Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Dysfunctional personality characteristics can derail the career of an otherwise competent executive.
Personality predicts both leadership effectiveness and derailment, and assessment of these characteristics is
critical for effective coaching and leader development. This paper reviews the relationship between
personality and leadership and offers a taxonomy of flawed interpersonal strategies that can degrade a
leader’s capacity to build and maintain high-performing teams. Assessment of these dysfunctional
dispositions facilitates the coach’s ability to build an effective coaching relationship, enhance the executive’s
strategic self-awareness, and identify appropriate targets and strategies for intervention.
side’ tendencies, and the underlying ‘mental Bad management exists at all levels of
models’ with which they are associated, most organizations. Hogan (2007) estimates
allows the coach to design interventions that that the base rate for bad managers may
will mitigate their impact on leadership and, range from 65 per cent to 75 per cent, and
indeed, on the coaching relationship itself. one recent survey of managers and execu-
tives suggests that as many as 27 per cent of
Personality and Leadership their subordinates who have been rated as
Competent leaders build and maintain effec- high potential are at risk for ‘derailment’
tive teams that compete successfully with (i.e. being either demoted or fired) for
others (R. Hogan, Curphy & Hogan, 1994). performing below the level expected of
Research indicates that effective leaders them. Such findings are consistent with the
understand their subordinates’ needs, abili- results of earlier reviews (e.g. Bentz, 1985;
ties, and aspirations, and can persuade them Dotlich & Cairo, 2003, Leslie & VanVelsor,
to share the leader’s vision for the organiza- 1996; McCall & Lombardo, 1983) which
tion as a whole. This is, of course, the essence identified insensitivity, abrasiveness, micro-
of the ‘transformational’ leadership style management, and other dysfunctional inter-
(Avolio & Bass, 1995; Avolio et al., 1996; Bass, personal behaviours as the primary causes of
1985) that complements the equally impor- managerial failure. Bad leadership is both
tant focus on ‘taking charge,’ communicating common and highly consequential for the
clear expectations, and maintaining account- productivity of organizations, and the resolu-
ability. Indeed, the capacity to move seam- tion of flawed interpersonal strategies is
lessly between ‘enabling’ and ‘forceful’ styles another important goal of executive
– without overdoing either – appears to be coaching and leadership development.
critical for effective leadership (Kaplan & An executive may seek out or be referred
Kaiser, 2006). Coaching and leadership devel- for coaching for many reasons (Giglio,
opment help executives remain versatile in Diamante & Urban, 1998; Stern, 2004). In
their leadership style, and resolve flawed some cases, superiors may identify an execu-
interpersonal strategies that impede their tive as being at risk for derailment; in these
ability to motivate subordinates effectively. cases the organization may provide the
Poor leadership is not simply an absence opportunity for coaching. In other cases, an
of technical, cognitive, and strategic skills. organization may create a programme for all
Rather, dysfunctional dispositions (and the of their senior leaders, ‘high potential’
flawed interpersonal strategies associated middle managers, or others to enhance their
with them) can degrade whatever skills and personal development as leaders. In either
competencies a leader might otherwise instance, knowledge of potential dysfunc-
possess. At their worst, such leaders may be tional interpersonal patterns is critical for
experienced as ‘destructive’ (e.g. Einarsen, coaching success. In the case of the
Aasland & Skotgstad, 2007; Tepper, 2000; ‘derailing executive,’ the flawed interper-
Tierney & Tepper, 2007) or even ‘toxic’ sonal style may itself be the reason for
(Frost, 2004; Padilla, Hogan & Kaiser, 2007) referral. For those referred for assistance in
by their subordinates and the organization enhancing existing skills (in order to help
as a whole. Managerial incompetence the high potential manager move more
creates great misery for those associated with effectively up the corporate hierarchy),
the dysfunctional leader (R. Hogan & Kaiser, assessment of potential derailing characteris-
2005). Thus, recognizing and modifying the tics allows the coach to offer ‘preventive
destructive interpersonal strategies of maintenance’ that will reduce the likelihood
leaders will improve the competitive advan- of problems emerging in the future.
tage of the team and the satisfaction and
well-being of the executive’s subordinates.
