Key words: potential to lead, leaders, non-leaders

 

The present study returns to the question that occupied “trait approach“ scholars in the early days of leadership research: identification of the major capacities required for leadership. The conceptual and methodological progress that has been made in psychology since the ”trait approach” enables us to formulate models and deal with variables that did not exist in the early days of leadership research.

We argue that three types of psychological capacities are essential for leadership: 1) Self confidence – expressed and measured by three variables: internal locus of control, low level of trait anxiety, and self-efficacy2) Pro-active orientation, expressed by optimism; and 3) Capacities required for pro-social relationships, expressed by secure attachment styles. 

A series of questionnaires was administered to 402 soldiers from Infantry and Armored corps who were nearing the end of three months' basic training. A sociometric questionnaire examining the evaluations by peers and commanders of the soldiers’ leadership capacities was used to evaluate each soldier and to classify the soldiers dichotomously as “leaders" and “non-leaders.”

The findings reveal significant differences between "leaders" and "non-leaders" in all the variables that were defined as psychological capacities to lead. "Leaders" have more internal locus of control, a lower level of anxiety, higher self-efficacy, and more optimism. Further, they rank higher in the measure of secure attachment style. Anxiety, locus of control, and attachment style were found to be significant in the regression equation, but trait anxiety was the most discriminant variable. The implications of the findings in the light of relevant psychological models are discussed.   

 

 

The research presented here is in line with an approach that prevailed at the beginning of research on leadership in the early 20th century, known as the "trait approach." Focusing on aspects such as appearance, expressiveness, and similar observational variables, the trait approach proved to be disappointing in that it failed to present consistent findings over the years (Stogdill, 1974; Bass, 1990). Since those early studies, there have been many conceptual developments, particularly in the area of psychology of the self and developmental psychology that are of special relevance to the study of leaders. However, despite these conceptual developments (alongside the construction of valid psychological measures), leadership research has not returned to examine systematically the question of leaders' personality and developmental characteristics. Further, it has focused mainly on examining leadership (i.e., leadership styles) as an independent variable that affects the followers' attitudes and performances (Avolio & Gibbons, 1988; Lord & Maher, 1993; Bycioi, Hacket, & Allen, 1995; Zacharatos, Barling, & Kelloway, 2000;Avolio &  Yammarino, 2002).

The present study returns to those questions and speculations that occupied scholars in the early days of leadership research, but now we come equipped with many more measurable concepts on personality. These concepts enable us to formulate models that are not only behavioral but also intrapsychic, relevant to the prediction of personality and developmental characteristics of leaders. Furthermore, since the trait approach studies, important distinctions between types of leadership have emerged, such as those between personalized and socialized leadership, which will be described below (House & Howell, 1992; Popper, 2002).  

Thus, we are now able to return to old questions and re-examine them using the new concepts and models that have been developed in psychology over the past few decades. The present research does exactly this – it focuses on the major issue dealt with by studies using the trait approach: identification of the psychological capacities that are important for leadership.

A review of the literature on leadership (see, for example, the review of psychological research in Bass, 1990) indicates three types of capacities that form the basis of leaders' influence:

1.        Self-confidence – An element required to convey to the followers a sense of security, which is basic in leader-follower relations (Bass, 1985; Smith & Foti, 1998; Popper & Mayseless, 2002).

2.        Pro-active orientation – Leadership, which by its very nature and definition involves changes in the status quo, brings people from existing situations to face new situations and challenges (Bryman, 1986; Kotter,1988, ). Leaders themselves are motivated by their visions of the future to set aims, to change the status quo. Studies have found that the more outstanding the leaders, the more their words, decisions, and behaviors reveal future-orientation (Berson, Shamir, Avolio, & Popper, 2001; Mumford & Strange. 2002).

3.        Capacities required for maintaining pro-social relations - The literature distinguishes between personalized and socialized leaders (Howell,1988; House & Howell, 1992). While personalized leaders' relations with their followers are largely motivated by narcissistic desires and the wish for self-aggrandizement, socialized leaders are characterized by a lower degree of narcissism and a higher degree of empathy, ability to give, and wish to contribute to society (Popper, 2002). This type of leader is more common in the general population of leaders (Popper,2002 , 2003 ) and was found to be absolutely dominant in a study conducted in the Israel Defense Force--the IDF (Neeman-Nagor, 1998). The present study focuses on socialized   leaders, and the variables described below represent the above-mentioned three aspects in the most integrative and empirical manner.

Locus of control. This concept, which was first defined by Rotter (1966), relates to the way in which a person perceives his/her ability to control events. While people with an internal locus of control believe that they have the ability to influence events and therefore the results of their leadership depend on their ability and skills, those with an external locus of control believe that factors outside themselves (luck, fate) dictate events, and therefore the results of their behavior depend on other people, on luck, or on other external factors. Studies that examined locus of control found it to be a personality variable and not a situational one (Lefcourt, 1966; Phares, 1976). A series of studies that examined the locus of control among managers found that those with an internal locus of control showed more self-confidence in their ability to influence their environment, were better capable of coping with stressful situations, tended to adopt more innovative and daring organizational strategies, and in the end achieved higher organizational performance than managers with an external locus of control (Anderson, 1977; Miller, Kets de Vries, & Toulouse, 1982; Miller & Toulouse, 1986).

