Personality Traits and Leadership: A Comparative Study Review
This paper compares and contrasts three empirical studies on personality and leadership: Judge, Bono, Ilies, and Gerhardt's (2002) meta-analytic review of trait theory; O'Connor and Jackson's (2010) psychobiological model of emergent leadership; and Bligh et al.'s (2007) investigation of follower responses to aversive leadership. The paper examines each study's research questions, sample populations, and results, then synthesizes their conclusions. Collectively, the studies suggest that personality traits—especially extraversion—are meaningfully linked to leadership, that situational variables matter but are secondary to stable traits, and that follower perceptions represent a distinct and important lens through which leadership should be studied.
- Introduction and Overview: Frames and compares all three leadership studies
- Research Questions: Distinct hypotheses across the three studies
- Sample Populations: Contrasting sampling methods and subject groups
- Results: Key findings on traits, emergence, and aversive leadership
- Conclusion: Limitations, implications, and future research directions
- Literature Review: Structural organization of sources and shared themes
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper uses a consistent comparative structure—moving through research questions, samples, and results—that allows readers to track similarities and differences across all three studies simultaneously.
- The author clearly distinguishes between causal-variable studies (Judge et al.; O'Connor & Jackson) and an effects-focused study (Bligh et al.), demonstrating analytical discernment rather than simple summary.
- The conclusion extends beyond the three reviewed studies by integrating additional sources (McClelland & Burnham; Ou et al.; Bobbio et al.) to situate findings in a broader leadership research conversation.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates comparative synthesis across multiple empirical studies. Rather than summarizing each study in isolation, the author consistently juxtaposes methodological choices, sample designs, and results to highlight convergences and divergences—a technique central to literature review and research critique at the graduate level.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a thematic introduction that frames all three studies, then proceeds through discrete sections on research questions, sample populations, and results. A conclusion evaluates limitations and implications, and a final literature review section addresses the structural organization of each source. References are formatted in APA style throughout.
Introduction and Overview
In Personality and Leadership: A Qualitative and Quantitative Review, Judge, Bono, Ilies, and Gerhardt (2002) focus on the trait theory of leadership. In Applying a Psychobiological Model of Personality to the Study of Leadership, O'Connor and Jackson (2010) study the relationship between personality and emergent leadership. In When the Romance Is Over: Follower Perspectives of Aversive Leadership, Bligh et al. (2007) explore what the researchers call the "dark side" of leadership. Whereas the Judge et al. (2002) and O'Connor and Jackson (2010) research centers on personality traits and leadership in a straightforward way—focusing on the leader—Bligh et al. (2007) instead take into account follower perspectives on aversive leadership.
Although Judge et al. (2002) and O'Connor and Jackson (2010) are both interested in trait theory, O'Connor and Jackson (2010) study alternatives to the Big Five model as well as the Big Five model itself, while Judge et al. (2002) are primarily concerned with the Big Five traits. All of the authors build a strong case, but Bligh et al. (2007) offer a more unique point of view on leadership by stressing the perspectives of followers rather than examining leadership from the leader's perspective. Thus, Bligh et al. (2007) are interested in the effects of leadership, whereas the other two studies focus more on causal variables.
Judge et al. (2002) describe the purpose of their research as providing insight into what traits cause people to become leaders in the first place, as well as offering an overview of the literature on trait theory. The purpose of the Bligh et al. (2007) study is to elucidate the negative consequences of romanticizing leaders and leadership. These three research studies are similar in that they all help to explain and refine our understanding of leadership, and they each approach the topic from a different perspective.
Research Questions
Each of these three studies presents different research questions and hypotheses. In their research, Judge et al. (2002) question whether the inconsistency in prior research on leadership is due to a lack of structure in the taxonomy or classification of leadership traits. They also question whether the Five Factor Model can explain leadership traits as well as overall job performance. The Judge et al. (2002) study examines the Big Five personality traits in relation to neuroticism, extraversion, openness, conscientiousness, and their overall relationships to leadership. The researchers test for dominance and sociability, achievement orientation and dependability, and self-esteem and locus of control.
Like Judge et al. (2002), O'Connor and Jackson (2010) explore several research questions in their study. The first is whether people are naturally born leaders. The second is whether leaders emerge only in specific situations, or whether born leaders emerge regardless of the situation. O'Connor and Jackson (2010) also examine whether the Five Factor Model applies to emerging leaders, and whether it is temperament or character that makes a leader. The researchers further hypothesize that Harm Avoidance will be negatively linked to emergent leadership, whereas Cooperativeness will be positively linked to emergent leadership. The research questions in the O'Connor and Jackson (2010) study differ from those in Judge et al. (2002) in that they focus on emerging leaders in an experimental design rather than on existing leaders studied through meta-analysis.
In the Bligh et al. (2007) study, the researchers question the impact of aversive leadership on follower affective, cognitive, and behavioral outcomes. The research questions in this study are completely different from those of Judge et al. (2002) or O'Connor and Jackson (2010), because their emphasis is on the effects of leadership on followers. Bligh et al. (2007) also explore whether romanticizing leaders causes followers to blame leaders for negative situations even when the evidence suggests otherwise.
Sample Populations
In their research, Judge et al. (2002) used the PsychINFO database to compile studies by entering the keywords personality, leadership, and each of the Big Five personality traits in conjunction with the term leadership. A total of 998 studies were compiled after this initial stage. The researchers also manually reviewed print journals to locate articles published in 1967 and earlier. Next, they used PsychINFO to study a collection of traits including self-esteem, modesty, and locus of control, which yielded 1,447 abstracts—some overlapping with the initial 998. The researchers eliminated several categories of studies to increase validity and consistency. Unlike either the Bligh et al. (2007) or the O'Connor and Jackson (2010) study, Judge et al. (2002) did not conduct an experiment; their population was therefore a collection of published literature rather than actual human subjects.
O'Connor and Jackson (2010) sampled 81 female leaders who were part-time students in tertiary education in Australia. The sample was restricted to one gender in order to eliminate gender-related confounding variables. The majority (87%) of participants were between 17 and 22 years of age.
In the Bligh et al. (2007) study, the researchers directly mailed 491 questionnaires to high school principals. The questionnaires asked the principals to rate their lead teachers and departmental heads on follower performance, citizenship behavior, and complaining behaviors. Of the 491 questionnaires sent, 223 principals responded. Questionnaires were also sent to the lead teachers, of whom 342 participated.
References
Bligh, M. C., et al. (2007). When the romance is over. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 56(4), 528–557.
Bobbio, A., Dierendonck, D. V., & Manganelli, A. M. (2012). Servant leadership in Italy and its relation to organizational variables. Leadership, 8(3), 229–243.
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(4), 765–780.
McClelland, D. C., & Burnham, D. H. (2003). Power is the great motivator. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2003/01/power-is-the-great-motivator
O'Connor, P. J., & Jackson, C. J. (2010). Applying a psychobiological model of personality to the study of leadership. Journal of Individual Differences, 31(4), 185–197.
Ou, A. Y., et al. (2014). Humble chief executive officers, connections to top management team integration and middle managers' responses. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(1), 34–72.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.