Jungian personality types and leadership styles: an empirical examination.

Thomson, Neal F. ; Gopalan, Suresh

ABSTRACT

This paper proposes that personality types have an effect on the types of leader behaviors that an individual believes to be appropriate. This belief will impact actual leader behaviors. A review of the literature on Jungian personality types is conducted, followed by a description of leader behaviors using the Ohio State Framework, as modified by Schriesheim. The nature of these relationships and their potential impact on the workplace are discussed. The model is then tested on 128 actual supervisory employees, with results and implications presented.

INTRODUCTION

Research in the area of leadership has shown that leader behaviors are an important field of study (Bass, 1990; Tucker and Russell, 2004; Skinner and Spurgeon, 2005). Leader personality variables have been shown to impact organizational performance (Hough and Ogilvie, 2005). This paper looks at leader behaviors, using a modified version of the Ohio State leadership framework, and examines the role of personality, as conceptualized by Carl Jung (Jung 1923; Bridges, 1992) on perceptions of appropriate leader behaviors. We hypothesize that the personality of an individual will have a noticeable impact on their behavioral intentions, and therefore, on the actual behaviors that they engage in. We conclude with a discussion of the impact that these relationships may have in the workplace and offer suggestions for future research.

PERSONALITY

The Keirsey Temperament Sorter II consists of four scales, based on Jung's (1923) Theory of Type. This theory is widely accepted, enjoys extensive support, and is applied through several questionnaires which are used to measure the scales. These scales include the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Keirsey Temperament sorter (Gauld and Sink, 1985; Gardner and Martinko, 1996; Sample, 2004). The four scales used by both of these are Introversion/Extroversion (I/E), Sensation/Intuition (S/N), Thinking/Feeling (T/F), and Judgment/Perception (J/P). The assumption underlying these scales is that "people have a preference for one or the other pole on each of four indices, analogous to a natural preference for right- or left-handedness" (Carlyn, 1977, p.461). The first scale I/E refer to the preference for either the outer world, or internal, mental structures and processes (Hall and Norby, 1973; Myers, 1993).

The next two scales refer to Jung's (1923) four psychological functions. The first pair, (S/N) refers to a preferred method of perceiving things. Sensing types rely on direct information from the sense organs, or the concrete details of the situation, whereas Intuitive types deal with hunches, possibilities, abstract meanings, and leaps of faith (Carlyn, 1977; Myers, 1993; Opt and Loffredo, 2000). This pair was called the irrational functions, not because they are contrary to reason, but because they do not involve reasoning (Hall and Norby, 1973; Myers, 1993). The second pair, T/F, is called the rational functions because they involve reasoned decisions. Thinking types prefer decisions on whether there is a true connection between two or more ideas, and Feeling types make decisions as to whether an idea is pleasing or distasteful, beautiful or ugly, exciting or dull (Hall and Norby, 1973; Wheeler, Hunter and Bryant, 2004).

The fourth scale, J/P, never explicitly defined by Jung, but implicit in his writings, refers to an individual's preferred way of dealing with the outer world. Judging types prefer a planned orderly environment, and want to regulate and control life. Perceptive types are more curious and open minded, preferring adapting to life and responding spontaneously and flexibly (Carlyn, 1977; Rosenak and Shontz, 1988).

LEADER BEHAVIOR

A popular model used in leader behavior research is the one proposed by Ohio State Leadership studies. This model suggests that there are two dimensions of leader behaviors: initiating structure and consideration (Hemphill and Coons, 1957; Halpin and Winer, 1957; Fleishman, 1957; Seeman, 1957). House and Dessler (1974) suggested that the initiating structure dimension (also called instrumental behavior) is a multidimensional construct, and cannot be adequately measured using a single unidimensional scale. Therefore, the initiating structure dimension was divided into the component parts identified by House and Dessler (1974) and later confirmed by Jermier and Burkes (1979), Schriesheim, House and Kerr (1976), and Schriesheim, Cogliser and Neider (1995).

The initiating structure dimension, as originally defined by Halpin and Winer (1957) and Hemphill and Coon (1957) refers to leader behavior which helps to define the relationship between leader and subordinate, and the degree to which a leader originates, facilitates or resists new ideas and practices. However, this dimension can be divided into three distinct categories of leader behaviors: role clarification, work assignment and specification of procedures (House and Dessler, 1974; Schriesheim, House and Kerr, 1976). Each of these types of behavior has been shown to be viewed differently by subordinates, and to have different effects on related organizational variables (Schriesheim and Bish, 1974; Schriesheim, Cogliser and Neider, 1995). The three types of initiating behavior were defined by Schriesheim (1978, pg. 49) as follows:

1. Leader role clarification: Leader behaviors which clarify what is expected of subordinates in their work roles.

2. Leader work assignment: Leader Behaviors which involve the assigning of subordinates to specific tasks.

3. Leader specification of procedures: Leader behaviors which specify rules, procedures and methods for subordinates to use or follow in the execution of their jobs.

