Abstract
Throughout the known history of organizational development, the quality, efficiency, and effectiveness of leadership has always been included in some of the most important discussions. There is an abundance of literature relating leadership to organizational outcomes and performance. The consensus, according to this literature, supports the notion that leadership is one of the most important indicators of organizational success. In this paper, the author conducts a review of related literature exploring the use of the Big Five Personality Traits Paradigm and Leadership Style theories when it comes to examining the differences (if any) between military and restaurant business leadership. Gathering information from some forty academic sources such as journal articles, case studies, and expert reviews about the topic, the author of this paper attempts to setup the context for a larger study of its own about the difference between military and business leadership. The focus of the literature review was to the two possible tools that would be used to verify the presumed differences: the Big Five Personality Traits Paradigm and Leadership Style theories of leadership.
Literature Review
Leadership is a complex thing. This is because a lot of things, especially the success of a business or in the case of military leadership, an entire organization, greatly depend on the leader. In this literature review, the author assesses various factors involved in leadership such as leadership styles, traits, and personalities, focusing on the possible existence of a disparity between the relationship of those factors within the context of business and military leadership. The author looked to review studies that showed how different leadership within the business or for profit context can be to military and logistical leadership. Making use of academic sources such as journal articles, case studies, and previously published literatures about the topic (either specifically about business or military leadership or a combination of both), the author attempts to provide a context of where the current lineup of evidence puts current researchers who want to dig deeper into the topic, identifying possible research gaps that may be filled along the way.
Leadership can be defined in two ways; either as a research area or a management skill. Leadership as a research area basically involves the study and continuous investigation on how to improve the team and or organizational performance, depending on the context of leadership being studied. After all, no two leaders can be the same (Wheatley, 2010; Gawer & Cusumano, 2002; Meindl & Ehrlich, 1987).
Leadership as a practical skill can be defined in a lot of ways as well. It typically depends on how a person views leadership. It is important to note, however, that there is no standard or universal definition. Based on how researcher Trevisani puts it, however, “leadership is a holistic spectrum that can arise from higher levels of physical power, need to display power and control others, force superiority, ability to generate fear, or group member’s need for a powerful group protector (as in the case of primal leadership), superior mental energies, superior motivational forces, perceivable in communication and behaviors, lack of fear, courage, determination (psycho-energetic leadership), higher abilities in managing the overall picture (macro-leadership), higher abilities in specialized tasks (micro-leadership), higher ability in managing the execution of a task (project leadership), and higher level of values, wisdom, and spirituality (spiritual leadership), where any leader derives its leadership from a unique mix of one or more of the former factors” (Trevisani, 2015).
Trevisani (2015) basically explained, although indirectly, that being a leader is a multidimensional thing; this coincides with the findings and conclusions of a number of previously published studies about leadership (Liden, Wayne, Zhao, & Henderson, 2008; Kalshoven, Hartog, & Hoogh, 2011; Beauchamp, Bray, Eys, & Carron, 2005; Chelladurai, 2007). It can be compared to the principle that says that being good at one thing does not make that person automatically good at others; it may also be likened to the theory that suggests that there are multiple forms of intelligence (Brand, 2006). Basically, what the author of this paper is trying to argue is that there are also multiple forms of leadership (Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types, 2008; Zhu, Kraut, & Kitkur, 2012; Eagly, Mary, & Schmidt, 2001; Robinson, School leadership and student outcomes: Identifying what works and why, 2007). In this case, two forms of leadership would be the focus namely: business and military leadership.
It has already been established that one of the major factors that determines the success of an organization (House, Dorfman, Javidan, Hanges, & Luque, 2013; Dorfman & House, 2008); be it an organization or for profit, civil, or national defense cause, is leadership (Peterson, Smith, Martorana, & Owens, 2003; McColl & Anderson, 2002; Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang, & Chen, 2005; Kramer & Shuffler, 2014). The only significant but still an unanswered question that remains so far is what are those personality traits, qualities, and or styles that make up a great leader.
