Personality and leadership: a benchmark study of
success and failure
Keywords
Competences,
Management standards,
Personality, Teamwork, Success
Abstract
Does the top-level management
team make the difference be-
tween a company's success and
failure? By using two different
assessment tools (developed on
the model of the Head-Heart-Leg
work of the personality) to map
the personalities of the members
of two management teams, in-
cluding the top executive man-
agers, and by following the
development in the companies'
results over a period of five years,
it is shown that the personality of of a company depends on the personality of
the executive manager and the
team he is selecting is the key to personalities in the group of top leaders.
understanding a company's rise or
decline in the market. Managers
with an average level of cognitive
skills tend to select managers
with the same or lower level of
cognitive skills and style. There-
fore, when an executive manager
is recruiting managers to his
team, be sure that someone with
authority is a part of the process
to ensure that he is not selecting
clones of himself.
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
20/3 [1999] 114±132
# MCB University Press
[ISSN 0143-7739]
[ 114 ]
Finn Havaleschka
Garuda Research Institute, Knebel, Denmark
Personality and leadership
A study of success and failure
Normally, it is difficult, not to say impossible
and absurd, to compare leaders of different
companies with regard to evaluating who is
the best. The conditions of two companies
may be so different that a small negative
outcome in one company may indicate a
better management than an acceptable posi-
tive outcome in another. However, this
article presents a case from real life where
the above mentioned comparison can be
made on a fair basis. And the conclusion is
definitive; in the end, the success and failure
the leader and of the composition of the
Scenario
Consider two companies. They operate in the
same market. The market is local in the sense
that the transport costs restrain the geo-
graphic area of the market. The relative
shares of the market of the two companies
has been more or less the same for a period of
five years. There are a further eight con-
siderable suppliers, but none of them has a
size which makes it possible to dominate the
market alone. The demand comes from more
or less all sectors of industry and trade. No
customer, group of customers or sector has
been able to obtain or compel special advan-
tages. The production technology is the same
± that is none of the companies is able to
obtain efficiency or quality advantages
through special investments in the produc-
tion apparatus. All companies are forced to,
or have the possibility to, buy their technol-
ogy from the same supplier.
Other things being equal, one can say that
the suppliers act on the conditions of the total
competition. If we look at the ability of each
individual company to produce results in the
mentioned period of five years, there are,
however, very great differences between
them. See Tables I, II and III showing the
business temperature of two of the men-
tioned ten suppliers. The two suppliers cover
the spectrum from the most effective to the
less effective company, in relation to earning
money.
As mentioned, the ability of these compa-
nies to achieve results cannot be found or
based on their development in relation to
turnover, and consequently obtained large-
scale operations advantages. The develop-
ment of the turnover in the same period has
been fairly stable. (See Table II.)
Note that behind the movement of the
given turnover figures, there might be an-
other movement of the share of the market,
as Table II shows only the price turnover and
not the sale in quantity. The price is of course
an important element of competition. The
individual company must, according to the
act of total competition, be able to deliver at
the same price as its competitors. On the
other hand, it does not look as though they
have been able to obtain substantially larger
shares of the market, or ± which is the most
important ± a considerably better profit via
the price.
Left are parameters of quality, ability to
deliver, flexibility, service etc. Parameters,
which, according to the turnover index, have
not moved the shares of market either.
Actually, there is only one way to create
success (apart from moving around the
customers in order to get the best possible
customer/product-mix in relation to the
competence of the company), and that is to be
better at developing, producing, supplying
and servicing than the competitors. Conse-
quently, it is at the expense account that we
have to find the causes for the different
results of the two companies.