load, fatigue, high emotion, and lack of HDS and a brief description of the schemas
social vigilance can increase the probability associated with each pattern of dysfunctional
of maladaptive behaviour. Furthermore, interpersonal behaviour:
dysfunctional behaviour is more likely to Excitable. High Excitable individuals are
appear in situations that are ambiguous emotionally volatile and easily disappointed
(Green & Sedikides, 2001; Koch, 2003), in projects, people, or organizations. They
where leaders have too little structure and alienate employees through unpredictable
too much discretion (Kaiser & Hogan, displays of anger or frustration. These exec-
2007), or that resemble the situations that utives seek understanding and respect, but
produced the relevant schema in the first conditions early in life led them to believe
place. Finally, organizational culture can that others will ultimately disappoint or
potentiate dysfunctional behaviour (Balt- exploit them. As a result, they are constantly
hazard, Cooke & Potter, 2006; VanFleet & vigilant for signs of possible rejection, giving
Griffin, 2006). Thus, personality, situational, up easily and ready to strike out emotionally
and organizational influences interact to or withdraw from those whom they expect
influence the emergence of dysfunctional will let them down. Strong displays of
behaviour in any given performance or emotion allow the person an illusion of
interpersonal context (cf. Tett & Barnett, control while simultaneously keeping others
2003; Tett & Guterman, 2000). at an emotional distance where they are ulti-
Assessment of the dysfunctional disposi- mately less threatening.
tions that commonly appear in interpersonal Skeptical. High Skeptical executives
relationships – performance risks – allows us mistrust others’ motives and doubt their
to predict the likelihood that such risks will intentions. They expect mistreatment; as a
impair an executive’s success. To facilitate result, they are quick to find it. In such situa-
such predictions R. Hogan and Hogan tions, they may recoil in an angry or
(1997; see also R. Hogan & Hogan, 2001) combative manner to gain control and
created an inventory (the Hogan Develop- distance themselves from others. In the
ment Survey; HDS) that assesses 11 of these workplace, they are often shrewd, politically
characteristics. Constructs included in the sensitive, and difficult to fool. However, their
HDS were identified through an exhaustive cynicism leads them to distrust authority and
review of material ranging from research on to fear that subordinates will attempt to
managerial derailment to the ‘personality circumvent them. These beliefs underlie a
disorders’ section of the Diagnostic and contentious interpersonal style character-
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, ized by irritability, argumentativeness, and
fourth edition (American Psychiatric Associ- insensitivity to criticism.
ation, 1994; see Hogan & Hogan, 1997, 2001, Cautious. High Cautious individuals fear
for a description of the links between certain criticism and are quick to feel rejected. They
personality disorders and the scales are careful, conservative, and worried about
comprising the HDS). Hogan and Hogan making mistakes. They attribute unsuc-
(1997) designed the HDS to address cessful experiences to an inherent defect
common interpersonal themes in the work that sets them apart from others. They avoid
context that can undermine an individual’s giving other people the opportunity to see
effectiveness. Each theme is associated with their deficiencies. Even positive feedback
an underlying cognitive schema that facili- can be distorted or discounted. While no
tates understanding of the expectations, one enjoys criticism, these individuals
attributions, and mental models that cannot tolerate the unpleasant feelings asso-
underlie interpersonal strategies that ulti- ciated with making a mistake; as a result,
mately prove counterproductive. Listed they seek to avoid unpredictable events such
below are the 11 constructs comprising the as social interactions and decision making.
Reserved. High Reserved leaders prefer uals covertly doubt their real abilities and
social isolation. They dislike working in fear that others will notice their ‘weak-
teams or meeting new people. Others find nesses.’ Under stress, the high need for
them difficult because they tend to be with- approval leads to exhibitionistic and ‘enter-
drawn and uncommunicative. They lack taining’ behaviours in place of real produc-
social sensitivity – the capacity to notice and tivity.
respond effectively to the needs and feelings Imaginative. The high Imaginative person
of others. They believe that life is best lived shares with the high Reserved individual an
on a purely rational basis. As a result, they insensitivity to social cues. As the Reserved
are typically impervious to both praise and person withdraws, however, the high Imagi-
criticism and rarely offer such feedback to native leader relishes social interaction as an
others. They prefer that others perceive arena for sharing novel ideas, opinions, and
them as tough, resilient, and self-sufficient. styles. High Imaginative individuals believe
Leisurely. As a result of early socialization in their own uniqueness and a need to
experiences, the high Leisurely leader avoids emphasize creativity over practicality. They
direct expressions of annoyance and frustra- value inner experience to define reality, not
tion. He or she expresses such feelings in what others might consider rational or objec-
indirect ways. Persons in positions of tive. Viewing themselves as special, they are
authority are typically perceived as either typically immune to criticism and rejection.
