A Closer Look at the Assistant(to the) Regional Manager:Personality Differences BetweenFirst and Second in CommandLeaders in Organizations

Although a great deal of research has established personality differences between leaders and their followers (Lord, de Vader, & Alliger, 1986) there has been little research on how leaders at different levels of organizations may differ from one another. In particular, no research to date has examined whether or not there are personality differences between those who are first in command of their organizations and those second in command. The present study attempts to explore whether or not these differences exist in terms of both lay perceptions and in reality. The researchers in this study asked 401 individuals to contrast the personalities of firstand second-in-command leaders in general. Results generally showed that lay individuals believed that first-in-command leaders were extraverted and open to new experiences while second-in-command leaders were more neurotic. Next, the researches verified whether or not these stereotypes were true by having 1,262 individuals rate their actual firstor second-in-command leaders. First-in-command leaders were rated as being higher on conscientiousness. Second-in-command leaders were rated as being higher on neuroticism. Although there were fewer significant differences between the two levels of leadership, the pattern of differences between these leadership roles was consistent with lay stereotypes for these roles. Though the differences were not substantial, there was a great deal of accuracy in perceiving the traits that were different. A s s i s t A n t ( t o t h e ) R e g i o n A l M A n A g e R 2 T here is a long tradition of research investigating the relationship between personality and leadership (Zaccaro, 2007). Trait approaches, a perspective of psychology that uses personality traits as the primary explanation for human behavior, have been popular for decades for studying leadership. The vast majority of research linking personality to leadership has focused on leadership emergence and effectiveness as the outcomes of interest. That is, the goal is to determine how leaders differ from followers or what characteristics are associated with success in a particular leadership role (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991). For example, lay people1 implicitly believe that individuals in leadership positions possess a number of desirable traits such as intelligence, masculinity-femininity, and dominance (Lord, de Vader, & Alliger, 1986). Further research has revealed that effective leaders tend to be higher in extraversion and openness to experience but lower in neuroticism (Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002). More recently, researchers have begun to investigate whether or not personality differences exist between leaders at different levels in the organizational hierarchy (Lemming, Johnson, & Foster, 2009; Ones & Dilchert, 2009; Moutafi, Furnham, & Crump, 2007). However, to date no researchers have investigated differences in personality between those who are first in command of an organization and those who are second in command. To address this need, part one of this study examines what traits lay people perceive to be most prototypical of those who are first in command and those who are second in command. Part two of this study examines how full-time employees view the personalities of those who are first in command, those who are second in command, and coworkers at their own organizations. Personality and Performance There is much research linking personality traits and managerial performance (Ones, Dilchert, Viswesvaran, & Judge, 2007; Hoffman & Jones, 2005; Chatman, Caldwell, & O’Reilly, 1999). Of the traits that make up the five-factor model,2 Judge and colleagues (2002) found that extraversion positively correlated most consistently with leader emergence and leadership effectiveness. There was also a strong positive relationship between leadership and dominance, sociability, and achievement. The authors also argued that conscientiousness, openness, and neuroticism are also useful traits for examining leadership criteria. 1. Individuals in the general population who do not hold leadership positions. 2. The five-factor model, also known as the “big five” is a popular measure of personality which uses five traits to describe human behavior (John & Srivastava, 1999). The traits are openness to experience, conscientiousness, agreeableness, extraversion, and neuroticism. R o s s B e n e s i n M c N a i r S c h o l a r S r e S e a r c h J o u r N a l 2013 3 One possible reason that extraversion had the strongest correlation with leadership criteria is that extraverts talk more than introverts, and talking is associated with emergent leadership (Bass, 1990). Another reason is that individuals may implicitly expect their leaders to be extraverted. These implicit leadership expectations may be based on subjective individual perception rather than objective performance output (Casimir & Waldman, 2007; Engle & Lord, 1997; Lord et al., 1986). Leadership Levels and Personality Research findings that indicate personality is related to leader performance suggest that there should also be personality differences between individuals at different levels of leadership. There are two reasons to expect that this will be true. First, individuals who perform at higher levels are more likely to be promoted. Therefore, over time individuals with personality profiles that better match “leader prototypes” should ascend to higher levels of leadership in organizations (Ones & Dilchert, 2009). Another potential reason why differences could exist between leadership levels is the corresponsive effect. The corresponsive effect is a widely replicated finding in developmental psychology whereby the traits that enable an individual to be successful in an environment will be the traits that develop further in that environment (Roberts, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2001). That is, if a characteristic is required or demanded within a context, individuals will further develop that trait. Consequently, one would expect that individuals who are successful enough to be promoted would become more “prototypical” of leadership as they ascend the ranks of the organization. Though research has linked personality with managerial performance (Judge et al., 2002), few studies discriminate between different types of managerial positions (Lemming et al., 2009; Ones & Dilchert, 2009; Moutafi et al., 2007). Lemming and colleagues (2009) investigated different types of managers and found a common personality profile of high adjustment, high ambition, and high prudence predicted job performance. The authors noted although there is a general manager profile that can predict job performance for supervisors, mid-level managers, and executives, individualized profiles for different levels of management can be created. For example, the authors suggested that supervisor profiles should emphasize prudence, while mid-level manager and executive profiles should emphasize adjustment and ambition. In fact, the authors argue that separate profiles for each managerial level might even be preferred, depending on organizational needs. Ones and Dilchert (2009) found that managers at all levels scored above general population norms on emotional stability, extraversion, and A s s i s t A n t ( t o t h e ) R e g i o n A l M A n A g e R 4 agreeableness, and below general population norms on conscientiousness and openness. However, executives scored higher than lower level managers on nearly every trait, including emotional stability, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness. This may be due to the increased leadership activities and important decisions required of executive positions. Though a few studies have investigated managers at different hierarchal levels, no study has distinguished personality differences between those first in command and those second in command. Considering that second-in-command managers often have strong leadership roles, which can influence organizational success, it is imperative to examine these types of managers. It is also important to examine employees’ perceived personality traits at different managerial levels, because employee perception can affect managerial success (Lord et al., 1986). Implicit Leadership Theory3 Fitting into perceived job requirements might be important in determining managerial success as well. Lord and colleagues (1986) found that individuals expected traits of intelligence, masculinity-femininity, and dominance to be related to leadership. These traits were thought to characterize leaders in many different situations. Hence, from the perceiver’s point of view, analyzing the traits of others could affect the perceived leadership qualities of others (Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan, 1994; Engle & Lord, 1997). It’s important for leaders to match their subordinates’ perceptions of what makes a good a leader. Hollander and Julian (1969) found that individuals would allow others to lead them when the leaders matched the followers’ perceptions of what a good leader should be. Research on these implicit leadership theories shows that perceivers’ expectations of leadership traits are important in predicting leadership perceptions and leadership emergence (Lord et al., 1986). For managers at all levels it is important to be perceived as leaders, because being perceived as a leader gives one opportunity to command great influence (Lord et al., 1986). Both executives and lower level managers often require influence over their subordinates if they are to be productive in their jobs. To garner more influence, managers at all levels must match their subordinates’ perceptions of what makes a good leader. Since it is important for all managers to fit subordinates’ perceptions of leadership, one can expect to find similar traits among managers because 3. Implicit Leadership Theories are assumptions that individuals have of what makes a leader “good” or effective (Lord et al., 1986). R o s s B e n e