One of the most commonly used paradigms when it comes to leadership is the Big 5 Personality Traits Paradigm, also known in some academic literature as the Five Factor Model (Donnellan, Oswald, Baird, & Lucas, 2006). The existence, relevance, and validity of the theories, principles, and implications of this paradigm has been examined and verified by an abundant number of previously published studies. Based on the Big 5 Personality Traits Paradigm, there are five traits that are commonly seen among great and effective leaders namely: 1) Neuroticism, 2), Openness to Experience, 3) Extraversion, 4) Conscientiousness, and 5) Agreeableness. It is important to note that across all the studies reviewed, the researchers have agreed that it is relatively rare to find a leader, both in business and military disciplines, who possess a high level of expertise or proficiency when it comes to those traits (Judge, Bono, Remus, & Megan, 2002).
What makes the Big 5 Personality Traits Paradigm relevant to the currently proposed study is the fact that it can be used as a tool or framework for comparing military and business leadership. A military leader and a business leader group, for example, can be compared using the Big 5 Personality Traits in the said paradigm as a basis.
Because it is one of the most commonly used tools and is a likely candidate to be used as a research instrument in the proposed paper, this paradigm deserves extra attention.
1. Neuroticism
This trait measures a leader’s emotional stability; it asks the question of whether the person being assessed is more sensitive than nervous, or more secure than confident, or vice versa for both sub-traits, depending on the results that the subject will show (Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009; Bono & Judge, 2004; Lim & Ployhart, 2004). The underlying premise when it comes to assessing a leader’s neuroticism suggests that more emotionally stable people tend to strike the perfect balance between aggressive and conservative decisions, and, in general, make the most sound ones (Rothmann & Coetzer, 2003). Within the realm of business management, for example, a leader who is slowly being overpowered by his competitors who at the same time has a high level of impulsivity (i.e. low neuroticism trait) may resort to debt accumulation and unsustainable business expansion. Within the realm of military leadership, on the other hand, a military leader may strike back against an enemy even with the slightest of provocations.
2. Agreeableness
This leadership trait describes an individual in terms of being friendly versus compassion, and analytical versus detached. It is based on the premise that leader who are more compassionate and cooperative towards other people tend to create the necessary social interaction and, in the long run, social connections that would make him or her leader (Washington, Sutton, & Feild, 2006) (Brown & Trevino, 2006). A leader’s followers should, after all, agree, at least up to a certain degree, to what the leader says, believes, and knows in order for them to have a reason to allow them to be led. The antagonistic traits to agreeableness include suspiciousness and uncooperativeness (Horey, Fallesen, Morath, Cronin, & Cassella, 2004; Mumford, Campion, & Morgeson, 2007). Often, these antagonistic traits are found in challenging and highly competitive people. In both business and military context, extremely competitive people often make more enemies than friends (Nastase & Barbu, 2011); they also have the tendency to be seen by their leaders as too argumentative to work with and in some extreme cases of people having too high a level of disagreeableness, untrustworthy (De Vries, Pieper, & Oostenveld, 2010; Sudweeks & Simoff, 2005). Overall, it follows that great leaders should be compassionate, reasonable, and overall an agreeable person.
3. Extraversion
Here goes an ongoing debate about who makes a better leader between an introvert and an extrovert. To perfectly differentiate the two, it would be important to operationally define them. An introvert is someone whose actions, motives, and intentions are directed inwards or towards the self; they tend to be more preoccupied with their own thoughts, feelings, and emotions than that of others; this, in turn, results in a personality that generally minimizes their social contact with other people.
Extroverts, on the other hand, are those whose thoughts, emotions, and feelings are directed towards other people. While it is true to some extent that they tend to be more energized by being around other people, this feature among them is more of a manifestation of the real definition of being an extrovert; this is also the reason why they tend to be more outgoing, sociable, and agreeable—because their entire personality has been built for it. Applying it to the subject of business and military leadership, extraversion, in general, is a preferred trait because it enables a person to interact with other people long and well enough for them to be converted into an associate or a follower (Campbell, Simpson, Stewart, & Manning, 2003).
Leaders, after all, cannot create followers without a certain point of contact, be it social or non-social ones. This basically supports Trevisani’s (2015) definition of leadership—there must, at least, be one (if not more) of the five factors he discussed that would give the followers of a leader to submit themselves and be a subject of their leader. It would be a fallacy, however, to state that all extroverts are effective leaders or that a leader has to demonstrate a high level of extroversion in order to become and be called an effective leader. Numerous studies have emerged that support that despite the general trend that favors extroversion (and, therefore, extroverts) when it comes to leadership effectiveness, there remains a significant number of great and effective leaders who exhibit more introversion than extroversion; this is especially truer in the context of military leadership as certain military doctrines, especially in countries that have a high level of military tradition (e.g. the United States, the United Kingdom) where introversion is favored more than extroversion.