Howell and Avolio (1993) point out that very few studies have examined locus of control in the context of leadership. Their study was the first attempt to examine locus of control in the context of two leadership styles: transactional leadership and transformational leadership. Transactional leadership is characterized by effort-reward relations within a given frame of recognized mutual expectations between the leader and the followers. In contrast, transformational leadership (which is an important category of socialized leadership) may cause the followers to change their expectations or perform above and beyond their initial expectations (Bass, 1985). Howell and Avolio's (1993) research findings revealed a significant positive correlation between measures of transformational leadership and high levels of internal locus of control. The authors note that it is important to examine this key concept further in the context of leadership. The present study examines whether locus of control is a discriminant variable between "leaders" and "non-leaders." Our research hypothesis is that higher levels of internal locus of control will be found among subjects perceived as "leaders" than among those perceived as "non-leaders."

Trait anxiety. The literature distinguishes between state anxiety and trait anxiety (Endler, 1980; Spielberger, 1972). State anxiety is defined as a temporary emotional state that appears in response to a frightening situation. On the other hand, trait anxiety is a tendency in the individual's personality that finds expression in a wide variety of situations. A person characterized by a high level of trait anxiety will have difficulty functioning effectively when exposed to stressors and situations of uncertainty (Sarason, 1975). The assumption is that individuals with low trait anxiety will function more successfully in changing and stressful situations, such as may frequently be encountered by people in leadership roles. Although this argument has face validity, there has so far been no thorough investigation of the trait anxiety variable in the context of leadership (Bass, 1990). Our research hypothesis is that subjects perceived as "leaders" will be characterized by a lower level of trait anxiety than those perceived as "non-leaders."  

Self-efficacy. This concept was developed at the end of the 1970s by Bandura, who defined it as the individual's belief in his/her ability to perform successfully the actions necessary for achievement of the projected goal (1977, 1986, 1995). This self perception of the individual is formed in the context of behaviors and develops gradually in an ongoing learning process in which the individual collects information from a variety of sources with regard to his/her ability to function in various areas. While Bandura's initial definition focused on individuals' belief in their ability to perform a specific task, he and other researchers expanded the concept. They suggested that self-efficacy should be seen as a general characteristic representing an individual's belief in his/her abilities to reach achievements in various areas and to perform well in a variety of tasks (Eden, 1988, 1996; Hackett & Betz, 1995; Gardner & Pierce, 1998). This broad view led to the distinction between "situational self-efficacy" and "general self-efficacy." Situational self-efficacy refers to the individual's perception of his/her ability to perform one specific task, a perception that might change in different circumstances. General self-efficacy, on the other hand, refers to the individual's self beliefs regarding his/her general and permanent level of ability to perform a wide variety of tasks in different situations (Shelton, 1990; Eden, 1996).

The link between self-efficacy and ability to lead seems self-evident. People who believe in themselves and in their abilities to perform tasks successfully are better suited to leadership roles than those who do not believe in themselves. Indeed, studies have shown that this self-belief is significant in the context of leadership (Gibbons, 1986; Kotter, 1988; Chemers, Watson, & May, 2000; Murphy, 2002). 

Smith and Foti (1998) were the first to examine directly the connection between the concept of general self-efficacy (GSE) and the emergence of leaders in a group. In order to predict the emergence of leaders in a group, their study examined the influence of three variables: dominance, intelligence, and general self-efficacy. Of these three, GSE was found to be in the highest correlation with the rankingand evaluation of leaders in the group. A number of new leadership studies have attempted to restrict this concept to the area of leadership while developing a more specific concept – "leadership self-efficacy" (Chan, 1999; Chemers et al., 2000). The findings of their studies also point to the importance of the individual's self-belief in his/her leadership abilities and his/her growth as a leader. Since the present study examines the abilities that compose the individual's leadership "potential," we see self-efficacy as a stable characteristic that goes beyond a specific context. In this light, we will follow the approach of Smith and Foti and examine the general self-efficacy of the individual (see note 1). Our research hypothesis is that a higher level of self-efficacy will be found among subjects perceived as "leaders" than among those perceived as "non-leaders."