In accordance to the overhead cost index
(see Table III), company A has been best at
managing the trend as to the overhead costs,
while company B has been the poorest. What
is the reason for this difference? A closer
analysis of the production apparatus of the
two companies ± as it looked in 1990 ± cannot
Finn Havaleschka give the grounds for the difference in the Table IV
Personality and leadership: a costs development. Furthermore, company B Summary
benchmark study of success expects another fall in its ordinary result by
and failure
15 per cent in 1995. A natural consequence of A B
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal the trend of costs of the previous year (%) (%)
20/3 [1999] 114±132 combined with a fall in turnover. The budget
Ordinary results 72 20
figures for 1995 regarding company A show
Turnover 5 (1)
an expected increase of the ordinary result of
Overheads 5 69
20 per cent. A consequence of the fact that the
overhead costs are stable combined with a
smaller increase in turnover. What makes the difference between these two
Thus, we can say that the two companies very comparable companies? They are about
show a different ability to utilise and devel- the same size; they produce more or less the
op, at any time, the existing production, sales same products utilising, on the whole, the
and administration apparatus. As concerns same technology. They operate in the same
the companies A and B, a further fact is that market, owners with fairly large capital back
the sum of investments has been more or less them up, and they are almost the same age.
the same over the past five years. Company A One company is on its way to showing a
has pursued a regular investment policy on a deficit. The other continues to increase the
level between £2.5-3.0 million per year, surplus.
whereas company B's investments have been The difference must be due to the leader-
more fluctuating, with a staking on £17
ship. In the end, it depends on the ability of
million within the last three years. If we
the top leader ± together with the other
compare the two companies over a period of
leaders ± to find creative and constructive
five years, we can establish the fact that
solutions to the tasks, which have to be
company A has been much better managed
when it comes to generate results over that worked out by the company. It is the ability
period of time, than company B. See Table IV. to see the solutions in a strategic perspective.
As a consequence of this development, The ability to obtain acceptance of the
company A expects to improve its result in solutions and to have them carried through
1995 by approximately 20 per cent, while as quickly, effectively and with as few
company B expects a fall in its result by 15 resources as possible. Customers, trade un-
per cent. Company B is very close to being in ions, employees, group of leaders, as well as
red figures. This was the reason why I was owners, do have interests, which have to be
brought in as a consultant. attended to and equilibrated in proportion to
each other. It is a manager's job to get these
things bound up with each other. And one
Table I man cannot do it alone. This is why the
Ordinary result index composition of the group of leaders means so
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 much. The ability of the group to supplement
Company (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) each other and to focus on the tasks from
different angles of incidence is an important
A 100 106 156 162 176 aspect of all leadership. This makes the
B 100 109 111 110 120
difference. But also here, everything falls
back on the managing director. It is the top
Table II leader who chooses his closest collaborators ±
Turnover index and the better he is at that, the better results
the company will obtain.
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 To understand the difference between
Company (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) companies A and B, we will have to look at
A 100 104 114 109 105 the management. The background and the
B 100 105 110 107 99 personality of the leaders are the crucial
factors. Two different personality analyses,
very unambiguously show the differences
Table III
between the leaders of the two companies.
Overhead costs index
The differences in personality are supported
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 by differences in socio-demographic data
Company (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) such as education and carrier. The question
now is, can the differences in the ability of
A 100 105 106 106 105
the two companies to obtain results be
B 100 107 120 148 169
deduced from these differences?
[ 115 ]
Finn Havaleschka
Personality and leadership: a
benchmark study of success
and failure
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
20/3 [1999] 114±132
A question of head, heart and legs
Introduction to the profile analysis
Since 1982, more than 50,000 people have
completed the profile analysis and the devel-
opment profile. The profile analysis is a
personality test, which uncovers, registers or
maps out the power and direction of 16
different personality traits. The development
profile is an analysis, which shows what kind
of tasks the leader focuses on most in daily
management. The development profile shows
us how the group of leaders supplement each
other and ± as a group ± solve the various
management functions of the organisation.
The profile analysis has been developed
based on a model about the head's, the heart's
and the leg's influences on the ability to
function and to create results in a given job.
The head symbolises the way we approach
and work on problems. The job of the head is
to generate ideas for problem solving. The job
of the heart is to sell the ideas and the job of
the legs is to carry out the ideas. The theory
and model behind the profile analysis is
explained in Havaleschka (1997a). For the
purpose of this article see Figure 1.
