDS charismatic cluster can be obtained by linking people’s self-

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 8
reports on this personality cluster to observers’ perceptions of charisma levels. More
specifically, if HDS charisma truly captures charismatic personality, then we should find
positive associations between HDS charisma self-reports and observers’ perceptions of
charisma-related tendencies such as self-confidence, expressiveness, energy, optimism about
the future, rhetorical ability, being inspirational, risk taking, challenging the status quo, and
creativity. Similarly, when HDS charisma is applied to a leadership context, we should
observe positive associations between leaders’ self-reports on HDS charisma and followers’
attributions of charismatic leadership.
The Curvilinear Effect of Charismatic Personality
Turning to the outcomes of charisma, we note that a key question driving the current
research is whether the association between people’s charismatic personality and their levels
of effectiveness, particularly in a leadership context, is best represented by a curvilinear (cf.
too-much-of-a-good-thing) instead of a linear relationship (cf. more is better).
Closer inspection of the four personality traits constituting the charismatic cluster
already signals curvilinearity, given that each of these traits can be linked to dysfunctional
tendencies when they are taken too far (Hogan & Hogan, 2009). Specifically, self-confidence
(i.e., Bold) can translate into overconfidence, hubris, and narcissism in highly charismatic
leaders (Deluga, 1997; House & Howell, 1992; Sankowsky, 1995; Popper, 2002), posing
valid threats to their overall effectiveness. In line with these thoughts, a curvilinear
relationship was found between the Bold scale and leader effectiveness (Grijalva, Harms,
Newman, Gaddis, & Fraley, 2015). Similarly, the enthusiastic and entertaining nature of
charismatics (i.e., Colorful) may turn into attention-seeking behaviors that distract the
organization from its mission. In this context, Gardner and Avolio (1998) described highly
charismatic leaders as “the epitome of drama” (p. 33). Further, risk tolerance and
persuasiveness of charismatics (i.e., Mischievous), the third cornerstone of the charismatic
cluster, may turn into manipulative and exploitative behavior. This is in line with research

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 9
showing that high charisma in leaders is also associated with Machiavellianism (Deluga,
2001). Finally, at the extreme of creativity (i.e., Imaginative), highly charismatic leaders have
also been described to think and act in fanciful, eccentric ways (Kaiser & Hogan, 2007),
which may represent a final threat to their level of effectiveness in organizational settings. In
sum, it can be expected that a certain degree of charismatic tendencies is indeed desirable and
associated with higher effectiveness, whereas too much causes harm. Very low levels of
charisma should manifest as a lack of the confidence, strategic vision, and dynamism often
associated with effective leadership (Den Hartog, House, Hanges, Ruiz-Quintanilla, &
Dorfman, 1999; Lord, Foti, & DeVader, 1984). At very high levels, on the other hand, the
self-absorbed tendencies associated with charisma—arrogance, manipulation, grandiose
visions, and dramatic attention seeking—may negatively affect observers’ evaluation of
leader effectiveness (Benson & Campbell, 2007; Epitropaki & Martin, 2004). These effects
are expected to give shape to a curvilinear relationship between charisma and leader
effectiveness. In order to further understand these curvilinear effects, we needed to take a
closer look at the specific behaviors displayed by charismatic leaders.
Charismatic Personality and Leader Behaviors
An important objective of our work was to enhance our understanding of the
(curvilinear) association between charisma and leader effectiveness by investigating specific
leader behaviors. To this end, we considered four leader-behavior dimensions, which serve as
mediating mechanisms in our research model. Specifically, we drew on the versatile
leadership model (Kaiser, Overfield, & Kaplan, 2010) in which leader behaviors are covered
by two pairs of opposing leadership dimensions: Forceful versus enabling leadership,
representing the interpersonal side, or how one leads; and strategic versus operational
leadership, representing the organizational side, or what one leads. Forceful leadership
includes assuming authority and using power to push for performance, while enabling
leadership concerns creating conditions for others to contribute, through empowerment,

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 10
participation, and support. Strategic leadership can be defined as positioning the organization
for the future by setting direction, expanding capability, and supporting innovation, whereas
operational leadership includes guiding the team to get things done in the near term by
managing the tactical details of execution, focusing resources, and managing with process
discipline (Kaiser et al., 2010, 2015). Although each of the two classes of leader behaviors are
conceptualized as opposing dimensions (i.e., highly forceful leaders are usually low on
enabling), a small percentage of “versatile” leaders can use opposing leader behaviors with
equal ease. This leadership model overlaps with other taxonomies of leader behavior (e.g.,
DeRue, Nahrgang, Wellman, & Humphrey, 2011; Yukl, 2006). For instance, in terms of
Yukl’s (2006) taxonomy, forceful and enabling cover the relation-oriented category of leader
behavior, strategic taps into the change-oriented category, and operational covers the task-
oriented category of leader behavior. Importantly, each of these dimensions has clear
conceptual associations with charismatic personality.
Interpersonal Leader Behavior
A forceful leader takes charge by assuming authority and giving direction, is decisive,
speaks up, and doesn’t back down easily. Moreover, forceful leaders express high
performance expectations and push people hard to get there (Kaiser et al., 2010)—features
that are also characteristic of charismatic leaders (e.g., Conger & Kanungo, 1987; Shamir et
al., 1993; Waldman, Ramirez, House, & Puranam, 2001). In addition, the high need for
power, along with manifestations of authoritarian behavior that have been observed in
charismatic leaders (House & Howell, 1992), suggests that charismatic personalities will be
more likely to be forceful in their interpersonal style. Enabling behaviors, on the other hand,
include listening to others, seeking their input, and supporting others by showing appreciation
and being sensitive to people’s feelings (Kaiser et al., 2010). In this regard, the leadership
literature has demonstrated an extensive overlap between charismatic leadership and
narcissistic tendencies (e.g., Deluga, 1997; Galvin, Waldman, & Balthazard, 2010; Howell,

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 11
1988; Sankowsky, 1995), which are assumed to make charismatic leaders poor listeners and
highly sensitive to criticism (Maccoby, 2004). Narcissism is not only associated with an
inflated sense of self-importance and a preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success but
also with interpersonal exploitation, a lack of empathy, and indifference toward others (House
& Howell, 1992). As such, we expected highly charismatic leaders to be perceived as more
forceful and less enabling by coworkers, compared to less charismatic leaders.
Organizational Leader Behavior
In addition to the effects at the interpersonal level, charisma has also been described to
influence behavior at the organizational or business-related level. Most obviously, one of the
hallmarks of charismatic leadership involves displaying exceptional strategic vision and
articulation (Bass, 1985; Conger & Kanungo, 1998; Maccoby, 2004). Charismatic leaders are
believed to engage in behaviors such as referring to collective history, emphasizing collective
identity, communicating a collective vision or mission, and pursuing collective goals and
interests. On the other hand, the realization of this vision requires leadership that fosters goal
setting, planning, and task execution (Kaiser et al., 2010). It is here, at the operational level,
that highly charismatic leaders may underachieve compared to those with lower charismatic
tendencies. For instance, Conger (1990) noticed that charismatic leaders can become so
excited by their ideas that they can lose touch with reality and get stuck in the process of
implementing these visions. Operational behavior involves the short-term handling and
monitoring of daily tasks, and this may appear less appealing to highly charismatic leaders,
who are mainly interested in the bigger picture and long-term objectives. Taken together, we
expect highly charismatic leaders to be more strategic and less operational compared to less
charismatic leaders.
How can these expected behavioral manifestations of leader charisma explain lower
effectiveness ratings for the highest charisma levels? Drawing on the Antecedent-Benefit-
Cost (ABC) framework (Busse et al., 2016), we theorized that the explanatory mechanism

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 12
underlying the curvilinear relationship was to be found in inadequately proportioned patterns
of leader behaviors associated with various charisma levels. The ABC framework adopts a
competitive-mediation perspective (e.g., Hayes & Preacher, 2010) to explain the TMGT
effect, by stating that an overall effect results from the aggregation of multiple opposed
effects. Specifically, a special case is investigated in which a dependent variable is affected by
two (or more) mediators with opposite directionalities of influence, which are caused by a
common antecedent variable. The competing mediators can be understood as benefits and
costs of the antecedent. From an ABC perspective, a decrease in effectiveness (i.e., TMGT
effect) occurs at higher levels of a desired antecedent variable, when the costs associated with
the desired variable outweigh its benefits. When applied to the research model presented in
Figure 1, the costs associated with operational leader behavior may outweigh the benefits
delivered by strategic behavior when a certain level of charisma is exceeded. Highly
charismatic leaders may be strategically ambitious, but at the expense of getting day-to-day
work activities executed in a proper manner, with detrimental effects on perceived
effectiveness. Similarly, the costs associated with enabling behavior may outweigh the
benefits that can be ripped from forceful behavior. Even when there are benefits of giving
direction and expressing high performance expectations, beyond certain charisma levels
leaders might be less capable to meet their followers’ needs because of a lack of enabling
behavior. Ultimately, this would also result in decreased ratings of effectiveness.
The Moderating Role of Adjustment
The central idea in our work was that charismatic tendencies become maladaptive,
particularly in relation to leader effectiveness, when taken too far. Importantly, however, a
core tenet in the TMGT principle is that the inflection point—or the point after which further
increases in the “desirable” trait are no longer beneficial— is context-specific (Pierce &
Aguinis, 2013). Consistent with these thoughts, previous work in this area, studying for
instance the curvilinear association between conscientiousness and job performance (Le et al.,

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 13
2011), has indeed indicated that situational features play a crucial role in determining this
inflection point. Findings particularly indicate that there needs to be a match between a
person’s trait levels and the requirements that are imposed in a certain environment or
situation. In this regard, a leadership context can be thought of as an environment that
typically combines high pressure with high discretion. High pressure indicates that leaders
often face difficult decisions with potentially far-reaching implications for themselves, their
subordinates, and their entire organizations. Charismatic leaders in particular often encounter
such stressful conditions, as they are more likely to emerge in situations of crises and in
environments characterized by a high degree of challenge and opportunities for change (Pillai
& Meindl, 1998; Shamir & Howell, 1999). High discretion means that they can and are even
required to take responsibility for their actions. Kaiser and Hogan (2007) have described both
conditions as situations in which derailment is more likely to occur.
A crucial element that can help leaders to cope with these high levels of pressure is the
leader’s ability to remain self-composed and adjusted (Hogan & Hogan, 2007). For instance,
Kaiser et al. (2015) argued that low adjustment or increased reactivity to difficult
circumstances diminishes the resources needed to self-regulate, and the resulting experience
of threat triggers self-protective strategies. It is these self-protective strategies that define the
dark side of charisma and which have the potential to render charisma dysfunctional in terms
of leaders’ effectiveness. In other words, it can be predicted that a leader’s level of
adjustment, or his or her general ability to cope with stressful events, plays an important role
in determining at which level charisma loses its beneficial effects.
Predictions and Plan of Study
Our account of the current investigation of charisma and its outcomes in a leadership
context led to four sets of predictions, which are also summarized in our research model
(Figure 1). The first set of predictions relates to the construct validity of HDS charisma as a
trait-based measure of charisma. We expected HDS charisma to relate positively to self and