 As stated, one of the consistent characteristics in descriptions of leaders is their ability to present a vision of the future, to point to a new way, to transmit inspiring messages (Mumford & Strange, 2002). This theme appears in all the biographies of outstanding leaders (Burns, 1978; Bass, 1985; Gardner, 1995). In order to maintain a future orientation, to formulate it in terms of a vision, and to be convinced of the prospects of its success and thus sweep others along, a person has to be optimistic. A number of studies have dealt with the correlation between leadership and optimism. A study that examined optimism and pessimism among business leaders found that optimism predicted the ability to form a shared vision and to encourage action driven by emotion. Chemers et al. (2000) found positive correlations between optimism and level of leadership in officer cadets as evaluated by their military instructors. Similar findings were presented by George (2000) and Wunderley, Reddy, and Dember (1998). It appears, therefore, that optimism is a salient predisposition in the prediction of one of the major components of leadership – envisaging a desired future, believing in it, and striving stubbornly for its realization.

Optimism, according to Scheier and Carver (1985), is a tendency of the individuals to believe that they will generally have more positive than negative experiences in their life. It is defined as a stable personality characteristic over time and place and not limited to a specific framework (Snyder et al., 1991). Comparative studies of optimistic and pessimistic individuals report that the optimists have a more positive self-image than the pessimists and tend more to see the positive side of things (Peterson & Bossio, 1991). They devote more effort to achieve their aims than do pessimists (Scheier & Carver, 1993). In this light, our research hypothesis is that a higher rate of optimism will be found among subjects perceived as "leaders" than among those perceived as "non-leaders."

Although central in predicting leadership, the variables reviewed above (self-confidence and optimism) do not distinguish between personalized leaders (such as Hitler) and socialized leaders (like Gandhi). Both of these types present a vision and demonstrate confidence and belief in their chosen path. The difference between them stems mainly from the degree of narcissism inherent in their personality (Popper, 2000, 2002). While personalized leaders' relations with their followers are oriented towards their own self-aggrandizement, socialized leaders are characterized by "care for others” and by pro-social ability to give. Psychological studies refer to empathy – the ability to enter into the emotions of others – as the foundation of moral and pro-social behaviors (Hoffman, 2000). This ability is formed, according to the evidence, when the emotional development in childhood is characterized by loving, giving, and secure relationships. This theme appears in biographies and studies of socialized leaders and is absent from reports on the developmental characteristics of personalized leaders (Popper & Mayseless , 2003).

The quality of various relationships between adults has been explained and researched intensively and profoundly in recent years using John Bowlby's attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969, 1973). Because this theory permits operationalization of psychodynamic arguments, it gave rise to a large number of empirical studies (see review in Cassidy, 1999). According to Bowlby's attachment theory, the baby has a primary need for attachment and closeness to the caregiver (usually the mother). The assumption is that the caregiver's response to the baby's needs shapes in the infant a certain psychological structure known as the "internal working model," which guides the child's emotional development as well as his/her choices and behaviors in adult life, particularly in the context of emotional relationships such as romantic relations (Hazan & Shaver, 1987), friendship (Mayseless, Sharabani, & Sagi, 1997), work relations (Hazan & Shaver, 1990), and leader-follower relations (Popper, Mayseless, & Castelnovo, 2000). A large body of research indicates that these internal models are stable over time (Cassidy).

Research on attachment indicates three basic attachment styles (internal models) formed as a result of differential dynamics between the baby and the caregiver. A secure style develops in babies who have constant access to and nurturing relations with the caregiver; an avoidant style develops in babies who experience a large amount of rejection or ignoring of their distress (expressed by crying, etc.) on the part of the caregiver; and an anxious-ambivalent style is formed as a result of inconsistency in the caregiver's availability and accessibility in responding to the infant's needs. The assumption is that a socialized leader needs to have a personality structure whose elements match those of the secure attachment style, namely belief in oneself and in others, self-confidence, curiosity, and the ability to maintain close and even intimate relationships without fear. Support for this assumption was found in two studies recently conducted on attachment and leadership (Mikulincer & Florian, 1995; Popper et al., 2000). Since we assume that the majority of our research population are socialized leaders (as was found by Neeman-Nagor, 1998), our research hypothesis is that a higher degree of the secure style will be found among subjects perceived as "leaders" than among those perceived as "non- leaders."

To sum up, based on the psychological literature on leadership, we identified five characteristics that were found to be most relevant to the profile of the potential required in order to be a socialized leader. Three variables most clearly represent the type of self-confidence required for leadership: locus of control, level of trait anxiety, and self-efficacy. Optimism was identified as a major personality variable required for "carrying the people forward." And a secure attachment style has been found in many studies to be the most integrative predictor of the ability to maintain relations with a pro-social orientation, in other words, to be a socialized leader. Our main hypothesis is that significant differences will be found between subjects perceived as "leaders" and those perceived as "non-leaders" in each of the variables presented above as leadership potential variables.

1.   Subjects

The research took place in the Israel Defense Force (IDF). The subjects were 402 soldiers from the Armored and the Infantry corps, at the end of their basic training period. The soldiers belonged to four companies, 2 from Armored units and 2 from the Infantry corps. The Armored sample comprised 182 soldiers and the Infantry sample 220. The two Infantry companies consisted of 6 platoons, each with 45 soldiers, and the two Armored companies included 12 platoons, with 20 soldiers each. The percentage of response in the Armored companies was 72% and in the Infantry 78% (10%-20% of the soldiers in the various platoons were new immigrants who had language difficulties answering the questionnaires and were excluded from the sample).

