trait and behavioral theories of leadership: an ......(c) follower satisfaction with leader, and (d)...

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY2011, 64, 7–52

TRAIT AND BEHAVIORAL THEORIESOF LEADERSHIP: AN INTEGRATION ANDMETA-ANALYTIC TEST OF THEIR RELATIVE VALIDITY

D. SCOTT DERUEStephen M. Ross School of Business

University of Michigan

JENNIFER D. NAHRGANGW.P. Carey School of Business

Arizona State University

NED WELLMANStephen M. Ross School of Business

University of Michigan

STEPHEN E. HUMPHREYSmeal College of Business

The Pennsylvania State University

The leadership literature suffers from a lack of theoretical integra-tion (Avolio, 2007, American Psychologist, 62, 25–33). This arti-cle addresses that lack of integration by developing an integrativetrait-behavioral model of leadership effectiveness and then exam-ining the relative validity of leader traits (gender, intelligence,personality) and behaviors (transformational-transactional, initiat-ing structure-consideration) across 4 leadership effectiveness crite-ria (leader effectiveness, group performance, follower job satisfac-tion, satisfaction with leader). Combined, leader traits and behaviorsexplain a minimum of 31% of the variance in leadership effectivenesscriteria. Leader behaviors tend to explain more variance in leadershipeffectiveness than leader traits, but results indicate that an integrativemodel where leader behaviors mediate the relationship between leadertraits and effectiveness is warranted.

Leadership is one of the most discussed and debated topics in thesocial sciences (Avolio, Sosik, Jung, & Berson, 2003; Bass, 1990;Bennis, 2007). Research on leadership began with a search for herita-ble attributes that differentiated leaders from nonleaders and explainedindividuals’ effectiveness as leaders (Galton & Eysenck, 1869). In effect,this early research was the beginning of the trait paradigm of leadership re-search. Subsequent studies have established that individual characteristics,

Correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed to D. Scott DeRue,Assistant Professor of Management and Organizations, Stephen M. Ross School of Busi-ness, University of Michigan, 701 Tappan Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109; [email protected]© 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

7

8 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

such as demographics, skills and abilities, and personality traits, predictleadership effectiveness (e.g., Eagly, Karau, & Makhijani, 1995; Judge,Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002; Judge, Colbert, & Ilies, 2004; Mumford,Campion, & Morgeson, 2007).

Critiques of the leader trait paradigm (Jenkins, 1947; Mann, 1959;Stogdill, 1948) prompted scholars to look beyond leader traits andconsider how leaders’ behaviors predicted effectiveness. This led toresearch on initiation of structure and consideration (Hemphill &Coons, 1957; Stogdill, 1963), and established the behavior paradigm ofleadership research. The influence of the leader behavior paradigm can beseen across leadership theories, including Fiedler’s (1967) contingencymodel, Blake and Mouton’s (1964) managerial grid, and the work ontransformational and transactional leadership (the full range model ofleadership; Avolio et al., 2003; Bass, 1985; Podsakoff, MacKenzie,Moorman, & Fetter, 1990). Not only did the leader behavior paradigmprovide the basis for new theory, but meta-analytic evidence also suggeststhat leader behaviors are important predictors of leadership effectiveness(Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Judge, Piccolo, & Ilies, 2004).

Both leader traits and behaviors have been investigated in scores of re-search studies. Despite the theoretical and applied value of these studies,leadership research is plagued by a lack of integration. In fact, schol-ars dating back to Bennis (1959) and as recently as Avolio (2007) havelamented over the proliferation and lack of integration of leadership theo-ries and constructs. The primary criticism is that leadership scholars createnew theories of leadership without attempting to compare and contrast thevalidity of existing theories.

The lack of integration in leadership research is evident both withinand across the trait and behavior paradigms, as research within eachparadigm generally focuses on a single trait or behavioral perspective. Forexample, within the trait paradigm, Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, and vanEngen (2003) provided meta-analytic estimates for gender and leadershipeffectiveness, whereas Judge et al. (2002, 2004) did the same for person-ality and intelligence, respectively. None of these studies controlled for orcompared the effects of different traits, such as gender, personality, andintelligence concurrently. This lack of integration is problematic giventhat many of these studies found similar effect sizes across leader traits.For example, Judge et al. (2002) found absolute effect sizes ranging from.16 to .24 for personality and leadership effectiveness, whereas Judge et al.(2004) found an effect size of .21 for intelligence. However, because therewas no integration across traits, it remains unclear as to whether these areindependent effects.

Similarly, research within the leader behavior paradigm often focuseson a single behavioral perspective. For example, Judge and Piccolo (2004)

D. SCOTT DERUE ET AL. 9

meta-analyzed the literature on transformational and transactional leader-ship, and Judge, Piccolo, and Ilies (2004) did the same for initiating struc-ture and consideration. Neither of these studies integrated across leaderbehaviors or considered whether the effects were independent. Yet, ini-tiating structure and transactional leadership both focus on task-orientedleader behaviors, whereas consideration and transformational leadershipboth comprised relational-oriented leader behaviors (Bass & Bass, 2008;Fleishman, 1953). Given the conceptual similarity, it is not surprising thatseparate meta-analyses found similar effect sizes—for example, overallvalidities of .41 for consideration and .44 for transformational (Judge &Piccolo, 2004; Judge et al., 2004). Thus, the two leader behavior paradigmsthat have shaped leadership research for decades may not be independent,and even more importantly, it is unclear if one is a better predictor ofleadership effectiveness.

This article reviews and integrates the literature on leader traits andbehaviors, and takes a first step toward an integrative theory of how leadertraits and behaviors influence leadership effectiveness. To accomplishthis, we follow a three-stage process. First, based on a narrative reviewof the literature, we develop a conceptual model that organizes the cur-rent literature and models how leader traits and behaviors affect leadershipeffectiveness (see Figure 1). Second, we empirically test the relative valid-ity of select leader traits and behaviors using a combination of previouslypublished meta-analytic data and new meta-analyses. Third, we investi-gate an exemplary set of relationships from our conceptual model to seeif leader behaviors are one possible mechanism through which individualtraits influence leadership effectiveness.

Conceptualizing Leadership Effectiveness

Before presenting our integrative model, we first define the leadershipeffectiveness domain. Scholars often vary in their definition of leadershipeffectiveness (Avolio et al., 2003; Yukl, 2006), which is one reason theliterature is not well integrated. Based on our review of the literature, lead-ership effectiveness criteria can be conceptualized along three dimensions:(a) content, (b) level of analysis, and (c) target of evaluation. As shownin Figure 1, the content of leadership effectiveness can relate to task per-formance (e.g., individual or group performance), affective and relationalcriteria (e.g., satisfaction with the leader), or overall judgments of effec-tiveness that encompass both task and relational elements (e.g., overalleffectiveness of the leader). The level of analysis corresponds to whetherleadership effectiveness is conceptualized at the individual, dyadic, group,or organizational level. For example, some studies conceptualize leader-ship effectiveness as individual-level leader effectiveness, whereas other


Lea

der

Tra

its

& C

har

acte

rist

ics

Dem

ogra

phic

s

Task

Com

pete

nce

Inte

rper

sona

l Att

ribu

tes

Task

-ori

ente

d R

elat

iona

l-or

ient

ed

Lea

der

Beh

avio

rs

Att

ribu

tion

Pro

cess

es

Iden

tifi

catio

n P

roce

sses

Att

ribu

tion

s &

Rel

atio

nal

Ass

ocia

tion

s

Lea

ders

hip

Eff

ecti

ven

ess

Con

tent

Lev

el o

f A

naly

sis

Targ

et o

f E

valu

atio

n •I

mpl

icit

lead

ersh

ip

theo

ry

•Lea

der

prot

otyp

es

• Lea

der-

foll

ower

perc

eive

d si

mil

arit

y •I

dent

ific

atio

n w

ith

lead

er

•Gro

up id

enti

fica

tion

Cha

nge-

orie

nted

•Ini

tiat

ing

stru

ctur

e •C

onti

ngen

t rew

ard

•Man

agem

ent b

y ex

cept

ion-

acti

ve•B

ound

ary

span

ning

•D

irec

tive

•Con

side

rati

on

•Em

pow

erm

ent

•Par

tici

pati

ve

•Dev

elop

ing

•Ena

blin

g •S

erva

nt le

ader

ship

•Tra

nsfo

rmat

iona

l •C

hari

smat

ic,

insp

irat

iona

l

•Gen

der

•Age

•Eth

nici

ty

•Hei

gh•E

duca

tion

, soc

ial s

tatu

s

•Int

elli

genc

e •C

onsc

ient

ious

ness

•O

penn

ess

to e

xper

ienc

e •E

mot

iona

l sta

bili

ty

•Tec

hnic

al k

now

ledg

e •L

eade

rshi

p se

lf-e

ffic

acy

•Ext

rave

rsio

n• A

gree

able

ness

•C

omm

unic

atio

n sk

ills

•E

mot

iona

l int

elli

genc

e •P

olit

ical

ski

lls

•Ove

rall

•T

ask

(e.g

., pe

rfor

man

ce)

•Affe

ctiv

e/re

lati

onal

(e.

g.,

foll

ower

sat

isfa

ctio

n, le

ader

-m

embe

r ex

chan

ge)

•Ind

ivid

ual

•Dya

d •G

roup

•O

rgan

izat

ion

•Lea

der

•Oth

er (

e.g.