4. Conscientiousness
This leadership trait describes a leader’s ability to act dutifully and show self-discipline. In this regard, a leader may be classified as more efficient and organized than easy-going and careless. A leadership’s planning and execution abilities also depend on this trait. A high level of conscientiousness is correlated to traits such as obsessiveness and stubbornness; a low level of this trait, on the other hand, represent sloppiness, unreliability, and flexibility and spontaneity (a more balanced combination of negative and positive sub-traits) (Marinova, Moon, & Kamdar, 2013).
While it is still debatable which among the two groups of leaders in terms of conscientiousness would demonstrate a higher level of effectiveness, a significant number of studies would indicate that more aggressive, stubborn, and obsessive leaders turn out to be more effective. This would totally make sense if the leadership effectiveness tests that are being implemented measure the leaders’ outcomes more than their ability to solve the problems given to them because those kinds of tests favor individuals who have a high level of conscientiousness.
5. Openness to Experience
Openness to experience qualitatively defines a leader’s emotion, curiosity, ideas, and subjectivity to change. Sub-traits that may be under this category include inventiveness, curiosity, cautiousness and consistency. In general, a leader who has a higher level of openness to experience would turn out to be imaginative, independent, and more skilled when it comes to the operations that he manages (because of the continuous accumulation of experience) (LePine, Colquitt, & Erez, 2000; Homan, Hollenbeck, Humphrey, Knippenberg, & Kleef, 2008). In excesses, however, openness to experience may drive certain people to pursue intense and euphoric experiences. This may be correlated with an ongoing need to reach the point of self-actualization based on Maslow’s theory of the hierarchy of needs which puts the self-actualization stage at the top of the pyramid of needs.
Leadership style may also be an effective tool when it comes to qualitatively measuring and describing the hypothesized differences between business and military leaders. In general, there are three leadership styles that have been presented and studied in previously published literature; they are Autocratic, Participative, and Laissez Faire leadership. In some literature, other leadership styles have been explored and included such as paternalistic, democratic, transformational, and transactional leadership. Although these additional leadership styles are worth mentioning, this paper focused only on the first three that were mentioned.
1. Autocratic
Autocratic leaders behave in a similar way to dictators. They have a complete and often total hold and command of their subjects (e.g. employees and team). A leader that has this kind of style creates a situation where the individual and other significant members of the organization cannot put forward their views and opinions even if they are the best fit for the situation or is the most in line with the organization’s short and long-term interests (Vugt, Jepson, Hart, & Cremer, 2004). This is generally a one-sided and one-man style of leadership where power is not distributed and rests only in one to a few people within the organization. This style of leadership is more common in the military than in business organizations, although it is important to note that instead of a completely autocratic leadership; most military organizations follow a chain of command that each member use as a gauge or barometer on who to follow. Fundamentally, however, each member is still subject to the complete control of almost anyone who is placed in a higher position (relative to him) in the established chain of command.
2. Participative
In a participative leadership setting, the leader is still the one who is in direct control of a team, department, or an entire organization; however, the setting is more liberal especially when compared to the more traditional autocratic form of leadership. In such a setting, the organizational members are welcomed to raise their views and opinions on a certain topic without fear of being ridiculed or punished (Huang, Iun, Liu, & Gong, 2010). The leader then considers, in a collective manner, the rationality and intellectual substance of the gathered views and opinions and chooses the courses of action and decisions that he thinks would be best for the organization. In the end, an organization led by a participative leader is still controlled by the leader, it is just that the flow of inputs and feedbacks are more liberal compared to the autocratic leadership environment.