The research instruments are classified into 2 categories:

 

In order to distinguish between "leaders" and "non-leaders," we used a sociometric questionnaire, which was composed by the field research team and based on various sociometric questionnaires used in the IDF. We emphasize that, unlike many armies (such as the US Army), in which the differentiation between officers and other ranks is determined “institutionally“ (through military academies), the differentiation in the IDF occurs “naturally “ - through a selection process out of the entire cohort. Starting on an equal footing, all Israeli conscripts undergo an ongoing selection process during their initial training period. This situation is a unique laboratory for examining leadership.

The sociometric questionnaire that was administered examines the peers' and commanders' perceptions of the leadership potential of the soldiers. This was done at a stage when they already knew each other very well and had enough information to evaluate the soldiers in terms of their informal influence within the platoon and their ability to be good commanders in the future. The evaluation was measured on a 5-point scale, ranging from "very small extent" to "very great extent." Out of the diverse leadership variables that appear in this questionnaire, we distinguished between two polar groups: "leaders" and "non-leaders." A soldier who received from both peers and commanders a mean score of 4 or above on at least one of the questions (degree of influence or suitability to the role) was classified in the group of "leaders," while a soldier who received from both peers and commanders a mean score of 2 or below on at least one of the questions was classified in the "non-leaders" group.

Locus of control scale(Rotter,1966)

This questionnaire contains 29 items, presented in pairs as forced choice between two statements expressing external and internal locus of control. The questionnaire also includes six items that are not scored but are used as buffers. The total score on this scale is the sum of choices that indicates external locus of control; thus, a high score in this questionnaire indicates an external locus of control, while a low score reflects internal locus of control. The internal reliability (Cronbach's α) reported is 0.71 (Glatzer, 1975).

Trait anxiety inventory (Spielberger, Gorsuch & Lushene, 1970)

The inventory presents 20 emotional statements that reflect the subject's general anxiety level. The respondent is asked to rate the degree to which he/she generally feels each of the emotions mentioned in the questionnaire on a 4-point scale ranging from "almost never” to "almost always." After reversal of the items, the scores on the questionnaire range between 20 and 80, the higher score indicating a higher level of trait anxiety. The test-retest reliability of the questionnaire, as reported in the manual, is 0.73. Internal consistency reliability tests yielded Cronbach's alpha values ranging between 0.89 and 0.91 (Teichmann & Melinek, 1979).

General self-efficacy scale (Chen & Gully, 1997,Chen , Gully & Eden ,2001 )

This questionnaire is comprised of 14 items that reflect the respondent's beliefs regarding his/her capacities. The respondent is asked to state the degree to which he/she agrees with each of the statements in the questionnaire on a scale of 1 to 5, ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree." The total scores on the questionnaire range from 14 to 70, with the highest score reflecting higher self-efficacy. The authors report a Cronbach's alpha reliability level of 0.92 (Chen & Gully, 1997; Rosen, 1998).

Scheier and Carver's Life Orientation Test (LOT) (1985, 1986) is used to measure the subjects' optimism. It consists of 6 statements reflecting the respondent's outlook on life. Respondents are asked to indicate the extent to which they agree with each of the statements on a 5-point scale, ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree." After reversal of the items, the scores on the questionnaire range between 6 and 30, with the higher score indicating a higher level of optimism. The authors report a Cronbach's alpha reliability level of 0.76 (Litovich, 1999).

The measure used in this study is an Attachment Style Questionnaire based on Hazan and Shaver’s (1987) work. This questionnaire was developed and validated by Mikulincer and associates (Mikulincer, Florian, & Tolmaz, 1990). The questionnaire comprises 15 statements, 2 of which characterize the Secure attachment style, 6 the Anxious/Ambivalent style, and 7 the Avoidant style. The respondent is asked to indicate the degree to which he/she agrees with each of the statements on a 7-point scale, ranging from "absolutely not true" to "absolutely true." The Cronbach's alpha values are 0.81 for the Anxious /Ambivalent style and 0.69 for the Avoidant and Secure styles.

In recent years, the classification of attachment styles among adults has been reexamined conceptually and empirically (Cassidy & Shaver, 1999). New questionnaires have been developed to test attachment styles, some focusing on empirical examination of the two non-secure styles (Mikulincer & Florian, 2000), and some adding a fourth attachment style (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). In the present study, we decided to use the original questionnaire, which is based on Hazan and Shaver’s (1987) work and has significant validity and reliability data obtained in many studies (see note 2).

The research design consists of 5 main inter-subject factors.

The independent variables:

The quantitative analysis is divided into several stages:

Testing the internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) of the five research questionnaires designed to measure potential.