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 14
observers’ perceptions of charisma-related personality tendencies (Hypothesis 1a) and to
followers’ attributions of charismatic leadership (Hypothesis 1b).
The second prediction focused on the link between charismatic personality and leader
effectiveness. In line with the TMGT principle, a curvilinear effect was expected for
charismatic personality and observer-ratings of leader effectiveness: Leaders with both low
and high charismatic personalities would be perceived as being less effective than leaders
with moderate levels of charisma (Hypothesis 2).
The third prediction addressed the potential moderating effect of the leader’s level of
adjustment. Specifically, adjustment was expected to moderate the curvilinear effect of
charisma on leader effectiveness, in such a way that the inflection point after which the
relation turns asymptotic and negative occurs at higher levels of charisma when adjustment is
high (Hypothesis 3). As such, the decrease in effectiveness (cf. the right part of the inverted
U-shape) would present itself at higher levels of charisma when adjustment is high.
Our final set of predictions addressed the underlying mechanisms of the curvilinear
relationship between leader charisma and effectiveness. With regard to interpersonal
leadership, we expected charisma to be positively associated with forceful behavior
(Hypothesis 4a) and negatively associated with enabling behavior (Hypothesis 4b). With
regard to organizational leadership, we expected charisma to be positively associated with
strategic behavior (Hypothesis 5a) and negatively associated with operational behavior
(Hypothesis 5b). Moreover, we expected these leader behaviors to mediate the curvilinear
relationship between charismatic personality and leader effectiveness (Hypothesis 6). Beyond
a certain optimal level (i.e., the inflection point), further increases in charismatic personality
might reduce the effectiveness of leaders in two important ways (Busse et al., 2016): Enabling
costs may outweigh forceful benefits, and operational costs may outweigh strategic benefits.
These hypotheses were tested in three studies. In Study 1, evidence of construct
validity was provided for the HDS charismatic cluster as a trait-based measure of charisma. In

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 15
Study 2, ratings of leader effectiveness (i.e., from self, subordinates, peers, and superiors)
were collected to test for the relationship between charismatic personality and leader
effectiveness. Finally, in Study 3, a second sample of 360-degree-rated leaders was used to
replicate the curvilinear relationship between charismatic personality and observer-rated
leader effectiveness, as well as to examine interaction-effects with the leader’s level of
adjustment (i.e., moderation) and to explore the underlying mechanisms (i.e., mediation).
STUDY 1
In Study 1, we used two different samples to provide construct validity evidence for
HDS charisma as a useful trait-based measure of charisma: Goldberg’s (2008) Eugene-
Springfield community sample (Sample 1) and a Belgian sample of leaders (Sample 2). The
first goal of this validation study was to empirically test whether HDS charisma relates to
charisma-related tendencies that have been described in the literature, such as self-confidence,
expressiveness, energy, optimism about the future, rhetorical ability, being inspirational, risk
taking, challenging the status quo, and creativity (cf. Hypothesis 1a). To this end, the Eugene-
Springfield Community sample was used; with it HDS charisma could be related to a list of
self- and observer-rated personality descriptions (i.e., Big Five Inventory; John & Srivastava,
1999). By relating HDS charisma to a set of fine-grained behavioral descriptions reflecting
personality tendencies, we gained an in-depth understanding of its content.
The second question we addressed in this validation study was whether charismatic
personality, as operationalized by leaders’ scores on HDS charisma, related to followers’
attributions of charismatic leadership. This question was answered using data from actual
leaders, who were rated by subordinates in terms of charismatic leadership (Sample 2). As
charisma pertains to a constellation of personal characteristics that allow an individual to
influence other people by affecting their feelings, opinions, and behaviors (Riggio, 2009),
charismatic personality should be reflected in followers’ attributions of charisma, a point also
made by socioanalytic theory (Hogan, 2007). Hence, if HDS charisma really captures

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 16
charismatic personality, it should be positively related to charismatic leadership attributions
(Hypothesis 1b).
Method
All research was conducted according to the ethical rules presented in the General
Ethical Protocol of the Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences of Ghent University.
Procedure and Participants
Sample 1. Data were used from Goldberg’s (2008) Eugene-Springfield community
sample. Previous research has, for instance, used this sample to investigate personality
structure (DeYoung, Quilty, & Peterson, 2007), well-being (Naragon-Gainey &Watson,
2014), and vocational interests (Pozzebon, Visser, Ashton, Lee, & Goldberg, 2010). For the
current study, a subsample (N = 156) was used, from which we have self- and observer ratings
of five-factor model personality in 1998 (Time 1: Big Five Inventory) and self-ratings of
charismatic personality in 2007 (Time 2: Hogan Development Survey). At Time 1, an average
of three peers provided observer ratings of personality. Targets were on average 47.67 years
old (SD = 11.27), and 44 % were male (see Goldberg, 2008, for additional details about this
sample).
Sample 2. In the context of a course assignment, third-year psychology undergraduate
students were asked to recruit one target leader. Students were only responsible for recruiting
the target and for delivering the informed consent. Three inclusion criteria were imposed:
Targets had to be (1) at least 25 years old, (2) responsible for at least three subordinates, and
(3) have at least 3 years of working experience. All target leaders received an email including
a personal login and a link to an online survey. In total, 204 Belgian leaders participated in the
study by providing self-ratings on their personality (HDS and NEO-Five Factor Inventory).
Fifty-seven percent of the leaders were male and the mean age of the sample was 45.96 years
(SD = 8.62). The majority of the leaders had completed a higher education program (89.4%
had a bachelor’s degree or higher) and the average job tenure was 24.01 (SD = 8.50) years.

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 17
Each of the targets was asked to nominate one subordinate deemed willing and able to
evaluate their direct superior on charismatic leadership (Conger-Kanungo Scale). Thirty-eight
percent of the subordinates were male and their mean age was 39.87 years (SD = 10.24).
Subordinates reported frequent personal contacts with their respective leaders (60.1% reported
to have daily contact or more) and indicated that they were familiar with their target’s
behavior at work (M = 4.08, SD = .78; on a 5-point Likert scale). On average, subordinates
and leaders indicated that they had been working together for an average duration of 71.49
months (SD = 68.60).
Measures
Charismatic personality. In both samples the participants completed the 56 items
comprising the Bold, Mischievous, Colorful, and Imaginative scales of the HDS (Hogan &
Hogan, 2009). Participants responded by indicating whether they agreed or disagreed with the
items. Consequently, the raw scale scores ranged from 0 to 56, with higher scores indicating
higher charisma levels. Cronbach alphas of the combined HDS charisma scale were .84
(Sample 1) and .85 (Sample 2). Correlations between the four scales ranged between r = .23
(Bold-Imaginative) and r = .45 (Bold -Colorful) in Sample 1 and between r = .19 (Bold-
Imaginative) and r = .53 (Mischievous-Imaginative) in Sample 2.
Big Five traits. In Sample 1 both self-reports and observer reports were provided on
the 44-item Big Five Inventory (BFI; John & Srivastava, 1999) and two additional items
measuring physical attractiveness (see Goldberg, 2008). For each of these 46 descriptions, we
obtained an observer score by averaging the separate peer ratings. The average rwg(j) inter-rater
agreement coefficient (James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984) among the peers was relatively high
(rwg(j) = .65), justifying this aggregation approach. In Sample 2, leaders completed the 60-item
NEO Five-Factor Inventory (Hoekstra, Ormel, & De Fruyt, 2007) to measure their standing
on the Big Five traits (i.e., Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 18
Conscientiousness). The internal consistencies of the five scales were acceptable to good,
ranging between .71 (Openness) and .88 (Neuroticism).
Charismatic leadership. In Sample 2, subordinates rated their leader using the 20-
item Conger-Kanungo Scale (CKS; Conger et al., 1997) of charismatic leadership. The CKS
consists of five subscales: strategic vision and articulation (7 items), personal risk (3 items),
sensitivity to the environment (4 items), sensitivity to members’ needs (3 items), and
unconventional behavior (3 items). Items were rated on a 5-point response format ranging
from 1 (not characteristic) to 5 (very characteristic). Example items are: “Consistently
generates new ideas for the future of the organization” and “Uses non-traditional means to
achieve organizational goals.” A high level of internal consistency was obtained for the entire
charismatic leadership scale (α = .92). The Cronbach alphas for the separate subscales were
also acceptable to good: α = .92 for strategic vision and articulation, α = .85 for personal risk,
α = .84 for sensitivity to the environment, α = .78 for sensitivity to members’ needs, and α =
.63 for unconventional behavior. All descriptive statistics, correlations, and internal
consistencies of the study variables in Sample 2 are reported in Table 1.
Insert Table 1 about here
Results
Correlations between HDS charisma and self-rated and observer-rated BFI
descriptions were examined in the Eugene-Springfield sample (cf. Hypothesis 1a). Results in
Table 2 confirm that, across rater sources, behavioral indicators tapping into extraversion are
highly relevant for describing charismatic personalities. For self- and observer ratings
respectively, positive associations were found with the following items: “Is talkative” (r = .36
and .26), “Is full of energy” (r = .30 and .28), “Is outgoing, sociable” (r = .34 and .31), and
“Has an assertive personality” (r = .36 and .32); negative associations were found with the
following: “Is reserved” (r = -.28 and -.30), “Tends to be quiet” (r = -.24 and -.28), and “Is

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 19
sometimes shy, inhibited” (r = -.22 and -.29). Tapping right into one of the core features of
charisma, “Generates a lot of enthusiasm” also had significant associations with HDS
charisma (r = .38 and .30 for self- and observer ratings respectively, p < .001). Results further
confirmed that charismatic personalities are usually perceived as open and creative minds. For
self- and observer ratings respectively, positive correlations were found between HDS
charisma and personality descriptions, including: “Has an active imagination” (r = .28 and
.31), “Is inventive” (r = .37 and .29), “Is original, comes up with new ideas” (r = .37 and .32),
“Likes to reflect, play with ideas” (r = .34 and .20), and “Is curious about many different
things” (r = .23 and .26); negative correlations included: “Prefers work that is routine” (r = -
.24 and -.34). Interestingly, charismatic personalities are more likely to be perceived as
“Somewhat careless” by observers (r = .17), which could reflect the risk-taking behavior that
is associated with charisma. Finally, associations were found between HDS charisma and self-
rated emotional stability descriptions such as “Is relaxed, handless stress well” (r = .20),
“Worries a lot” (r = -.19), and “Gets nervous easily” (r = -.24), as well as self-rated
attractiveness items such as “Physically attractive” (r = .33) and “Not good-looking” (r = -
.22).
Insert Table 2 about here
In the sample of actual leaders (Sample 2), correlations between HDS charisma and
charismatic leadership attributions were examined. Consistent with our expectations
(Hypothesis 1b), Table 1 demonstrates that leaders’ self-rated charismatic personality (HDS)
was positively related to the subordinate-rated charismatic leadership composite (CKS), r =
.29, p < .001. Regarding the CKS subscales, the expected positive relationship was confirmed
for strategic vision and articulation (r = .27, p < .001), personal risk (r = .28, p < .001), and
unconventional behavior (r = .29, p < .001). No significant correlations were found between
HDS charisma and both sensitivity scales (r = .10 and .13, p > .05).