3. Laissez Faire
This leadership style is so far the most liberal. This is because most laissez faire leaders totally put their trust that the individual organizational members would do their jobs correctly and dutifully (Skogstad, einarsen, Torsheim, Aasland, & Helland, 2007). The majority of the power and control still rests on the people in the organization who have management and supervisory roles but the individual organizational members have a more direct control of how they do their jobs and execute certain authorized actions. This form of leadership, however, only works effectively in the business setting, especially in industries and organizations that involve experienced, intellectual, and skilled professions. Military organizations are often deemed unfit to utilize this kind of leadership style and the setup that it creates because of the delicate operations that they manage and the possible repercussions and consequences of errors that may, at any moment, be committed by an individual organizational member. Fundamentally, however, during war-time, soldiers can be considered to be led by a laissez faire leader because they can practically do whatever they can in the battlefield, as long as it is within the protocols and conditions of their engagement. In a laissez faire leadership setting, there is still a significant amount of power and control that rests on the hands of the leader but a larger percentage of it rests on that of the subordinates and members.
The truth is that debates on which among the traits explained above make up the greatest and most effective leaders and which leadership style is the most effective in terms of managing a military or a business-related organization can go on for decades without leading to a definitive answer. The fact of the matter, however, remains the same; that military organizations behave and operate differently from business organizations. The key differences that result from the existence of this simple fact necessitates these two organization classes (that are both managed by a leader) to have varying preferences, settings, and expectations when it comes to leadership.
According to an interview with Ellis (2013) there are indeed significant differences between military and business leadership. “For one, the pressure of accountability is different, at least on the surface; shareholders, the markets, analysts, and many outside people have their eyes on the company and its performance on a daily, continuous basis; generals have less oversight and are trusted more to execute their assignments; they have spent their entire lives preparing for their battles and of course was is so much more unpredictable than business” (Ellis, 2013). This basically reinforces the original idea (i.e. the main thesis) about the differences in these two forms of organizational leadership.
So far, the literature agrees that the results would most likely turn out in favor of the theory that the management and leadership of these two organizational classes would be different. However, in order to arrive at a more conclusive set of findings, primary research utilizing information from a target population, may be necessary, using one of the many potential tools that have been discussed in this literature review (e.g. Big Five Personality Traits, and Leadership Styles, among others).
And lastly, one cannot discount the similarities that exist between the two organizational classes. Both military and business-related organizations are run by leaders and exist in order to meet their respective visions, missions, and short and long-term goals. They are both dependent on the individual work and contribution of their members in order to survive and flourish. However, in order to verify the main hypothesis and any additional notion that have been discussed and covered in the literature review, it would be wiser to rely on more primary data.
References
Beauchamp, M., Bray, S., Eys, M., & Carron, A. (2005). Leadership behaviors and multidimensional role ambiguity perceptions in team sports. Small Group Research, 05-20.
Bono, J., & Judge, T. (2004). Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 901.
Brand, S. (2006). Facilitating emergent literacy skills: A literature-based, multiple intelligence approach. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 133-148.
Brown, M., & Trevino, L. (2006). Ethical Leadership: A Review and Future Directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 595-616.
Campbell, L., Simpson, J., Stewart, M., & Manning, J. (2003). Putting personality in social context: Extraversion, emergent leadership, and the availability of rewards. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1547-1559.
Chelladurai, P. (2007). Leadership in Sports. Handbook of Sport Psychology, 111-135.
De vries, R., Pieper, A., & Oostenveld, W. (2010). The relations of leaders’ communication styles with leadership styles, knowledge sharing and leadership outcomes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 367-380.
Donnellan, M., Oswald, F., Baird, B., & Lucas, R. (2006). The Mini IPIP Scales: Tiny yet effective measures of the Big Five factors of Personality. Psychological Assessment, 192-203.
Dorfman, P., & House, R. (2008). Cultural influences on organizational leadership : literature review, theoretical rationale, and GLOBE project goals. Foundations of Cross Cultural Management, 438-465.
Eagly, A., Mary, C., & Schmidt, J. (2001). The Leadership Styles of Women and Men. Journal of Social Issues, 781-797.
Ellis, L. (2013). Military Leadership and Corporate Business Leadership - Similarities and Differences. https://leonleeellis.wordpress.com/2013/10/01/a-military-battlefield-to-corporate-business-leadership-comparison-similarities-and-differences/.
Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. (2002). Platform leadership: How Intel, Microsoft, and Cisco drive industry innovation. Harvard Business School Press.