Examining the distribution of the potential variables by the means and standard deviations of the 5 variables examined and testing the correlations between the variables themselves.

As stated, the research hypothesis was that statistically significant differences would be found between the groups of "leaders" and "non-leaders" over the range of 5 variables examined, so that the "leaders" group would be characterized by higher leadership potential than the “non-leaders” group. In order to examine this hypothesis, we performed a MANOVA test to examine statistical differences between "leaders" and "non-leaders."

In order to test the impact of the independent variables on leadership, we performed two types of analyses: the first analysis was designed to test the impact of the independent variables on the dichotomous leadership variable (“leaders”/”non leaders”) by using discriminant analysis. The second analysis tested the impact of the independent variables on a continuous leadership variable (the score on the variable “suitable for commander-role” obtained in the sociometric questionnaire). This analysis was performed using an Ordinary Least Square (OLS) regression model.

 

 

 

Results

 

We tested the internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) of the five research questionnaires designed to measure potential. The results are presented in Table 1.

Before examining the distribution of variables, we conducted a MANOVA test to detect differences along the research variables between soldiers in the Infantry and the Armored corps. No significant differences were found; thus we conducted the following analysis on all soldiers.   

Distribution of independent variables - We examined the correlations between the potential variables. In light of the theoretical background, we expected to find correlations between the variables, though not very strong correlations, so each variable would retain its singularity. The correlations are presented in table 2.

In general, most of the results presented in table 2 confirm our expectations. With the exception of two correlations that are quite high (optimism and anxiety -0.62, anxiety and anxious style of attachment 0. 53 ), which may suggest some multicollinearity, all the correlations are significant in the expected   direction and are not too highly correlated.

Leadership variables: We examined the correlations between the 4 leadership variables that appear in the sociometric questionnaire. The correlations are remarkably high, positive, and significant--0.79 between peers' evaluations of “level of influence in the platoon” and commanders' evaluations. The same correlation between the peers' and commanders' evaluations was obtained on the second variable, “suitable for commander-role.” The correlations between the two variables within each group were even higher: 0.87 among peers and 0.80 among commanders.

The classification into "leaders" and "non-leaders" - Out of the 4 leadership   variables that appear in the sociometric questionnaire, we distinguished between 2 polar groups: "leaders" and "non-leaders." Using this classification, 76 “leaders” and 50 “non-leaders” were identified out of the 402 subjects.

Our research hypothesis was that significant differences would be found between the groups of "leaders" and "non-leaders" over the range of potential variables examined. In order to examine this hypothesis, we conducted a MANOVA test to examine statistical differences between "leaders" and "non-leaders." We chose to use the MANOVA test since it provides an analysis of variance for multiple dependent variables and specifies the effect of each individual variable as well as the total effect of all variables (factor). In other words, the MANOVA permits examination of the effects of the entire potential factor on the means of the two polar groups (leaders and non-leaders) as well as the effect of each single variable. Based on the size of the sample, normal distribution was assumed. In addition, after using Leven’s test of homogeneity of variance, we could assume equality of the error variance across groups. 

The results are presented in table 3.

Table 3 indicates that, in accordance with our research hypothesis, soldiers perceived by their platoon commanders and peers as “leaders” are significantly different from soldiers perceived as “non-leaders” on all five potential variables. In light of these findings, we can conclude that:

The MANOVA results also point to the relative contribution of each variable in predicting leadership. Eta-Squared scores found in this test indicate that the most significant variable in the model is Anxiety (Eta= 0.302). In the following section, we show examination of the same question using a Discriminant Analysis procedure.

 

In order to test the impact of the independent variables on leadership, we conducted two types of analysis: First, we tested the impact of the independent variables on the dichotomous leadership variable (“leaders”/”non leaders”) by using discriminant analysis. This analysis indicates that, by adding all potential variables into the model, we improved our prediction by 74.6%. The canonical correlation obtained in this analysis is 0.55 and the eigenvalue obtained is 0.43. The most influential of the five potential variables is trait anxiety.

In the second analysis, we tested the impact of the independent variables on a continuous leadership variable (the score on the variable “suitable for commander-role” obtained in the sociometric questionnaire). This analysis, which was performed using an OLS Regression model, enabled us to test the relative impact of our independent variables on a larger sample than the one used in the first analysis. The results of this analysis are presented in table 4.

We can see from the results presented in table 4 that three variables have a significant effect on the continuing leadership variable: locus of control, anxiety, and secure attachment style. The first 2 variables--low anxiety and internal locus of control--represent self-confidence capacities; the third variable--secure attachment style--represents pro-social capacities;.