The consideration variable also referred to as supportive leadership (House and Dessler, 1974), is characterized as behaviors which make a person "friendly and approachable, and considerate of the needs of subordinates" (p. 41). Others have associated this dimension with terms such as "humanitarian and helpful" (Haccoun, Haccoun and Sallay, 1978). Templer defined consideration as an "orientation towards the people in an organization" (1973, p.359). As Schriesheim (1978, 1995) points out, this variable has been found by the literature to be unconfounded and unidimensional. Schriesheim's conclusion have been supported by other leadership studies (Judge, Piccolo and Ilies, 2004).

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERSONALITY AND LEADER BEHAVIORS

In this section, we discuss the possible relationships between each dimension of Jung's theory of type and leader behaviors. We hypothesize that relationships may exist between each of these personality dimensions, and one or more dimensions of leader behaviors. The first personality dimension is Introversion/Extraversion. This dimension, in general, indicates a preference for either working alone, or in small groups (introversion) or working with many others (extraversion). Two relationships are likely to be related to this preference. First, extroverts may be more likely to engage in hands-on leadership (specification of procedures). Second, since extroverts enjoy dealing with people and are more focused on the world around then, they tend to give more attention to relationships. Therefore, the following two propositions are made:

P1: Extroverts will be more likely to engage in specification of procedures, than introverts.

P2: Extroverts will be more likely to engage in consideration behaviors, than introverts.

The second dimension of type is Sensing/Intuition. Sensing types prefer the concrete; that which they can see, hear, feel, smell and taste. They also are more likely to pay attention to their immediate environment, and spend less time "with their head in the clouds." This preference may cause Sensing types to focus more on job-related behaviors, rather than relationship building, since the latter has long-term effects. Therefore we propose that:

P3: Sensing types will be more likely to engage in work assignment, role clarification and specification of procedures than Intuitives

P4: Intuitives will be more likely to engage in consideration, or relationship building behaviors, than sensing types.

The third dimension, Thinking/Feeling is likely to be related to the use of consideration, or relationship oriented behavior. Individuals who are categorized as feeling, are likely to be more attuned to the emotions of others, and therefore may be more likely to engage in consideration behaviors. Therefore, we propose:

P5: Feeling types will be more likely to engage in Consideration behaviors than Thinking types. The last dimension, Judging/Perceiving relates to a preference for order and/or a planned environment versus a preference for spontaneity and unplanned action. Therefore, by definition a Judging person would prefer things to be well planned, and therefore is likely to engage in specification of procedures, work assignment and role clarification. Therefore, we propose:

P6: Judging types will be more likely to engage in role clarification, job assignment, and specification of procedures, than perceiving types.

SAMPLE

In order to test the above propositions, we administered a series of questionnaires to a sample of 128 individuals employed in supervisory positions at a light manufacturing firm, located in the southeastern United States. The sample consisted of 85 males, and 43 females. The minimum age was 23, and the maximum was 61, with a mean age of 39.83. Organizational tenure varied from a low of 1 month, to a high of 33 years, with a mean level of 10.86 years. Experience in a supervisory position ranges from a low of zero, to a high of 25 years, with a mean of 4.78 years. Of the 128 respondents in the sample, 44 identified themselves as white, 73 as black or African-American, 4 as Hispanic, two as "other" and 5 did not identify any ethnic/racial identity.

INSTRUMENTS

Leader behaviors were measured using a modified version of a questionnaire developed by Schriesheim (1978). This questionnaire divides the initiating structure dimension of leadership into three separate dimensions consisting of role clarification, work assignment and specification of procedures. Due to the length of the original questionnaire (80 items) a short scale was developed. Based on Schriesheim's (1978) study, eight items from each scale that had the highest correlation with the scale score were chosen. The original questionnaire was developed to measure subordinate assessments of leader behavior. For our study, we modified the instruction set based on the LBDQ ideal to assess subjects' behavioral intentions as leaders.

The Jungian personality or type variables were measured using the Keirsey Temperament Sorter II. This instrument has undergone a significant level of testing and validation and is shown to be a reliable and valid measure of Jungian type (Keirsey.com, 2002). This questionnaire includes seventy questions, which measure the four personality dimensions (types) discussed in earlier sections.