, fol

low

er, g

roup

, or

gani

zati

on)

Pass

ive

Lea

ders

hip

•Man

agem

ent b

y ex

cept

ion-

pass

ive

•Lai

ssez

-fai

re

Lea

der

Tra

its

& C

har

acte

rist

ics

Dem

ogra

phic

s

Task

Com

pete

nce

Inte

rper

sona

l Att

ribu

tes

Task

-ori

ente

d R

elat

iona

l-or

ient

ed

Lea

der

Beh

avio

rs

Att

ribu

tion

Pro

cess

es

Iden

tifi

catio

n P

roce

sses

Att

ribu

tion

s &

Rel

atio

nal

Ass

ocia

tion

s

Lea

ders

hip

Eff

ecti

ven

ess

Con

tent

Lev

el o

f A

naly

sis

Targ

et o

f E

valu

atio

n •I

mpl

icit

lead

ersh

ip

theo

ry

•Lea

der

prot

otyp

es

• Lea

der–

foll

ower

perc

eive

d si

mil

arit

y •I

dent

ific

atio

n w

ith

lead

er

•Gro

up id

enti

fica

tion

Cha

nge-

orie

nted

•Ini

tiat

ing

stru

ctur

e •C

onti

ngen

t rew

ard

•Man

agem

ent b

y ex

cept

ion-

acti

ve•B

ound

ary

span

ning

•D

irec

tive

•Con

side

rati

on

•Em

pow

erm

ent

•Par

tici

pati

ve

•Dev

elop

ing

•Ena

blin

g •S

erva

nt le

ader

ship

•Tra

nsfo

rmat

iona

l •C

hari

smat

ic,

insp

irat

iona

l

•Gen

der

•Age

•Eth

nici

ty

•Hei

ght w

eigh

t•E

duca

tion

, soc

ial s

tatu

s

•Int

elli

genc

e •C

onsc

ient

ious

ness

•O

penn

ess

to E

xper

ienc

e •E

mot

iona

l Sta

bili

ty

•Tec

hnic

al k

now

ledg

e •L

eade

rshi

p se

lf-e

ffic

acy

•Ext

rave

rsio

n• A

gree

able

ness

•C

omm

unic

atio

n sk

ills

•E

mot

iona

l int

elli

genc

e •P

olit

ical

ski

lls

•Ove

rall

•T

ask

(e.g

., pe

rfor

man

ce)

•Affe

ctiv

e/re

lati

onal

(e.

g.,

foll

ower

sat

isfa

ctio

n, le

ader

-m

embe

r ex

chan

ge)

•Ind

ivid

ual

•Dya

d •G

roup

•O

rgan

izat

ion

•Lea

der

•Oth

er (

e.g.

, fol

low

er, g

roup

, or

gani

zati

on)

Pass

ive

Lea

ders

hip

•Man

agem

ent b

y ex

cept

ion-

pass

ive

•Lai

ssez

-fai

re

Fig

ure

1:A

nIn

tegr

ated

Mod

elof

Lea

der

Tra

its,

Beh

avio

rs,a

ndE

ffec

tive

ness

.


studies focus on dyadic-level relationships, group-level performance, ororganizational performance (Kaiser, Hogan, & Craig, 2008). Finally, tar-get of evaluation refers to whether the leader is the target of evaluation(e.g., leader effectiveness, satisfaction with leader) or another outcomethat is within the domain of leadership effectiveness but not specific to theleader (e.g., group performance).

As Yukl (2006: 11) notes, “the selection of appropriate [leadershipeffectiveness] criteria depends on the objectives and values of the per-son making the evaluation, and people have different values. . . it isusually best to include a variety of criteria in research on leadershipeffectiveness.” In this study, we focus on four distinct leadership effective-ness criteria: (a) individual leader effectiveness, (b) group performance,(c) follower satisfaction with leader, and (d) follower job satisfaction. Wechose these criteria for two reasons. First, we wanted to cover a rangeof content dimensions, levels of analyses, and targets of evaluation. In-dividual leader effectiveness provides an individual-level, leader-focusedassessment of overall effectiveness. Group performance offers a group-level, other-focused assessment of task-related performance, and followersatisfaction (with the leader and job) provides an affective, individual-level, and other-focused assessment of leadership effectiveness. Second,given that we are using meta-analytic techniques, we can only includethose criteria that have been examined across a sufficient number of stud-ies. With these criteria, we meet both of these parameters and are able toexamine the relative validity of traits and behaviors across a diverse set ofimportant criteria.

Toward an Integrated Model of Leader Traits and Behaviors

Although prior research has established that leadership effectivenessis influenced by both leader traits and behaviors, it is not clear from thisresearch how leader traits and behaviors complement or supplement eachother, and how they can be incorporated into a more integrative modelof leadership effectiveness. Based on prior reviews (Avolio et al., 2003;Bass & Bass, 2008; Yukl, Gordon, & Taber, 2002) and our own reviewof the literature, most leader traits can be organized into three categories:(a) demographics, (b) traits related to task competence, and (c) interper-sonal attributes. Similarly, leader behaviors are often discussed in terms ofwhether the behavior is oriented toward (a) task processes, (b) relationaldynamics, or (c) change.

Drawing on this classification scheme, we develop a conceptual frame-work that organizes the current literature and models how leader traits andbehaviors affect leadership effectiveness (Figure 1). In this model, we in-corporate a wide range of leader traits and behaviors that were identified in


our narrative review. Our empirical tests focus on a subset of these leadertraits and behaviors. Specifically, we focus on those traits and behaviorsthat comprise most of the empirical research on leadership, and at leastone trait or behavior from each major category. Although we incorporateother, less commonly studied variables in our model, these traits and be-haviors have not been studied enough empirically to be included in ourmeta-analytic tests.

With respect to leader traits, we focus on gender, intelligence, and theBig Five personality traits (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Collectively, theseleader traits span the demographic, task competence, and interpersonal di-mensions. For leader behaviors, we focus on transformational leadership,specific dimensions of transactional leadership (e.g., contingent reward),initiating structure, and consideration. We also focus on leader behaviorsrelated to passive leadership, namely laissez-faire and management byexception-passive (MBEP). For the sake of clarity, we italicize in Figure 1those leader traits and behaviors that are examined in our empirical anal-yses.

Finally, an important aspect of our model is that we position leaderbehaviors as one possible mechanism through which leader traits influenceleadership effectiveness. In some cases, it might be that leader traits andbehaviors have independent effects on effectiveness, but we posit thatbehaviors can also serve as a key mediator in the relationship betweenleader traits and effectiveness. Considering that leader traits such as genderand personality are often discussed in terms of the behaviors associatedwith those traits, the idea that leader behaviors mediate the relationshipbetween leader traits and effectiveness seems especially plausible. Wealso posit that traits impact outcomes not through actual behavior butrather by how those traits are perceived by others and the attributions thatpeople make related to individual traits. Altogether, Figure 1 provides anintegrative account of research on leader traits and behaviors, and pointsto possible mechanisms linking traits, behaviors, and effectiveness.

The Leader Trait Paradigm

In reviewing trait theories of leadership, Bass (1990) proposed twoquestions: (a) Which traits distinguish leaders from other people, and(b) what is the magnitude of those differences? With respect to the firstquestion, leadership scholars have generally examined leader traits re-lated to demographics (e.g., gender, age, education), task competence(e.g., intelligence, Conscientiousness), or interpersonal attributes (e.g.,Agreeableness, Extraversion; Bass & Bass, 2008). Unfortunately, little tono research has systematically addressed Bass’ second question regardingthe relative magnitude of effects across leader traits.


Understanding the relative validity of leader traits is important be-cause traits might not be independent. For example, there are biologicaland sociocultural reasons for why men and women score differently onpersonality and intelligence (Feingold, 1994; Halpern, 1997). The biologi-cal model posits that gender differences are a function of innate differencesbetween sexes, whereas the sociocultural model posits that social and cul-tural factors directly produce differences. A detailed discussion of thesemodels is beyond the scope of this article, but it is clear that gender differ-ences exist for both intelligence and personality (Feingold, 1994; Halpern,1997; Hedges & Nowell, 1995). In addition, meta-analyses on the rela-tionship between intelligence and personality suggest that Extraversionand Openness to Experience are related to intelligence (Ackerman &Heggestad, 1997; Judge, Jackson, Shaw, Scott, & Rich, 2007). This find-ing is especially interesting considering that Extraversion and Opennessto Experience are personality traits that have been shown to have strongrelationships with leadership effectiveness (Judge et al., 2002). Thus, it islikely that the effects of gender, intelligence, and personality are not in-dependent. In the following sections, we build a theoretical case for whycertain leader traits will be more predictive of leadership effectivenessthan other traits. Moreover, we specify how the relative validity of leadertraits will vary by leadership effectiveness criteria.