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 20
Finally, the availability of information about the leaders’ standing on the Big Five
domains allowed us to investigate the incremental validity of the HDS charismatic personality
cluster to predict followers’ charismatic attributions above and beyond the Big Five
personality traits. As such, a hierarchical regression analysis was conducted in which the Big
Five traits were entered in a first step, followed by HDS charisma in a second step. The
charismatic leadership composite (CKS), as rated by subordinates, served as the dependent
variable. Results indicated that the set of Big Five traits was significantly related to ratings of
charismatic leadership (R2 = .13, p < .01) and that HDS charisma demonstrated incremental
validity over and above the Big Five personality traits (ΔR2 = .04, p < .01).
Discussion
In summary, the results of Study 1 speak for the significance of HDS charisma as a
useful, trait-based measure of charisma. By relating HDS charisma to a set of fine-grained
behavioral descriptions that reflect personality tendencies, a more in-depth understanding of
its content was obtained. Consistent with other research (Bass, 1998; Bono & Judge, 2004; De
Vries, 2008), charismatic persons are typically described as energetic, assertive, talkative
people who inspire others by generating a lot of enthusiasm. Moreover, inventiveness,
imaginativeness, and originality reflect their creative minds, while their carelessness may
reflect risk-taking behaviors. Interestingly, stress-coping is perceived to be good by the
participants themselves, while this is not necessarily the case for observers. However, it is
possible that descriptions that reflect emotional stability are judged less accurately by peers
because of a lower level of “trait visibility” (Funder & Dobroth, 1987). Finally, some
associations between HDS charisma and self-rated—but not observer-rated—personality
descriptions may indicate a self-enhancement bias, which is particularly characteristic for
people with high levels of self-esteem (e.g., Judge, LePine, & Rich, 2006). For instance, their
attractiveness and ingenious levels might be slightly overrated because observer reports do
not reflect these characteristics. Note that HDS charisma and BFI were administered with a 9-

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 21
year time difference in the Eugene-Springfield sample, making the correlations around r = .30
quite substantial.
Moreover, a positive correlation was found between HDS charisma based on leaders’
self-reports and subordinate-rated charismatic leadership styles. The observed relationship of
r = .29 between HDS charisma and the CKS measure of charismatic leader behavior needs to
be interpreted keeping in mind that different constructs (i.e., personality and leader behavior)
were rated by different raters (cf. De Vries, 2012). Provided that other studies report levels of
self-other agreement among leaders and subordinates on the exact same variables of r = .16
(e.g., for transformational leadership; see Judge et al., 2006), we consider this as convincing
evidence that HDS charisma is a valid measure of charismatic personality.
Finally, we provided incremental validity evidence for HDS charisma, which accounts
for an additional proportion of the variance in charismatic leadership beyond Big Five traits.
Controlling for Big Five traits was relevant in this context given that prior research had
already established their association with charismatic leadership (Bono & Judge, 2004). We
found that, despite the conceptual and empirical overlap with the FFM domains, most
importantly with extraversion (i.e., r = .44 in the current study), the observed positive
association between HDS charisma and charismatic leadership cannot be explained by Big
Five traits, including extraversion, that has previously been found to be the most important
personality correlate of charismatic leadership (Bono & Judge, 2004; De Vries, 2008).
STUDY 2
Having provided evidence for the validity of HDS charisma as a trait-based
operationalization of charisma, the purpose of Study 2 is to test for the expected effects of
charismatic personality on leader effectiveness. In line with the meta-theoretical TMGT
principle (Pierce & Aguinis, 2013), we hypothesized a curvilinear relationship between
charismatic personality and leader effectiveness (Hypothesis 2). Such a perspective challenges
the existing theories of charismatic leadership that advocate the “more is better” idea (e.g.,

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 22
Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1994), and is consistent with increasing evidence in the
organizational and applied personality literature in support of curvilinear relationships (e.g.,
Debusscher, Hofmans, & De Fruyt, 2014; Grijalva et al., 2015; Le et al., 2011).
Method
Procedure and Participants
This study used data for 306 leaders, all employed by the same international aerospace
company. The data, including demographics, experience, and ratings of effectiveness, were
gathered as part of an assessment process conducted for a training-and-development program.
Participants went through the program in cohorts of approximately 25 to 30 leaders each,
spaced out over 3 years. Most of the leaders were North-American (95%) men (65.4%), and
the mean age was 47.64 years (SD = 6.39). An average of 14 raters (with a minimum of 7 and
a maximum of 31 raters) rated each leader in terms of overall effectiveness, including at least
one subordinate, one peer, and one superior. Taken together, 4,345 coworkers participated in
this study, comprising 666 superiors, 1,659 peers, and 2,020 subordinates. The leaders had on
average 16.01 years (SD = 7.23) of managerial experience and had a mean tenure in the
current job of 2.51 years (SD = 2.54). Leaders occupied different managerial levels ranging
from supervisors (30%) to general managers (20%).
Insert Table 3 about here
Measures
All descriptive statistics, correlations, and internal consistencies of the study
variables are reported in Table 3.
Demographic and control variables. Based on significant correlations with the study
criteria (see Table 3), leader sex and managerial experience were used as relevant control
variables in statistical tests of the hypotheses.

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 23
Charismatic personality. Leaders completed the 56 items from the Bold,
Mischievous, Colorful, and Imaginative scales of the HDS (Hogan & Hogan, 2009). HDS
charisma scores were expressed in terms of percentiles ranging from 1 to 100 (i.e., relative to
the general population of working adults in the U.S.). Percentile scores help to interpret the
relationship between charismatic personality and leader effectiveness by referencing
personality scores to a normative population (e.g., Is the optimal level of charisma near the
normative mean, slightly elevated, or highly elevated?). The internal consistency of the HDS
charisma scale was .85.
Overall leader effectiveness. A single-item of the Leadership Versatility Index (LVI;
Kaiser et al., 2010) was used to measure overall leader effectiveness. The item reads: “Please
rate this individual's overall effectiveness as a leader on a ten-point scale where 5 is adequate
and 10 is outstanding.” Leaders (N = 306), along with their subordinates (N = 2,020), peers (N
= 1,659), and superiors (N = 666), provided overall leader-effectiveness ratings. An average
of seven subordinates, five peers, and two superiors rated each of their respective leaders.
Based on a composite of the ratings from superiors, peers, and subordinates, an aggregated
observer rating was computed for overall leader effectiveness. This aggregate score represents
the grand mean of the mean ratings for the observer rating groups, excluding self-ratings. To
obtain this aggregated score, the mean ratings across raters within the superior, peer, and
subordinate groups were calculated separately. For example, to obtain an aggregate score of
overall effectiveness for a particular leader, the mean ratings of the superiors (6.50), peers
(7.71), and subordinates (8.75) were summed (22.96), and divided by three (7.65). This
procedure results in an overall score that unit-weights each observer-rater perspective and,
according to Oh and Berry (2009), is the most valid way to aggregate ratings from coworkers
to an overall score. To provide additional justification for this aggregation method, the rwg(j)
inter-rater agreement coefficient (James et al., 1984) and the one-way random effects intra-
class correlation coefficient (ICC; McGraw & Wong, 1996) were computed within superior,

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 24
peer, and subordinate groups, as well as across these three sources (LeBreton, Burgess,
Kaiser, Atchley, & James, 2003). The results in Appendix A indicate that the level of
similarity across superior, peer, and subordinate ratings is sufficiently high to support
aggregation (LeBreton & Senter, 2008).
Kaiser et al. (2010) summarized validity and reliability evidence for the single item
overall effectiveness measure, showing that it has substantial correlations with other, multi-
item scales of leader effectiveness (e.g., r = .86 with Quinn, Spreitzer, & Hart’s, 1991,
managerial effectiveness scale; r = .73 with Tsui’s, 1984, managerial reputational
effectiveness scale). In the current study, the correlation between different rater sources was r
= .34 for superior-peer, r = .20 for superior-subordinate, and r = .22 for peer-subordinate
ratings, demonstrating a modest degree of convergent validity of the single-item measure that
is similar in magnitude to meta-analytic estimates of cross-source correlations on multi-item
scales (Conway & Huffcut, 1997).
Results
To test for curvilinearity in the relationship between charismatic personality and leader
effectiveness (Hypothesis 2), we conducted a hierarchical regression analysis. Prior to the
analysis, we centered the charismatic personality scores and then computed the squared term
based on the centered scores. The control variables (i.e., sex and managerial experience) were
entered in a first step, followed by charismatic personality (centered) in a second step, and the
squared term for charismatic personality was entered in a third and final step. The aggregated
observer rating for overall effectiveness served as the dependent variable.
The results (Table 4, Model 1) first show that more experienced leaders were
perceived as more effective (Step 1: β = .14, p < .05). Next, we added the linear term for
charismatic personality (Step 2). This revealed that charismatic personality was not linearly
related to leader effectiveness (β = .04, p > .05). Relevant to Hypothesis 2, however, are the
results of Step 3, where both the linear and the squared term were included. Consistent with

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 25
the hypothesized inverted-U curvilinear effect, the squared term for charismatic personality
was negative and significant (β = -.24, p < .001). The robustness of this finding was further
illustrated by significant curvilinear effects in each of the three rater groups (see Models 2 to
4 in Table 4). In other words, leaders with both low and high charismatic personalities were
perceived as being less effective than leaders with moderate levels of charisma, and this was
true according to all three the rater groups.
On exploratory grounds, a similar regression analysis was conducted to test whether
the same trend was observed for the association between charismatic personality and self-
perceived leader effectiveness. Again, control variables were entered (Step 1), followed by
charismatic personality (Step 2), and the squared term for charismatic personality (Step 3).
The only difference was that the dependent variable was not other-perceived but self-
perceived overall effectiveness. Table 4 (Model 5) indicates that more experienced leaders
also perceived themselves as more effective (β = .15, p < .05). More importantly, however,
Step 2 showed that charismatic personality was linearly related to self-perceived effectiveness
(β = .27, p < .001), whereas the squared term for charismatic personality in Step 3 was not
significant (β = .02, p > .05). This indicates that higher charisma levels are consistently
associated with higher self-perceived effeciveness. Figure 2 shows the regression lines for the
significant quadratic and linear effects for observer and self-ratings of perceived leader
effectiveness, respectively. In this figure, it can be seen that—according to relevant others—
moderate, or slightly elevated, levels of charisma (i.e., around percentile 60) were associated
with the highest effectiveness levels.
Insert Table 4 about here
Insert Figure 2 about here

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 26
Discussion
In Study 2 the relationship between leaders’ charismatic personality and overall
effectiveness was examined. Consistent with our expectations, we found that leader charisma
related to observer-rated effectiveness in a curvilinear way, with moderate levels being more
effective than low or high levels of charismatic personality. Moreover, the curvilinear
relationship held across the three observer groups (i.e., subordinates, peers, and supervisors).
Next, we found that this relationship was different for self-rated overall effectiveness.
Consistent with self-enhancement theories (e.g., Alicke & Govorun, 2005; Leary, 2007), a
positive linear relationship was found, implying that higher charismatic tendencies were
consistently related to higher self-perceived effectiveness. This finding is also in line with
other research demonstrating that leaders with high self-esteem typically overrate their
performance on a variety of criteria (e.g., Judge et al., 2006).
STUDY 3
Study 2 showed that charismatic personality related in a curvilinear way to observer-
rated leadership effectiveness. In Study 3, we sought to replicate and extend these results in
two important ways. First, the potential moderating role of the leader’s level of adjustment in
this curvilinear relationship is tested (Hypothesis 3). Second, the mechanisms underlying this
curvilinear association are explored. Specifically, a process model is tested describing the
association between charismatic personality and perceived leader effectiveness, as mediated
through leader behaviors. This is in line with recent calls to integrate trait and behavioral
leadership theories into process-type models which aim to clarify the effects of distal
individual differences (e.g., traits and styles) on leader outcomes through more proximal
leader behaviors (Antonakis, Day, & Schyns, 2012; DeRue, et al., 2011; Dinh & Lord, 2012;
Zaccaro, 2012). As charismatic leaders express high performance expectations and push
people hard to get there (Waldman et al., 2001), potentially at the expense of being sensitive
to followers’ feelings (Deluga, 1997), we expect charisma to be positively associated with

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 27
forceful (Hypothesis 4a), and negatively associated with enabling behavior (Hypothesis 4b).
Moreover, charismatic leaders display exceptional strategic vision (Bass, 1985), but they can
become so excited about their ideas, that they get stuck in the process of implementing their
big visions (Conger, 1990). Therefore, we expect charisma to be positively associated with
strategic (Hypothesis 5a), and negatively associated with operational behavior (Hypothesis
5b). We argue that the effectiveness of various levels of leader charisma is mediated by these
leader behaviors (Hypothesis 6). From an ABC perspective (Busse et al., 2016), enabling
costs may outweigh forceful benefits, and/or operational costs may outweigh strategic
benefits, such that beyond a certain optimal level, further increases in charismatic personality
might reduce the effectiveness of leaders.
Method
Procedure and Participants
Development-center test data were obtained from an international consultancy firm
specialized in leader assessment and executive coaching. Leaders (N = 287) from 23 different
countries (e.g., 53% North America, 33% Western Europe, 8% Africa, 4% East Asia)
participated in the study. To obtain a true 360 view of the leadership criteria (i.e., leader
effectiveness and the four leader behaviors), only leaders who were rated at least once by each
of three rater categories (i.e., superiors, peers, and subordinates) were included. An average of
11 raters (1 superior, 5 peers, and 5 subordinates; minimum of 5 and a maximum of 27 raters)
rated each leader in terms of overall effectiveness and leader behaviors. Taken together, 3,052
coworkers participated in this study, comprising 309 superiors, 1,380 peers, and 1,363
subordinates. Most of the leaders were male (81%) and the mean age was 45.37 years (SD =
6.78). They reported an average of 15.78 years (SD = 7.77) managerial experience and had a
mean tenure in their current job of 2.99 years (SD = 3.40). Leaders occupied different
managerial levels—from supervisors (12.2%) to general managers (15%)—and most of them
worked in business organizations. Part of the data were also used in Kaiser et al. (2015).

