Leadership Trait Development

Leadership Trait Development: A New Approach in Assessing Students’ Leadership Potential

Leadership development is a prominent theme and objective in higher education (Smart, Ethington, Riggs, & Thompson, 2002), especially for residential liberal arts institutions, which emphasize and market the benefits of dual living and learning environments that facilitate the cultivation of leadership-related attributes. Evidence of such may be observed in the mission statements of numerous well-respected liberal arts institutions in which leadership development is a focal point (see, for example, Thompson, 2006).

Research regarding student leadership development has primarily concentrated on the degree of student engagement with college experiences and programs that emulate leadership positions and opportunities that carry over to societal equivalencies (see, for example, Cress, Astin, Zimmerman-Oster, & Burkhardt, 2001; Kezar & Moriarty, 2000; Posner & Brodsky, 1992; Whitt, 1994; Wielkiewicz, 2000). Examinations in this regard were well grounded, considering the importance and influence of college resources on the differential patterns of student learning and growth. A substantial body of evidence suggests that students acquire greater levels of educational and personal attainment from their undergraduate experience dependent upon the amount of time and effort students spend engaging in activities specifically related to interactions with faculty and peers, involvement in class work, and the utilization of resources provided by the institution (see, for example, Astin, 1993; Pace, 1980; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Thompson, 2001, 2006).

However, previous research has also shown that students’ leadership interests and abilities are largely dependent on their entering characteristics. The importance students place on leadership development prior to entering college has a significant influence on their participation in leadership-related activities, and subsequently, their leadership development (Smart, et al., 2002). Thus, the majority of studies based on student leadership development may have examined students with a predisposition to leadership. In consequence, students who are not active in leadership activities are rarely ever assessed for such attributes (see, for example, Cress, Astin, Zimmerman-Oster, & Burkhardt, 2001; Whitt, 1994).

Despite its historical relevance and contribution to leadership research, personality-based assumptions regarding leadership behavior have declined as a primary focal point for researchers. As stated by Judge, Bono, Ilies, and Gerhardt (2002), “Even today, with the renewed interest in dispositional explanations of attitudes and behaviors, there remains pessimism about the relationship of personality variables to leadership” (p. 765). The decline in examining personality variables can be attributed to a couple of key areas. One, the lack of any framework for the classification of personality traits led to the examination of a large number of traits with labels and definitions that differed from study to study; and two, the inability to examine consistent relationships between studies proved to be a limitation and detriment to leadership trait research (see, for example, Costa, McCrae, & Dye, 1991; Judge, et al., 2002; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991). In addition, the emergence of situational and contingency approaches dealt significant blows to leadership trait research. New genres for investigating leadership behavior such as Bolman and Deal’s (2003) four-frame theory of leadership and Quinn’s (1988) competing values model, offered ways in which to examine the complexities of organizations and how leaders managed to balance conflicting interests. These and similar theories and models have dominated leadership-based research for many years (see, for example Bass, 1990; Daft, 1999; House & Podsakoff, 1994; Judge, et al., 2002).

One framework that may resolve some of the detrimental issues regarding the use of personality traits in leadership research is the five-factor model of personality. The five-factor model is a classification system of personality traits organized in five broad dimensions - openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. The model was derived from factor analytic studies of a large number of existing measures on personality traits, and has been established as generalizable across cultures (McCrae & Costa, 1997; McCrae & Costa, 1999; McCrae & John, 1992).

Using the five-factor model as an organizing framework, Judge et al. (2002) meta-analyzed 222 correlations from 73 research studies of personality and leadership traits and found strong support for the use of personality variables in leadership research when organized and classified by the model. Four of the five-factor personality dimensions (openness to experience, conscientiousness, emotional stability (the antithesis to neuroticism), extraversion) had a strong significant relationship to leadership emergence or one’s disposition towards leadership given adequate development, desire, timing, and environment. A complete description of the four dimensions can be found in Table 1.

Extraversion - This dimension represents individuals who are optimistic, assertive, and sociable. In a leadership context, these and similar traits salient to the Extraversion dimension in the five-factor model of personality represent individuals who serve as intervening means of transmission, expression, or communication. Extraverted individuals are capable of exercising their influence in an assertive manner to communicate in an effective method.

Conscientiousness - This dimension represents individuals who are disciplined, organized, and persistent. In a leadership context, these and similar traits salient to the Conscientiousness dimension in the five-factor model of personality represent individuals who watch over or guard against carelessness, laziness, and inefficiency. Conscientious individuals are consistently methodical, responsible, and thorough in their decision-making and activities.