Demographics. Among the possible demographics of leaders, genderhas received the most attention. Other demographics such as physicalcharacteristics (e.g., height; Judge & Cable, 2004), education (Howard &Bray, 1988), and experience (Fiedler, 1970) have been examined in priorresearch, but the amount of research on these other demographics palesin comparison to the research on gender and leadership. Most notably,Eagly and colleagues (Eagly & Johnson, 1990; Eagly, et al., 1995, 2003)meta-analyzed the relationship between gender and leadership and foundthat, although men and women exhibit some differences in leadershipstyle, men and women appear to be equally effective—thus drawing intoquestion gender as a valid predictor of leadership effectiveness.

Based on this research, we do not expect to see differences betweengenders in terms of leadership effectiveness. We also propose any dif-ferences that might exist are due to confounding relationships with otherleader traits such as intelligence and personality (Feingold, 1994; Halpern,1997). Thus, when examining gender in conjunction with these otherleader traits, we do not expect to observe a meaningful effect of genderon leadership effectiveness.

Task competence. Task competence is a general category of leadertraits that relate to how individuals approach the execution and perfor-mance of tasks (Bass & Bass, 2008). Although a variety of task-related per-sonality traits have been studied, leadership scholars most often describe


task competence in terms of four traits: intelligence, Conscientiousness,Openness to Experience, and Emotional Stability. Intelligence reflects ageneral factor of cognitive abilities related to individuals’ verbal, spatial,numerical, and reasoning abilities, and has been established as a consis-tent predictor of task performance (Hunter & Hunter, 1984). With respectto intelligence and leadership, Judge et al. (2004) meta-analyzed 151samples and found that intelligence was positively related to leadershipeffectiveness (rc = .21).

Beyond intelligence, Conscientiousness, Openness to Experience, andEmotional Stability are often used to describe how one approaches andreacts to task work (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Conscientiousness reflectsthe extent to which a person is dependable, dutiful, and achievement-oriented, and is often associated with deliberate planning and structure.Openness to Experience is commonly associated with being imaginative,curious, and open minded to new and different ways of working. EmotionalStability refers to a person’s ability to remain calm and not be easily upsetwhen faced with challenging tasks. In a meta-analysis of 73 independentsamples, Judge et al. (2002) found that Conscientiousness (rc = .16),Openness to Experience (rc = .24), and Emotional Stability (rc = .22)were all positively related to leadership effectiveness.

Interpersonal attributes. Interpersonal attributes is a general categoryof leader traits that relate to how individuals approach social interactions(Bass & Bass, 2008). These traits include the interpersonal plane of per-sonality (i.e., Extraversion, Agreeableness; Costa & McCrae, 1992), aswell as skills and abilities related to social functioning (e.g., commu-nication skills; Klimoski & Hayes, 1980). The most commonly studiedinterpersonal attributes of leaders are Extraversion and Agreeableness,with prior meta-analyses finding that both Extraversion (rc = .24) andAgreeableness (rc = .21) were positively related to leadership effective-ness (Judge et al., 2002).

Relative validity of leader traits. Research suggests that leader traitsrelated to task competence and interpersonal attributes are important pre-dictors of leadership effectiveness. Yet, we expect that the relative validityof these leader traits will vary depending on the effectiveness criterion. Inparticular, to the degree that the content of leadership effectiveness criteriafocuses on execution and performance, we expect that leader traits relatedto task competence will be particularly important. Highly intelligent andconscientious leaders, for example, will be especially adept at ensuringtheir followers have sufficient role clarity, structure, and goals to help facil-itate task performance. In contrast, to the degree leadership effectivenesscriteria focus on affective and relational elements, we expect that the in-terpersonal attributes of leaders, namely Extraversion and Agreeableness,will be important. For example, leaders who are especially extraverted or


are highly agreeable are more likely to invoke strong emotional ties andbuild high-quality relationships with followers (Nahrgang, Morgeson, &Ilies, 2009), which should lead to improved scores on affective criteriasuch as follower satisfaction with the leader.

Hypothesis 1: Leader traits related to task competence will exhibita stronger, positive relationship with task performancedimensions of leadership effectiveness than leaders’ de-mographics or interpersonal attributes.

Hypothesis 2: Leader traits related to interpersonal attributes will ex-hibit a stronger, positive relationship with affectiveand relational dimensions of leadership effectivenessthan leaders’ demographics or traits related to taskcompetence.

Following this same logic, to the degree that leadership effectivenesscriteria rely on a more general or global assessment of effectiveness, weexpect that leader traits related to task competence and the interpersonalattributes of the leader will both be important in predicting leadershipeffectiveness. This is because overall effectiveness criteria encompass thedegree to which leaders facilitate task performance but also the degreeto which leaders develop relationships with and consider the welfare offollowers (Yukl, 2006).

Hypothesis 3: Leader traits related to (a) task competence and (b)interpersonal attributes will both be positively re-lated to overall leader effectiveness and more so thandemographics.

The Leader Behavior Paradigm

In their narrative review of the leader behavior literature, Fleishmanand colleagues (1991) identified 65 distinct classifications of leader be-havior, and subsequent reviews have only further highlighted the prolif-eration of leader behavior typologies and theories (Avolio et al., 2003;Pearce et al., 2003). Unfortunately, new leader behavior theories continueto be conceived without explicit comparison to or falsification of existingleader behavior theories.

One consistent theme in the literature is that behaviors can be fit intofour categories: task-oriented behaviors, relational-oriented behaviors,change-oriented behaviors, and what we refer to as passive leadership.In this section, we illustrate how two of the most studied theories of leaderbehavior, initiating structure-consideration (IS-C; Halpin, 1957; Stogdill,1963) and transformational-transactional (T-T; Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978),


can be arranged along these behavioral dimensions. We also discuss howthese theories of leader behavior overlap conceptually in ways that in-form our understanding of their relative validities in predicting leadershipeffectiveness.

Task-oriented behaviors. Initiating structure and select transac-tional leader behaviors, namely contingent reward and management byexception-active (MBEA), represent task-oriented behaviors. Initiatingstructure describes behaviors such as defining task roles and role rela-tionships among group members, coordinating group members’ actions,determining standards of task performance, and ensuring group mem-bers perform up to those standards. Similarly, transactional leaders makeclear what is expected in terms of task performance and the rewards formeeting those expectations (contingent rewards), anticipate task-orientedproblems, and take corrective action (MBEA). Both initiating structureand contingent reward describe leaders as being clear about expectationsand standards for performance, and using these standards to shape followercommitment, motivation, and behavior. Moreover, initiating structure andMBEA discuss dealing with deviations from those standards via the useof structure and routines.

Relational-oriented behaviors. Relative to initiating structure andtransactional leadership, consideration leader behaviors describe morerelational-oriented behaviors. In particular, leaders high on considerationshow concern and respect for individual group members, are friendlyand approachable, are open to input from others, and treat all groupmembers as equals (Bass, 1990). Similar relational-oriented behaviorsare described in research on empowering (Conger, 1989; Srivastava,Bartol, & Locke, 2006), participative (Kahai, Sosik, & Avolio, 1997),and democratic (Gastil, 1994) leadership. A common theme among theserelational-oriented behaviors is that the leader acts in ways that buildfollower respect and encourage followers to focus on the welfare of thegroup. It should be noted that certain aspects of transformational leaderbehaviors (e.g., individualized consideration) also consist of a relationalorientation, which is a point we revisit later in the manuscript. However,broadly speaking, transformational leadership is conceptualized as a set ofbehaviors designed to create and facilitate change in organizations, whichbrings us to our third category of leader behaviors.

Change-oriented behaviors. Leader behaviors oriented toward fa-cilitating and driving change in groups and organizations represent athird category of leader behaviors that is conceptually distinct fromtask and relational-oriented behaviors. According to Yukl et al. (2002),change-oriented leader behaviors encompass actions such as devel-oping and communicating a vision for change, encouraging innova-tive thinking, and risk taking. For example, transformational leaders


(inspirational motivation) focus on communicating a compelling vision forthe future; in addition, transformational leaders (intellectual stimulation)seek different perspectives from group members, challenge assumptions,and take risks. These dimensions of transformational leadership conceptu-ally distinguish it from the research on task and relational-oriented leaderbehaviors.