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 28
Different than Kaiser et al. (2015), which focused on relationships between the 11 individual
HDS traits and the four LVI leader behaviors, the current study focused on the HDS
“charismatic cluster” as a measure of charismatic personality and its relation to overall leader
effectiveness. Further, although the four LVI leader behaviors served as the main criteria in
Kaiser et al. (2015), they are examined as mediators in the current study.
Insert Table 5 about here
Measures
All descriptive statistics, correlations, and internal consistencies of the study
variables are reported in Table 5.
Demographic and control variables. Based on significant correlations with the study
criteria (see Table 5), age and managerial experience qualified as relevant control variables.
However, because of the strong correlation between age and experience (r = .72, p < .001),
and because the impact of experience on leader effectiveness has already been established
(Avery, Tonidandel, Griffith, & Quiñones, 2003), only managerial experience was included as
a control variable. As in Study 2, we also controlled for sex.
Charismatic personality. As in Study 2, leaders completed the 56 items from the
Bold, Mischievous, Colorful, and Imaginative scales of the HDS (Hogan & Hogan, 2009).
The internal consistency of HDS charisma was .84.
Adjustment. Leaders completed the 37-item adjustment scale of the Hogan
Personality Inventory (HPI; Hogan & Hogan, 2007), which corresponds to the FFM
Emotional Stability dimension and can be described as the degree to which a person appears
calm and self-accepting or, conversely, self-critical and tense. The internal consistency of the
adjustment scale was .85.
Leadership criteria. The Leadership Versatility Index (LVI; Kaiser et al., 2010) was
used to measure both overall leader effectiveness (see Study 2) and specific leader behaviors.

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 29
Within the LVI, leader behaviors can be covered by two pairs of opposing dimensions in
leadership: Forceful versus enabling leadership, and strategic versus operational leadership.
Each of the four dimensions are surveyed by means of 12 items using the “too little/too
much” response format ranging from -4 (much too little), to 0 (the right amount), to +4 (much
too much). Methodologically, the LVI provides a unique operationalization of these behaviors
that goes beyond traditional rating scales and complements our theoretical grounds that
emphasize the need for balance between deficiency and excess. Sample items are: “Takes
charge—in control of his/her area of responsibility” (Forceful), “Participative—includes
people in making decisions” (Enabling), “Spends time and energy on long-term planning—
future-oriented” (Strategic), and “Organized—takes a methodical approach to getting things
done” (Operational; Kaiser et al., 2010).
Both leaders (N = 287) and their respective coworkers (N = 3,052) completed the LVI.
To compute aggregated observer ratings for overall leader effectiveness and each of the four
leader behaviors, a similar procedure was followed as in Study 2, such that each rating group
(i.e., subordinates, peers, and superiors) was equally weighted in the observer score (Oh &
Berry, 2009). Based on inter-rater agreement (rwg(j)) and inter-rater reliability (ICC)
coefficients (James et al., 1984; McGraw & Wong, 1996) within and across these three
sources, support was found to justify this aggregation (see Appendix A).
Cronbach alphas of the aggregated LVI leader behavior dimensions were .93 for
forceful behavior, .92 for both enabling and strategic leader behavior, and .80 for operational
behavior. Frequencies of leaders being perceived as doing “too little,” doing “the right
amount,” and doing “too much” of each of the four leader behaviors are displayed in Table 6,
along with the mean charismatic personality score within each group of leaders. Generally,
the frequencies of leaders underdoing leader behaviors are the highest (e.g., 74 % of the
leaders perform too little strategic behavior), compared to leaders overdoing and leaders doing
the right amount of each of the leader behaviors.

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 30
Insert Table 6 about here
Results
Relating Charismatic Personality to Leader Effectiveness
To test for curvilinearity in the relationship between charismatic personality and leader
effectiveness, we followed the same analytical procedure as in Study 2. The results in Table 7
indicate a positive and linear relationship between charismatic personality and self-perceived
effectiveness (Step 2: β = .18, p < .01), while no quadratic effect was found (Step 3: β = .06, p
> .05). Conversely, when testing the relationship with observer-rated leader effectiveness, the
linear term for charismatic personality was not significant (Step 2: β = .04, p > .05), whereas
the squared term was negative and significant (β = -.15, p < .05). The regression lines for the
significant quadratic and linear effects of respectively observer-rated and self-rated leader
effectiveness are highly similar to those reported in Figure 2.
Insert Table 7 about here
Adjustment as a Moderator
A hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to test whether the quadratic
relationship between charismatic personality and leader effectiveness is moderated by
adjustment. This answers the question whether the inflection point in the curvilinear
relationship between charismatic personality and observer-rated effectiveness depends on the
leader’s level of self-regulation. Sex and managerial experience were first entered in the
regression as control variables (Step 1), followed by charismatic personality (centered) and
adjustment (centered; Step 2), and the squared term for charismatic personality (Step 3). In a
final step, interaction terms between (a) adjustment and charismatic personality and (b)
adjustment and the quadratic term of charismatic personality were entered (Step 4).
Relevant to Hypothesis 3 are the two interaction terms reported in Step 4 of the
regression. As can be seen in Table 8, the interaction term between adjustment and the linear

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 31
effect of charismatic personality approaches conventional levels of significance (β = .13, p =
.06), while the interaction term between adjustment and the quadratic effect of charismatic
personality is not significant (β = -.04, p > .05). To further interpret this relationship, we
plotted the moderation effect in Figure 3. In line with our hypothesis, this figure shows that
the inflection point after which the charisma-effectiveness relationship turns asymptotic and
negative is lower for leaders who score low on adjustment, compared to leaders scoring high
on adjustment.
Insert Table 8 about here
Insert Figure 3 about here
Leader Behaviors as Mediating Mechanisms
Prior to testing the mediation hypothesis, we investigated the relationships between
charismatic personality and each of the four leader behaviors (i.e., the mediators). Four
hierarchical regressions were conducted, with sex and managerial experience entered in the
first step (i.e., the control variables) and charismatic personality in the second step. Consistent
with our expectations (Hypothesis 5), we found charismatic personality to be positively
associated with strategic leadership (β = .27, p < .001) and negatively with operational
leadership (β = -.31, p < .001), indicating that higher charisma scores are associated with a
tendency to do more strategic behavior and less operational behavior. No significant
associations were found between charismatic personality and the two interpersonal leadership
dimensions (β = .08 and .06 for forceful and enabling respectively, p > .05), which is
inconsistent with Hypothesis 4.
A visualization of the significant effects helps in refining the interpretation of these
associations (see Figure 4). The point where the regression line crosses zero (i.e., the right
amount) on the leader behavior scale corresponds to the percentile score on charismatic
personality associated with the optimal amount of the leader behavior. The positive relation

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 32
between charismatic personality and strategic behavior (Panel A) illustrates that, whereas low
charisma levels correspond with a tendency to underdo strategic behavior, high charisma
levels correspond with doing the right amount of strategic behavior. This figure thus reveals
that leaders low in charisma are more inclined to show too little strategic behavior, rather than
that highly charismatic leaders are more inclined to show too much strategic behavior. With
regard to the negative association between charisma and operational behavior, Figure 4 (Panel
B) shows that high charisma corresponds with a tendency to underdo operational behavior,
whereas low charisma levels correspond with an optimal amount of operational behavior.
Hence, high charisma levels are associated with higher strategic behaviors (but not too much)
and a lack of operational behaviors (i.e., too little).
Insert Figure 4 about here
Hypothesis 6 predicted that LVI leader behaviors (i.e., the mediators M) mediate the
curvilinear relationship between charismatic personality (i.e., the independent variable X) and
observer-rated leader effectiveness (i.e., the dependent variable Y). The mediation hypothesis
was tested using path modeling in Mplus version 7.3. Because charismatic personality was
related to strategic and operational leadership but not to forceful and enabling leadership, only
the two business-related behaviors were included in the model. In particular, strategic and
operational behavior were predicted by the linear and squared effect of charismatic
personality, while leader effectiveness was predicted by the linear and squared effects of
strategic and operational leader behavior and the linear and squared effect of charismatic
personality (see Figure 5). In this model, the predictor and mediators were centered before
computing the squared effects, and the linear and squared effects of strategic and operational
leader behavior were allowed to correlate. Together, this yields the following set of equations:
Mstrategic = istrategic + a1 strategicX + a2 strategicX2 + estrategic
Moperational = ioperational + a1 operationalX + a2 operationalX2 + eoperational

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 33
Y = iY + b1Mstrategic + b2M2strategic + b3Moperational + b4M2operational +c1X + c2X2 + eY
Insert Figure 5 about here
With respect to the relationship between the predictor and the mediators (i.e., the a-
paths in Figure 5), we found that charismatic personality was positively related to strategic (β
= .26, p < .001) and negatively to operational leader behavior (β = -.33, p < .001), while no
curvilinear effects were found (β = -.07 and .01 for strategic and operational leader behavior
respectively, p > .05). Regarding the relationships between the mediators and the outcome
(i.e., the b-paths in Figure 5), we found that both the linear (β = .49, p < .001, and β = .27, p <
.001) and the curvilinear components (β = -.16, p < .05, and β = -.13, p < .05) of strategic and
operational leader behavior related to leader effectiveness. This suggests that higher levels of
strategic and operational behavior positively relate to perceived effectiveness but only up to a
point that there is no additional benefit of more strategic and operational behaviors (i.e.,
positive flattening curves). Finally, the direct effect of charisma on leader effectiveness (i.e.,
the c-paths in Figure 5) was nonsignifcant (β = -.06 and -.07 for the linear and quadratic effect
respectively, p > .05), which indicates that the relationship between charismatic personality
and leader effectiveness is fully mediated by strategic and operational behaviors.
To formally test the indirect mediation effects of charismatic personality on leader
effectiveness via strategic and operational leader behavior, we tested the indirect effects
following the approach of Hayes and Preacher (2010), which was specifically developed for
testing nonlinear mediation. Because the a-path is linear, while the b-path is quadratic, the
mediation—or indirect—effect was computed as follows: θ = a(b1+2b2(i+aX)); see Hayes
and Preacher (2010), p. 633. As can be seen in this formula, the mediation effect depends on
the value of the predictor (i.e., X is part of the formula), which means that the effect of
charismatic personality on leader effectiveness through strategic and operational leader
behavior depends on the leader’s level of charisma. For this reason, Hayes and Preacher