incompetent or unfair. In reaction, the high Diligent. High Diligent individuals grew
Leisurely person believes in the right to up in environments that valued high levels of
pursue a personal agenda at his or her own performance, criticizing work that was
pace. He or she envies those who are judged to be substandard in some way. As a
successful but at the same time resents them result, these individuals believe that only two
and maintains an illusion of self-sufficiency options are possible in any performance situ-
and self-respect by covertly resisting expecta- ation: perfection and failure. There is no
tions. room for ‘shades of gray.’ Indeed, they often
Bold. High Bold individuals believe they have difficulty judging the realistic impor-
are unique or exceptional in some way. The tance of any given task. They distrust
high Bold executive was often the ‘golden autonomous thinking; as a result, they value
child’ of the family, lacking the boundaries rules, standards, and social custom to define
and discipline that help children learn and the appropriate response in a performance
respect their own and others’ limits. This situation.
individual believes that he or she should not Dutiful. High Dutiful leaders enjoyed a
have to accept subordinate positions and nurturant environment early in life;
should be exempt from difficult or dull tasks. however, caregivers failed to ‘pull back’ as
The high Bold leader is sublimely insensitive the child became more capable of self-suffi-
to the impact of his or her behaviour on ciency. Lacking mastery experiences, this
others, believing that subordinates should individual did not develop a sense of compe-
eagerly contribute to the leader’s personal tence and self-efficacy, continuing to believe
progress. that he or she must rely on others for impor-
Colourful. High Colourful persons are tant decisions. The unpredictable or
naturally extraverted and gregarious. unknown is avoided, as the high Dutiful
However, they often mistake attention for person doubts his or her capacity to cope
accomplishment. Historically, attention and successfully with novel challenges or situa-
affirmation were predicated upon charm, tions. Belief in the self as ‘weak’ impairs this
appearance, and the capacity to entertain. executive’s capacity to think independently.
Far less attention was paid to competence,
persistence, and achievement. These individ-
stood even as they develop new self-percep- Hogan Development Survey, a ‘dark side’
tions, understand how others perceive them, measure. This executive seeks affirmation
and learn how to lead more effectively. but expects disappointment, and occasion-
Kemp (2008) notes that, although the ally uses emotional displays to create
coaching relationship is important for the distance from others. He or she may initially
success of developmental efforts, little atten- respond to coaching with enthusiasm,
tion has been directed to this aspect of leading the coach to be optimistic about
coaching. The relationship between the his/her readiness for change. But the execu-
coach and the executive is a ‘real relation- tive is also likely to be easily discouraged with
ship.’ If the effectiveness of coaching is influ- coaching, perhaps even responding angrily
enced by the quality of the relationship, then to negative feedback or to the coaching
it is important to consider the qualities that process itself. In contrast, an executive
the coach and the executive bring to the scoring high on the HDS Mischievous scale is
interaction. likely to be charming and overtly responsive
As we suggested above, people organize to the coach’s efforts. But high Mischievous
their interpersonal experiences in terms of individuals have difficulty taking responsi-
schemas. These schemas influence percep- bility for their behaviour and tend to ignore
tions, information processing, attributions the expectations that others hold for them.
about the causes of events, etc. It makes Such people often perceive coaching as irrel-
sense, then, to assume that the executive will evant and show little follow-through or
bring to the coaching process a set of beliefs ‘transfer of learning’ into the day-to-day
and expectations that will influence his or work environment. In both examples, knowl-
her reactions to the coach and, ultimately, edge of the executive’s scores on scales
readiness for change. These expectations tapping ‘flawed interpersonal strategies’ will
may be shaped by a number of factors: the allow the coach to predict problems and
context in which the executive was referred plan the coaching effort accordingly. For the
for coaching, the attitudes communicated high Excitable individual, the coach could
(either implicitly or explicitly) by senior predict disillusionment early in the relation-
management about the value of coaching, ship, offer heightened empathy in
and the extent to which others in the organ- presenting feedback, and take steps to
ization are concurrently receiving coaching ensure that commitment to the process is
(Gilpin-Jackson & Bushe, 2006; Ruvolo, maintained. For the high Mischievous
Petersen & LeBoeuf, 2004). But the execu- coachee, the coach could remain construc-
tive also brings to coaching the same tively skeptical of the executive’s expressed
schemas and interpersonal strategies that enthusiasm, building into the coaching
influence his or her other relationships. To process multiple ‘accountability checks.’