Passive leadership. In addition to task, relational, and change-oriented leader behaviors, many leader behavior taxonomies also includereference to leader inaction or passive leadership. For example, as part ofthe transactional model of leader behaviors, MBEP refers to how lead-ers only engage their followers when task-related problems or challengesemerge (Bass, 1990). When a problem does not exist or is not apparent tothe leader, the leader does not actively engage. Similarly, a common di-mension of leader behaviors is laissez-faire, which describes the absenceof leader behaviors (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999).

Relative validity of leader behaviors. These models of leader be-havior, IS-C and T-T, have developed and evolved largely independentof each other. However, given the conceptual similarities between thesemodels, there is reason to question the independence of their effects andtheir relative validity as predictors of leadership effectiveness. Similar toour discussion of leader traits, we expect that task-oriented leader behav-iors will ensure that followers have specific goals, an established groupstructure with clear roles, and transparent metrics upon which to com-pare their performance. As a result, task-oriented leader behaviors shouldpromote greater task productivity in follower or group performance. Wealso expect change-oriented leader behaviors to be important predictors oftask performance. By establishing a vision for the future and challengingfollowers to not settle for the status quo, change-oriented leader behaviorsshould facilitate improvements in task productivity. Thus, to the degreethat the content of leadership effectiveness criteria focuses on task execu-tion and performance, we expect task-oriented and change-oriented leaderbehaviors will be important.

Hypothesis 4: Task-oriented and change-oriented leader behaviors willexhibit a stronger, positive relationship with task per-formance dimensions of leadership effectiveness thanrelational-oriented or passive leader behaviors.

In contrast, leaders who engage in relational-oriented behaviors areempathetic and skilled at sensing the needs of their followers; likewise,these leaders show concern for others and appeal to followers’ emo-tions. These leader behaviors should invoke a strong interpersonal connec-tion with followers and ultimately higher levels of follower satisfaction.Likewise, change-oriented behaviors can also enhance the attitudes and


satisfaction of followers. Prior research shows that individuals whofeel that they are growing, developing, and making improvements overtime feel more satisfied at work (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). Weexpect that change-oriented leader behaviors will enhance these feel-ings of growth and development. Thus, to the degree that leadershipeffectiveness criteria focus on affective and relational elements, weexpect relational-oriented and change-oriented leader behaviors to beimportant.

Hypothesis 5: Relational-oriented and change-oriented leader be-haviors will exhibit a stronger, positive relationshipwith affective and relational dimensions of leader-ship effectiveness than task-oriented or passive leaderbehaviors.

As noted above, global assessments of leadership effectiveness reflecta leader’s ability to facilitate task performance as well as manage re-lationships and interpersonal concerns within the group. Therefore, task-oriented, relational-oriented, and change-oriented leader behaviors shouldbe important predictors of overall leader effectiveness.

Hypothesis 6: Task-, relational-, and change-oriented leader behaviorswill be positively related to overall leader effectivenessand more so than passive leader behaviors.

With respect to passive leader behaviors, namely MBEP and laissez-faire leadership, it is clear that there is a negative relationship betweenthese leader behaviors and leadership effectiveness (Judge & Piccolo,2004). In terms of relative (absolute) validity, however, it is unclear howthese passive leader behaviors compare to more active task- and relational-oriented behaviors—and how this relative validity might differ acrossleadership effectiveness criteria.

Most research on leader traits and behaviors is embedded within aformal social structure whereby leaders hold formal positions that comewith an expected set of role behaviors (Biddle, 1979). When leaders donot actively engage in behaviors consistent with these role behaviors, theinaction becomes symbolic (Pfeffer, 1981) and likely renders the persona nonleader in the eyes of followers. Thus, to the degree leadership effec-tiveness criteria focus on the leader as the target of evaluation, we expectpassive leadership behaviors to be important predictors of effectiveness.Thus, we expect passive leadership to be a more important predictor foroutcomes such as leader effectiveness and satisfaction with leader, as op-posed to group performance or follower job satisfaction. In fact, given theimportance of action in leadership, even if that action is purely symbolic(Pfeffer, 1981), we propose that passive leadership will be as important


in predicting leader effectiveness and satisfaction with leader as will theactive forms of leader behaviors.

Hypothesis 7: In comparison to more active forms of leader behavior,the relative validity of MBEP and laissez-faire leader-ship will be greater for criteria that have the leader asthe target of evaluation than for criteria that do not focusspecifically on the leader.

Leader Traits Versus Behaviors: A Test of Relative Validity

Thus far, we have focused purely on the predictive validities of leadertraits relative to other leader traits and leader behaviors relative to otherleader behaviors. However, in order to progress toward an integrativeunderstanding of leadership, we must simultaneously consider alternativetrait and behavioral explanations. It is this direct comparison of alternativeexplanations of leadership effectiveness that is absent from the currentliterature.

We offer several theoretical explanations for why leader behaviors willhave greater validity than leader traits in predicting leadership effective-ness. First, consistent with recent literature on the distal and proximalantecedents to leadership effectiveness (Van Iddekinge, Ferris, & Heffner,2009), we submit that leader behaviors are more proximal to the act ofleadership than are traits and, thus, will be more predictive of leadershipeffectiveness. Second, although traits reflect behavioral tendencies in peo-ple, the manifestation of those traits into behaviors can be affected by thesituation. Drawing from trait activation theory (Tett & Guterman, 2000;Tett & Burnett, 2003) and related research (Mischel & Shoda, 1995), traitsmanifest into the expected set of behaviors only when the situation makesthe need for that trait behavior salient. When situations do not call for aparticular trait, the trait does not manifest and its impact on outcomes ismarginalized. Given the complexity and ambiguity of leadership contexts(Pfeffer, 1977), it is likely that leadership situations vary with respect totrait relevance. In other words, leaders’ traits will not always manifest inways that impact leadership effectiveness. Contrast this with assessmentsof leader behavior, where the assessment measures actual, observed be-havior that has already manifested during the act of leadership, and wewould expect that leader behaviors will be more predictive of leadershipeffectiveness than leader traits.

Hypothesis 8: Leader behaviors will predict more variance in leader-ship effectiveness than leader traits.


Traits, Behaviors, and Leadership Effectiveness: An Integrated Model

As illustrated in Figure 1, we propose that there are two mechanismsthrough which individual traits affect leadership effectiveness. The firstinvolves actual behaviors that result as a function of the leader’s traits.The current literature on leadership has treated leader traits and behaviorsas independent explanations of leader effectiveness. However, if leadertraits and behaviors are not entirely independent, an alternative model isthat leader behaviors serve as one meditational mechanism. The secondmechanism through which leader traits might impact effectiveness is notthrough actual behavior but rather how followers attribute and identifywith the leader’s traits. Specifically, we propose that certain traits, espe-cially those that are highly salient to followers, have symbolic meaningand can be the basis upon which followers make judgments about thatleader that are independent of any actual behavior.

Leaders behaviors. The notion that leader behaviors mediate the rela-tionship between traits and effectiveness seems especially plausible con-sidering the conceptual and empirical links between individual traits andbehaviors that are apparent in much of the personality literature (Barrick& Mount, 1993) and research on gender in leadership (Eagly & Johnson,1990). In particular, the interpersonal attributes of leaders, such as Ex-traversion and Agreeableness, should predict the degree to which leadersengage in relational-oriented and change-oriented behavior. For example,extraverted individuals will be more inclined to seek input from followers,talk enthusiastically about the work, and be more comfortable setting adirection and vision for the group. Similarly, agreeable individuals willbe more friendly and approachable, likely to help followers develop theirstrengths, and respectful to followers. All of these behaviors are akinto those articulated in the consideration and transformational theories ofleader behavior.

Likewise, the traits related to task competence (intelligence, Consci-entiousness, Openness to Experience, and Emotional Stability) shouldpredict how leaders approach behaviors such as structuring task work,challenging assumptions, risk taking, and solving problems. For exam-ple, conscientious leaders, due to their preference for planned rather thanspontaneous behavior, will be inclined to initiate structure in leadershipcontexts (Humphrey, Hollenbeck, Meyer, & Ilgen, 2007). They will alsobe more inclined to actively monitor and intervene when problems arise,which are behaviors associated with MBEA. Similarly, leaders who arehigh in Openness to Experience are more likely to monitor their envi-ronment, challenge assumptions, recognize the possible implications ofexternal forces, and then intervene as appropriate. Finally, leaders who areemotionally stable will be more likely to remain calm, maintain order and


structure, and be more comfortable with taking risks during challengingsituations.

Hypothesis 9: Relational-oriented and change-oriented leader behav-iors will mediate the relationship between leader-ship effectiveness and the interpersonal attributes ofleaders.

Hypothesis 10: Task-oriented and change-oriented leader behaviorswill mediate the relationship between leadership effec-tiveness and leader traits related to task competence.