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 34
(2010) referred to the indirect effect as the instantaneous indirect effect, which is the effect of
the predictor on the outcome through the mediator(s) at a specific value of the predictor. This
instantaneous indirect effect was tested for different levels of charismatic personality using
nonparametric bootstrapping (N = 1,000). A graphical representation of the instantaneous
indirect effects, together with their 95% confidence intervals, is shown in Figure 6.
Insert Figure 6 about here
As can be seen in Panel A of Figure 6, and in line with the positive linear a- and b-
paths, we found a positive instantaneous indirect effect of charismatic personality on leader
effectiveness through strategic leader behavior. Moreover, combining the positive linear and
negative quadratic b-paths yields a positive flattening curve, implying that the positive effect
of charisma on effectiveness weakens at higher levels of charisma. In turn, Panel B shows that
the instantaneous indirect effect of charismatic personality on leader effectiveness through
operational leader behavior is negative (which is in line with the negative linear a- and
positive linear b-path). Moreover, because of the negative curvilinear b-path, the effect
becomes more negative when charismatic personality increases.
Combined, these findings clearly reveal the mechanisms that underlie the curvilinear
relationship between charismatic personality and leader effectiveness. For example, for
leaders with a centered charisma score of -30 (i.e., low charismatic personality), the predicted
instantaneous indirect effect for strategic behavior is .005, which translates into a negative
effect of low charisma on effectiveness via strategic behavior (i.e., -30 × .005 = -.150),
whereas the predicted instantaneous indirect effect for operational behavior is -.002, which
translates into a positive effect of low charisma on effectiveness via operational behavior (i.e.,
-30 × -.002 = .060). Together, this yields a combined negative effect of low charisma on
leader effectiveness of -.150 + .060 = -.090, in which the negative effect is entirely due to the
lack of strategic behavior. For leaders with an average charismatic personality (i.e., a centered

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 35
score of 0), the predicted instantaneous indirect effect for strategic behavior is .005, while the
predicted instantaneous indirect effect for operational behavior is -.003. Together, the effect
of average charisma on leader effectiveness equals 0 ((.005 × 0) + (-.003 × 0)). Finally, for
leaders with a centered charisma score of 30 (i.e., high charismatic personality), the predicted
instantaneous indirect effect for strategic behavior is .004, which translates into a positive
effect of high charisma on effectiveness via strategic behavior (i.e., 30 × .004 = .120), while
the predicted instantaneous indirect effect for operational behavior is -.005, which translates
into a negative effect of high charisma on effectiveness via operational behavior (i.e., 30 × -
.005 = -.150). Together, this yields a combined negative effect of high charisma on leader
effectiveness of .120 + (-.150) = -.030, in which the negative effect is entirely due to the lack
of operational behavior.
Discussion
In Study 3 we replicated the curvilinear relationship between charismatic personality
and leader effectiveness. Moreover, conditions under which and processes through which this
curvilinear relationship occurs were examined. Hogan and Hogan (2007) pointed to the
crucial role of adjustment in professional contexts. The presented study showed that, when a
leader’s level of adjustment is high, the inflection point after which the relation with
effectiveness turns asymptotic and negative occurs at higher levels of charisma. This means
that a high level of adjustment can alleviate the negative effects associated with high charisma
levels.
Finally, the overall results of the mediation analysis revealed that leaders low on
charisma are perceived to be less effective than leaders with an average charisma level
because they lack strategic behaviors, while leaders high on charisma are perceived to be less
effective because they lack operational behaviors. In line with the ABC framework (Busse et
al., 2016), the instantaneous-indirect-effect approach showed that the TMGT effect results
from two competing indirect effects: a positive indirect effect via strategic behavior (i.e.,

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 36
benefit variable) and a negative indirect effect via operational behavior (i.e., cost variable). At
high charisma levels, the beneficial effect of highly strategic behavior is still there, but these
benefits are offset by the operational costs associated with high charisma levels.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Our work aimed to advance the understanding of leader charisma by (1) introducing a
trait-based model of charisma; (2) demonstrating curvilinear relationships between
charismatic personality and leader effectiveness; (3) studying the boundary conditions under
which the nature of this relationship may change; and (4) examining the processes through
which this relationship may occur.
The first objective was addressed in Study 1. Results of this study generally speak for
the significance of HDS charisma as a useful, trait-based measure of charisma. In addition to
conceptual arguments for the relevance of this constellation of personality traits, we found
significant correlations between HDS charisma and fine-grained behavioral descriptions of
charisma that were both self-rated and observer-rated 9 years earlier. Moreover, a significant
correlation was found between HDS charisma based on leaders’ self-reports and subordinate-
rated charismatic leadership styles (CKS charismatic leadership), and we provided
incremental validity evidence for HDS charisma, which accounts for an additional proportion
of the variance in charismatic leadership beyond Big Five traits.
Delving deeper into the associations between the two charisma ratings further showed
that no significant relationships were observed between HDS charisma and both CKS
sensitivity subscales. This reinforces the idea that the current measure of charismatic
personality focuses on communicating vision, unconventional behavior, and personal risk
taking but does not necessarily cover attention to other people’s needs or assessing events in
the external environment. Although an extensive discussion of this finding transcends the
purposes of this study, it is relevant to point out that this may shed light on the difference
between charismatic and transformational leadership. Consistent with Bass’s (1985)

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 37
conceptual differentiation between charisma and individualized consideration, this finding
might indicate that sensitivity or individual consideration is a critical factor distinguishing
charismatic from transformational leaders. This idea was also expressed by Bono and Judge
(2004), who stated that “the modesty and kindness of agreeable individuals is not the
hallmark of charismatic leaders” (p. 903).
Moreover, existing theories and research on leader charisma have in common that they
all tend to depart from a rather simplistic “more is better” perspective. With evidence
increasing in favor of an alternative “too much of a good thing” perspective in the fields of
applied personality, organizational behavior, and management science, a second objective of
our work was to investigate whether leaders can be too charismatic. Consistent with our
expectations, the results in both Study 2 and Study 3 revealed a nonlinear relationship
between charismatic personality and observer-rated overall leader effectiveness, supporting
the idea that moderate levels are better than low or high levels of charismatic personality. This
finding aligns with leadership research demonstrating the dynamic of strengths becoming
weaknesses when overusing them (e.g., Kaiser & Hogan, 2011; McCall, 2009). Striking in
this regard is the divergent effect of charismatic personality on self-rated overall
effectiveness, which was positive and linear in both studies, implying that higher charismatic
tendencies consistently go together with higher self-perceived effectiveness. The explanation
for this finding may be found in self-enhancement theory (Leary, 2007), which states that
people are motivated to protect their levels of self-esteem, especially in potentially threatening
situations like self-assessment. This may explain why the highly charismatic, with typically
high levels of self-esteem, might be blind to their weaknesses and exaggerate their strengths.
A third objective, which was addressed in Study 3, was to investigate the boundary
conditions under which this curvilinear relationship may change. A central tenet in the TMGT
principle is that the inflection point after which the relationship turns asymptotic is context-
specific (Pierce & Aguinis, 2013). Although we did not take situational variables into

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 38
account, such as stressful situations, we did take into account how one usually reacts to
stressful situations (i.e., adjustment). Consistent with Hogan and Hogan (2007), we found that
adjustment plays an important moderating role. When the leader’s level of adjustment is high,
the inflection point after which the relation with effectiveness turns asymptotic and negative
occurs at higher levels of charisma. This means that the “damage” of being highly charismatic
depends on other traits that the leader has: A high level of adjustment can buffer the negative
effects associated with high charisma levels.
A final objective of our work, also addressed in Study 3, was to explore the
mechanisms that account for the nonlinear relationship between charismatic personality and
observer-rated effectiveness. For this purpose, both interpersonal (i.e., forceful and enabling)
and organizational (i.e., strategic and operational) behaviors were considered as potential
outcomes of charismatic personality, but only the latter were significantly associated with
charisma levels. Using path modeling, we found that strategic and operational leader
behaviors fully mediate the curvilinear relationship between charismatic personality and
overall leader effectiveness. Moreover, the instantaneous-indirect-effect approach clearly
provides insight into the mechanisms driving this curvilinear relationship. Specifically, it was
found that different leader behaviors are accountable for the curvilinearity between
charismatic personality and overall effectiveness at different charisma levels. At lower
charisma levels, the lack of strategic leader behavior makes leaders less effective than
moderately charismatic leaders (cf. the left part of the inverted U-shape in Figure 2). At
higher charisma levels, on the other hand, a clear lack of operational leader behavior reduces
leader effectiveness (cf. the right part of the inverted U-shape in Figure 2).
Research Implications
The current study departed from a research model, integrating leader characteristics,
leader behaviors, and finally relevant outcomes. This kind of overarching framework may
help to structure this field of study and, eventually, facilitate the accumulation of knowledge

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 39
in this domain. The specific conceptualizations adopted in the present study for leader
characteristics (i.e., charismatic personality, adjustment), leader behavior (interpersonal and
organizational) and leader outcomes (effectiveness) allowed us to shed light on the general
but highly prevalent question: “What breaks a leader?” (cf. Ames & Flynn, 2007; Hogan,
Hogan, & Kaiser, 2010). Linking charismatic tendencies to leadership behaviors revealed that
charisma is most strongly associated to business-related behaviors. Whereas conventional
wisdom suggests that highly charismatic leaders fail for interpersonal reasons like arrogance,
self-centeredness, and not caring about others (Blair, Hoffman, & Helland, 2008; O’Boyle,
Forsyth, Banks, & McDaniel, 2012), our findings suggest that business-related behaviors,
more than interpersonal behavior, drive leader effectiveness ratings.
Interestingly, the mediation analysis pinpoints the exact role of these business-related
behaviors in the curvilinear relationship between charismatic personality and leader
effectiveness. For operational behavior, the results indicate that higher charisma scores are
associated with a lack of operational behavior and that this impacts negatively on leader
effectiveness. Moreover, this effect is curvilinear, meaning that the detrimental effects of this
lack of operational behaviors become even stronger at higher levels of charisma. Regarding
strategic behavior, it was found that higher charisma scores are associated with more strategic
behavior and that this impacts positively on leader effectiveness. And this effect is also
curvilinear, indicating that the beneficial effects of these higher levels of strategic behavior
become weaker at higher levels of charisma. Taken together, although the decline in
perceived effectiveness of highly charismatic leaders cannot be due to “strategic overreach”
or the tendency to do too much strategic behavior, high strategic levels are associated with a
lack of operational behavior, which has a negative impact on the perceived effectiveness.
Insufficient operational leadership refers to (a) an inability to attend day-to-day operations, (b)
an inadequate focus and level of personal efficiency, and (c) a lack of process discipline to
manage an orderly workflow. It seems that highly charismatic leaders overestimate what they

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 40
can do and underestimate their limits, the risks, and the complex tangle of involvements.
These findings align with management research (e.g., Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2011;
Malmendier & Tate, 2005) that has related hubris/narcissism to bad business decisions (e.g.,
paying too much for acquisitions) and to erratic corporate financial performance. The
underlying culprit seems to be a lack of self-discipline and insufficient attention for the
operational details of business management.
Taken together, our mediation results provide support for theoretical models of
leadership arguing for leader behaviors as mechanisms through which individual leader traits
influence leadership effectiveness (e.g., Antonakis et al., 2012; DeRue et al., 2011; Dinh &
Lord, 2012; Zaccaro, 2012). Based on the fact that we found full mediation, it can be
suggested that for the curvilinear relation between charismatic personality and leader
effectiveness, it’s all in the behavior. From a broader perspective, the results of the current
study support and expand the idea of the TMGT effect (Pierce & Aguinis, 2013) as a meta-
theoretical principle and provide an explanation of how it works for charismatic personality
from a cost-and-benefit perspective (Busse et al., 2016).
In terms of practical implications, our research findings may be useful in a leadership-
selection context. Specifically, our findings suggest that organizations may want to consider
selecting applicants with midrange levels of charisma into leadership roles, instead of
extremely charismatic leaders. Besides their moderate charisma score, applicants preferably
should score high on adjustment. Moreover, knowledge of charismatic tendencies could be
useful for the purposes of coaching and development. For instance, one strategy could be to
confront highly charismatic leaders with the potential gap between their own perception of
effectiveness (i.e., being very effective) and the perceptions of their collaborators (i.e., being
not so effective), along with the most prevalent pitfalls associated with their leadership style.
Results of the mediation analysis are particularly relevant in this regard, demonstrating that
highly charismatic leaders would probably gain the most from a coaching program focused on

