The Capacity to Lead: Major Psychological Differences Between Leaders and Nonleaders

Abstract

This study returns to the question that occupied "trait approach" scholars in the early days of leadership research: identification of the major capacities required for leadership. The conceptual and methodological progress that has been made in psychology since the trait approach enables us to formulate models and deal with variables that did not exist in the early days of leadership research. We argue that three types of psychological capacities are essential for leadership: (a) self confidence, expressed and measured by three variables-internal locus of control, low level of trait anxiety, and self-efficacy; (b) proactive orientation, expressed by optimism; and (c) capacities required for prosocial relationships, expressed by secure attachment styles.A series of questionnaires was administered to 402 soldiers from Infantry and Armored corps who were nearing the end of 3 months' basic training. A sociometric questionnaire examining the peers' and commanders' evaluations of the soldiers' leadership capacities was used to evaluate each soldier and to classify the soldiers dichotomously as leaders and nonleaders.The findings reveal significant differences between leaders and nonleaders in all the variables that were defined as psychological capacities to lead. Leaders have more internal locus of control, a lower level of anxiety, higher self-efficacy, and more optimism, and they rank higher in the measure of secure attachment style. Anxiety, locus of control, and attachment style were found to be significant in the regression equation, but trait anxiety was found to be the most discriminant variable. The implications of the findings in the light of relevant psychological models are discussed.

The Origins of Task- and People-Oriented Leadership Styles

“…A part of Hypothesis 1 was verified and was consistent with the results from other researchers (Mikulincer & Florian, 1995;Popper, 2002;Popper & Amit, 2009;Popper et al, 2004;Popper et al, 2000), indicating that early attachment history is important for personal workplace relationships. The results from the exploratory trials indicated that Hypotheses 2 and 3 were reasonable but that the connections to the task-oriented part of leadership were more complicated than expected.…”

“…This hypothesis is within the same area of leadership (the personal relationship between the leader and subordinates) in which previous studies (Mikulincer & Florian, 1995;Popper, 2002;Popper & Amit, 2009;Popper et al, 2004;Popper et al, 2000) have shown a connection.…”

Attachment theory within clinical supervision: application of the conceptual to the empirical

“…Numerous studies have found associations between leadership effectiveness and secure attachment (Berson, Dan, & Yammarino, 2006;Englund, Levy, Hyson, & Sroufe, 2000;Mikulincer & Florian, 1995;Popper, Amit, Gal, Mishkal-Sinai, & Lisak, 2004;Sharf & Mayseless, 2009). Secure styles appear more adept at leadership positions, as self-confidence, sensitivity, prosocial attitude, and availability are qualities found in both secure individuals and good leaders (Popper & Mayseless, 2007).…”

A Escolha dos Líderes e a Compreensão Emocional na Educação Pré-Escola

“…Segundo alguns estudos (Popper & Mayseless, 2003;Popper, Mayseless, & Castelnovo, 2000, Popper, Amit, Gal, Mishkal-Sinai, & Lisak, 2004, os indivíduos com mais segurança estão melhor preparados do que os outros para se tornarem líderes sociais por causa da internalização positiva e representações cuidadas do eu e dos outros significativos. Fukada, Fukada & Hicks (1994) na sua investigação citam Segal et al (1987), em que o estilo social é um atributo da liderança para eles.…”