the extent that these schemas are associated The flawed interpersonal strategies that
with dysfunctional interpersonal strategies, may be problematic (or potentially problem-
these strategies are likely to emerge in the atic) in the executive’s work environment
coaching relationship as well. Awareness of are likely to recapitulate in the coaching
this allows the coach to anticipate road- relationship. As the old saying goes, ‘fore-
blocks to the development of a productive warned is forearmed.’ Assessment of ‘dark
relationship and ways the executive is likely side’ characteristics prior to or early in the
to ‘push back’ against developmental recom- coaching process allows the coach to be
mendations. The coach can then craft the sensitive to these self-defeating behaviours
relationship to reduce the influence of these and plan accordingly to minimize the extent
factors. to which they can interfere with effective
Consider, for example, an executive with coaching.
a high score on the Excitable scale of the
employ, where to begin, and how. In many The coach might design a programme of
cases, the answers to these questions will be role-playing, behaviour rehearsal, and grad-
shaped by the context of coaching, the uated practice to help the executive become
agreements reached between the client more appropriately assertive. This is a well
organization and the coach, etc. In other researched and widely accepted behavioural
cases, the coach will have more latitude in intervention for unassertive individuals. But
identifying both the targets for coaching and what if assessment of dysfunctional interper-
the intervention strategies employed. sonal dispositions reveals this executive be
There is considerable debate in the liter- highly Cautious? In this case the executive
ature on the difference between coaching would be influenced by fear of failure, aver-
and psychotherapy: is the coach a counsellor sion to risk, and expectations of criticism.
or a technical consultant on matters of Although behavioural techniques can some-
behaviour change (Hart, Blattner & Leipsic, times ‘work backward’ to modify existing
2001; Joo, 2005; Witherspoon & White, schemas, it is usually more effective to
1996)? Although there are differences address the schema directly using well estab-
between coaching and therapy (Gray, 2006; lished cognitive techniques (cf. Ducharme,
Levinson, 1996), effective coaches move 2004; Grieger & Fralick, 2007; Young et al.,
along the continuum between them to deal 2003). When the executive becomes aware of
with the needs of the executive and his/her his/her possible mistakes and flawed
organization. Further, the coach has a behaviour, behavioural interventions are
responsibility to identify and intervene with likely to be significantly more effective.
the factors most likely to enhance the execu- Thus, if a ‘dark side’ assessment indicates
tive’s leadership – despite what he, she, or that potential derailing patterns are ‘within
the organization think the executive’s needs normal limits’ a coach may use directive inter-
are. Any development target will be the ventions targeted to improving existing skills
product of several different causal processes. or the acquisition of new ones. In this case,
Coaching tends to emphasize proximal the coach may be functioning as a ‘technical
rather than distal causes (which are often consultant.’ But if the assessment reveals the
the focus of traditional psychotherapy). Even influence of distorted cognitive schemas,
so, a development issue can be cased by these will need to be addressed before
factors ranging from insufficient social skills behavioural interventions will be productive.
to faulty cognitive schemas. The distinction In this case, the distinction between coach
is important: skills development approaches and counselor blurs considerably.
will fail if the problems are a result of deficits
in intrapersonal self-regulation or flawed Conclusion
interpersonal strategies. Coaching is not Coaching is intended to help executives
simply ‘a technology followed by a formula’ become more effective leaders. Ineffective
(Schein, 2003, p.80). leadership is more common than many
Assessment provides the key for deciding believe, and bad leaders not only reduce the
between the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of executive productivity and profitability of the business
development. Consider an executive whose units for which they are responsible, they
multirater feedback indicates insufficient also create misery, anxiety, and hostility
‘forceful’ leadership. This person has diffi- among those who report to them. Person-
culty being appropriately assertive, setting ality predicts both effective and ineffective
clear expectations, and holding staff leadership. Dysfunctional characteristics –
accountable for their performance. Senior flawed interpersonal strategies that can
management fears that this talented execu- derail an executive’s career – are associated
tive may derail if she cannot find a balance with specific cognitive schemas that cause
between enabling and forceful leadership. the behaviour of self and others to be
References
Alworth, E. & Griffin, B. (2005). The application of Bentz, V.J. (1985, August). A view from the top:
psychological assessment to executive coaching. A 30-year perspective on research devoted to discovery,
In M. Cavanagh, A.M. Grant & T. Kemp (Eds.), description, and prediction of executive behaviour.