STUDY

As a first step, we developed specific hypotheses based on the above propositions. Since our propositions were quite specific, we faced little difficulty in transforming each of these into a testable hypothesis. Next, to test the hypotheses, we conducted a field survey using questionnaires to collect data from individuals working in supervisory positions. Our hypotheses are as follows:

H1: The Introversion/Extraversion scale will be positively correlated with the specification of procedures scale.

H2: The Introversion/Extraversion scale will be positively correlated with the consideration scale.

H3: The Sensing/Intuition scale will be positively correlated with the work assignment, role clarification, and specification of procedures scale.

H4: The Sensing/Intuition scale will be negatively correlated with the consideration scale.

H5: The thinking/Feeling scale will be negatively correlated with the consideration scale.

H6a: The Judging/Perceiving scale will be positively correlated to the work assignment scale.

H6b: The Judging/Perceiving scale will be positively correlated to the role clarification scale.

H6c: The Judging/Perceiving scale will be positively correlated to specification of procedures scale.

RESULTS

The questionnaires were administered to 128 supervisors working in a manufacturing organization who were attending a management-training seminar. The response rate was 100% due to the nature of interaction that the researchers had with the respondents and the ability to follow-up with no difficulty. The data were collected over a five-day period, in groups of approximately 25-30 people. Anonymity was ensured by instructing the participants not to write their names or any type of information that might reveal their identity. Data analysis was performed using a SPSSpc v11.0. The GLM procedure was used to specify personality variables as independent variables and leadership variables as dependent variables respectively. Initial examination of the data indicated that two of the surveyed dimensions, role clarification and job assignment were highly inter-correlated. Using factor analysis we collapsed these two dimensions to create a new variable that we refer to as 'directing behavior.' However, for the purposes of this study, this change is of minimal importance, as the hypothesized relationships between this dimension (directing behavior) and personality is not supported (see results in Tables 1, 2, 3).

The multivariate tests supported a relationship between leadership and one of the personality variables--Judging/Perceiving. The Wilkes lambdas for the other three personality variables did not indicate significance at the multivariate level. Based on these results, Hypotheses 6a and 6c are fully supported while others are not supported. In addition to the multivariate test indicating that there is a significant effect, the univariate effects are both significant and in the predicted direction. Results from this study indicate that Judging types are more likely to engage in both general direction, for example the assignment of a goal or task, and the more scrutinizing specification of procedures. Full multivariate and univariate results are reported in the tables below.

IMPLICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

This study suggests that people who are diagnosed as a "judging type" are likely to engage in greater frequency of general supervision, as well as specification of procedures, or close leadership. While the first tendency is a good one, as it may lead to higher performance, the second, specification of procedure does not seem to be a positive leader behavior. Similar in construct to "close leadership" this variable focuses on the degree to which a manager forces his/her process and specific techniques on the employee, limiting their job autonomy. Many leadership studies (most of them conducted in the United States) have suggested that "close" leader behavior leads to lowered satisfaction, without enhancing performance (Brown, 1982). Leaders who exhibited high levels of specification of procedure behavior experienced lower employee job satisfaction and performance.

As Hofstede (1993) has stated, the bulk of leadership and management studies have been conducted in the United States and other Western countries where the dominant culture favors lower power distance and higher degree of comfort with uncertainty. In such cultures, people prefer higher degrees of autonomy and flexibility and resist a rigid supervisory style. Naturally, people are uncomfortable with a close leadership style.

With increased diversity and globalization, one logical question would be if the "judging type" leaders with their desire for close and directive supervision would be effective in other cultures that are different than Western cultures. Gopalan and Rivera (1997) conclude that in India, the most effective leader was one who behaved like a "benevolent" patriarch with a high degree of supervision and structure towards their subordinates (similar to that of a "father-son" relationship). Similar types of leader behavior were found in countries like Turkey, Mexico, etc. where the prevailing cultures had high power distance and low tolerance for uncertainty (Romero, 2004; Pasa, 2000). Under these scenarios, subordinates are expected to be dependent on their leaders for all aspects of work. This raises the possibility that "judging type" leaders who specify procedures may be more effective in some cultures than others. Clearly, additional research has to be conducted in other countries to answer this question. One of the few studies conducted, comparing leadership behaviors across western (Australia) and eastern (Hong Kong) cultures (Lok and Crawford, 2004) found that culture did have an impact on the effectiveness of leader behaviors. However, the limited scope of this study (2 countries) leaves open much room for further research.