Emotional Stability - This dimension (the antithesis of Neuroticism) represents individuals who are confident, well adjusted, and self-assured. In a leadership context, these and similar traits salient to the Emotional Stability dimension in the five-factor model of personality represent individuals who have the maturity, poise, and stability to make sound decisions and act appropriately. Emotionally stable individuals have the confidence and strength of mind to adapt to diverse circumstances under pressure or stressful conditions.

Openness to Experience - The Openness to Experience dimension represents individuals who are imaginative, curious, and adventurous. In a leadership context, these and similar traits salient to the Openness to Experience dimension in the five-factor model of personality represent individuals who have the cognitive independence and perception to assimilate fresh and inventive ideas. Open individuals are receptive to new experiences, which allow for creative and original thoughts, opinions, and beliefs that not only compliment a mission, but also enhance the experience.

Based on the results of Judge et al. (2002) meta-analysis, the five-factor model of personality may provide a means to examine four related, yet distinct trait dimensions of behavior associated with leadership. Considering the strong significant relationship of the four dimensions related to leadership emergence, one might expect that students possessing sufficient personal development of personality traits salient to leadership would report greater levels of overall leadership ability, and perhaps greater satisfaction with their opportunities and development of such. Furthermore, these higher perceived degrees of development and satisfaction may be dependent on a student’s degree of symmetry between the dimensions. In other words, students’ perception of their leadership trait development may coincide with their perceived satisfaction with and development of leadership.

The present study will contribute to the above research on the validity of using leadership-salient personality traits in examining students’ leadership development. Students’ self-perceptions of leadership growth, as well as their satisfaction with, and the importance placed on leadership development will also be examined. Similar to previous research on student leadership development, the present study will explore student-reported contributions from college resources and opportunities. The present study differs from earlier research, however, because it will examine leadership development within the context of students’ perceived growth and symmetry in leadership trait dimensions.

Method

Participants

This study was based on a saturation sample of college seniors at a small, private liberal arts institution with an approximate enrollment of 1,800 students located in the Midwest United States. Saturation sampling, in which every senior was included, was used because of the small population of the institution and thus, senior class (True, 1989). Students in their fourth year of undergraduate study were selected for this study because of their length of exposure to college resources and opportunities, and thus more time and means to develop leadership-based traits.

Via electronic mail invitation, the seniors were asked to complete a questionnaire, which provided students’ self-perceptions regarding their personal development of leadership traits as classified by the five-factor model of personality. The students’ self-perceptions regarding overall leadership development and opportunities, the importance of leadership development during their undergraduate education, and the reported contributing college resources to that development, were also provided. The questionnaire was administered over the fall semester (October) of the students’ senior undergraduate year, and was available online for two weeks after the initial administration. An opportunity to win one of five $20 college bookstore gift certificates in a random drawing were offered as an incentive to participate. Three reminders were sent to the students.

Four hundred and five students were asked to complete the questionnaire. Two hundred and one responded, establishing the response rate at 49.6%. The analyses were based on the responses of 190 senior participants who provided full information on all variables. Approximately 7% of the participants were domestic students of color, 8% international, with the remaining 85% being white. The number of participants in the race/ethnicity groups was relatively consistent with the overall institutional percentage for each group. Sixty-five percent of the participants were women, while 35% were men. The institutional percentage for each group is 55 and 45%, respectively. The average age of the student respondents was 22 years.

Based on the results of the meta-analysis study of personality and leadership by Judge, et al. (2002), an integration of personality traits salient to leadership as classified by the five-factor model were selected for a questionnaire. Selection criteria for the traits were based on previous personality trait and leadership research, in conjunction with the salient attributes of the four leadership dimensions. A total of 12 traits, three for each respective dimension (openness to experience, conscientiousness, emotional stability, extraversion), were selected (Bass, 1990; Judge, et al., 2002; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991; Lord, DeVader, & Alliger, 1986; McCrae & Costa, 1999). Student perceptions regarding leadership development were obtained from the 12 leadership traits. Based on five-point scales (from “none” (0) to “very much” (4)), the questionnaire asked “To what extent has your experience at the College contributed to your personal development in the following traits.” Table 2 presents the alphas, means, and standard deviations for the four dimensions as created by their respective salient 12 leadership traits.