Evidence-based coaching, Volume 1: Theory, research Paper presented at the 93rd Annual Convention
and practice from the behavioural sciences of the American Psychological Association,
(pp.97–110). Bowen Hills, Queensland, Australia: Los Angeles.
Australian Academic Press. Berman, W.H. & Bradt, G. (2006). Executive
American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic coaching and consulting: ‘Different strokes for
and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.). different folks.’ Professional Psychology: Research
Washington, DC: Author. and Practice, 37, 244–253.
Anderson, M., Foster, J., Van Landuyt & Tett, R. Bono, J.E. & Judge, T.E. (2004). Personality and
(2006). Meta-Analytic Investigation of Personality transformational and transactional leadership:
and Holland’s RIASEC Model. Tulsa, OK: Hogan A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89,
Assessment Systems. 901–910.
Avolio, B.J. & Bass, B.M. (1995). Individual Campbell, J.P. (1990). Modelling the performance
consideration is more than consideration for the prediction problem in industrial and
individual when viewed at multiple levels of organizational psychology. In M.D. Dunnette &
analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 199–218. L.M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and
Avolio, B.J., Jung, D., Murry, W. & Sivasubramaniam, organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 1,
N. (1996). Building highly developed teams: pp.39–74). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Focusing on shared leadership process, efficacy, Psychologists Press.
trust, and performance. In M.M. Beyerlein, D.A. Cavanagh, M., Grant, A.M. & Kemp, T. (Eds.).
Johnson & S.T. Beyerlein (Eds.), Advances in (2005). Evidence-based coaching, Volume 1: Theory,
interdisciplinary studies of work teams (pp.173–209). research and practice from the behavioural sciences.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Bowen Hills, Queensland, Australia: Australian
Baldwin, M.W. (1992). Relational schemas and the Academic Press.
processing of social information. Psychological Conger, J.A. (1990). The dark side of leadership.
Bulletin, 112, 461–484. Organizational Dynamics, 19, 44–55.
Balthazard, P.A., Cooke, R.A. & Potter, R.E. (2006). Craig, S.B. & Hannum, K. (2006). Research update:
Dysfunctional culture, dysfunctional 360-degree performance assessment. Consulting
organization: Capturing the behavioural norms Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 58,
that form organizational culture and drive 117–122.
performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, Cronbach, L.J. (1960). Essentials of psychological testing
709–732. (2nd ed.). New York: Harper.
Barner, R. & Higgins, J. (2007). Understanding the Dagley, G. (2006). Human resource professionals’
implicit models that guide the coaching process. perceptions of executive coaching: Efficacy,
Journal of Management Development, 26, 148–158. benefits, and return on investment. International
Barrick, M.R. & Mount, M.K. (1991). The Big Five Coaching Psychology Review, 1, 34–45.
personality dimensions and job performance: Dotlich, D.L. & Cairo, P.C. (2003). Why CEOs fail.
A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond
expectations. New York: Free Press.
Ducharme, M.J. (2004). The cognitive-behavioural Grieger, R. & Fralick, F. (2007). The use of REBT
approach to executive coaching. Consulting principles and practices in leadership training
Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 56, and development. Journal of Rational-Emotive and
214–224. Cognitive-Behaviour Therapies, 25, 143–154.
Einarsen, S., Aasland, M.S. & Skogstad, A. (2007). Hart, V., Blattner, J. & Leipsic, S. (2001). Coaching
Destructive leadership behaviour: A definition versus therapy. Consulting Psychology Journal:
and conceptual model. The Leadership Quarterly, Practice and Research, 53, 229–237.
18, 207–216. Hogan, J., Hogan, R. & Kaiser, R.B. (in press).