Another limitation of our study is that it was based in a manufacturing setting--our respondents were stating ideal leadership behaviors that were most compatible in this setting. It is entirely possible that different types of personality and leadership behaviors may be effective in non-manufacturing settings. As an example, Skinner and Spurgeon (2005), cite the growing importance of empathy and emotional intelligence as important leader behavioral traits to be effective in a health care setting. We recommend additional studies explore the personality-leader behavior relationship in a variety of occupational settings.

We would also encourage future studies to study the moderating impact of demographic variables such as age, education, and gender which were found to impact leadership behaviors and styles. According to Somech (2003), large disparities in age and education between leaders and subordinates results in non-participative leadership, poorer articulation of goals and performance strategies, unclear task-oriented communication, and decreased frequency of communication. The relationship between leader personality and behavior has a great deal of potential importance to the fields of leadership and management. Bass (1990) and Dansereau, Alutto, and Yammarino (1984) have concluded that consideration behaviors are likely to lead to increased employee satisfaction, while behaviors such as role clarification, and job assignment have a positive impact on job performance. From an organizational perspective, there is great interest in gaining a greater understanding of what personality types lead to greater frequency of specific behaviors. While it certainly would be premature to suggest that personality should be used for screening purposes, an instrument like the Keirsey temperament sorter may be valuable in selecting participants for management training, particularly in topics relating to leadership style, or leader behaviors.

REFERENCES

Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill's handbook of leadership. New York: Free Press.

Bridges, W. (1992). The character of organizations: Using Jungian type in organizational development. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Brown, D. (1982). The Fifth Freedom: Freedom from Supervision. Journal of Systems Management, 33(1), 6-11.

Carlyn, M. (1977). An Assessment of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Journal of Personality Assessment, 41, 461-473.

Dansereau, F., J. A. Alutto, & F. J. Yammarino (1984). Theory testing in organizational behavior. The varient approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Fleishman, E.A. (1957). A leader behavior description for industry. In R. Stogdill and A. Coons (Eds.,), Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement. Columbus, Ohio: Bureau of Business Research.

Gardner, W. L., & M. J. Martinko (1996). Using Myers-Briggs Type indicator to study managers: A literature review. Journal of Management, 22(1), 45-83.

Gauld, V., & D. Sink (1985). The MBTI as a diagnostic tool in organization development interventions. Journal of Psychological Type, 9, 24-29.

Gopalan, S., & J. Rivera (1997). Gaining a perspective on Indian value orientations: Implications for expatriate managers. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 5(2), 156-179.

Haccoun, D.M., R. R. Haccoun, & G. Sallay (1978). Sex differences in the appropriateness of supervisory styles: A nonmanagement view. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(1), 124-127.

Hall, S.C. & V. J. Norby. (1973). A Primer of Jungian Psychology. New York, NY: New American Library.

Halpin, A.W. and B. J. Winer (1957). A factorial study of the leader behavior descriptions. In R. Stogdill and A. Coons, (Eds.,), Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement. Columbus, Ohio: Bureau of Business Research.

Hemphill, J.K., and A. E. Coons (1957). Development of the leader behavior description questionnaire. In R. Stogdill and A. Coons, (Eds.,), Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement. Columbus, Ohio: Bureau of Business Research.

Hofstede, G. (1993). Cultural constraints in management theories. Academy of Management Executive, 7, 81-94.

Judge, T., R. Piccolo and R. Ilies (2004) The Forgotten Ones? The Validity of Consideration and Initiating Structure in Leadership Research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 36-51.

Hough, J and D. Ogilvie (2005) An Empirical Test of Cognitinve Style and Strategic Decision Outcomes. The Journal of Management Studies, 42(2), 417-448.

House, R.J. and G. Dessler (1974). The path-goal theory of leadership: some post hoc and a priori tests. In J.G. Hunt and L. L. Anderson, (Eds.,), Contingency Approaches to Leadership. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois.

Jermier, J.M., and L.J. Berkes (1979). Leader behavior in a police command bureaucracy: A closer look at the quasi-military model. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 1-23.

Jung, C.G. (1923) Psychological Types. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Lok, P., and J. Crawford (2004). The Effect of Organisational Culture and Leadership Style on Job Satisfaction and Organisational Commitment: A Cross-national Comparison. Journal of Management Development, 23(4), 321-338.

Myers, I. (1993) Gifts Differing. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Pyschologists Press.

Opt, S., and D. Loffredo (2003). Communicator Image and Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Extraversion-Introversion. The Journal of Psychology, 137(6), 560-568.

