A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.
Content available from Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
PERSONALITY PROCESSES AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES
What Breaks a Leader: The Curvilinear Relation Between Assertiveness
and Leadership
Daniel R. Ames and Francis J. Flynn
Columbia University
The authors propose that individual differences in assertiveness play a critical role in perceptions about
leaders. In contrast to prior work that focused on linear effects, the authors argue that individuals seen
either as markedly low in assertiveness or as high in assertiveness are generally appraised as less effective
leaders. Moreover, the authors claim that observers’ perceptions of leaders as having too much or too
little assertiveness are widespread. The authors linked the curvilinear effects of assertiveness to under-
lying tradeoffs between social outcomes (a high level of assertiveness worsens relationships) and
instrumental outcomes (a low level of assertiveness limits goal achievement). In 3 studies, the authors
used qualitative and quantitative approaches and found support for their account. The results suggest that
assertiveness (and other constructs with nonlinear effects) might have been overlooked in research that
has been focused on identifying what makes a leader rather than on identifying what breaks a leader.
Keywords: assertiveness, leadership, interpersonal relations, individual differences, curvilinear effects
The study of lives and personalities has long been concerned
with questions of which types of people emerge as effective
leaders and why (for recent reviews, see Hogan & Kaiser, 2005;
Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002). In this wide-ranging liter-
ature, a pattern of seemingly contradictory results revolves around
assertiveness, which is a person’s tendency to actively defend,
pursue, and speak out for his or her own interests. Some scholars
have found that leadership emergence and effectiveness are posi-
tively related to high-assertiveness constructs, such as dominance,
aggressiveness, and nondeference (e.g., Bass, 1990; Gough, 1990;
Hills, 1984; Lord, De Vader, & Alliger, 1986). However, leader-
ship has also been positively linked to low-assertiveness con-
structs, such as self-sacrifice, cooperativeness, and consideration
(e.g., Bass, 1990; De Cremer & van Knippenberg, 2004; Guilford,
1952; Judge, Piccolo, & Ilies, 2004; van Knippenberg & van
Knippenberg, 2005). Given these disparate effects, a reasonable
observer may suspect that the overarching link between leadership
and assertiveness is not meaningful, is extremely situation specific,
or, perhaps, is unknowable. But is there an integrated story that can
reconcile these past results and shed new light on who is seen as
an effective leader and why? Or, to put it more generally: How
does assertiveness matter to leadership, if it matters at all?
We believe that individual differences in assertiveness matter
greatly to observers’ perceptions of leaders and potential leaders
but that the nature of this link has proven elusive for researchers,
in part, because their focus has been on what makes leaders rather
than on what breaks them. Most researchers conducting leadership
studies have investigated positive, linear determinants and have
attempted to specify which personality characteristics are present
in attributions of successful leadership. Far fewer studies have
identified attributes associated with ineffective leadership. This
make-versus-break distinction would not mean much if leadership
perceptions were symmetrical—that is, if the concerns that appear
in everyday descriptions of leader weaknesses were simply the
opposite of those characteristics associated with leader strengths.
In the present article, we suggest that the concerns that dominate
perceived weaknesses are not the mirror image of strengths and
that this difference can clarify the role of an overlooked compo-
nent of leadership: assertiveness.
We suspect that the perceived shortcomings of leaders may
often revolve around chronically low levels of assertiveness or
chronically high levels of assertiveness. High levels of assertive-
ness may bring instrumental rewards and short-term goal achieve-
ment but can be costly when relationships fray or fail to take root.
In contrast, low levels of assertiveness may bring social benefits
but can undermine goal achievement. Thus, increasing levels of
assertiveness may often entail a trade-off between social costs and
instrumental benefits—between getting along and getting one’s
way. However, we do not think these trade-offs offset one another
or cancel each other out. Below some level of assertiveness,
instrumental costs loom large, and leaders may primarily be seen
as ineffective. Above some level of assertiveness, social costs
loom large, and leaders may primarily be seen as antagonistic.
Accordingly, we predicted a curvilinear relation between asser-
tiveness and overall leadership perceptions, such that above and
below certain levels, leaders tend to be seen as less effective.
Daniel R. Ames and Francis J. Flynn, Management Division, Columbia
Business School, Columbia University.
We thank Cameron Anderson for comments on the article. We also
thank Jenn Hu, Dora Kanellopoulos, Julia Ostrov, and Shelley Trone for
help with coding.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Daniel R.
Ames, Columbia Business School, Columbia University, 707 Uris Hall,
3022 Broadway, New York, NY, 10027. E-mail: da358@columbia.edu
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2007, Vol. 92, No. 2, 307–324
Copyright 2007 by the American Psychological Association 0022-3514/07/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.307
307
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.