The relevance of this model becomes clear
when we look at the difference between the
tasks being performed by an account man-
ager and the tasks performed by a sales and
marketing manager. If the account manager
wants success, he must necessarily attack
and adapt his tasks in quite a different way
than the sales and marketing manager. They
will have to apply their mental and intellec-
tual capacity very differently. Their heart-
work functions the same way. The character
and the quality of the relations which the
sales and marketing manager must be able to
establish with other people play a more
decisive part in his ability to obtain
acceptance to his solutions than they do to
the account manager. It is not quite so
differentiated when it is about the legwork,
which symbolises the willingness to take
responsibility, implementing ideas, goal set-
ting etc. Both have to possess this character ±
probably to more or less the same extent.
The very many profile analyses ± which
have been made on successful as well as less
successful economy and sales people ± clearly
document the outlined difference. More con-
cretely, the difference manifests itself in the
following way. See the graphical profile of the
typical account manager or technical assis-
tant in Figure 2. Also consult Havaleschka
(1998) showing significant differences in
system flexibility, detail orientation and
willingness to take risk, between the two
groups of occupations.
This graphic profile shows that the account
manager attaches great importance to order,
rules, fixed limits, structures and system-
atism, illustrated by a left placing on system
Figure 2
The head-profile of the successful account
manager

Figure 1
Head- heart- leg-modelTM

[ 116 ]
Finn Havaleschka
Personality and leadership: a
benchmark study of success
and failure
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
20/3 [1999] 114±132
flexibility. He attaches great importance to
having a profound knowledge of the details of
the tasks he performs. As to detail orienta-
tion, the placing is at the right side. He
attaches great importance to the challenge, it
is to work with, understand and keep in
check complex coherences. Abstract thinking
is placed to the right. Therefore, it is also
natural that he attaches great importance to
having a solid, well-documented and well
worked-out decision foundation before he
makes up his mind. Left, on willingness to
take risks. Finally, the successful manager is
not the type who lets anyone check him due
to lack of backing, support or sympathy for
what he does ± this is illustrated by a left
score on support.
If a sales and marketing manager, with
several salesmen and marketing people re-
porting to him, approached and worked on
his tasks in the same way as the account
manager, he would obviously not conduce to
the development and prosperity of the com-
pany. The sales and marketing business
cannot be performed within the same well-
established rules, structures and systems.
Something will always come across. Selling
and marketing is far more process oriented
than the more structuralised tasks of the
financial department. Therefore, the sales
and marketing manager has to be much more
flexible, being able to work without having to
concentrate upon all the small details, and he
must be able to make decisions without the
same need of documentation, concrete facts
and proofs as the account manager.
This also leads to the fact that it is often
more difficult for the sales and marketing
manager to sell his ideas than it is for the
account manager. This is why there are larger
demand of quality of the sales and marketing
manager's heart-work. (See Figure 3.)
Figure 3
The heart-profile of the successful sales and
marketing manager
The successful sales and marketing manager
focuses on and has a flair for reading and
understanding other people. Illustrated by a
right-score on empathy. He has no need to be
in the limelight all the time, but he retires
and listens when it is most appropriate ±
illustrated by a middle-score on social con-
tact. He has a certain extent of toleration and
patience with people who are ``different'',
however, without losing the feeling of when
the string is getting too long. Round about the
middle on social flexibility. He is gifted
consciously to control himself which is
indicated in a right-score on self-control.
Finally, he is open and trusting (not naõÈve) in
his unsophisticated contact with other peo-
ple, that means a score on the right side as
regards confidence-trust.
Whether the account manager is in pos-
session of exactly the same qualities does not
mean quite so much for his success ± even
though most people would prefer a colleague
with the above mentioned qualities.
If we look at the ego-drive ± the leg-profile ±
we do not find big differences between the
two leaders. In general they both have to be
in possession of more or less the same
qualities in order to produce results. (See
Figure 4.)
The successful leaders are achievement-
and competition-oriented, they seek influ-
ence, they have the self-confidence to plunge
into new challenges, they are independent,
but also willing to adapt themselves. They
are sturdy, tolerant of criticism and setbacks,
and they are physically energetic and able to
keep several balls in the air at the same time.