Homan, A., Hollenbeck, J., Humphrey, S., Knippenberg, V., & Kleef, V. (2008). Facing differences with an open mind: Openness to experience, salience of intragroup differences, and performance of diverse work groups. Academy of Management Journal, 1204-1222.
Horey, J., Fallesen, J., Morath, R., Cronin, B., & Cassella, R. (2004). Competency-based Future Leadership Requirements. Caliber Associates Farfax Va.
House, R., Dorfman, P., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., & Luque, M. (2013). Strategic leadership across cultures: GLOBE study of CEO leadership behavior and effectiveness in 24 countries. Sage Publications.
Huang, X., Iun, J., Liu, A., & Gong, Y. (2010). Does participative leadership enhance work performance by inducing empowerment or trust? The differential effects on managerial and non‐managerial subordinates. Journal of Organizatinal Behavior, 122-143.
Judge, T., Bono, J., Remus, G., & Megan, W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 765-780.
Kalshoven, K., Hartog, D., & Hoogh, A. (2011). Ethical leadership at work questionnaire (ELW): Development and validation of a multidimensional measure. The Leadership Quarterly, 51-69.
Kramer, W., & Shuffler, M. (2014). Culture's Consequences for Leadership: The Role of Context in Affecting Leadership Perceptions and Performance. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 199-203.
LePine, J., Colquitt, J., & Erez, A. (2000). Adaptability to changing task contexts: Effects of general cognitive ability, conscientiousness, and openness to experience. Personnel Psychology, 563-593.
Liden, R., Wayne, S., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. The Leadership Quarterly, 161-177.
Lim, B., & Ployhart, R. (2004). Transformational leadership: relations to the five-factor model and team performance in typical and maximum contexts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 610.
Marinova, S., Moon, H., & Kamdar, D. (2013). Getting ahead or getting along? The two-facet conceptualization of conscientiousness and leadership emergence. Organization Science, 1257-1276.
McColl, J., & Anderson, R. (2002). Impact of leadership style and emotions on subordinate performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 545-559.
Meindl, J., & Ehrlich, S. (1987). The Romance of Leadership and The Evaluation of Organizational Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 91-109.
Mumford, T., Campion, M., & Morgeson, F. (2007). The leadership skills strataplex: Leadership skill requirements across organizational levels. The Leadership Quarterly, 154-166.
Nastase, M., & Barbu, M. (2011). The leadership mix for increasing the organization’s competitiveness. Review of International Comparative Management, 230-239.
Peterson, R., Smith, D., Martorana, P., & Owens, P. (2003). The impact of chief executive officer personality on top management team dynamics: one mechanism by which leadership affects organizational performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 795.
Robinson, V. (2007). School leadership and student outcomes: Identifying what works and why. Australian Council for Educational Leaders.
Robinson, V., Lloyd, C., & Rowe, K. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly.
Rothmann, S., & coetzer, E. (2003). the big five personality dimensions and organizational performance. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology.
Skogstad, A., einarsen, S., Torsheim, T., Aasland, M., & Helland, H. (2007). The destructiveness of laissez faire leadership behavior. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 80.
Sudweeks, F., & Simoff, S. (2005). Leading conversations: Communication behaviours of emergent leaders in virtual teams. System Sciences .
Trevisani, D. (2015). Semiotics for Leaders: Symbols, Meanings, Power, and Communication: New Leadership Styles, Energies and Behaviors. Amazon Digital Services LLC.
Vugt, M., Jepson, S., Hart, C., & Cremer, D. (2004). Autocratic Leadership in Social Dilemmas: A Threat to Group Stability. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 01-13.
Walumbwa, F., & Schaubroeck, J. (2009). Leader personality traits and employee voice behavior: mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group psychological safety. Journal of Applied Psychology.
Wang, H., Law, K., Hackett, R., Wang, D., & Chen, Z. (2005). Leader-member exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers' performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 420-432.
Washington, R., sutton, C., & Feild, H. (2006). Individual differences in servant leadership: The roles of values and personality. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 700-716.
Wheatley, M. (2010). Leadership and the New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic World. Read How You Want.
Zhu, H., Kraut, R., & Kitkur, A. (2012). Effectiveness of shared leadership in online communities. Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. ACM,.