Feldman, D.C. & Lankau, M.J. (2005). Executive Management derailment: Assessment and
coaching: A review and agenda for future mitigation. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), American
research. Journal of Management, 31, 829–848. Psychological Association Handbook of Industrial and
Fong, G.T. & Markus, H. (1982). Self-schemas and Organizational Psychology. Washington, DC:
judgments about others. Social Cognition, 1, American Psychological Association.
191–204. Hogan, J. & Holland, B. (2003). Using theory to
Frost, P.J. (2004). Handling toxic emotions: New evaluate personality and job-performance
challenges for leaders and their organizations. relations: A socioanalytic perspective. Journal of
Organizational Dynamics, 33, 111–127. Applied Psychology, 88, 100–122.
Furnham, A. & Taylor, J. (2004). The dark side of Hogan, R. (2007). Personality and the fate of
behaviour at work: Understanding and avoiding organizations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
employees leaving, thieving, and deceiving. Associates.
Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. Hogan, R. & Benson, M.J. (in press). Personality
Giglio, L., Diamante, T. & Urban, J.M. (1998). theory and positive psychology: Strategic self-
Coaching a leader: Leveraging change at the top. awareness. In R.B. Kaiser (Ed.), The perils of the
Journal of Management Development, 17, 93–105. positive. Forthcoming.
Gilpin-Jackson, Y. & Bushe, G.R. (2006). Leadership Hogan, R., Curphy, G.J. & Hogan, J. (1994). What we
development training transfer: A case study of know about leadership: Effectiveness and
post-training determinants. Journal of Management personality. American Psychologist, 51, 469–477.
Development, 26, 980–1004. Hogan, R. & Hogan, J. (1997). Hogan Development
Goldberg, L.R. (1981). Language and individual Survey Manual. Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment
difference: The search for universals in Systems.
personality lexicons. In L.W. Wheeler (Ed.), Hogan, R. & Hogan, J. (2001). Assessing leadership:
Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 2, A view from the dark side. International Journal of
pp.141–165). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Selection and Assessment, 9, 40–51.
Goldman, A. (2006). Personality disorders in leaders: Hogan, R. & Hogan, J. (2007). Hogan Personality
Implications of the DSM-IV-TR in assessing Inventory Manual (3rd ed.). Tulsa, OK: Hogan
dysfunctional organizations. Journal of Managerial Assessment Systems.
Psychology, 21, 392–414. Hogan, R., Hogan, J. & Roberts, B. (1996).
Goleman, D. (1998). What makes a leader? Harvard Personality measurement and employment
Business Review, 76(6), 93–102. decisions: Questions and answers. American
Grant, A.M. (2005). What is evidence-based Psychologist, 51, 469–477.
executive, workplace, and life coaching? Hogan, R. & Kaiser, R.B. (2005). What we know
In M. Cavanagh, A.M. Grant & T. Kemp (Eds.), about leadership. Review of General Psychology, 9,
Evidence-based coaching, Volume 1: Theory, research 169–180.
and practice from the behavioural sciences (pp.1–12). Hough, L.M. (1992). The ‘Big Five’ personality
Bowen Hills, Queensland, Australia: Australian variables – construct confusion: Description
Academic Press. versus prediction. Human Performance, 5, 139–156.
Gray, D.E. (2006). Executive coaching: Toward a Hurtz, G.M. & Donovan, J.J. (2000). Personality and
dynamic alliance of psychotherapy and job performance: The ‘Big Five’ revisited. Journal
transformative learning processes. Management of Applied Psychology, 85, 869–879.
Learning, 37, 475–497. John, O.P. (1990). The ‘Big Five’ factor taxonomy:
Green, J.D. & Sedikides, C. (2001). When do self- Dimensions of personality in the natural
schemas shape social perception?: The role of language and in questionnaires. In L.A. Pervin
descriptive ambiguity. Motivation and Emotion, 25, (Ed.), Handbook of personality theory and research
67–83. (pp.66–100). New York: Guilford.
Gregory, J.B., Levy & Jeffers, M. (2008). Development Johnson, H.H. (2008). Mental models and
of a model of the feedback process within transformative learning: The key to leadership
executive coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal: development? Human Resource Development
Practice and Research, 60, 42–56. Quarterly, 19, 85–89.