Attributions and identification processes. Drawing on leadership cat-egorization theory (Lord, 1985) and related research on attributional andidentification processes in leadership (Conger & Kanungo, 1987; Hogg,Hains, & Mason, 1998), we submit that leader traits can influence lead-ership effectiveness by way of attributions that followers make about theleader and perceived identification and similarity with the leader. For ex-ample, independent of leader behaviors, Cherulnik, Turns, and Wilderman(1990) found that physical appearance in terms of maturity and attractive-ness influenced attributions of leadership emergence and effectiveness.Similarly, numerous studies have found that gender is an important factorin shaping followers’ attributions of leadership and effectiveness (e.g.,Sczesny, Bosak, Neff, & Schyns, 2004). Finally, drawing from the simi-larity attraction paradigm (Byrne, 1971), research has consistently shownthat followers who perceive a leader to be similar to themselves reportstronger identification with the leader and grant that leader more favorableevaluations (Engle & Lord, 1997; Liden, Wayne, & Stilwell, 1993; Turban& Jones, 1988).

Hypothesis 11: Follower attributions and identification processes willmediate the relationship between leader traits andeffectiveness.

As noted earlier, we present our conceptual model of leader traits,behaviors, and effectiveness to help organize and integrate the existingliterature. In our empirical analyses and hypothesis testing, we examinean exemplary set of relationships from this model. Specifically, we focuson those relationships where meta-analytic data already existed or therewere sufficient primary studies for us to conduct our own meta-analyses.In some cases, such as with leader attributions and identification pro-cesses, there was insufficient data for us to examine these relationships.In our Discussion section, we return to these relationships, discuss theimplications of our findings for these other variables and processes, andoutline an agenda for future research that will be critical for developing amore integrative understanding of leadership.


Methods

To examine these hypotheses, we use previously published meta-analytic estimates, update previously published meta-analytic estimates,and conduct our own meta-analyses of primary studies. Table 1 providesthe sources of the intercorrelations among all study variables. In total,59 studies consisting of 13 existing meta-analyses and 46 primary stud-ies were included in our final analysis. Of the 143 bivariate relationshipsestimated in Table 2, 90 of the estimates were drawn from previously pub-lished meta-analyses, and 53 were estimated via our own meta-analysesof primary studies or via updating previously published meta-analyses.

The correlation matrix used as an input for our analyses (Table 2) wasconstructed via a two-step process. First, where meta-analytic estimates ofa relationship were available, those data were used directly. In some cases,it appeared the authors of the original study had meta-analytic estimatesrelevant to our study that were not reported in the original meta-analysis.In such cases, we contacted the authors directly and obtained the meta-analytic estimates. Second, where previous meta-analytic estimates werepublished before 2003, we updated the existing meta-analyses with recentprimary studies. Third, where meta-analytic estimates were unavailable,we conducted our own meta-analyses by collecting and examining primarystudies.

Literature Search

To identify previous meta-analyses, we searched the online databasesPsycINFO (1887–2008) and Web of Science ISI (1970–2008) using com-binations of the terms leader, leadership, or manager with the termsmeta-analysis or quantitative review. Our search was supplemented witha reference search of key articles in the area of leadership (e.g., Avolioet al., 2003; Day, 2000; Yukl, 1989). We identified 919 articles in our ini-tial search but narrowed this down to 79 studies based on a review of theabstracts. We then examined each of these studies to determine whetherthe study should be included in our analysis. To be included, a study had tobe a meta-analysis, contain a variable of interest per our hypotheses, andthe effect size for the bivariate relationship had to be reported in the study.In some cases, we identified multiple studies that reported meta-analyticestimates for the same bivariate relationship. In these cases, we used themeta-analytic estimate that was the most recent and had the largest samplesize.

For bivariate relationships where meta-analytic estimates were not al-ready available, we conducted our own meta-analyses of primary data. Toidentify the relevant primary studies, an additional literature search was


TAB

LE

1So

urce

sof

Inte

rcor

rela

tion

sA

mon

gSt

udy

Vari

able

s

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1.G

ende

r2.

Inte

llige

nce

LI0

43.

Em

otio

nalS

tabi

lity

LI0

5JJ

074.

Agr

eeab

lene

ssL

I05

JJ07

OV

965.

Con

scie

ntio

usne

ssL

I05

JJ07

OV

96O

V96

6.E

xtra

vers

ion

LI0

5JJ

07O

V96

OV

96O

V96

7.O

penn

ess

LI0

5JJ

07O

V96

OV

96O

V96

OV

968.

Initi

atin

gst

ruct

ure

DP8

6(U

)N

ewN

ewN

ewN

ewN

ewN

ew9.

Con

side

ratio

nD

P86(

U)

New

New

New

New

New

New

JPI0

410

.Tra

nsfo

rmat

iona

lE

J03

New

BJ0

4B

J04

BJ0

4B

J04

BJ0

4N

ewN

ew11

.MB

E-a

ctiv

eE

J03

New

BJ0

4B

J04

BJ0

4B

J04

BJ0

4N

ewN

ewJP

0412

.MB

E-p

assi

veE

J03

New

BJ0

4B

J04

BJ0

4B

J04

BJ0

4N

ewN

ewJP

04JP

0413

.Con

tinge

ntre

war

dE

J03

New

BJ0

4B

J04

BJ0

4B

J04

BJ0

4N

ewN

ewJP

04JP

04JP

0414

.Lai

ssez

-fai

reE

J03

New

BJ0

4B

J04

BJ0

4B

J04

BJ0

4N

ewN

ewJP

04JP

04JP

04JP

0415

.Lea

der

effe

ctiv

enes

sE

J03

JC04

JB02

(U)

JB02

(U)

JB02

(U)

JB02

(U)

JB02

(U)

JPI0

4JP

I04

JP04

JP04

JP04

PB06

JP04

16.G

roup

perf

orm

ance

–N

ewN

ewN

ewN

ewN

ewN

ewJP

I04

JPI0

4B

S06

JP04

JP04

PB06

–17

.Fol

low

erjo

bsa

tisfa

ctio

nD

P86(

U)

–N

ewN

ewN

ewN

ewN

ewJP

I04

JPI0

4JP

04N

ewN

ewJP

04JP

0418

.Sat

isfa

ctio

nw

ithle

ader

EJ0

3–

New

New

New

New

New

JPI0

4JP

I04

JP04

JP04

JP04

JP04

JP04

BJ0

4=

Bon

oan

dJu

dge

(200

4),B

S06

=B

urke

etal

.(20

06),

DP8

6(U

)=

Upd

ated

Dob

bins

and

Plat

z(1

986)

,EJ0

3=

Eag

ly,J

ohan

nese

n-Sc

hmid

t,an

dva

nE

ngen

(200

3),J

B02

(U)=

Upd

ated

Judg

e,B

ono,

Ilie

s,an

dG

erha

rdt(

2002

),JC

04=

Judg

eet

al.(

2004

),JJ

07=

Judg

e,Ja

ckso

n,Sh

aw,S

cott,

and

Ric

h(2

007)

,JP0

4=

Judg

ean

dPi

ccol

o(2

004)

,JPI

04=

Judg

e,Pi

ccol

o,an

dIl

ies

(200

4),L

I04

=Ly

nnan

dIr

win

g(2

004)

,LI0

5=

Lip

pa(2

005)

,O

V96

=O

nes,

Vis

wes

vara

n,an

dR

eiss

(199

6),P

B06

=Po

dsak

off,

Bom

mer

,Pod

sako

ff,a

ndM

acK

enzi

e(2

006)

.


TAB

LE

2M

eta-

Ana

lyti

cE

stim

ates

ofIn

terc

orre

lati

ons

Am

ong

Stud

yVa

riab

les

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1.G

ende

r—

90%

CI

—K

,N—

2.In

telli

genc

e.1

6—

90%

CI

.15,

.18

K,N

10,9

631

—3.

Em

otio

nalS

tabi

lity

.24

.09

—90

%C

I.2

2,.2

7—

—k,

N4,

4746

61,2

1404

—4.

Agr

eeab

lene

ss−.

11.0

0.2

5—

90%

CI

−.14

,−.0

9—

——

K,N

4,47

5338

,111

9018

,369

0—

5.C

onsc

ient

ious

ness

−.09

−.04

.26

.27

—90

%C

I−.

12,−

.06

——

——

k,N

4,47

4656

,154

2926

,538

034

4,16

2975

—6.

Ext

rave

rsio

n−.

10.0

2.1

9.1

7.0

2—

90%

CI

−.13

,−.0

7—

——

——

k,N

4,47

3861

,216

0260

,109

2624

3,13

5529

61,2

1602

—7.

Ope

nnes

s.1

1.2

2.1

6.1

1.2

2.1

7—

90%

CI

.08,

.13

——

——

——

k,N

4,47

3846

,131

8221

,487

023

6,14

4205

46,1

3182

418,

2520

04—

8.In

itiat

ing

stru

ctur

e−.

01.1

4.1

0−.

