What we know about leadership: Effectiveness and personality.

Hogan, R. C.; Curphy, Gordon J.; Hogan, Joyce

doi:10.1037/0003-066x.49.6.493

Cited by 944 publications

(747 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

708

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…(The data are not yet in on whether some degree of self-enhancement, accompanied by "positive illusions" [ Taylor & Brown, 1988 ] that foster hope and effort, is adaptive.) Studies of leadership (summarized in Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan, 1994 ) similarly have found that leaders who are narcissistic (characterized by traits such as arrogance, vindictiveness, and selfishness) tend to fail despite the presence of other traits typically associated with good leadership, such as intelligence, perseverance, and ambition. Interestingly, these leaders are difficult to detect by self-report, because they present themselves as confident and high in self-esteem.…”

Section: Other Studies Documenting Unconscious Emotional Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The scientific legacy of Sigmund Freud: Toward a psychodynamically informed psychological science.

Westen

1998

Psychological Bulletin

342

233

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although commentators periodically declare that Freud is dead, his repeated burials lie on shaky grounds. Critics typically attack an archaic version of psychodynamic theory that most clinicians similarly consider obsolete. Central to contemporary psychodynamic theory is a series of propositions about (a) unconscious cognitive, affective, and motivational processes; (b) ambivalence and the tendency for affective and motivational dynamics to operate in parallel and produce compromise solutions; (c) the origins of many personality and social dispositions in childhood; (d) mental representations of the self, others, and relationships; and (e) developmental dynamics. An enormous body of research in cognitive, social, developmental, and personality psychology now supports many of these propositions. Freud's scientific legacy has implications for a wide range of domains in psychology, such as integration of affective and motivational constraints into connectionist models in cognitive science.Freud, like Elvis, has been dead for a number of years but continues to be cited with some regularity. Although the majority of clinicians report that they rely to some degree upon psychodynamic 1 principles in their work ( Pope, Tabachnick, & Keith-Spiegel, 1987 ), most researchers consider psychodynamic ideas to be at worst absurd and obsolete and at best irrelevant or of little scientific interest. In the lead article of a recent edition of Psychological Science, Crews (1996) arrived at a conclusion shared by many: " [T]here is literally nothing to be said, scientifically or therapeutically, to the advantage of the entire Freudian system or any of its component dogmas" (p. 63).Despite the explosion of empirical studies of unconscious cognitive processes (see, e.g., Greenwald, 1992 ;Kihlstrom, 1987 ;Schacter, 1992 ), few reference Freud; none cite any contemporary psychodynamic work; and in general, psychodynamic concepts are decreasingly represented in the major psychology journals ( Robins & Craik, 1994 ). The situation is similar in the popular media and in broader intellectual discourse. Publications ranging from Time to the New York Review of Books periodically publish Freud's intellectual obituary, with critics charging that Freud's ideas-such as his dual-instinct theory or his hypotheses about female personality development-are seriously out of date and without scientific merit (e.g., Crews, 1993 ).Many aspects of Freudian theory are indeed out of date, and they should be: Freud died in 1939, and he has been slow to undertake further revisions. His critics, however, are equally behind the times, attacking countenance was last sighted in earnest. Contemporary psychoanalysts and psychodynamic therapists no longer write much about ids and egos, nor do they conceive of treatment for psychological disorders as an archaeological expedition in search of lost memories ( Aron, 1996 ;Gabbard, 1994 ;Horowitz, 1988 ;Kolb, Cooper, & Fishman, 1995 ;Mitchell, 1988 ;Wachtel, 1993 ). People do sometimes describe feelings or behav...

show abstract

Section: Other Studies Documenting Unconscious Emotional Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The scientific legacy of Sigmund Freud: Toward a psychodynamically informed psychological science.

Westen

1998

Psychological Bulletin

342

233

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Multiple theories of leadership have also cited the critical role of trust. For example, theories have suggested that charismatic leaders build trust in their followers (Kirpatrick & Locke, 1996;Shamir, Zakay, Breinen, & Popper, 1998), that integrity or trustworthiness is an important trait of leaders (Bass, 1990), that trust is a core basis of effective leadership (Bennis & Nanus, 1985;Fairholm, 1994;Zand, 1997), and that trust is central in subordinates' perceptions of effective leadership (Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan, 1994). Lastly, a number of management practices, such as leadership development programs, recognize the importance of trust to varying degrees (e.g., Conger, 1992;Peterson & Hicks, 1996).…”

Section: The Effect Of Trust In Leadership On Team Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

Trust in leadership and team performance: Evidence from NCAA basketball.