Joo, B.K. (2005). Executive coaching: A conceptual Kihlstrom, J.F. & Klein, S.B. (1994). The self as a
framework from an integrative review of practice knowledge structure. In R.S. Wyer, Jr. & T.K.
and research. Human Resource Development Review, Strull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition
4, 462–488. (pp.153–208). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Judge, T.A., Bono, J.E., Ilies, R. & Gerhardt, M.W. Associates.
(2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative Kluger, A.N. & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of
and quantitative review. Journal of Applied feedback interventions on performance:
Psychology, 87, 765–780. A historical review, meta-analysis, and a
Judge, T.A., LePine, J.A. & Rich, B.L. (2006). Loving preliminary feedback intervention theory.
yourself abundantly: Relationship of the Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254–284.
narcissistic personality to self and other Koch, E.J. (2002). Relational schemas, self-esteem,
perceptions of workplace deviance, leadership, and the processing of social stimuli. Self and
and task and contextual performance. Journal of Identity, 1, 271–279.
Applied Psychology, 91, 762–776. Leslie, J. & VanVelsor, E. (1996). A look at derailment
Kaiser, R.B. & Hogan, R. (2007). The dark side of today. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative
discretion: Leader personality and organizational Leadership.
decline. In R. Hooijberg, J. Hunt, J. Antonakis & Levinson, H. (1996). Executive coaching. Consulting
K. Boal (Eds.), Being there even when you are not: Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 48,
Leading through strategy, systems and structures. 118–123.
Monographs in leadership and management, Vol. 4 Lombardo, M.M., Ruderman, M.N. & McCauley, C.D.
(pp.177–197). London: Elsevier Science. (1988). Explanations of success and derailment
Kaiser, R.B., Hogan, R. & Craig, S.B. (2008). in upper-level management positions. Journal of
Leadership and the fate of organizations. Business and Psychology, 2, 199–216.
American Psychologist, 63, 96–110. London, M. & Smither, J.W. (2002). Feedback
Kaiser, R.B. & Kaplan, R.E. (2006). The deeper work orientation, feedback culture, and the
of executive development: Outgrowing longitudinal performance management process.
sensitivities. Academy of Management Learning and Human Resource Management Review, 12, 81–100.
Education, 5, 463–483. MacKie, D. (2007). Evaluating the effectiveness of
Kampa-Kokesch, S. & Anderson, M.Z. (2001). executive coaching: Where are we now and
Executive coaching: A comprehensive review of where do we need to be? Australian Psychologist,
the literature. Consulting Psychology Journal: 42, 310–318.
Practice and Research, 53, 205–228. Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemata and processing
Kaplan, R.E. & Kaiser, R.B. (2006). The versatile leader. information about the self. Journal of Personality
San Francisco: Pfeiffer. and Social Psychology, 35, 63–78.
Kaplan, R.E. & Kaiser, R.B. (in press). Towards a McCall, M.W., Jr. & Lombardo, M.M. (1983). Off the
positive psychology for leaders. In A. Linley track: Why and how successful executives get derailed
(Ed.), Handbook of positive psychology and work. (Technical Report No. 21). Greensboro, NC:
New York: Oxford University Press. Center for Creative Leadership.
Kemp, T. (2008). Self-management and the coaching McCartney, W.W. & Campbell, C.R. (2006).
relationship: Exploring coaching impact beyond Leadership, management, and derailment:
models and methods. International Coaching A model of individual success and failure.
Psychology Review, 3(1), 32–42. Leadership and Organization Development Journal,
Khoo, H.S. & Burch G.S.J. (2008). The ‘dark side’ of 27, 190–202.
leadership personality and transformational McCormick, I. & Burch, G. St. J. (2008). Personality-
leadership: An exploratory study. Personality and focused coaching for leadership development.
Individual Differences, 44, 86–97. Consulting Psychology Journal: Research and Practice,
Kilburg, R.R. (1996). Toward a conceptual 60, 267–278.
understanding and definition of executive McCrae, R.R. & Costa, P.T. Jr. (1987). Validity of the
coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice five-factor model of personality across
and Research, 48, 134–144. instruments and observers. Journal of Personality
Kilburg, R.R. (2000). Executive coaching: Developing and Social Psychology, 64, 51–56.
managerial wisdom in a world of chaos. Washington, McGovern, J., Lindemann, M., Vergara, M., Murphy,
DC: American Psychological Association. S., Barker, L. & Warrenfeltz, R. (2001).