Openness to Experience 2.93 0.74

Insight to exhibit clear perception and understanding

Openness to be receptive to new ideas and experiences

Originality to be creative and independent

(alpha = .71)

Two levels among the four leadership dimensions were created, which indicated the degree to which students’ perceptions of leadership trait development reflected symmetry (high, low) between the dimensions. The following is a description of the two leadership development levels:

1. High Symmetrical Level - students in this level scored above the mean on at least three of the four leadership dimensions. A total of 95 respondents (50%) perceived their leadership trait development as having this degree of symmetry; and

2. Low Symmetrical Level - students in this level scored below the mean on at least two of the four leadership dimensions. A total of 95 respondents (50%) perceived their leadership trait development as having this degree of symmetry.

Perceptions were also obtained regarding students’ satisfaction with leadership development and opportunities during their undergraduate education, as well as perceived importance of leadership development. The following is a description of the four items:

1. Importance of Leadership Development - a four-point scale reflecting how important students considered leadership development as an aspect of their undergraduate education (from “not important” (1) to “very important” (4));

2. Satisfaction with Leadership Opportunities - a four-point scale reflecting how satisfied students were with the leadership opportunities provided by the college (from “not satisfied” (1) to “very satisfied” (4));

3. Satisfaction with Leadership Development - a four-point scale reflecting how satisfied students were with their leadership development at the college (from “not satisfied” (1) to “very satisfied” (4)); and

4. Overall Leadership Abilities - a four-point scale reflecting how students perceived their overall leadership abilities (from poor (1) to excellent (4)).

Using nine college resource categories identified from previous studies (Kezar & Moriarty, 2000; Thompson, 2006; Whitt, 1994; Wielkiewicz, 2000), students were asked about contributing opportunities and activities regarding their leadership trait development. Each category was based on a one-point scale (0 = no; 1 = yes). The nine resource categories were: (a) arts, entertainment, or music group; (b) class experience and interaction; (c) faculty and administrator interaction; (d) student and peer interaction; (e) intercollegiate or intramural athletics; (f) internship, field experience, or study abroad; (g) political or social organizations; (h) student government; and (i) volunteer service.

Procedures

Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) procedures (Stevens, 1996) were used to assess the extent to which there were differences in the leadership development and opportunity satisfaction, development importance, overall leadership abilities, and the reported contributing college opportunities and resources to the leadership trait development of students who were classified according to the two leadership symmetrical levels described above. The independent variable in the MANOVA design was the students’ leadership symmetrical level (high, low) derived from the four leadership trait dimensions. The dependent variables were the four items based on leadership development and opportunity satisfaction, development importance, and perceived overall leadership abilities, and the nine college resource categories of opportunities and activities. Univariate effect sizes were calculated to determine the strength of significant group differences when the multivariate F ratios were statistically significant.

The F ratio for the leadership symmetrical levels was statistically significant (F = 4.90; df = 13, 176, p < .001), as were the univariate F ratios on all four leadership-related items (p < .001) indicating significant differences in the leadership development and opportunity satisfaction, development importance, and perceived overall leadership abilities of students whose leadership symmetrical level was either high or low. The univariate F ratios of four of the nine college resource categories were also significant (p < .05 to p < .001), indicating significant differences in the reported contributions of class-, faculty-, internship/study abroad-, and student government-related activities and opportunities. Tables 3 and 4 present the means and standard deviations of the three leadership emergence echelons on the four leadership-related items and nine college resource categories.

Interaction 5.83 3.76 6.74 3.73 2.78

Intercollegiate or

Intramural Athletics 2.96 3.85 3.39 3.86 0.60

Internship, Field Experience,

or Study Abroad 5.15 4.55 6.62 4.88 4.63*

Political or Social

Organizations 3.08 4.11 4.11 .4.45 2.70

Student

Government .26 1.00 1.45 3.01 13.33***

Volunteer

Service 3.07 3.67 3.59 3.54 0.97

The findings of the present study clearly support the use of leadership-based traits in efforts to understand leadership behavior development. The differences found among the leadership symmetrical levels (high, low) regarding leadership development and opportunity satisfaction, development importance, and overall leadership abilities were consistent with the aforementioned expectations that students who report higher degrees of symmetry between the four leadership trait dimensions will report higher degrees of importance, satisfaction, and self-esteem regarding leadership development and opportunities. Students in the high symmetrical level reported higher degrees of satisfaction with leadership development and opportunities, leadership self-esteem (self-perceived overall leadership abilities), and placed greater importance on leadership development than students in the low symmetrical level. Significant differences between the two symmetrical levels regarding college resources included class-, faculty-, internship/study abroad-, and student government-related activities and opportunities. The mean contributions attributed to the above resource categories were significantly higher for the students in the high level than those in the low. Effect sizes for each significant univariate test are reported in Table 5.