Pasa, S. F. (2001). Leadership influence in a high power distance and collectivist culture. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 21(8), 414-426

Romero, E. J. (2004). Latin American Leadership: El Patron & El Lider Moderno. Cross Cultural Management, 11(3), 25-37.

Rosenak, C. And Shontz, F. (1988) Jungian Q-Sorts: Demonstrating Construct Validity for Psychological Type and the MBTI. Journal of Psychological Type, 15, 33-45.

Sample. J. (2004). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and OD: Implications for Practice and Research. Organizational Development Journal, 22(1), 67-75.

Schriesheim, C.A. (1978). Development, validation and application of new leadership behavior and expectancy research instruments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University.

Schriesheim, C.A., & L. Bish (1974). The content validity of form XII of the ohio state leadership scales. Presented at National Academy of Management Conference, Seattle.

Schriesheim, C.A., R. J. House & S. Kerr (1976). Leader initiating structure: a reconciliation of discrepant research results and some empirical tests. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 15, 297-321.

Schriesheim, C. A., C. C. Cogliser, & L. L. Neider (1995). Is it 'trustworthy?' A multiple levels-of-analysis reexamination of an Ohio State leadership study, with implications for future research. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 111-145.

Seeman, M. (1957). A comparison of general and specific leader behavior descriptions. In R. Stogdill and A. Coons, (Eds.), Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement. Columbus, Ohio: Bureau of Business Research.

Skinner, C., and P. Spurgeon (2005). Valuing empathy and emotional intelligence in health leadership: a study of empathy, leadership, and outcome effectiveness. Health Services Management Research, 18, 1-12.

Somech, A. (2003). Relationships of participative leadership with relational demography variables: a multi-level perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(8), 1003-1018.

Templer, A.J. (1973). Self-perceived and other perceived leadership style using the leader behavior description questionnaire. Personnel Psychology, 26, 359-367.

Tucker, A. B., & R. F. Russell (2004). The influence of the Transformational Leader. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10(4), 103-111.

Wheeler, P., J. Hunton and S. Bryant (2004) Accounting Information Systems Research Opportunities Using Personality Type Theory and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Journal of Information Systems, 18(1) 1-19.

Neal F. Thomson, Columbus State University Suresh Gopalan, Winston-Salem State University

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics

 Mean Std. N
 Deviation

GENERAL DIRECTION 4.19189 .401169 128
CONSIDERATION 4.0244 .50880 128
SPECIFICATION OF PROCEDURES 4.2061 .47904 128

 N Mean Std.
 Deviation

I/E 132 5.04 2.116
S/N 132 13.76 2.151
T/F 132 9.41 3.636
J/P 132 8.42 2.490

Table 2: Multivariate Tests

 Effect Value F

Intercept Wilks' Lambda .314 87.932

I/E Wilks' Lambda .989 .448
S/N Wilks' Lambda .999 .044
T/F Wilks' Lambda .996 .172
J/P Wilks' Lambda .938 2.689

 Hypothesis df Error df Sig.

Intercept 3.000 121.000 .000

I/E 3.000 121.000 .719
S/N 3.000 121.000 .988
T/F 3.000 121.000 .915
J/P 3.000 121.000 .049

Table 3: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Source Dependent Type III Sum df
 Variable of Squares

Corrected Model GD 1.35 4
 CONS 4.679E-02 4
 SOP 1.178 4

Intercept GD 36.244 1
 CONS 28.305 1
 SOP 36.425 1

I/E GD 9.549E-02 1
 CONS 2.753E-02 1
 SOP 6.441E-02 1

S/N GD 8.687E-03 1
 CONS 4.202E-03 1
 CLOSE 7.928E-04 1

T/F GD 2.184E-02 1
 CONS 1.049E-02 1
 CLOSE 7.819E-02 1

J/P GD 1.109 1
 CONS 4.859E-03 1
 CLOSE .820 1

 Dependent Mean Square F Sig.
 Variable

 GD 0.338 2.177 .075
 CONS 1.17E-02 .044 .996
 SOP .294 1.295 .276

 GD 36.244 233.552 .000
 CONS 28.305 106.045 .000
 SOP 36.425 160.208 .000

 GD 9.549E-02 .615 .434
 CONS 2.753E-02 .103 .749
 SOP 6.441E-03 .028 .867

 GD 8.687E-03 .056 .813
 CONS 4.202E-03 .016 .900
 CLOSE 7.928E-04 .003 .953

 GD 2.184E-02 .141 .708
 CONS 1.049E-02 .039 .843
 CLOSE 7.819E-02 .344 .559

 GD 1.109 7.143 .009
 CONS 4.859E-03 .018 .893
 CLOSE .820 3.605 .060