01.2

4.1

9.0

2—

90%

CI

−.02

,.02

−.24

,.52

−.03

,.23

−.27

,.25

.13,

.36

.11,

.26

−.16

,.19

—k,

N9,

5315

2,18

44,

635

4,63

54,

635

4,63

55,

843

—

cont

inue

d


TAB

LE

2(c

ontin

ued)

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

9.C

onsi

dera

tion

−.02

−.07

.15

.26

.30

.33

.05

.17

—90

%C

I−.

02,.

02—

.01,

.30

−.08

,.59

.20,

.40

.13,

.52

−.06

,.16

.12,

.22

—k,

N9,

5315

1,68

4,63

54,

635

4,63

54,

635

4,63

518

1,26

295

—10

.Tra

nsfo

rmat

iona

l−.

06.1

6.1

7.1

4.1

3.2

4.1

5.4

4.7

1—

90%

CI

−.07

,−.0

5.1

0,.2

3.1

4,.2

0.0

8,.2

0.0

8,.1

8.2

1,.2

7.0

8,.2

2.3

3,.5

5.6

2,.8

1—

K,N

44,2

9806

6,82

618

,338

020

,391

618

,351

620

,369

219

,388

710

,130

88,

1074

—11

.MB

E-A

ctiv

e.0

7−.

05−.

02−.

11−.

02−.

03−.

04.3

1.0

4.1

7—

90%

CI

.05,

.09

−.18

,.08

−.07

,.03

−.15

,−.0

7−.

06,.

02−.

08,.

02−.

08,.

00.1

1,.5

2−.

18,.

26.0

6,.2

7—

K,N

16,1

1993

2,37

17,

1532

6,14

696,

1469

5,12

156,

1469

2,84

2,84

60,1

2600

—12

.MB

E-p

assi

ve.1

6−.

07−.

05−.

12−.

11−.

09.0

4−.

26−.

11−.

20−0

.05

—90

%C

I.1

5,.1

7−.

17,.

03−.

09,−

.01

−.17

,−.0

7−.

17,−

.05

−.16

,−.0

2.0

0,.0

8—

—−.

30,−

.10

− .23

,.12

—K

,N18

,122

492,

371

8,16

277,

1564

7,15

646,

1310

7,15

641,

501,

5050

,109

2813

,276

2—

13.C

ontin

gent

rew

ard

−.08

.11

.10

.17

.02

.14

.03

.28

.58

.80

0.19

−0.0

5—

90%

CI

−.09

,−.0

6.0

1,.2

1.0

4,.1

6.0

6,.2

8−.

02,.

06.0

9,.1

9−.

01,.

07.0

7,.4

8.4

0,.7

6.7

8,.8

3.0

7,.3

1−.

21,.

11—

k,N

21,1

5227

2,37

17,

1532

7,16

226,

1469

5,12

156,

1469

2,84

2,84

87,2

2369

20,4

795

17,4

253

—14

.Lai

ssez

-fai

re.0

9−.

16−.

05−.

12−.

11−.

09.0

4−.

30−.

47−.

65−0

.51

0.24

−0.3

8—

90%

CI

.08,

.11

−.26

,−.0

6−.

09,−

.01

−.17

,−.0

7−.

17,−

.05

−.16

,−.0

2.0

0,.0

8−.

43,−

.16

−.59

,−.3

4−.

73,.

57−.

76,−

.26

.09,

.39

−.45

,−.3

2—

k,N

16,1

2947

2,37

18,

1627

7,15

647,

1564

6,13

107,

1564

2,18

62,

186

25,5

674

5,10

753,

690

6,12

93—

15.L

eade

ref

fect

iven

ess

−.03

.15

.24

.08

.28

.31

.24

.39†

.52†

.64†

0.21

−0.1

90.

51−0

.54

90%

CI

−.06

,.01

.11,

.19

.23,

.26

.07,

.10

.26,

.29

.30,

.32

.22,

.26

——

—.1

1,.3

1− .

37,−

.01

.43,

.59

−.68

,−.4

0k,

N10

,U34

,336

951

,896

045

,105

0739

,100

5663

,126

4039

,776

220

,196

020

,160

527

,541

514

,211

78,

2627

26,4

418

11,1

920

16.G

roup

perf

orm

ance

—.0

4−.

03.2

0.3

1.0

0.1

3.3

5†.2

8†.3

80.

16−0

.18

0.24

—90

%C

I—

−.07

,.16

—−.

02,.

41.1

3,.4

9−.

17,.

17−.

05,.

32—

—.3

2,.4

4.0

6,.2

6−.

29,−

.08

.15,

.33

—K

,N—

6,29

11,

502,

845,

203

3,13

52,

117

17,1

242

11,1

019

25,1

291

7,11

805,

1115

19,1

361

—17

.Fol

low

erjo

bsa

tisfa

ctio

n−.

04—

.02

.01

−.08

.07

.00

.22†

.46†

.58†

0.02

−0.3

10.

64−0

.28

90%

CI

−.03

,.03

—−.

10,.

13−.

15,.

17−.

19,.

03−.

04,.

18−.

11,.

11—

——

−.18

,.22

−.48

,−.1

5.4

7,.8

0−.

44,−

.12

k,N

8,38

24—

2,30

02,

300

2,30

02,

300

2,30

072

,103

1776

,113

7418

,527

93,

414

3,41

46,

1933

2,39

218

.Sat

isfa

ctio

nw

ithle

ader

.00

—.0

8.2

2−.

03.0

3.0

3.3

3†.7

8†.7

1†0.

24−0

.14

0.55

−0.5

890

%C

I−.

03,.

03—

.02,

.15

.11,

.33

−.09

,.03

−.03

,.09

−.07

,.13

——

—.1

1,.3

6−.

37,.

10.4

4,.6

7−.

79,−

.37

k,N

7,U

—3,

1078

2,30

03,

1078

3,10

783,

400

49,8

070

49,7

871

23,4

349

11,2

272

8,32

5514

,407

65,

838

Not

e.†C

onfid

ence

inte

rval

ofco

rrel

atio

ndo

esno

tcro

ssze

ro.

U=

sam

ple

size

unsp

ecifi

edin

the

orig

inal

met

a-an

alys

is.


conducted using PsycINFO (1887–2008) and Web of Science ISI (1970–2008). The search terms used to identify primary studies for each bivariaterelationship where meta-analytic estimates were not available includedthe following key words: gender, cognitive ability, intelligence, mentalability, Big Five, five factor model, Openness, Emotional Stability, Neu-roticism, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, extroversion,introversion, introversion, initiating structure, consideration, transforma-tional, management by exception, contingent reward, laissez-faire, groupperformance, group effectiveness, team performance, team effectiveness,satisfaction, leadership, leader, and manager. Our searches yielded 729articles, which were reviewed for inclusion in the meta-analysis.

Procedures for Meta-Analytic Estimates

We created a comprehensive list of codes for the variables reportedacross all studies. The studies were divided among the authors who thencoded the meta-analytic estimates for the variables of interest from eachstudy. When an individual was not clear about what code to assign to aspecific variable, the authors reviewed the study and discussed the variablein question until consensus was reached regarding the appropriate code.

Where possible, we coded the meta-analytic estimate that had beencorrected for measurement error in both the predictor and criterion scores.For some relationships, a corrected meta-analytic estimate was not avail-able (e.g., gender–personality). In these cases, we took the uncorrectedmeta-analytic estimate and corrected for measurement error based onexisting reliability data. For example, for the gender–personality rela-tionships, we corrected for error in the measurement of the personalitydimensions using existing reliability data from the NEO Manual (Costa& McCrae, 1992). We assumed perfect reliability in the measurement ofgender.

Some studies selected for inclusion reported effects in terms of thestatistics rather than correlations. For these studies, the data were trans-formed from effect sizes into correlations (see Lipsey & Wilson, 2001).We also coded the 90% confidence interval from previous meta-analysesbased on information provided in the meta-analyses. For 11 relationships(e.g., initiating structure-leader effectiveness), the previous meta-analysesdid not provide enough information for us to calculate the 90% confidenceinterval but did indicate that the 90% confidence interval did not cross zero.We have noted this in Table 2.

For meta-analytic estimates that were published before 2003, we up-dated the estimates using procedures outlined by Schmidt and Raju (2007).For conducting our own meta-analyses of primary studies, we used theSchmidt–Hunter psychometric meta-analysis method (Hunter & Schmidt,


2004). We first corrected the primary estimates for measurement error inboth the predictor and criterion scores. The majority of primary studiesprovided the reliabilities of the measured scores. However, for studiesmissing this coefficient, we used the average reliability coefficient fromthe other studies also reporting data for those variables of interest (Hunter& Schmidt, 2004) or from publishers of the measures (e.g., NEO Manual;Costa & McCrae, 1992). For each of these estimates, we calculated 90%confidence intervals using a random effects estimate of the standard errorof the mean corrected correlation (Burke & Landis, 2003). All of the pri-mary studies used in our meta-analysis are marked with an asterisk in thereference section.