Leadership Items

College Resource Categories

Class Experience and Interaction

High Symmetrical Level and Low Symmetrical Level 0.44**

Faculty and Administrator Interaction

High Symmetrical Level and Low Symmetrical Level 0.36*

Internship, Field Experience, or Study Abroad

High Symmetrical Level and Low Symmetrical Level 0.31*

Student Government

High Symmetrical Level and Low Symmetrical Level 0.53***

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The findings suggest that students who reported high levels of personal growth in at least three of four dimensions (high symmetrical) placed a greater importance to their development of leadership and are more satisfied with that development than students in the low symmetrical levels. These same students also reported greater satisfaction with leadership opportunities provided by the college and greater overall leadership abilities than low symmetrical level students.

If leadership development satisfaction and self-esteem are associated with the degree of symmetrical growth of leadership traits and/or dimensions as postulated, one would expect, that greater degrees of symmetry between the trait dimensions would result in greater overall leadership skills, as well as greater satisfaction in the development of such skills. These expectations were confirmed in the present study. These findings contribute to the multiple studies analyzed by Judge, et al. (2002), which provided evidence indicating strong support for the use of personality variables in leadership research when organized and classified according to the five-factor model of personality. Furthermore, the evidence compliments the plethora of research associating personality traits and their relationship to leadership development (see, for example, Bass, 1990; Daft, 1999; House & Podsakoff, 1994; Judge, et al., 2002; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991).

The present study contributes to the vast amount of research on students’ differential patterns of growth and development. The distinctions revealed between the two symmetrical levels (high, low) regarding students’ perceived abilities and satisfaction regarding leadership competence, development, and opportunities, as well as the importance placed on such development aid in understanding student change within a leadership trait context. Those who study the effects of colleges on student leadership development may consider focusing their attention on factors related to personality-based assumptions. The accumulated evidence of the above-mentioned studies, and that of the present study, clearly suggests that leadership traits as classified by the five-factor model of personality has the potential to provide a conceptual framework for such inquiries.

The findings of the current study also reveal differences between the two leadership symmetrical levels when students attribute college resource and opportunity contributions to their leadership trait development. The contributions attributed to classroom experience and interaction, faculty and administrator interaction, internships, field experiences, or study abroad, and student government were significantly higher for students in the high symmetrical level than students in the low level.

These findings suggest that significant contributions towards student leadership trait development may be found in students’ interactions with faculty and administrators, to include interactions and experiences in the classroom. This evidence compliments previous research identifying such interaction as having a significant influence on the attitudes, interests, and values of college students (Astin, 1993; Pace, 1980; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Thompson, 2001).

The internships, field experiences, or study abroad and student government categories represent the college experiences and programs that emulate leadership positions and opportunities that carry over to societal equivalencies. Students in the high leadership symmetrical level reported greater mean contributions to their leadership trait development from such experiences than those students in the low symmetrical level. This evidence is consistent with previous research that has identified involvement in student organization opportunities and programs as contributing to students’ leadership formation, practical competence, and interpersonal development (Kuh, 1993; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005).

Such knowledge has broad implications for student affairs practitioners and institutions in their efforts to facilitate and/or develop students’ leadership potential. The leadership trait dimensions as classified by the five-factor model of personality may serve as an effective assessment tool in evaluating students’ leadership growth and development. In addition to its obvious leadership inclination, many of the various traits are related to general educational and personal gains that many higher education institutions seek to enhance (see, for example, Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). If institutions of higher education continue to emphasize leadership development within their mission statements, it is in their best interest to assess such assertions given the general public’s desire for accountability. The evidence of the present study reveals the leadership trait dimensions’ potential to fulfill this prospective need. Furthermore, such knowledge should enable student affairs practitioners to interact with faculty and other administrators on a more informed basis in collective efforts to promote students’ leadership satisfaction, growth, and development in their undergraduate experiences. Such interactions may also facilitate new and/or improved methods to reach out to students who generally “fly under the radar” regarding activities and interactions that promote and enhance the student experience.

Institutions and student affairs practitioners should also continue to examine ways to enrich the experiences in student-based organizations and programs. The evidence of the present study revealing the benefits of student organization membership toward leadership development and satisfaction should encourage institutions to continue and/or increase resource allocations towards that end. In addition, more effort may need to be exerted to increase student participation, especially with those students who are less engaged in campus-related activities and organizations.