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 41
operational deficiencies. On the other hand, the developmental advice for leaders with low
charismatic personalities might have a different focus—namely, on increasing strategic
behavior. This training program could, for instance, focus on spending more time and energy
on long-term planning, taking a broader perspective on the business as a whole, questioning
the status quo, and creating a safe environment for trying new things (Kaiser et al., 2010).
Limitations and Strengths
Some limitations of the current work should be acknowledged. First, a single-item
measure was used to assess the overall effectiveness of leaders (Kaiser et al., 2010), while
some argue against the use of single-item measures (Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991). However,
evidence is accumulating that single-item measures can be reliable, certainly when it pertains
to constructs that are sufficiently narrow and unambiguous, such as overall job satisfaction
and effectiveness (Sackett & Larson, 1990; Wanous & Hudy, 2001). Moreover, we also
included other leadership-effectiveness criteria that allowed us to map more specific leader-
behavior dimensions. Nevertheless, future research is warranted that replicates our findings
with other and multiple-item leadership outcomes.
A second limitation of this study is that no actual situational factors were included as
influencers of the relationship between charismatic personality and overall effectiveness.
Previous research has, for instance, revealed conditions of crisis and perceived uncertainty as
relevant moderators in this relationship (e.g., De Hoogh, Den Hartog, & Koopman, 2005;
House & Aditya, 1997; Waldman et al., 2001). In line with this stream of research, it could
be, for instance, that under conditions of high environmental uncertainty, the inflection point
in the curvilinear association between charisma and effectiveness occurs at higher levels of
charisma than under conditions of environmental certainty. In fact, higher charisma scores
may not always lead to derailment. In certain conditions, such as low-stress situations, the
charisma-effectiveness relationship may be linear, rather than curvilinear. However, we

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 42
believe that high-stress and pressure situations are rather typical for a “normal” leadership
context, enhancing the likelihood of a curvilinear relationship.
We do want to point out, however, that we did test the idea that the curvilinear
relationship between charisma and effectiveness is subject to boundary conditions. This was
done by testing the moderating effect of adjustment, which reflects how one usually deals
with stressful situations. Moreover, one of the advantages of the “too little/too much”
response format adopted in the current study is that part of this situational variability is
automatically taken into account. After all, coworkers rate the behaviors of their leaders as
“too little,” “too much,” or “the right amount” given the specific situation that one is
evaluated in. In other words, although this approach does not provide concrete information
about the specific situational factors that might be influencing this association, situational
variables are implicitly controlled for when using this particular measurement scale, provided
that something is “the right amount” in a given situation. Nevertheless, future research should
aim to uncover the specific circumstances in which the curvilinear relationship between
charismatic personality and effectiveness can be obtained.
Beyond these limitations, this study also has a number of notable strengths that bolster
its contribution to the extant literature. First, except for the Eugene-Springfield sample,
participants were all actual leaders behaving in authentic leadership situations. Moreover,
most of the data were collected in the context of large-scale and multinational leader-
assessment programs (Study 2 and Study 3) that benefit from a number of methodological
strengths: for instance, sufficiently large samples of leaders assessed using a multi-informant
design in which large samples of coworkers participated. Finally, including multiple leader-
effectiveness criteria (both behaviors and overall leader effectiveness) allowed us to delve
deep into the exploratory mechanisms underlying the nonlinear charisma-effectiveness
association, which can be considered as a robust methodological advancement (Antonakis et
al., 2012; Hayes & Preacher, 2010) and is highly relevant for both theory and practice.

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 43
Conclusion
Our work tested a personality-based operationalization of charisma. In line with the
TMGT effect, the picture that emerged from the presented set of studies suggests that leaders
with average levels of trait-charisma are perceived as more effective by coworkers than those
with either low or high charisma levels. However, higher charisma levels are less harmful for
leaders having high adjustment levels as well. Our findings further clarified how and why
charismatic personality impacts leader effectiveness, as we found that leaders low on
charisma are less effective because they lack strategic behaviors, while highly charismatic
leaders are less effective because they lack operational behaviors. These findings may
stimulate further research on the specific conditions under which charismatic personality is
something desirable—or not.

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 44
REFERENCES
Alicke, M. D., & Govorun, O. (2005). The better-than-average effect. In M. D. Alicke, D.
Dunning, & J. Krueger (Eds.), The self in social judgment (pp. 85–106). New York, NY:
Psychology Press.
Ames, D. R., & Flynn, F. J. (2007). What breaks a leader? The curvilinear relation between
assertiveness and leadership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 307-
324. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.307
Amirul, S. R., & Daud, H. N. (2012). A study on the relationship between leadership styles and
leadership effectiveness in Malaysian GLCs. European Journal of Business and
Management, 4, 193-201.
Antonakis, J., Day, D. V., & Schyns, B. (2012). Leadership and individual differences: At the
cusp of a renaissance. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 643-650. doi:
10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.05.002
Avery, D. R., Tonidandel, S., Griffith, K. H., & Quiñones, M. A. (2003). The impact of
multiple measures of leader experience on leader effectiveness: New insights for leader
selection. Journal of Business Research, 56, 673-679. doi: 10.1016/S0148-
2963(01)00312-5
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectation. New York, NY: Free
Press.
Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industry, military, and educational impact.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through
transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Benson, M. J., & Campbell, J. P. (2007). To be, or not to be, linear: An expanded representation
of personality and its relationship to leadership performance. International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, 15, 232-249. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2389.2007.00384.x

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 45
Blair, C. A., Hoffman, B. J., & Helland, K. R. (2008). Narcissism in organizations: A
multisource appraisal reflects different perspectives. Human Performance, 21, 254-276.
doi: 10.1080/08959280802137705
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality and transformational and transactional
leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 901-910. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.901
Busse, C., Mahlendorf, M. D., & Bode, C. (2016). The ABC for studying the too-much-of-a-
good-thing effect: A competitive mediation framework linking antecedents, benefits,
and costs. Organizational Research Methods, 19, 131–153. doi:
10.1177/1094428115579699
Chatterjee, A., & Hambrick, D. C. (2011). CEO personality, capability cues, and risk-taking:
How narcissists react to their successes and stumbles. Administrative Science Quarterly,
56(2), 202-237. doi: 10.1177/0001839211427534
Conger, J. A. (1990). The dark side of leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 19, 44-55. doi:
10.1016/0090-2616(90)90070-6
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership
in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12, 637-647. doi:
10.5465/AMR.1987.4306715
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N., & Menon, S. T. (2000). Charismatic leadership and follower
effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 747-767. doi: 10.1002/1099-
1379(200011)21:7<747::AID-JOB46>3.0.CO;2-J
Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N., Menon, S. T., & Mathur, P. (1997). Measuring charisma:
Dimensionality and validity of the Conger-Kanungo Scale of Charismatic Leadership.

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 46
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 14, 290-301. doi: 10.1111/j.1936-
4490.1997.tb00136.x
Conway, J. M., & Huffcut, A. I. (1997). Psychometric properties of multisource performance
ratings: A meta-analysis of supervisor, peer, subordinate, and self-ratings. Human
Performance, 19, 331-360. doi: 10.1207/s15327043hup1004_2
Debusscher, J., Hofmans, J., & De Fruyt, F. (2014). The curvilinear relationship between state
neuroticism and momentary task performance. PloS ONE, 9. doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0106989
De Hoogh, A. H. B., 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, Psychology,
13, 839-865. doi: 10.1002/job.344
Deluga, R. J. (1997). Relationship among American presidential charismatic leadership,
narcissism, and rated performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 8, 51-67. doi:
10.1016/S1048-9843(97)90030-8
Deluga, R. J. (2001). American presidential Machiavellianism implications for charismatic
leadership and rated performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 339-363. doi:
10.1016/S1048-9843(01)00082-0
Den Hartog, D. N., House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., & Dorfman, P. W.
(1999). Culture-specific and cross-culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories:
Are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed? The
Leadership Quarterly, 10, 219 –256. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00018-1
DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N., & Humphrey, S. E. (2011). Trait and behavioral
theories of leadership: An integration and meta-analytic test of their relative validity.
Personnel Psychology, 64, 7-52. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01201.x

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 47
De Vries, R. E. (2008). What are we measuring? Convergence of leadership with interpersonal
and non-interpersonal personality. Leadership, 4, 403-417. doi:
10.1177/1742715008095188
De Vries, R. E. (2012). Personality predictors of leadership styles and the self–other agreement
problem. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 809–821. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.03.002
DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets and domains: 10
Aspects of the Big Five, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 880-896.
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.880
Dinh, J. E., & Lord, R. G. (2012). Implications of dispositional and process views of traits for
individual difference research in leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 651-669.
doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.03.003
Dóci, E., & Hofmans, J. (2015). Task complexity and transformational leadership: the
mediating role of leaders' state core self-evaluations. The Leadership Quarterly, 26,
436-447. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.02.008
DuBrin, A. (2012). Leadership: Research findings, practice, and skills (7th ed.). Mason, OH:
Cengage Learning.
Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational leadership on
follower development and performance: A field experiment. Academy of Management
Journal, 45 (4), 735-744. DOI: 10.2307/3069307
Emrich, C. G., Brower, H. H., Feldman, J. M., & Garland, H. (2001). Images in words:
Presidential rhetoric, charisma, and greatness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46,
527-557. doi: 10.2307/3094874
Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2004). Implicit leadership theories in applied settings: Factor
structure, generalizability, and stability over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89,
293–310. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.2.293

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 48
Funder, D. C., & Dobroth, K. M. (1987). Differences between traits: Properties associated with
interjudge agreement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 409-418. doi:
10.1037//0022-3514.52.2.409
Furnham, A., Trickey, G. & Hyde, G. (2012). Bright aspects of dark side traits: Dark traits
associated with work success. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 908-913. doi:
10.1016/j.paid.2012.01.025
Galvin, B. M., Waldman, D. A., & Balthazard, P. (2010). Narcissism and visionary
communication: An exploration into the antecedents of follower perceptions of
charismatic leadership. Personnel Psychology, 63, 509-537. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-
6570.2010.01179.x
Gardner, W. L., & Avolio, B. J. (1998). The charismatic leadership relationship: A
dramaturgical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23, 32-58. doi:
10.2307/259098
Ghiselli, E. E., Campbell, J. P. & Zedeck, S. (1981). Measurement theory for the behavioral
sciences. San Francisco, CA: Freeman & Company.
Goldberg, L. R. (2008). The Eugene-Springfield community sample: Information available from
the research participants. (ORI Technical Report, volume 48, number 1). Retrieved
from http://scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/ESCS-RepMar08.pdf.
Grijalva, E., Harms, P. D., Newman, D. A., Gaddis, B. H., & Fraley, R. C. (2015). Narcissism
and leadership: A meta-analytic review of linear and nonlinear relationships. Personnel
Psychology, 68, 1-47. doi: 10.1111/peps.12072
Harris, K. J., & Kacmar, K. M. (2006). Too much of a good thing: The curvilinear effect of
leader-member exchange on stress. Journal of Social Psychology, 146, 65-84. doi:
10.3200/SOCP.146.1.65-84
Harris, K. J., & Russell, L. M. (2013). An investigation of the curvilinear effects of contingent
reward leadership on stress-related and attitudinal outcomes. International Journal of