Testing Relative Importance and Validity

To determine the relative importance of predictors, researchers of-ten examine regression coefficients or zero-order correlations with thecriterion. When predictors are uncorrelated, these indices are appropriatebecause they are equivalent, and the squares of the indices sum to R2. Thus,relative importance can be expressed as the proportion of variance eachvariable explains. When predictor variables are correlated, however, theseindices are considered inadequate for determining the relative importanceof predictor variables because the indices are no longer equivalent, donot sum to R2, and take on different meanings (Budescu, 1993; Johnson,2001; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001).

The use of epsilon is one way of determining relative importance whenpredictors are correlated (Johnson, 2000). The estimates derived from ep-silon, often labeled relative weights, sum to the model R2. Thus, the relativeweights represent the proportionate contribution each predictor makes toR2, considering the predictor’s direct effect and its effect when combinedwith other predictors. Researchers can also calculate the percentage of R2

explained by each predictor by dividing the relative weight of each pre-dictor by the total R2. Because of these attributes, epsilon is the preferredstatistic for computing relative importance (Johnson & LeBreton, 2004;LeBreton, Binning, Adorno, & Melcher, 2004). Thus, we use the epsilonstatistic in the current study to examine the relative predictive validity ofleader traits and behaviors.

Testing the Full Model

For testing Hypotheses 9–10, we utilized EQS 6.1 (Bentler, 1995)to model the relationships among the leader traits, leader behaviors, andleadership effectiveness. We created a complete mediation model, which


tested the extent to which the leader traits were completely mediated bythe leader behaviors specified in the hypotheses.

After examining the results of this model, we also used a fully satu-rated model where the leader traits were directly related to all of the leaderbehaviors and leadership effectiveness, whereas the leader behaviors werealso directly related to leadership effectiveness. We chose to use a fullysaturated model because doing so allowed us to examine the extent towhich all leader traits were mediated by each behavior. Using this ap-proach, we were able to identify any nonhypothesized relationships thatshould be explored in future research. Because the model is fully saturated,the model fit statistics are not informative and thus are not reported.

Results

Table 2 provides the meta-analytic estimates of the intercorrelationsamong the study variables. In this table, we present several pieces of infor-mation about the population correlation estimates, including the correctedcorrelation (rc) estimates, the 90% CI for the corrected correlation (rc),the number of studies included in determining the correlation (k), and thetotal number of participants in the studies (n). It is important to note thata few of our estimated effects are based on a relatively small number ofstudies (e.g., the relationship between intelligence and leader behaviors).Although other meta-analyses both inside and outside of the leadershipdomain have relied on similar numbers of original studies (e.g., Baas,De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2008; Balkundi & Harrison, 2006; Bono & Judge,2004; De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Gerstner & Day, 1997; Ng & Feldman,2009), it is important that we address this potential threat to the validity ofour results. To address this concern for the relationships where we claimstatistical support, we conducted a series of fail-safe k analyses, whichindicate how many similarly sized studies with null findings would needto be conducted before the estimated effect would lose statistical support(Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). The average fail-safe k for the relationshipsbetween leader traits and effectiveness outcomes is 145, 186 for the rela-tionships between leader behaviors and effectiveness outcomes, and 26 forthe intercorrelations between leader traits and behaviors. Based on theseresults, a substantial number of studies with null findings would have tobe conducted before our reported effects would lose statistical support.

Testing Relative Validity

Hypotheses 1–3 were concerned with the relative validity of leadertraits. Table 3 presents the direction of the relationship (positive or neg-ative) and the percentage of R2 explained by the specific leader trait for


TAB

LE

3R

elat

ive

Impo

rtan

ceof

Lea

der

Trai

tsin

Pre

dict

ing

Lea

ders

hip

Effe

ctiv

enes

sO

utco

mes

Lea

der

effe

ctiv

enes

sG

roup

perf

orm

ance

Follo

wer

job

satis

fact

ion

Satis

fact

ion

with

lead

er

Lea

der

trai

ts+/

−%

R2

+/−

%R

2+/

−%

R2

+/−

%R

2

Gen

der

−1.

4−

13.6

Nul

l0.

4In

telli

genc

e+

8.2

+1.

5E

mot

iona

lSta

bilit

y+

14.3

−7.

6+

7.2

+7.

4A

gree

able

ness

+.9

+22

.0+

1.8

+81

.0C

onsc

ient

ious

ness

+27

.0+

61.5

−50

.6−

9.4

Ext

rave

rsio

n+

35.1

Nul

l.3

+25

.9+

0.6

Ope

nnes

sto

Exp

erie

nce

+13

.2+

7.1

Nul

l1.

0+

1.2

Tota

l R2

.22

.14

.02

.06


each leadership effectiveness criteria. Overall, leader traits explain be-tween 2% and 22% of the variance in leadership effectiveness criteria.For group performance, a task performance dimension of leadership ef-fectiveness, the most important predictor is Conscientiousness, which ispositively related to group performance and accounts for 61.5% of thetotal explained R2. This percentage is almost three times that of the nextmost important predictor of Agreeableness, which accounts for 22.0% oftotal explained R2. Overall, the leader traits explain 14% of the variancein group performance, and traits related to task competence account for77.7% of the total explained R2. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was supported.

For the affective and relational dimensions of leadership effectiveness,Extraversion and Agreeableness are both positively related to follower jobsatisfaction and account for 25.9% and 1.8% of total explained R2, respec-tively, whereas Conscientiousness accounts for 50.6% of total explainedR2. Leader traits only explain 2% of the total variance in follower jobsatisfaction, and interpersonal attributes account for only 27.7% of thetotal explained variance. For satisfaction with leader, Agreeableness isthe most important trait predictor, is positively related to satisfaction withleader, and accounts for 81.0% of total explained R2. Overall, leader traitsexplain 6% of the variance in satisfaction with leader, with traits relatedto interpersonal attributes accounting for 81.6% of the total explained R2.Thus, Hypothesis 2 was supported for follower satisfaction with leaderbut not follower job satisfaction.

Finally, for overall leader effectiveness, the most important leader traitsare Extraversion and Conscientiousness. These traits, which span acrosstask competence and interpersonal attributes, are both positively relatedto effectiveness and account for 35.3% and 27.6% of the total explainedR2, respectively. In total, leader traits explain 22% of the variance inoverall leader effectiveness, and traits related to task competence andinterpersonal attributes explain 98.6% of the total explained R2. Thus,Hypothesis 3 was supported.

Hypotheses 4–7 were concerned with the relatively validity of leaderbehaviors. As shown in Table 4, leader behaviors explain between 20%and 70% of the variance in leadership effectiveness criteria. The mostimportant leader behavior for predicting group performance is initiat-ing structure, which is positively related to group performance and ac-counts for 32.9% of total explained R2. Combined with contingent rewardand MBE-active, which are also positively related to group performance,task-oriented leader behaviors account for 47.6% of total explained vari-ance. Next, change-oriented transformational leader behaviors account for28.5% of the total explained variance in group performance. In contrast,consideration behaviors and passive leader behaviors account for 16.6%and 7.3% of total explained variance, respectively. Thus, Hypothesis 4 was


TAB

LE

4R

elat

ive

Impo

rtan

ceof

Lea

der

Beh

avio

rsin

Pre

dict

ing

Lea

ders

hip

Effe

ctiv

enes

sO

utco

mes

Lea

der

effe

ctiv

enes

sG

roup

perf

orm

ance

Follo

wer

job

satis

fact

ion

Satis

fact

ion

with

lead

er

Lea

der

beha

vior

s+/

−%

R2

+/−

%R

2+/

−%

R2

+/−

%R

2

Initi

atin

gst

ruct

ure

+12

.9+

32.9

+2.

5+

4.8

Con

side

ratio

n+

19.5

+16

.6+

13.6

+44

.9T

rans

form

atio

nal

+22

.8+

28.5

+21

.0+

19.8

MB

E-a

ctiv

e+

3.0

+5.

7+

1.1

+3.

3M

BE

-pas

sive

−2.

3−

7.3

−14

.1−

0.6

Con

tinge

ntre

war

d+

17.4

+9.

0+

43.9

+12

. 0L

aiss

ez-f

aire

−22

.1−

3.8

−14

.6

Tota

lR2

.47

.20

.51

.70


supported in that task and change-oriented behaviors were most importantfor performance-related criteria, whereas relational-oriented and passiveleader behaviors were less important predictors of group performance. Intotal, leader behaviors explain 20% of the variance in group performance.

