Leadership and individual differences: At the cusp of a renaissance

Abstract

In this introductory editorial, we provide a brief overview of the history of individual difference research in leadership. We explain the major challenges that trait research faced, and why it was revived primarily because of methodological advancements. Next, we argue that leadership individual difference research is at a cusp of a renaissance. We explain why we are at this cusp and what researchers should do reify the renaissance in terms of theoretical extensions of trait models, the application of robust methodological advancements, and the development of process models linking distal (i.e., traits) predictors to proximal predictors (e.g., behaviors, skills, attitudes), and the latter to leader outcomes. We then summarize the papers we accepted for the special issue, and conclude with an optimistic note for leadership individual difference research.Keywords: leadership, traits, individual differences, personality, intelligence, multilevel models, process models. 3 The idea of a special issue on leader individual differences emerged following a symposium hosted in Lausanne, Switzerland on December 2009. From the discussions with the invited panel, presenters, and participants, the general consensus was that individual-differences research in leadership was at a critical juncture; a new genre of theories and the application of new methods would reignite interest in what has so far been a productive area of research with particular importance for practice.Our interest in editing this special issue was to provide a forum for new theory and novel findings on the general topic of leadership and individual differences both from a leader and a follower perspective. As all those who study individual differences know, this area of research has had a tumultuous history in general psychology (Kenrick & Funder, 1988;Mischel, 1977) as well as in leadership research (House & Aditya, 1997).At this time, there is still debate on what constitutes a trait (Jackson, Hill, & Roberts, 2012), whether personality is measured broadly enough (K. , 2008, whether big-five type inventories are casting too long a shadow over other individual differences that could also contribute to predicting outcomes (Day & Schleicher, 2006), and whether alternative conceptions of intelligence matter (Fiori & Antonakis, 2011).The notion of individual differences in leadership goes back a long way: The ancient Greeks took leader selection (as well as development) very seriously. For example, in the Republic (Plato & Jowett, 1901), Plato noted "we are not all alike; there are diversities of natures among us which are adapted to different occupations" (p. 50).With respect to leadership Plato said that: "There will be discovered to be some natures who ought to . . . be leaders in the State; and others who are not born to be [leaders], and are meant to be followers rather than leaders" (p. 175). He acknowledged that "The 4 selection [of leaders] will be no easy matter" (p. 56), and how right he was. This point is particularly salient nowadays, g...

How Servant Leadership Influences Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Roles of LMX, Empowerment, and Proactive Personality

“…By providing us with a deeper understanding of which types of followers respond more positively to servant leadership, the present research enables us to establish the boundary conditions under which servant leadership might be more effective. It also contributes to a growing literature examining how the individual differences of followers influence how they perceive and respond to their leaders (Antonakis et al 2012).…”

“…We chose to focus on proactive personality, which has been defined as an individual's behavioral tendency to identify opportunities to enact change and manipulate the environment to act on such opportunities (Crant 2000) because it has been shown to be a stronger predictor of employee OCB than other personality measures (Fuller and Marler 2009) and influences the propensity of employees to build productive relationships in the workplace and maintain high levels of intrinsic motivation (Li et al 2010;Thompson 2005;Yang et al 2011;Zhang et al 2012). By 4 focusing on whether proactive personality moderates the influence of servant leadership behavior, we address the calls of researchers for greater investigation into how individual differences among followers, such as personality, influence how they perceive and respond to different styles of leadership (Antonakis et al 2012;Zaccaro 2012). Although previous work has shown that personality characteristics influence how followers respond to leadership behavior (Ehrhart and Klein 2001), limited research has investigated whether follower's personality may accentuate or attenuate the effects of servant leadership.…”

Research on the relation the characteristics of the faculty and the commitment to continuous improvement of motivations and student study processes

“…According to Miller (2001), strong leadership is central to successful, major change. Antonakis et al (2012) further indicated that leadership needs to change based on individual differences, which decreases the overall effect of individual differences and improves management performance.…”

Leadership between decks

“…And Foucault (1979 points out that resistance is always found in the presence of power (Collinson 2005). Antonakis et al (2012) describe a model of the leadership process, from traits to outcomes. Their research suggests a greater understanding of the interaction stage is the logical next step.…”

“…They have also prescribed the means by which to do so (Antonakis et al 2012;Zaccaro 2007 andDinh andLord 2012). Little research in this area actually specifies a model which explains the dynamics of trait-processes (for an exception see Derue et al 2011).…”