 

As stated, since the decline of the trait approach, most of the psychological research on leadership has focused on the measurement of leadership and its influence (Bycioi, Hacket, & Allen, 1995; Zacharatos et al., 2000). Today we know a great deal about leadership styles and about their correlation with work performance variables, satisfaction, motivation, and commitment to the organization (see review in Bass, 1990). However, we know very little about what Kets de Varies (1989) calls the leaders' "internal theater," that is to say, the major psychological variables at the basis of the leaders' ego forces – forces that enable them to exert influence. The sparse attention given to this aspect consists of historical biographies (e.g., the work of Bullock, 1991) or psychobiographies (e.g., Erikson on Mahatma Gandhi, 1969). In the nature of things, the possibility of generalizing from such works is limited, since they deal with outstanding historical figures who do not necessarily represent "leadership in everyday life" (Popper, Mayseless & Castelnovo. 2000).

In the past 20 years, many models of leadership have been developed, the most prominent of these being the Full Range Model (Bass, 1999). The virtue of these models is that they were constructed on the basis of empirical studies, permitting formulation of theoretical modelsof typical leadership behaviors. The measurability and high reliability of the behavioral factors that were measured in these studies facilitated the expansion of research mainly in the direction of comparative studies (between ranks, between national cultures, and between organizations within similar and different industries) (Bass, 1999). This research renaissance, although it cast more light on leaders' influence resulting from their behaviors, did not cast light on the sources of leaders' behavior patterns, certainly not of different types of leaders. The present study is an attempt to deal with this missing link, namely to examine empirically the question of the personality resources required for leadership.

The development of theories like attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969, 1973), and of concepts such as self-efficacy, along with the growth of knowledge and understanding in areas such as anxiety, locus of control, and optimism, permit much clearer choice and linkage of typical leadership behaviors as formulated in behavioral models (e.g., the full range model) with relevant personality concepts. For example, it was found that inspirational and enthusiastic behaviors influence the followers (Bass, 1999), but the personality characteristics of people whose typical behaviors were described as arousing enthusiasm were not examined. Moreover, even among leaders described as arousing enthusiasm, differences between personalized and socialized leaders were not examined. It seems, therefore, that the growth of knowledge in the area of leadership behavior, along with the development of knowledge on the psychology of personality, permit expansion of the research to a much closer linkage between the leaders' intrapsychic and behavioral level. This indeed was the kind of thinking at the basis of the present study, and it led to the selection of the variables that were presented in the study. In fact, the findings reveal significant differences between leaders and non-leaders over all the variables that were defined as dimensions of psychological potential to lead, namely dimensions that are expressed in leadership behaviors. Leaders have a more internal locus of control, a lower level of anxiety, higher self-efficacy, more optimism, and they rank higher than non-leaders in the measure of the secure attachment styles. Anxiety, locus of control, and attachment style were found to be significant in the regression equation for prediction of leadership. Both the support for the hypotheses and the findings of the regression analysis indicate that the conceptualization presented is clearly promising.

Future research may discover additional dimensions of leadership potential. Recently, several empirical attempts were made in this direction, focusing on leaders’ personality (Bartone, Snook, & Tremble, 2002; Judge & Bobo, 2000; Judge, Bono, Ilies & Gerhardt, 2002). It may also be interesting to examine the more typical personality traits of personalized leaders, an issue that has scarcely been empirically examined. Furthermore, as with the development of any talent, potential alone is not enough. To be a leader, an individual must both want it and be in some developmental context that permits expression of potential and motivation. These aspects will have to be taken into account in future studies dealing with the development and characteristics of leaders.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anderson, C.R. (1977). Locus of control, coping behaviors, and performance in stress settings: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 446-451.

 

Avolio, B. (1999). Full Leadership Development. London: Sage Publications.

 

Avolio, B.J., & Gibbons, T.C. (1988). Developing transformational leaders: A life span approach. In J.A. Conger & R.N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic Leadership: The Elusive Factor in Organizational Effectiveness (pp. 276-308). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

 

Avolio, B., & Yammarino, F. (Eds.). (2002).Transformational and Charismatic Leadership: The Road Ahead. Monographs in Leadership and Management. New York: Elsevier Science Publications.      

 

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.

 

Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive View. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

 

Bandura, A. (Ed.). (1995). Self-efficacy in Changing Societies. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

 

Bartholomew, K. & Horowitz, L.M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226-244.

 

Bartone, P.T., Snook, S.A., & Tremble, T.R. (2002). Cognitive and personality   predictors of leader performance in West Point Cadets. Military Psychology, 14(4), 321-338.

 14(4): 321-338.

Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership Performance beyond Expectations. New York: The Free Press.

 

Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory,           Research and Management Applications. New York: Free Press.         

 

Bass, B.M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 9-32.

 

Berson,Y., Shamir, B., Avolio, B.J., & Popper, M (2001). The relationship between vision strength, leadership style, and context. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 53-73.

 

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss: Vol. 1 Attachment. New York: Basic Books.

 

Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and Loss: Separation. New York: Basic Books.

 

Bryman, A. (1986). Leadership and Organizations. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

 

Bullock, A. (1991). Hitler and Stalin. Parallel Lives. London: Harper & Collins.