For follower job satisfaction, contingent reward is the most importantbehavioral predictor, accounting for 43.9% of total explained R2. Transfor-mational and consideration behaviors are positively related to follower jobsatisfaction and explain 21.0% and 13.6% of total variance in follower jobsatisfaction, respectively. In comparison, passive leader behaviors (MBE-passive, laissez-faire) combine to account for 17.9% of total varianceexplained. Overall, leader behaviors explain 51% of the variance in fol-lower job satisfaction. In predicting satisfaction with leader, considerationleader behaviors account for 44.9% of total variance explained, whereastransformational behaviors account for 19.8% of total variance explained.Collectively, task-oriented and passive leader behaviors account for 20.1%and 15.2% of total explained variance. In total, leader behaviors explain70% of the variance in satisfaction with leader. Thus, Hypothesis 5, whichpredicted that relational-oriented behaviors would be most important foraffective criteria, was supported for follower satisfaction with leader butnot follower job satisfaction.

Finally, task-oriented leader behaviors are positively related to overallleader effectiveness and account for 33.3% of total explained R2. Trans-formational and consideration behaviors are also positively related tooverall leader effectiveness and account for 22.8% and 19.5% of totalexplained R2, respectively. Passive leader behaviors are negatively relatedto leader effectiveness and explain 24.4% of total explained R2. In total,leader behaviors explain 47% of the variance in leader effectiveness. Thus,Hypothesis 6 was supported in that task, relational, and change-orientedleader behaviors were important predictors of overall leader effectiveness.

For leader effectiveness and satisfaction with leader, which both havethe leader as the target of evaluation, passive leader behaviors account for24.4% and 15.2% of total explained R2, respectively. For criteria that do notfocus specifically on the leader, passive leader behaviors account for 7.3%and 17.9% of total explained variance in group performance and followerjob satisfaction, respectively. In general, the portion of total varianceexplained by passive leader behaviors is less than the variance explained bymore active leader behaviors. Thus, although there is evidence suggestingthat laissez-faire behaviors are an important predictor of leader-centriccriteria, Hypothesis 7 was generally unsupported.

Table 5 provides the results of our analyses examining the relativeimportance of leader traits and behaviors concurrently. In Hypothesis 8,we predicted leader behaviors would be more predictive of leadershipeffectiveness than leader traits. Combined, leader traits and behaviors


TAB

LE

5R

elat

ive

Impo

rtan

ceof

Lea

der

Trai

tsan

dB

ehav

iors

inP

redi

ctin

gL

eade

rshi

pE

ffect

iven

ess

Out

com

es

Lea

der

effe

ctiv

enes

sG

roup

perf

orm

ance

Follo

wer

job

satis

fact

ion

Satis

fact

ion

with

lead

er

Lea

der

trai

tsan

dbe

havi

ors

+/−

%R

2+/

−%

R2

+/−

%R

2+/

−%

R2

Gen

der

+.3

−.2

+0.

1In

telli

genc

e+

1.2

+.4

Em

otio

nalS

tabi

lity

+3.

9−

4.7

+.2

+0.

4A

gree

able

ness

+1.

0+

9.1

+1.

3+

3.3

Con

scie

ntio

usne

ss+

6.0

+17

.9−

3.7

−6.

3E

xtra

vers

ion

+7.

0N

ull

2.3

+.7

+4.

3O

penn

ess

toE

xper

ienc

e+

6.2

+3.

3N

ull

.2+

.5In

itiat

ing

stru

ctur

e+

7.8

+19

.6+

3.0

+6.

3C

onsi

dera

tion

+11

.9+

8.4

+15

.5+

41.7

Tra

nsfo

rmat

iona

l+

14.5

+19

.6+

17.7

+15

.1M

BE

-act

ive

+2.

8+

4.4

+1.

5+

2.4

MB

E-p

assi

ve−

1.7

−4.

1−

13.6

−0.

5C

ontin

gent

rew

ard

+15

.8+

6.3

+38

.7+

8.3

Lai

ssez

-fai

re−

20.0

−3.

7−

10.7

Tota

lR2

.58

.31

.56

.92


explain between 31% and 92% of the variance in leadership effectivenesscriteria. For leader effectiveness, leader behaviors account for 74.5% oftotal explained R2. In total, leader traits and behaviors explain 58% of thevariance in leader effectiveness. For group performance, leader behaviorsaccount for 62.4% of total explained R2. Overall, leader traits and be-haviors explain 31% of the variance in group performance. For followerjob satisfaction, leader behaviors account for 93.7% of total explainedR2. Overall, leader traits and behaviors explain 56% of the variance infollower job satisfaction. Finally, leader behaviors account for 85.0% oftotal explained R2 in satisfaction with leader. Together, leader traits andbehaviors explain 92% of the variance in satisfaction with leader. Thus,Hypothesis 8 was supported.

Testing an Integrated Model

Hypothesis 9–11 predicted the validity of an integrated model wherebyleader behaviors and follower attributions and identification processesmediate the relationship between leader traits and the four leadershipeffectiveness criteria. Because there was insufficient data on followerattributions and identification, we were unable to test Hypothesis 11.

Table 6 presents the path coefficients for the completely mediatedmodel. First examining Hypothesis 9 (i.e., relational and change-orientedbehaviors will mediate the effect of interpersonal traits), we find thatAgreeableness was mediated by consideration (but not transformational)behaviors, whereas Extraversion was mediated by both consideration andtransformational behaviors. Thus, the results show partial support forHypothesis 9.

Turning to Hypothesis 10, which predicted that task and change-oriented leader behaviors would mediate the effect of task competence-related leader traits, the results demonstrate that the effect of intelligenceon leadership effectiveness was mediated by initiating structure, transfor-mational leadership, and contingent reward. Similarly, Conscientiousnesswas mediated by initiating structure and transformational leadership. Incontrast, Emotional Stability was only mediated by contingent reward,whereas openness was only mediated by initiating structure. Thus, theresults show partial support for Hypothesis 10.

We next examined a fully saturated model relating all of the traits inour model to all of the behaviors and ultimately leadership effectiveness.Examining a fully saturated model allows us to observe the full extentto which leader behaviors mediate the relationships between leader traitsand effectiveness, as well as identify nonhypothesized relationships thatare present in our data. Table 7 presents the direct, indirect, and totaleffects for the full model among leader traits, behaviors, and leadership


TAB

LE

6Pa

thC

oeffi

cien

tsfo

rH

ypot

hesi

zed

Com

plet

ely

Med

iate

dM

odel

Var

iabl

eIn

itiat

ing

stru

ctur

eC

onsi

dera

tion

Tra

nsfo

rmat

iona

lM

BE

-act

ive

Con

tinge

ntre

war

dL

eade

rshi

pef

fect

iven

ess

Inte

llige

nce

→.1

64.1

42−.

044

.104

(.10

0,.2

28)

(.07

8,.2

06)

(−.1

11,.

023)

(.03

7,.1

71)

Em

otio

nalS

tabi

lity

→.0

31.0

74−.

008

.091

(−.0

33,.

095)

(.01

0,.1

38)

(−.0

75,.

059)

(.02

4,.1

58)

Agr

eeab

lene

ss→

.210

.058

(.14

7,.2

73)

(−.0

06,.

122)

Con

scie

ntio

usne

ss→

.256

.086

−.01

4.0

02(.

192,

.320

)(.

022,

.150

)(−

.081

,.05

3)(−

.065

,.06

9)E

xtra

vers

ion

→.2

94.2

03(.

231,

.357

)(.

139,

.267

)O

penn

ess

toE

xper

ienc

e→

−.07

7.0

47−.

026

−.00

8(−

.141

,−.0

13)

(−.0

17,.

111)

(−.0

93,.

041)

(−.0

75,.

059)

Initi

atin

gst

ruct

ure

→.1

21(.

072,

.170

)C

onsi

dera

tion

→.1

57(.

106,

.208

)T

rans

form

atio

nal→

.497

(.44

6,.5

48)

MB

E-a

ctiv

e→

.087

(.03

6,.1

38)

Con

tinge

ntre

war

d→

−.04

9(−

.100

,.00

2)

Not

e.St

atis

tics

prov

ided

are

path

coef

ficie

nts

with

90%

confi

denc

ein

terv

als

inpa

rent

hese

s.


TAB

LE

7E

ffect

sD

ecom

posi

tion

for

Inte

grat

edM

odel

:L

eade

rshi

pE

ffect

iven

ess

Indi

rect

Indi

rect

effe

ctIn

dire

ctIn

dire

ctIn

dire

ctIn

dire

ctef

fect

Indi

rect

(med

iate

def

fect

effe

ctef

fect

effe

ct(m

edia

ted

effe

ctef

fect

(med

iate

d(m

edia

ted

(med

iate

d(m

edia

ted

effe

ct(m

edia

ted

Dir

ecte

ffec

tth

roug

hef

fect

effe

ctef

fect

effe

ctth

roug

hef

fect

Indi

rect

(unm

edia

ted

initi

atin

gth

roug

hth

roug

hth

roug

hth

roug

hco

ntin

gent

thro

ugh

effe

ctTo

tal

trait and behavioral theories of leadership: an ......(c) follower satisfaction with leader, and (d)...

Documents