These personality structures are illustrated
in the graphic profile by a placing at the right
side as concerns all the leg-traits. However,
the score of independence is close to the
Figure 4
The leg-profile for leaders in general
[ 117 ]
Finn Havaleschka
Personality and leadership: a
benchmark study of success
and failure
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
20/3 [1999] 114±132
[ 118 ]
middle, that means close to the average. The solving more or less complex specialist or
fact that it is not further to the right is an routine tasks. Keeping this in mind, we add
expression of the acceptance of the leader together the scores of the five head-factors,
that good management takes place in colla- and consider the total as an expression of the
boration between people. Nobody will ± at all person's ability to structuralise. The higher
times ± have his own way 100 per cent. the score, the higher the capability.
In the same way, we can register that a
well-developed heart-work plays a role for the
From theory to practice manager's ability to produce results. How-
ever, we must admit that the picture is not
Career and personality
quite so unambiguous as at the other factors.
The described and illustrated differences
Empathy, self-control and confidence-trust
generally show the difference between the
are the most important features, while both
specialist and the generalist and thus, also,
high and low scores on social contact and
the differences between the top manager and
social flexibility, generally checks the result-
the manager of the more operative ± day-to-
making. One of the sources of inspiration
day ± activities. The condition to become a
behind the selection and formulation of the
successful leader at all, is an excellent ego-
social traits is Murray (1964).
drive, a good legwork. It is a necessary, but
The fact that making a career in manage-
not sufficient condition. How high you will
ment is connected with a high structure-
get in the management hierarchy and the
score and a high ego-drive score is shown in
amount of success you will get gathering in
Figures 5 to 9. For the relevance of the ego-
concrete results, depends highly on your
drive traits see McClelland (1953). If we score
headwork.
the personality analyses of 1,540 people
In this connection, the headwork does not
selected by chance, representing quite 1,000
have anything to do with the traditional
different companies, and place them in
conception or measuring of intelligence. In
groups dependent on their placing in the
the profile analysis, the headwork is a
question of the ability to structuralise. An organising hierarchy, we get these pictures.
ability which, according to my theory, de- (See Figures 5 to 9.)
The percentage figures of each squadron
pends on how and to which extent, via our
personality, we allow ourselves to utilise our state the relative part of the group, which
intellectual and mental potential. By ability
to structuralise I understand a person's
Figure 5
ability to make the unstructuralised struc-
852 employees without any leader
turalised, the ability to see and understand
responsibility
patterns in coherences which have not been
described before, the ability to find his way
in unstructured and chaotic situations. A
capability, or more correctly, a potential
which we capture via the registration of the
five head factors. Jaques (1976) and Jaques et
al. (1978) have been great sources of inspira-
tion in relation to the definition of the
different head-traits and the formulation of
the underlying statements used in the ques-
tionnaires to identify a persons head-work.
See also Bruner (1956) as a source of
inspiration. It is also interesting to read
Buzan's Book of Genius (1994). One of the Figure 6
characteristics common for all of the genius 277 group leaders
he is portraying is flexibility and mental
freedom, which is also a prerequisite for a
well developed structural capacity.
The more rules and structure we are
dependent on, the more details we need, the
more concrete physically we are in our
approach to problems, the more security we
demand and the more support we need, the
more we limit the utility and the develop-
ment of our ability to structuralise. And the
more we do so, the more we specialise in
Finn Havaleschka
Personality and leadership: a
benchmark study of success
and failure
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
20/3 [1999] 114±132
Figure 7
200 middle-range leaders
Figure 8
143 functional leaders
Figure 9
68 top leaders
scores above, respectively below, the average
of the population. Thus, no top-leader scores
below the average on ego-drive. And 85 per
cent of these score at the same time above the
average on the structural factors. As regards
the group of employees without responsibil-
ity in relation to management, there are 21
per cent who score below the average on ego-
drive. A total of 45 per cent score below
average on structural factors and 53 per cent -
contrary to the 85 per cent of the top-leader
group score above average on both ego-drive
and structural factors.
These registrations show a clear tendency.
The higher we seek in the organisational
hierarchy, the fewer persons we find with an
ego-drive score below the average of the total
population. And the higher in the hierarchy
we look, the more persons we will find who
score above average of the structural factors.
The picture of the 852 employees without
management duties shows that these are not
representative of the population in general.
