Agentes que influencian la autoestima

The influence of the personality of the leader, in psychological terms, is the subject of much research. Many studies have been conducted into what personality factors are relevant to leadership (Smith and Foti, 1998), how these manifest, how they influence leadership performance and, probably most recently, what happens when it all goes wrong.

Main theoretical theme Description Key authors/dates

Great Man theory A few high profile

individuals emerge as leaders

Thomas Carlyle 1840s

Trait theory Focus on the individual

leader. Looks entirely at leaders having particular traits. The leader’s personality is central to the process

Bass (1990), Stogdill (1948), Lord, deVader and Alliger (1986), Bryman (1996).

Transformational leadership ‘New leadership’ 1980s: (Tichy and Devanna, 1986; Bass, 1990; Avolio and Bass, 1995; Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe, 2001) Charismatic leadership Concentrated in social or

political leadership e.g. Hitler, Gandhi, Mandela, Tony Blair. May be very transient

(House, 1977; Conger, 1989)

Situational leadership Adaption of leadership style according to the maturity of the follower

(Hersey and Blanchard, 1977)

Contingency model of leadership

Balance concern for task with concern for people

(Northouse, 2009) Sense-making in leadership Leaders as managers of

meaning

(Smircich and Morgan, 1982; Weick, 1995; Pye, 2005)

Authentic leadership Leading through culture and values. Humility and will are key attributes

(Collins, 2001; Goffee and Jones, 2006)

Table 2.3 Summary of key leadership theories

Yukl (1999) has been critical of transformational leadership theories as he believes there is a lack of clarity on leadership behaviours and insufficient identification of the negative effects of transformational leadership. These issues have been partly addressed by

46 scholars who have looked at the role of personality in leadership and at some of the

problems that may manifest (Kets de Vries, 1994; Maccoby, 2000; Judge et al., 2002; Furnham, 2003).

To investigate this association a qualitative meta-analysis of the role of personality in leadership was conducted by Judge et al. (2002). This was based on the five-factor personality model, which developed as a consensus of the basic factors that we believe make up personality, originally developed by Norman (1963) and Tupes and Christal (1961) cited by Judge et al. (2002) and compared with the trait theory of leadership. The study shows links between personality and leadership by these parameters. The highest correlating factor was ‘extraversion’ (0.31), followed by ‘conscientiousness’ (0.28), ‘neuroticism and openness to experience’ (0.24) and finally ‘agreeableness’ (0.08). It was shown also, however, that individuals with the opposite personality factors can present, through learnt behaviour, with the behaviours of effective leaders.

A connection has also been made between leadership abilities and emotional intelligence (EQ) (Salovey and Mayer, 1990; Goleman, 1995; 2004). Salovey and Mayer first introduced this concept and defined it as ‘the ability to monitor one’s own and others

feelings and emotions, to discriminateamong them and to use this information to guide

one’s thinking and actions’. Goleman identifies five characteristics as constituents of EQ: self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy and social skill. He maintains that these attributes distinguish great leaders from merely good ones and bases these findings on large samples of empirical evidence. However, Edwin Locke (2005) offers his

argument that emotional intelligence (EI) is an invalid concept, based on the premise that EI is not a form of intelligence and because ‘it is defined so broadly and inclusively that it has no intelligible meaning’. He separates EI from cognitive intelligence and rationality suggesting a different connection between reason and emotion. Goleman (2004),

47 however, suggest that cognitive measures (IQ) alone are insufficient to explain or predict leadership success. Whatever the weight of opinion about EQ/EI, it remains an issue of debate in academic and practitioner circles; leaders are widely expected to possess such attributes and are subjected to development interventions to ensure that these

characteristics are matured.

Further study has been conducted on leaders with personality disorders such narcissism or psychopathy (Maccoby, 2000; Furnham, 2003). Sometimes the appearance of these personality manifestations has been termed ‘strengths in overdrive’. For example, the narcissistic leader may show a huge talent for energizing followers and possess a great vision for the organization; however, these attributes may also be accompanied by over- sensitivity to criticism, poor listening skills, lack of empathy, intense competitiveness and poor mentoring skills. Such individuals are also socially very adept and persuasive. It is, therefore, very difficult to identify the narcissistic or psychopathic leader at first meeting, which is perhaps at interview. It will only be later, for example when that person is put under pressure, that these negative attributes may arise. The issues can be addressed and individual development can be a mechanism for raising awareness of such characteristics and making plans to address them.

A more recent theory of leadership has emerged which might be regarded as the ‘anti- narcissistic leader’. Studies by Jim Collins (2001) of leaders of organizations with continually superior performance over a 15-year period showed that in each case this was clearly due to the quality of the top management. The leadership attributes that set these top people in their positions were humility and the will to go forward. Collins (2001) termed this ‘Level 5 leadership’ and it is characterized by quiet, calm, determination, inspiring standards, humility and the ‘look in the mirror’ when apportioning

48 Finally, a major project has been underway since 2006 to try to find a ‘unified theory of leadership’ (Goethals and Sorenson, 2006). However, the lack of progress on this quest seemed to have been foretold by Stogdill (1974), who noted that, ‘the endless

accumulation of empirical data has not produced an integrated understanding of leadership’ (1974:vii).