The findings of this study can also assist faculty and administrators in their understanding of the importance of student-faculty, student-administrator, and classroom interaction. Realizing the potential importance and impact of these types of interactions in the growth and development of students’ leadership trait acquisition, as well as their intellectual and personal development in general, should only facilitate and encourage one’s desire to spend more time interacting, advising, and mentoring students, especially in liberal arts environments which, to their advantage, market the quality of such interactions.

In sum, the postulations examined in the present study were confirmed. Given adequate desire, timing, and environment, individuals possessing sufficient personal development of the personality traits salient to leadership as classified by the five-factor model of personality had higher reported degrees of satisfaction, self-esteem, opportunity, and success regarding leadership in general and/or in leadership- and managerial-related echelons. Students with the adequate desire (e.g., students who placed a greater importance to leadership development), sufficient personal development (e.g., students in the high symmetrical level), at the adequate time (e.g., senior year – at the conclusion of undergraduate education), and in the adequate environment (liberal arts institution – quality interaction and resources) reported higher degrees of leadership development and opportunity satisfaction, importance, and self-esteem.

This study is limited in at least three ways. First, the student respondents are from a small residential liberal arts institution located in the Midwestern United States. Thus, the applicability of the findings of the present study to other campus settings (e.g., Research I universities) is unknown. Second, further examination of leadership traits as classified by the five-factor model of personality and their relationship to leadership and opportunity satisfaction, importance, and self-esteem are warranted. Finally, the yielded evidence from this examination is based on students’ self-ratings, and thus, may be subject to bias.

Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organizations (3^rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R., & Dye, D. A. (1991). Facet scales for agreeableness and conscientiousness: A revision of the NEO Personality Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 887-898.

Cress, C. M., Astin, H. S., Zimmerman-Oster, K., & Burkhardt, J. C. (2001). Developmental outcomes of college students’ involvement in leadership activities. Journal of College Student Development, 42, 15-27.

Daft, R. L. (1999). Leadership: Theory and practice. Orlando, FL: Dryden Press.

House, R. J., & Podsakoff, P. M. (1994). Leadership effectiveness: Past perspectives and future directions for research. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior. (pp. 45-82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 765-780.

Kezar, A., & Moriarty, D. (2000). Expanding our understanding of student leadership development: A study exploring gender and ethnic identity. Journal of College Student Development, 41, 55-69.

Kirkpatrick, S. A. & Locke, E. A. (1991). Leadership: Do traits matter? Academy of Management Executive, 5, 48-60.

Kuh, G. D. (1993). In their own words: What students learn outside the classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 277-304.

Lord, R. G., DeVader, C. L., & Alliger, G. M. (1991). A meta-analysis of the relation between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity generalization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 402-410.

McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1999). A five-factor theory of personality. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research. (pp.139-153). New York: The Guilford Press.

McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52, 509-516.

McCrae, R. R. & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 2, 175-215.

Pace, C. R. (1980). Measuring the quality of student effort. Current Issues in Higher Education, 2, 10-16.

Pascarella, E. T. & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students; v. 2: A third decade of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Posner, B. Z., & Brodsky, B. (1992). A leadership development instrument for college students. Journal of College Student Development, 33, 231-237.

Quinn, R. E. (1988). Beyond rational management. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Smart, J. C., Ethington, C. A., Riggs, R. O., & Thompson, M. D. (2002). Influences of institutional expenditure patterns on the development of students’ leadership competencies. Research in Higher Education, 43, 115-132.

Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Thompson, M. D. (2001). Informal student-faculty interaction: Its relationship to educational gains in science and mathematics among community college students. Community College Review, 29, 35-55.

Thompson, M. D. (2006). Student leadership process development: An assessment of contributing college resources. Journal of College Student Development, 47, 343-350.

True, J. A. (1989). Finding out: Conducting and evaluating social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Inc.

Whitt, E. J. (1994). “I can be anything:” Student leadership in three women’s colleges. Journal of College Student Development, 35, 198-207.

Wielkiewicz, R. M. (2000). The leadership attitudes and beliefs scale: An instrument for evaluating college students’ thinking about leadership and organizations. Journal of College Student Development, 41, 335-347.

Table 1. Leadership Dimensions

Method

Participants

Procedures

Leadership Items

College Resource Categories