 

Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.

 

Bycioi, P., Hackett, R.D., & Allen, J.S. (1995). Further assessment of       Bass’s (1985) conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology,  80, 468- 478.  

 

Cassidy, J. (1999). The nature of the child’s ties. In J. Cassidy & P.R.         Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research and Clinical Implications. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 3-20.

 

Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P.R. (1999). (Eds.), Handbook of Attachment: Theory,         Research and Clinical Implications. New York: Guilford Press.

 

Chan, K.Y. (1999). Toward a theory of individual differences and leadership: Understanding the motivation to lead. Doctoral dissertation, Urbana, University of Illinois.

 

Chemers, M.M., Watson, C.B., & May, S.T. (2000). Dispositional affects and leadership effectiveness: A comparison of self-esteem, optimism and efficacy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(3), 267-277.

 

Chen, G., & Gully, S.M. (1997). Specific self-efficacy, general self-efficacy, and

self-esteem. Are they distinguishable constructs? Paper presented at the 57^th

annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Boston, MA.

 

Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new General Self-Efficacy scale. Organization Research Methods, Vol. 4(1), 62-82.

 

Eden, D. (1988). Pygmalion, goal setting, and expectancy: Compatible ways to raise productivity. Academy of Management Review, 13, 639-652.

 

Eden, D. (1996). From self-efficacy to means efficacy: Internal and external sources of general and specific self-efficacy. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Cincinnati, OH.

 

Endler, N.S. (1980). Person-situation interaction and anxiety. In I.L. Kutash & L.B. Schlesinger (Eds.), Handbook on Stress and Anxiety: Contemporary Knowledge, Theory and Treatment, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 142-266.

 

Erikson, E.H. (1969). Gandhi's Truth: On the Origins of Militant Non-Violence. New York: Norton.

 

Gardner ,J.(1995).Leading Minds :An Anatomy of Leadership .New York :

Basic Books.

 

 

Gardner, D.G., & Pierce, I.L. (1998). Self-esteem and self-efficacy within the organizational context. Group and Organization Management, 23, 48-70.

 

George, J.M. (2000). Emotion and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence. Human Relations, 53(8), 1027-1055.

 

Gibbons, T.C. (1986). Revisiting the question of born vs. made: Toward a theory of development of transformational leaders. Doctoral dissertation, Fielding Institute, Santa Barbara, CA.

 

Glatzer, A. (1975). Locus of Control, Casting Responsibility and Reaction to Frustration. Ramt-Gan: Hamutal (in Hebrew).

 

Hackett, G., & Betz, N.E. (1995). Self-efficacy and career choice and development. In J.E. Maddux (Ed.), Self-efficacy, Adaptation and Adjustment: Theory, Research and Application. New York: Plenum.    

 

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an          attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524.       

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1990). Love and work: An attachment theoretical        perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 270-280.

 

Hoffman, M.L. (2000). Empathy and Moral Development: Implications for Caring and Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

House, R.J., & Howell, J.M. (1992). Personality and charismatic leadership.         Leadership Quarterly, 3(2), 81-108.

 

Howell, J.M. (1988). Two faces of charisma: socialized and personalized leadership in organizations. In J.A. Conger & R.N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic Leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

 

Howell, J.M., & Avolio, B. (1993). Transformational leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-business-unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(6), 891-902.

 

Judge, T.A., & Bono, J.E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 751-765.

 

Judge, T.A., Bono, J.E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M.W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 8(4),765-780.

 

Kets de Vries, M.F.R. (1989). Prisoners of Leadership. New York: Norton. 

 

Kotter, J. P. (1988). The Leadership Factor. New York: The Free Press.

 

Lefcourt, H.M. (1966). Internal-external control of reinforcement: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 65(4), 206-220. 

 

Litovich , A. (1999).Men’s coping styles with infertility treatments and their         influence upon their psychological state and mental adjustment. MA thesis, Haifa University, Israel.

 

Lord, R.G., & Maher, K.J. (1993). Leadership and Information Processing: Linking Perceptions and Performance. London: Routledge.            

Mayseless, O., Sharabany, R., & Sagi, A. (1997). Attachment concerns of others as manifested in parental, spousal and friendship relationships. Personal Relationships, 4, 255-269.

 

 

Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (1995). Appraisal of and coping with real life stressful         situation: The contribution of attachment styles. Journal of Personality and        Social Psychology, 21(4), 406-414.

 

Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (2000). Exploring individual differences in reaction       to mortality salience: Do attachment styles regulate terror management     mechanisms? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(2), 260-       273.

 

Mikulincer, M., Florian, V., & Tolmaz, R. (1990). Attachment styles and fear of      personal death: A case study of affect regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(2), 273-280.

 

Miller, D., Kets de Vries, M.F.R., & Toulouse, J.M. (1982). Top executive locus of control and its relationship to strategy-making, structure, and environment. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 237-253.