This is quite natural, as we have not, among
the 852, registered unemployed people, people
on public assistance, as well as more or less
voluntary non-working people. Furthermore,
there are only very few skilled and unskilled
employees among them. The 852 persons are
active salary employees ± many of them are
highly educated, specialists and generalists
in key positions, but without any responsi-
bility in relation to management.
The leaders of companies A and B
Different personalities ± different results
According to this knowledge, it is natural to
expect that the difference in the ability of
companies A and B to create results must be
due to the personality of the managers. Thus
we must expect that both companies are
being managed by people with a well-devel-
oped ego-drive, and that it is especially the
ability to structuralise which differs the
more successful company from the less
successful. Other things being equal, the
statistics showed us that the main part of all
managers' scores are above average on ego-
drive. As mentioned, ego-drive is a neces-
sary, but not sufficient condition of success
in relation to management.
In Figure 10, you see the top-managers of
companies A and B according to the same
systematism as in the previous figures.
Figure 10
Top-managers of companies A and B
[ 119 ]
Finn Havaleschka
Personality and leadership: a
benchmark study of success
and failure
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
20/3 [1999] 114±132
[ 120 ]
However, each individual person has been
plotted in relation to his concrete score on
the ego-drive and structural factors. In this
way, we may compare their scores ± both as
individuals and as a group.
As expected, all have a well-developed ego-
drive. They all score well above the average
person on the total ego-drive factors. The
difference is that five out of six top managers
in company A also score pretty much above
the average on the structural factors. ``Only''
two of the company B managers do so.
Furthermore, the manager of company B
scores equal to the average of structure,
while the manager of company A is the
person who has obtained the highest score.
Finally, four managers of group A have a
higher score than all the five leaders of group
B. The person who scores lowest on structure
in both groups is the financial manager of the
respective companies, which we also would
expect in accordance with our validity stu-
dies. See Havaleschka (1996a; 1996b; 1998). In
most of these studies I have followed the
guidelines recommended by Kline (1993) and
Cattell (1950).
So far, the conclusion is quite clear. If the
structure-score covers or is an expression of
a person's ability to structuralise, and it is
this ability we register by the profile analy-
sis, then the management group of the
successful company A is far better endowed
as regards dynamic, creative and strategy
forward management than the B-group. The
intellectual and mental degrees of freedom,
which the A-group gives itself ± and conse-
quently its employees ± in order to perform
the tasks of the organisation, are far beyond
those of company B.
If we take a closer look at the personality
profiles of the managing directors of the two
companies, the MD of the more successful
company is pictured in Figure 11.
The profile shows a person who accepts
organising and planning, but does not accept
being limited by rules, frames and estab-
lished structures. (The moderate right score
on system flexibility.) He is a person who
does not need to turn all the details, who
loves the intellectual challenge, who is able
to work abstractly and who creates visions
and ideas. (The left score on details and the
right score on thinking.) He is willing to take
risks, but primarily makes decisions on basis
of calculated risks. (The moderate right score
on risks.) Finally, he is a person who acts
without thinking about his own popularity.
(The left score on support.) The total score of
the structural factors is 30, which is far
beyond average. Consequently, we are deal-
ing with a person who is good at structur-
alising the unstructuralised and who may see
and establish patterns of complex coherences
and who gives his intellectual and mental
potential latitude to expand.
In relation to the social relations, we see a
sensible, but not extremely developed empa-
thy ± a good balance in relation to social
contact and social flexibility. Surprisingly,
and somewhat against the ideal, he is a
person who does not attach great importance
to a conscious control of his temperament.
(The left score on self-control.) He is an open
and confident person, but definitely also very
direct and impulsive in his communication
with other people. If he is discontented with
someone, there will be no doubt about it ± he
will let them know ± quickly and regularly. A
total score of heart-factors on 28 ± again far
beyond average, indicates an open and har-
monious person. A person, who shows feel-
ings and temperament, but who generally is
balanced.
In the case of the legwork, the competitive
and achievement motive, the desire to have
influence, the self-confidence, the psycholo-
gical strength and the physical energy are at
top level. All the ego-drive factors to the
right, except the need of independence which
is about average, which means that we are
dealing with a person who is able to retire,
listen and take advice. Not a stubborn person
who always want it his own way.