Dirks¹

2000

Journal of Applied Psychology

491

435

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study empirically examined the relationship between trust, leadership, and team performance with 2 objectives. The 1st objective was to empirically examine an assumption found in several literatures-that a team's trust in its leader has a significant effect on the team's performance. The 2nd objective was to explore a more complex and dynamic relationship between trust and team performance whereby trust in leadership mediates the relationship between past team performance and future team performance. This relationship is derived by combining theories of trust with an attributional theory of leadership. Survey and archival data from a sample of men's college basketball teams provides support for both hypotheses, indicating that trust in leadership is both a product and a determinant of team performance.In the past 3 decades, research from several literatures in applied psychology, as well as writings in the popular press, has implied that a higher level of trust in a leader results in higher team (or organizational) performance (e.g., Bennis & Nanus, 1985;Fairholm, 1994;Golembiewski & McConkie, 1975;Kouzes & Posner, 1987;Likert, 1967;McGregor, 1967;Zand, 1972Zand, , 1997. This proposition has served as the basis for the claim that trust is an important variable in applied settings and therefore deserves further research. The proposition also provides a justification for the importance of management practices such as leadership development and team building.Despite its importance for research and practice, the relationship between trust in leadership and team performance has been the subject of little empirical research. The purpose of this article is to address two specific issues. First, does trust in a leader affect team performance? At this point, there is no empirical evidence to directly substantiate the proposition that a higher level of trust in a leader results in higher team performance. It is dangerous to use this untested assumption as a basis for research and practiceparticularly given that related studies on the main effects of trust in teammates on team performance have provided very inconsistent results (Dirks & Ferrin, in press). Second, this study explores a more complex and dynamic relationship between trust and team performance. Specifically, the study examines whether trust in leadership mediates the relationship between past and future team performance. This idea advances prior research that has focused on a unidirectional relationship (trust -> team performance) by ex-

show abstract

“…Despite some known limits (Eysenck, 1991;Paunonen & Jackson, 2000), over the last 50 years the Big Five model has become a standard in psychology and experiments using the Big Five have shown that personality traits influence many aspects of task-related individual behaviour. For example, the success of most interpersonal tasks depends on the personalities of the participants, and personality traits influence leadership ability (Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan, 1994), general job performance (Furnham, Jackson, & Miller, 1999), attitude toward machines (Sigurdsson, 1991), sales ability , teacher effectiveness (Rushton, Murray, & Erdle, 1987), and academic ability and motivation (Furnham & Mitchell, 1991;Komarraju & Karau, 2005). However, to date there has been little work on the automatic recognition of personality traits (Argamon, Dhawle, Koppel, & Pennebaker, 2005;Mairesse & Walker, 2006a, 2006bOberlander & Nowson, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Identification of leaders using personality dimensions could be useful in analysing meetings and the conversations of suspected terrorists (Hogan et al, 1994;Tucker & Whittaker, 2004;Nunn, 2005). Dating websites could analyse text messages to try to match personalities and increase the chances of a successful relationship (Donnellan, Conger, & Bryant, 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Linguistic Cues for the Automatic Recognition of Personality in Conversation and Text

Mairesse¹,

Walker²,

Mehl³

et al. 2007

jair

746

583

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is well known that utterances convey a great deal of information about the speaker in addition to their semantic content. One such type of information consists of cues to the speaker's personality traits, the most fundamental dimension of variation between humans. Recent work explores the automatic detection of other types of pragmatic variation in text and conversation, such as emotion, deception, speaker charisma, dominance, point of view, subjectivity, opinion and sentiment. Personality affects these other aspects of linguistic production, and thus personality recognition may be useful for these tasks, in addition to many other potential applications. However, to date, there is little work on the automatic recognition of personality traits. This article reports experimental results for recognition of all Big Five personality traits, in both conversation and text, utilising both self and observer ratings of personality. While other work reports classification results, we experiment with classification, regression and ranking models. For each model, we analyse the effect of different feature sets on accuracy. Results show that for some traits, any type of statistical model performs significantly better than the baseline, but ranking models perform best overall. We also present an experiment suggesting that ranking models are more accurate than multi-class classifiers for modelling personality. In addition, recognition models trained on observed personality perform better than models trained using selfreports, and the optimal feature set depends on the personality trait. A qualitative analysis of the learned models confirms previous findings linking language and personality, while revealing many new linguistic markers.

show abstract

What we know about leadership: Effectiveness and personality.

Cited by 944 publications

References 56 publications

The scientific legacy of Sigmund Freud: Toward a psychodynamically informed psychological science.

The scientific legacy of Sigmund Freud: Toward a psychodynamically informed psychological science.

Trust in leadership and team performance: Evidence from NCAA basketball.

Using Linguistic Cues for the Automatic Recognition of Personality in Conversation and Text

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About