 

Miller, D., & Touluose, J.M. (1986). Strategy, structure, CEO personality and performance in small firms. American Journal of Small Business, Vol.15, 47-62.

 

Mumford, M.D., & Strange, J.M. (2002). Vision and mental models: The         case of charismatic and ideological leadership. In B. J. Avolio & F.J.        Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and Charismatic Leadership: The Road Ahead. New York:JAI , Elsevier Science Publications.

 

Murphy, S.E. (2002). Leader self-regulation: The role of self-efficacy and       multiple intelligences. In R.E. Riggio, S.E. Murphy, & F.J. Pirozzolo (Eds.),       Multiple Intelligences and Leadership (pp.163-186).Mahwan, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

 

Neeman-Nagor, A. (1998). Characteristics of personalized and socialized charismatic leaders. MA thesis, University of Haifa, Israel (in Hebrew). 

 

Peterson, C., & Bossio, L. (1991). Health and Optimism. New York: Free Press.

 

Peterson, C., & Stunkard, A.J. (1992). Cognates of personal control: Locus of        control, self-efficacy and explanatory style. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 1, 111-117.

 

Phares, E.S. (1976). Locus of Control in Personality. Morristown, New Jersey: Central Learning Press.

 

Popper, M. (2000). The development of charismatic leaders. Political Psychology, 21(4), 729-744. 

 

Popper, M., Mayseless, O., & Castelnovo, O. (2000). Transformational leadership and attachment. Leadership Quarterly, 11(2), 267-289.

 

Popper, M., & Mayseless, O. (2002). Internal world of transformational leaders. In B. Avolio & F. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and Charismatic Leadership: The road ahead. Monographs in leadership and management.    New York: Elseveier Science Publications, 203-229.

 

 

Popper, M. (2002). Narcissism and attachment patterns of personalized and socialized charismatic leaders. Journal of Social and Personal Relations,    19(6), 798-809.      

 

Popper, M., & Mayseless, O. (2003). Back to basics: Applying parenting       perspective to transformational leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 41-65.         

 

Rosen, Y. (1998). Self creation and trait anxiety as mediating factors in the self expectation effect. MA thesis, Tel Aviv University, Israel (in Hebrew). 

Rotter, J.B. (1966). “Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement”. Psychological Monographs General and Applied, Vol. 80:1.   

 

Scheier, M.F., & Carver, C.S. (1985). Optimism, coping and health: Assessment and implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychology, 4, 219-247.

 

Scheier, M.F., & Carver, C.S. (1986). Coping with stress: Divergent Strategies of optimistic and pessimistic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5(6),1257-1264.  

 

Scheier, M.F., & Carver, C.S. (1993). On the power of positive thinking: The benefits of being optimistic. Current Directions in Psychological Sciences, 2 (1),26-30.

 

Sarason, I.G. (1975). Anxiety and self preoccupation. In I.G. Sarason & C.D. Spielberger (Eds.), Stress and Anxiety - Series in clinical and community psychology, Vol. 1.

 

Shelton, S.H. (1990). Developing the construct of general self efficacy. Psychological Report, 53, 899-902.

 

Smith, J.A., & Foti, R.J. (1998). A pattern approach to the study of leader emergence. Leadership Quarterly, 9(2), 147-160.

 

Snyder, C.R., Harris, C., Anderson, J.R., Holleran, S.A., Irving, L.M., Sigmon, S.T., Yoshinobu, Z., Gibb, J., Langelle, C., & Harney, P. (1991). The will and the ways: Development and validation of an individual-differences measure of hope. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(4), 570-585.

 

Spielberger, C.D. (1972). Conceptual and methodological issues in anxiety research. In C.D. Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety: Current Trends in Theory and Research.  New York: Academic Press, Vol. 1.

 

Spielberger, C.D., Gorsuch, R.L., & Lushene, E. (1970). STAI Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychology Press.

 

Stogdill, R.M. (1974). Handbook of Leadership Research. A Survey of Theory and Research. Riverside, New Jersey: Free Press.

 

Teichmann, Y., & Melinek, H. (1979). SHAHMAT– Questionnaire for Assessment of State Anxiety and Trait Anxiety. Tel Aviv: Dept. of Psychology, Tel Aviv University, Israel (in Hebrew). 

 

Wunderley, L.J., Reddy, W. B., & Dember, W.N. (1998). Optimism and pessimism in business leaders. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(9), 751-760.

 

Zacharatos, A., Barling, J., & Kelloway, K. E (2000). Development and effects of transformational leadership in adolescents. Leadership Quarterly, 11(2), 211-226.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* Since this measure includes only 2 items, a Pearsoncorrelation was conducted to examine the linear relation between the 2 items.

Table 2. Correlations between the potential variable.

*** Significance p<0.01

** Significance p<0.05

*** Significance p<0.01

**   Significance p<0.05

 

 

*** Significant p<0.01

** Significant p<0.05

*   Significant p<0.10

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---