With the right experience, education and
background, this person would have good
possibilities to make a company produce
results. The person is in their late 40s, has a
fundamental commercial training, a univer-
sity degree in economics and marketing and
has performed most of his career in sales and
marketing positions. He has been the man-
ager of the company for ten years.
The personality profile of the MD of the
less successful company B differs in few, but
very important traits, from his competitor.
(See Figure 12.)
The graphic profiles have been changed
slightly due to the anonymity of the indivi-
dual top-leaders. The description of the
personality and behaviour of these leaders is,
however, quite identical both as to their
actual graphic profiles and supported by a
thorough knowledge of both. Both leaders did
furthermore certify the profiles at a self-
evaluating process. During this process,
which take place before we show the respon-
dents the actual profile, we explain the
expected behaviour of a person scoring far to
the right and far to the left, and ask the
respondent to place himself in the graphic
profile in relation to the two extremes. We do
this on all 16 traits and after that we compare
the self-evaluated and the psychometric
profile. And if the tester finds that any
Finn Havaleschka Figure 11
Personality and leadership: a The profile of the managing director of company A
benchmark study of success
and failure
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
20/3 [1999] 114±132

Figure 12
The profile of the managing director of company B

adjustment is appropriate, he will do so in of the tasks he and his organisation perform.

agreement with the respondent.
Here, we look at a person who attacks and
works up problems in a substantially differ-
ent way than the management director of
company A. This person puts a great weight
on organisation, establishing of structures,
rules and frames. At the same time, he
attaches great importance to always to hav-
ing a thorough understanding of the details
This means that the desire and ability to
work with complex relations are being cana-
lised down into the specific rather than to the
general. Consequently, this person does not ±
to the same extent as the leader of company A
± give his intellectual and mental potential
the same freedom to expand, to test and to
seek new possibilities. Generally speaking, it
is the way of approaching and working up
[ 121 ]
Finn Havaleschka
Personality and leadership: a
benchmark study of success
and failure
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
20/3 [1999] 114±132
[ 122 ]
problems, which stops the personal develop-
ment of the individual. See Erikson (1968)
and Maslow (1968) for some theoretical ex-
planation. The headwork ± head-profile ± of
this person looks more like the profile of the
ideal account manager than of a top-level
executive. The profile is more a specialist
profile than a generalist profile. MacCoby
(1981) describes four main social character
types, which differ in their orientation to
work. The B manager fits quite well into
MacCoby's Career type, whose positive po-
tential is professional and meritocratic, and
whose negative potential is being bureau-
cratic and fearful. The manager of the A
company fits the self-type, whose positive
potential is experimental and self-developing,
and whose negative potential is being esca-
pist and rebellious.
When it comes to the heart-work, the
principal difference between the two person-
alities is in the willingness and the ability to
deliberatly control temperament and feel-
ings. As regards the legwork, the principal
difference is due to the need of independence
and the psychological strength score. The
manager of company B has a larger need of
independence and a lower degree of robust-
ness than the manager of company A.
The differences in the personalities point
to two very different styles of leadership.
Manager A will give room and possibilities
for the employees to develop and expand.
Here, there is a great deal of freedom with
responsibility and without constricting bu-
reaucratic or technocratic limits and sys-
tems. This does not mean that there are no
plans and structures. It only means that these
will have to give way or be changed when we
± if we ± later find other and more efficient
means and methods. Manager A, will, owing
to the fact that he is not detail oriented ±
delegate without simultaneously giving di-
rectives, rules and instructions about how an
employee ought to perform the delegated
task. You would not be sure of getting such a
degree of independence from manager B. A
high score on details combined with a low
score on flexibility and willingness to take
risks, often indicates that the person has
difficulties in delegating without letting the
delegation being followed by fixed instruc-
tions and rigorous supervision.
A person with a low-structure score ± as
person B ± often comes to block the initiative
and responsibility of the employees placed
under his supervision ± quite without having
intention to do so. In such a company, you
will typically see that the employees slowly
but surely begin to bury themselves into
their own formal field of responsibility. They
mind their own business. The result will be
an organisation which suboptimises. The
organisation becomes bureaucratic and
technocratic. The result will be that more
people are needed to perform the same piece
of work. This means increasing costs and less
profit.