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 49
Business and Social Science, 4(10), 26-35. Retrieved from
http://ijbssnet.com/journals/Vol_4_No_10_Special_Issue_August_2013/3.pdf
Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2010). Quantifying and testing indirect effects in simple
mediation models when the constituent paths are nonlinear. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 45, 627–660. doi: 10.1080/00273171.2010.498290
Hoekstra, H. A., Ormel, J., & De Fruyt, F. (2007). Handleiding: NEO persoonlijkheids-
vragenlijsten/Manual: NEO personality questionnaires. Amsterdam: Hogrefe.
Hogan, R. (2007). Personality and the fate of organizations. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2007). Hogan Personality Inventory manual. Tulsa, OK: Hogan Press.
Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2009). Hogan Development Survey manual (2nd ed.). Tulsa, OK:
Hogan Press.
Hogan, J., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2010). Management derailment. In S. Zedeck (Ed.),
American Psychological Association handbook of industrial and organizational
psychology (pp. 555-575). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Horney, K. (1950). Neurosis and human growth. New York, NY: Norton.
House, R. J., & Aditya, R. M. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis?
Journal of Management, 23, 409-473. doi: 10.1177/014920639702300306
House, R. J., & Howell, J. M. (1992). Personality and charismatic leadership. The Leadership
Quarterly, 3, 81-108. doi: 10.1016/1048-9843(92)90028-E
Howell, J. M. (1988). Two faces of charisma: Socialized and personalized leadership in
organizations. Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness
(pp. 213−236). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Howell, J. M., & Shamir, B. (2005). The role of followers in the charismatic leadership process:
Relationships and their consequences. Academy of Management Review, 30, 96-112.
doi: 10.5465/AMR.2005.15281435

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 50
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability
with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85-98. DOI:
10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big-Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and
theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality:
Theory and research (Vol. 2, pp. 102-138). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
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
Judge, T. A., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2006). Loving yourself abundantly: Relationship of
the narcissistic personality to self and other perceptions of workplace deviance,
leadership, and task and contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91,
762–776. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.762
Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Kosalka, T. (2009). The bright and dark sides of leader traits: A
review and theoretical extension of the leader trait paradigm. The Leadership Quarterly,
20(6), 855-875. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.09.004
Kaiser, R. B., & Hogan, R. (2007). The dark side of discretion: Leader personality and
organizational decline. In R. Hooijberg, J. Hunt, J. Antonakis, & K. Boal (Eds.), Being
there even when you are not: Leading through strategy, systems, and structures.
Monographs in leadership and management (Vol. 4, pp. 177-197). London: Elsevier
Science.
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
Kaiser, R. B., LeBreton, J. M., & Hogan, J. (2015). The dark side of personality and extreme
leader behavior. Applied Psychology: In International Review, 64, 55-92.
doi: 10.1111/apps.12024

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 51
Kaiser, R. B., Overfield, D. V., & Kaplan, R. E. (2010). Leadership Versatility Index version
3.0 Facilitator's Guide. Greensboro, NC: Kaplan DeVries Inc.
Le, H., Robbins, S. B., Holland, E., Oh, I. S., Ilies, R., & Westrick, P. (2011). Too much of a
good thing: Curvilinear relationships between personality traits and job performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 113-133. doi: 10.1037/a0021016
Leary, M. R. (2007). Motivational and emotional aspects of the self. Annual Review of
Psychology, 58, 317–344. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085658
LeBreton, J. M., Burgess, J. R. D., Kaiser, R. B., Atchley, E. K. P., & James, L. R. (2003). The
restriction of variance hypothesis and interrater reliability and agreement: Are ratings
from multiple sources really dissimilar? Organizational Research Methods, 6, 80-128.
doi: 10.1177/1094428102239427
LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and
interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 815-852. doi:
10.1177/1094428106296642
Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J., & DeVader, C. L. (1984). A test of leadership categorization theory.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 343–378. doi: 10.1016/0030-
5073(84)90043-6
Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of
transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ
literature. The Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385-425. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90027-2
Maccoby, M. (2004). Narcissistic leaders: The incredible pros, the inevitable cons. Harvard
Business Review, 92-102. doi: 10.1225/R00105
Malmendier, U., & Tate, G. (2005). CEO overconfidence and corporate investment. The
Journal of Finance, 60, 2661-2700. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2005.00813.x
McCall, M. W., Jr. (2009). Every strength a weakness and other caveats. In R. B. Kaiser (Ed.),
The perils of accentuating the positive. Tulsa, OK: Hogan Press.

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 52
McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation
coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1, 30-46. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.30
Mueller, J. S., Goncalo, J., & Kamdar, D. (2011). Recognizing creative leadership: Can creative
idea expression negatively relate to perceptions of leadership potential? Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 494-498. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2010.11.010
Naragon-Gainey, K., & Watson, D. (2014). Conceptually defined facets of personality as
prospective predictors of change in depression symptoms. Assessment, 21, 387-403. doi:
10.1177/1073191114528030
O’Boyle, E. H., Forsyth, D. R., Banks, G. C., & McDaniel, M. A. (2012). A meta-analysis of
the Dark Triad and work behavior: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 97, 557-579. doi: 10.1037/a0025679
Oh, I. S., & Berry, C. M. (2009). The five-factor model of personality and managerial
performance: Validity gains through the use of 360 degree performance ratings. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1498-1513. doi: 10.1037/a0017221
Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated
approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pierce, J. R., & Aguinis, H. (2013). The too-much-of-a-good-thing effect in management.
Journal of Management, 39, 313-338. doi: 10.1177/0149206311410060
Pillai, R., & Meindl, J. R. (1998). Context and charisma: A “meso” level examination of the
relationship of organic structure, collectivism, and crisis to charismatic leadership.
Journal of Management, 24, 643-671. doi:10.1016/S0149-2063(99)80078-6
Popper, M. (2002). Narcissism and attachment patterns of personalized and socialized
charismatic leaders. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19(6), 797-809. doi:
10.1177/0265407502196004
Pozzebon, J. A., Visser, B. A., Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & Goldberg, L. R. (2010). Psychometric
properties of a public-domain self-report measure of vocational interests: The Oregon

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 53
vocational interest scales. Journal of Personality Assessment, 92, 168-174.
doi:10.1080/00223890903510431
Quinn, R. E., Spreitzer, G. M., & Hart, S. (1991). Challenging the assumptions of bipolarity:
Interpenetration and managerial effectiveness. In S. Srivatva & R. Fry (Eds.), Executive
and organizational continuity (pp. 222-252). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Resick, C.J., Whitman, D.S., Weingarden, S.M., & Hiller, N.J. (2009). The bright-side and the
dark-side of CEO personality: Examining core self-evaluations, narcissism,
transformational leadership, and strategic influence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94,
1365–1381. doi: 10.1037/a0016238
Riggio, R. E. (2009). Charisma. In S. J. Lopez (Ed.), Encyclopedia of positive psychology.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Sackett, P. R., & Larson, J. R., Jr. (1990). Research strategies and tactics in industrial and
organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of
industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 419–489). Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Sankowsky, D. (1995). The charismatic leader as narcissist: Understanding the abuse of power.
Organizational Dynamics, 23(4), 57–71. doi:10.1016/0090-2616(95)90017-9
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic
leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4(4), 577-594. doi:
10.1287/orsc.4.4.577
Shamir, B., & Howell, J. M. (1999). Organizational and contextual influences on the emergence
and effectiveness of charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 257–283.
doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00014-4
Tellegen, A. (1985). Structures of mood and personality and their relevance to assessing
anxiety, with emphasis on self-reports. In A. H. Tuma and J. D. Maser (Eds.), Anxiety
and anxiety disorders (pp. 681-706). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 54
Tsui, A. S. (1984). A role-set analysis of managerial reputation. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 34, 64-96.
VanBroekhoven, J. (2011). Playing the Trump card. Retrieved February 5, 2017, from
http://info.hoganassessments.com/blog/bid/109230/Playing-the-Trump-Card
Waldman, D. A., Ramirez, G. G., House, R. J., & Puranam, P. (2001). Does leadership matter?
CEO leadership attributes and profitability under conditions of perceived environmental
uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), 134-143. doi: 10.2307/3069341
Wanous, J. P., & Hudy, M. J. (2001). Single-item reliability: A replication and extension.
Organizational Research Methods, 4, 361–375.
Yukl, G. A. (2006). Leadership in organizations (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Zaccaro, S. J. (2012). Individual differences and leadership: Contributions to a third tipping
point. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 718-728. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.05.001
Zibarras, L. D., Port, R. L., & Woods, S. A. (2008). Innovation and the “dark side” of
personality: Dysfunctional traits and their relation to self-reported innovative
characteristics. Journal of Creative Behavior, 42, 201-215. doi: 10.1002/j.2162-
6057.2008.tb01295.x

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 55
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics and Variable Intercorrelations in Study 1 (Sample 2: N = 204)
M
SD
1.
2
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
1. Sexa
-
-
2. Age
45.96
8.62
-.09
3. Experienceb
24.01
8.50
-.10
.96***
4. HDS charismac
26.64
7.92
.10
-.02
-.04
.85
5. Neuroticism
2.26
.65
.08
-.17*
-.17*
-.14
.88
6. Extraversion
3.82
.53
.13
-.10
-.07
.44***
-.50***
.84
7. Openness
3.21
.51
.15*
.13
.11
.19*
-.03
.09
.71
8. Agreeableness
3.82
.44
.11
.22**
.25**
-.12
-.27***
.34***
.12
.84
9. Conscientiousness
4.09
.42
.07
.13
.17*
.02
-.33***
.41***
-.03
.31***
.81
10. SVA
3.53
.82
.10
-.01
.01
.27***
-.05
.27***
.10
.20*
.21**
.92
11. PR
2.39
1.03
.05
.04
.05
.28***
-.12
.27***
.14
.06
.06
.47***
.85
12. SE
3.69
.75
.11
.05
.09
.10
-.03
.16*
.11
.25***
.25***
.67***
.34***
.84
13. SMN
3.67
.80
.14
-.02
.02
.13
.03
.16*
.10
.22**
.21**
.65***
.31***
.68***
.78
14. UB
2.49
.84
.02
-.11
-.09
.29***
-.13
.29***
.17*
-.07
.01
.43***
.61***
.33***
.32***
.63
15. CKS_total
3.26
.66
.11
-.01
.02
.29***
-.08
.30***
.15*
.18*
.21**
.90***
.69***
.79***
.76***
.66***
.92
Note. Bold values on the diagonal show the internal consistency of the relevant variable; aSex is dummy coded such that 0 = male and 1 = female;
bWork experience in years; cHDS = Hogan Development Survey; maximal score is 56 (raw scores);
Conger-Kanungo subscales are SVA = strategic vision and articulation; PR = personal risk; SE = sensitivity to the environment; SMN = sensitivity
to members’ needs; and UB = unconventional behavior; *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 56
Table 2
Correlations between HDS Charisma and Self-rated and Observer-rated Personality Descriptions in Study 1 (Sample 1: N = 156)
HDS charisma (2007)
HDS charisma (2007)
Observers (1998)
Self (1998)
Observers (1998)
Self (1998)
Is talkative
.26**
.36***
Is emotionally stable, not easily upset
-.09
.02
Tends to find fault with others
-.01
.03
Is inventive
.29***
.37***
Does a thorough job
-.03
.03
Has an assertive personality
.32***
.36***
Is depressed, blue
-.11
-.12
Is original, comes up with new ideas
.32***
.37***
Is reserved
-.30***
-.28**
Can be cold and aloof
.00
.09
Can be somewhat careless
.17*
.10
Not good-looking
-.09
-.22**
Is relaxed, handles stress well
.04
.20*
Perseveres until the task is finished
-.03
.17*
Is full of energy
.28**
.30***
Values artistic, aesthetic experiences
.17*
.15
Starts quarrels with others
.04
.11
Is sometimes shy, inhibited
-.29**
-.22**
Can be moody
-.02
.01
Is considerate and kind to almost
everyone
-.06
.02
Is a reliable worker
-.06
-.14
Does things efficiently
.10
.14
Can be tense
.07
.10
Remains calm in tense situations
-.05
.11
Is ingenious, a deep thinker
.09
.24**
Prefers work that is routine
-.34***
-.24**
Generates a lot of enthusiasm
.30***
.38***
Is helpful and unselfish with others
-.09
-.04
Has a forgiving nature
-.08
.05
Is outgoing, sociable
.31***
.34***
Physically attractive
.03
.33***
Is sometimes rude to others
.03
.14
Tends to be disorganized
.03
-.03
Makes plans and follows through with
them
.12
.11
Worries a lot
-.05
-.19*
Likes to reflect, play with ideas
.20*
.34**
Has an active imagination
.31***
.28**
Has few artistic interests
-.16
-.12
Tends to be quiet
-.28**
-.24**
Likes to cooperate with others
-.05
.00
Is generally trusting
-.09
-.07
Is easily distracted
.03
.05
Tends to be lazy
-.08
-.08
Is sophisticated in art, music, literature
.09
.19*
Gets nervous easily
-.08
-.24**
Is curious about many different things
.26**
.23**
Note. Big Five Inventory (John & Srivastava, 1999) descriptions; HDS = Hogan Development Survey; *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 57
Table 3
Descriptive Statistics and Variable Intercorrelations in Study 2 (N = 306)
Note. Bold values on the diagonal show the internal consistency of the relevant variable; a Sex is dummy coded such that 0 = male and 1 =
female; b Managerial experience in years; c Maximal score is 100 (percentiles); *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
M
SD
1.
2
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
1. Sexa
-
-
2. Age
47.64
6.39
-.19**
3. Experienceb
16.01
7.23
-.24***
.70***
4. Charismatic personalityc
48.82
18.13
-.01
-.01
.12*
.85
5. Leader effectiveness (self)
7.62
.77
-.04
.07
.15*
.29***
6. Leader effectiveness (observers)
8.22
.43
-.14*
.08
.17**
.05
.21***
7. Leader effectiveness (subordinates)
8.31
.64
-.11
.06
.14*
.05
.14*
.69***
8. Leader effectiveness (peers)
8.03
.53
-.14*
.03
.08
-.03
.10
.69***
.22***
9. Leader effectiveness (superiors)
8.31
.66
-.05
.08
.13*
.08
.20***
.75***
.20***
.34***