Kilburg, R.R. (2004). When shadows fall: Using Maximizing the impact of executive coaching:
psychodynamic approaches in executive Behavioural change, organizational outcomes,
coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and return on investment. The Manchester Review,
and Research, 56, 246–268. 6(1), 1–9.
Moscoso, S. & Salgado, J. F. (2004). ‘Dark side’ Shipper, F. & Wilson, C.L. (1991, July). The impact of
personality styles as predictors of task, managerial behaviours on group performance, stress,
contextual, and job performance. International and commitment. Paper presented at the Impact of
Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12, 356–362. Leadership Conference, Colorado Springs.
Mount, M.K., Barrick, M.R. & Stewart, G.L. (1998). Smither, J.W., London, M. & Reilly, R.R. (2005).
Five-factor model of personality and Does performance improve following
performance in jobs involving interpersonal multisource feedback? A theoretical model,
interactions. Human Performance, 11, 145–165. meta-analysis, and review of empirical findings.
Najar, M.J., Holland, B.D. & Van Landuyt, C.R. (2004, Personnel Psychology, 58, 33–66.
April). Individual differences in leadership Stern, L.R. (2004). Executive coaching: A working
derailment. Paper presented at the 19th Annual definition. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice
Conference of the Society for Industrial and and Research, 56, 154–162.
Organizational Psychology, Chicago. Stewart, L.J., Palmer, S., Wilkin, H. & Kerrin, M.
Padilla, A., Hogan, R. & Kaiser, R.B. (2007). (2008). The influence of character: Does
The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible personality impact coaching success?
followers, and conducive environments. The International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and
Leadership Quarterly, 18, 176–194. Mentoring, 6, 32–42.
Passmore, J. (2007). An integrative model for Stober, D.R. & Grant, A.M. (Eds.). (2006). Evidence-
executive coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal: based coaching handbook. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Practice and Research, 59, 68–78. Tepper, B.J. (2000). Consequences of abusive
Passmore, J. (Ed.). (2008). Psychometrics in coaching: supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 42,
Using psychological and psychometric tools for 100–108.
development. London: Kogan Page. Tett, R.P. & Burnett, D.B. (2003). A personality trait-
Passmore, J. & Gibbes, C. (2007). The state of based interactionist model of job performance.
executive coaching research: What does the Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 500–517.
current literature tell us and what’s next for Tett, R.P. & Guterman, H.A. (2000). Situation trait
coaching research? International Coaching relevance, trait expression, and cross-situational
Psychology Review, 2(2), 116–128. consistency: Testing a principle of trait activation.
Peltier, B. (2001). The psychology of executive coaching. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 397–423.
New York: Brunner-Routledge. Tett, R.P., Jackson, D.N. & Rothsstein, M. (1991).
Riggio, R.E. & Lee, J. (2007). Emotional and Personality measures as predictors of job
interpersonal competencies and leader performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel
development. Human Resource Management Psychology, 44, 703–742.
Review, 17, 418–426. Tierney, P. & Tepper, B.J. (2007). Introduction to
Ruvolo, C.M., Petersen, S.A. & LeBoeuf, J.N.G. The Leadership Quarterly special issue: Destructive
(2004). Leaders are made, not born: The critical leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 171–173.
role of a developmental framework to facilitate VanFleet, D.D. & Griffin, R.W. (2006). Dysfunctional
an organizational culture of development. organizational culture: The role of leadership in
Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, motivating dysfunctional work behaviours.
56, 10–19. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, 698–708.
Salovey, P. & Mayer, J.D. (1990). Emotional Wiggins, J.S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of
intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and trait-descriptive terms: The interpersonal
Personality, 9, 185–211. domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Schein, E.H. (2003). Five traps for consulting 37, 295–412.
psychologists: Or how I learned to take culture Witherspoon, R. & White, R.P. (1996). Executive
seriously. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and coaching: A continuum of roles. Consulting
Research, 55, 75–83. Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 48,
Sedikides, C. (1993). Assessment, enhancement, and 124–133.
verification determinants of the self-evaluation Young, J.E., Klosko, J.S. & Weishaar, M.E. (2003).
process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Schema therapy. New York: Guilford.
65, 317–338.