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 58
Table 4
Hierarchical Regression Analyses Examining the Associations between Charismatic Personality and Overall Leader Effectiveness in Study 2
(N = 306)
Overall leader effectiveness
Model 1: Aggregated
observer rating
Model 2:
Subordinates
Model 3:
Peers
Model 4:
Superiors
Model 5:
Self
β
SE (b)

R²
β
SE (b)

R²
β
SE (b)

R²
β
SE (b)

R²
β
SE (b)

R²
Step 1
.04**
.02*
.02*
.02
.02*
Sex
-.10
.05
-.08
.08
-.13*
.07
-.02
.08
.00
.10
Experience
.14*
.00
.12*
.01
.05
.00
.12*
.01
.15*
.01
Step 2
.00
.00
.00
.00
.07***
Charisma
.04
.00
.04
.00
-.04
.00
.07
.00
.27***
.00
Step 3
.05***
.06***
.02*
.01*
.00
Charisma
.08
.00
.09
.00
-.02
.00
.09
.00
.27***
.00
Charisma2
-.24***
.00
-.24***
.00
-.14***
.00
-.12*
.00
.02
.00
Note. Sex is dummy coded such that 0 = male and 1 = female; *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 59
Table 5
Descriptive Statistics and Variable Intercorrelations in Study 3 (N = 287)
Note. Bold values on the diagonal show the internal consistency of the relevant variable; a Sex is dummy coded such that 0 = male and 1 =
female; b Managerial experience in years; c Maximal score is 100 (percentiles); *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
M
SD
1.
2
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
1. Sexa
-
-
2. Age
45.37
6.67
.07
3. Experienceb
15.98
7.73
-.02
.72***
4. Charismatic personalityc
59.16
20.62
-.02
-.12*
-.06
.84
5. Forceful
-.06
.47
.10
-.01
-.01
.08
.93
6. Enabling
-.24
.38
-.05
-.10
-.06
.06
-.70***
.92
7. Strategic
-.29
.36
-.10
-.16**
-.06
.28***
.45
-.06
.92
8. Operational
-.12
.25
.07
.10
.04
-.31***
.01
-.01
-.30***
.80
9. Leader effectiveness
(observers)
7.73
.84
-.08
-.10
.06
.03
.06
.34***
.45***
.18**
-
10. Leader effectiveness
(self)
7.72
.85
-.10
.01
.14*
.17**
.08
.12*
.18**
.05
.32***
-

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 60
Table 6
Frequencies (%) of the Three Categories of Leaders in Study 3 (N = 287), plus Mean
Charismatic Personality Scores (Mcharisma) within the Three Categories of Leaders
Forceful
Enabling
Strategic
Operational
%
Mcharisma
%
Mcharisma
%
Mcharisma
%
Mcharisma
Too little
54
59.29
61
58.68
74
57.34
57
63.01
The right amount
13
58.61
23
60.31
15
63.67
19
59.23
Too much
33
59.16
16
59.33
11
65.65
24
49.90
Note. Leaders were categorized as “the right amount” when the LVI scores were within
plus/minus three Standard Errors of Measurement around 0, because scores within this range
are statistically indistinguishable from “0” at p < .001 (Ghiselli, Campbell, & Zedeck, 1981);
LVI scores exceeding this range = “too much”; below this range = “too little.”

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 61
Table 7
Hierarchical Regression Analyses Examining the Associations between Charismatic
Personality and Overall Leader Effectiveness in Study 3 (N = 287)
Overall leader effectiveness
Model 1: Aggregated
observer rating
Model 2: Self
β
SE (b)

R²
β
SE (b)

R²
Step 1
.01
.03*
Sex
-.08
.13
-.10
.13
Experience
.06
.01
.14*
.01
Step 2
.00
.03**
Charisma
.04
.00
.18**
.00
Step 3
.02*
.00
Charisma
-.01
.00
.20
.00
Charisma2
-.15*
.00
.06
.00
Note. Sex is dummy coded such that 0 = male and 1 = female; *p < .05, **p < .01.

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 62
Table 8
Hierarchical Regression Analyses Examining the Moderating Effect of Adjustment in the
(Curvilinear) Relationship between Charismatic Personality and Overall Leader
Effectiveness in Study 3 (N = 287)
Observer-rated leader
effectiveness
β
SE (b)

R²
Step 1
.01
Sex
-.08
.13
Experience
.06
.01
Step 2
.01
Charisma
.04
.00
Adjustment
.08
.00
Step 3
.02*
Charisma2
-.14*
.00
Step 4
.02†
AdjustmentXCharisma
.13†
.00
AdjustmentXCharisma2
-.04
.00
Note. Sex is dummy coded such that 0 = male and 1 = female; †p = .06, *p < .05.

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 63
Figure 1. Research model: The (curvilinear) relationship between charismatic personality and
(observer-rated) overall leader effectiveness, as moderated by leader adjustment and
mediated through leader behaviors.
Charismatic personality
Overall leader effectiveness
Interpersonal behavior:
Forceful / Enabling
Adjustment
Charismatic behavior/
Charismatic leadership
Organizational behavior:
Strategic / Operational
2
3
4
4
4
4
1

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 64
Figure 2. Overall leader effectiveness as a function of charismatic personality (percentiles):
aggregated observer-ratings versus self-ratings of overall effectiveness (Study 2).
self-rating
observer-rating
charismatic personality
Overall effectiveness

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 65
Figure 3. Moderating effect of adjustment in the curvilinear relationship between charismatic
personality and observer-rated leader effectiveness (Study 3).
4
5
6
7
8
9
Low charisma High charisma
Overall effectiveness (observers)
Low adjustment
High adjustment

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 66
A B
Figure 4. Regression lines for charismatic personality predicting strategic (Panel A) and operational (Panel B) leader behavior. The regression
lines are drawn for the range in which we have charisma observations (Study 3).
charismatic personality
Strategic
Too little Too much
The right
amount
Too little Too much
The right
amount
Operational
Too little Too much
The right
amount
Too little Too much
The right
amount
charismatic personality

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 67
Figure 5. Path model for testing the nonlinear mediation between charismatic personality and
overall leader effectiveness through strategic (st) and operational (op) leader behavior (Study
3).
charismatic personality
charismatic personality 2
Strategic behavior
Strategic behavior 2
Operational behavior
Operational behavior 2
Overall leader effectiveness
c2
c1
a1(op)
a2(op)
a1(st)
a2(st)
b1
b2
b3
b4
ey
eop
est

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 68
A B
Figure 6. The instantaneous indirect effects of charismatic personality on overall leader
effectiveness through strategic (Panel A) and operational (Panel B) leader behavior at specific
values of charisma (centered), together with the 95% confidence intervals (i.e., dotted lines)
(Study 3).
Strategic
Operational
charismatic personality
instantaneous indirect effect
instantaneous indirect effect
charismatic personality

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 69
Appendix A
Aggregated observer ratings—including ratings of subordinates, peers, and
superiors—were used for overall effectiveness (i.e., in Study 2 and Study 3) and for the
leader behaviors (i.e., in Study 3). To provide additional justification for this aggregation
method, the rwg(j) inter-rater agreement coefficient (James et al., 1984) and the one-way
random effects intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC; McGraw & Wong, 1996) were
computed within superior, peer, and subordinate groups, as well as across these three sources
(LeBreton, Burgess, Kaiser, Atchley, & James, 2003). In the computation of rwg(j) for the
overall effectiveness rating, the moderately skewed random response null distribution was
used to control for a moderate skew because most ratings were between 6 and 10 on the 1 to
10 scale. To account for central tendency bias, a triangular null distribution was used in the
computation of inter-rater agreement for the leader-behavior scales (see LeBreton & Senter,
2008). Additionally, intraclass correlations (ICC[1]) were computed to evaluate the reliability
of an individual rater and ICC(k) to estimate the reliability of the average rating across k
raters—where k = 2 for superiors (i.e., the most common number of multiple raters in the
superior group); k = 4 for peers; k = 5 (Study 2) and k = 4 (Study 3) for subordinates (i.e., the
modal number of raters in these groups); and k = 3 for the aggregate rating across the three
sources (i.e., the grand mean of the three rater group means). The results in Table Appendix
A indicate that, in both studies, the level of similarity across superior, peer, and subordinate
ratings is sufficiently high to support aggregation (LeBreton & Senter, 2008).

CHARISMATIC PERSONALITY 70
Table Appendix A
Inter-rater Reliability (ICC) and Inter-rater Agreement (rwg(j)) for Leader Behavior Scales and Observer-rated Leader-effectiveness Rating in
Study 2 and Study 3
Superiors
Peers
Subordinates
Aggregated across
observer sources
ICC(1)
ICC(k)
rwg(j)
ICC(1)
ICC(k)
rwg(j)
ICC(1)
ICC(k)
rwg(j)
ICC(1)
ICC(k)
rwg(j)
Study 2
Leader effectiveness
.47
.64
.85
.38
.71
.81
.32
.70
.83
.25
.51
.95
Study 3
Forceful
.56
.72
.98
.32
.66
.89
.29
.62
.92
.57
.80
.99
Enabling
.22
.37
.98
.29
.62
.93
.25
.57
.94
.64
.84
.99
Strategic
.49
.66
.98
.28
.61
.96
.22
.54
.95
.51
.76
.98
Operational
.09
.17
.98
.25
.57
.93
.17
.45
.94
.38
.64
.99
Leader effectiveness
.21
.35
.87
.29
.62
.73
.24
.55
.71
.57
.80
.93
Note. ICC(k) was based on k = 2 for superior ratings, k = 4 for peer ratings, k = 5 (Study 2) and k = 4 (Study 3) for subordinate ratings, and k = 3 for
ratings aggregated across the 3 sources. The rwg(j) values represent the Mean rwg(j) statistic computed across all focal managers (N = 201 for
superiors, 306 for peers and subordinates in Study 2; N = 21 for superiors, 287 for peers and subordinates in Study 3).