The leader of company B is also in his late
40s, he has a background within engineering
and production. He was head hunted to the
company as managing director from outside,
and he has been that for six years. He has a
university degree in engineering and has
spent most of his active career in production
and product development. Comparing
the career background of the MDs, it is
interesting to note that it is not the person
with a background in production who is
running the most cost-effective production,
but the person with a background in
marketing.
So it is not the executive alone who makes
the difference. In the remaining group of
managers, there might be forces who pull the
strings in the right direction. According to
the differences in the results, it does not
precisely look like this when it comes to
group B. If we look in more detail at the
personalities of the two groups, we get the
following pictures. (See Figures 13 and 14.)
The most important difference between the
two groups is their headwork, as indicated in
Figure 6. As concerns the B-group, the
median-score is 0 with an average of 1.6. The
median-score of the A-group is 20 with an
average of 12.8. The conclusion is that in the
management team of company B, we do not
find the same creative, intellectual and
mental degree of freedom as in group A. The
need of the B-group to organise, systematise,
plan, know and control details, document,
prove, have concrete facts, have clearness,
predict, etc. results in the fact that things will
come to a standstill. Investments, innova-
tions of methods of production and technol-
ogy, new market initiatives, new organising
forms, the long-term strategic work vanish
out of focus in favour of the daily practical
operational business. The organisation tends
to become bureaucratic and technocratic ± a
tendency manifested in exact figures. Over
the period of five years, wages and salaries
have increased by 24 per cent; the overhead
costs have risen by 69 per cent, while the
turnover has fallen 1 per cent. The result is
an expected fall in profit of approximately 15
per cent. The same figures of company A are:
wages and salaries have increased by 30 per
cent, the overhead costs increased by 5 per
cent, turnover rose by 10 per cent. The result
was an expected increase of profit by 20 per
cent.
Finn Havaleschka
Personality and leadership: a
benchmark study of success
and failure
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
20/3 [1999] 114±132
Figure 13
The management team of company A
Figure 14
The management team of company B
Details, rules and security
A question of ability and willingness to
delegate
If we look at the individual personality traits,
we can find again and prove this connection
with data from another company. The com-
bination of a high score on system flexibility
and a low score on detail orientation is
interesting, owing to the fact that these traits
pointedly differ between the two groups of
managers. None of the five managers of
company B has a high score on system
flexibility and at the same time a low score on
detail orientation. In direct opposition to
this, four out of six of company A have such
scores. In the description of the managers of
companies A and B, I have mentioned the
consequences of this combination of traits in
relation to delegation and leadership style.
[ 123 ]
Finn Havaleschka
Personality and leadership: a
benchmark study of success
and failure
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
20/3 [1999] 114±132
Figure 15
The 12 less successful managers and their placing in relation to details
and flexibility
[ 124 ]
The fact that this combination of person-
ality traits or characteristics affects success-
ful management, is proved by a study, which
I made for a sister company of an interna-
tional concern within the electronics data
business. The aim was to make proposals for
activities to optimise the development of the
company's human resources in relation to
management. In this connection, I asked the
company itself to establish criteria for suc-
cessful management and thereafter to evalu-
ate the degree of success of the established
group of managers. A total of 12 managers
were judged not very successful, 14 were
judged extremely successful and 18 were
judged to be OK. More or less all managers of
the company, from the managing director to
the hands-on managers, took part in the
project. This project is described in The
Leaders Choice (Havaleschka, (1997b).
By means of the profile analysis, I concen-
trated on studying the difference between the
managers who were considered not so suc-
cessful, and those who were considered very
successful. The picture was unambiguous.
None of the extremely successful managers
had a score combination of low system
flexibility and a high degree of detail orien-
tation. In opposition to this, seven out of 12 of
the not so successful managers had this score
combination. (See Figures 15 and 16.)
If we compare this knowledge to our
knowledge about the personalities in compa-
nies A and B, we get another significant
signal to where the problems of company B
are.
Figure 17 shows the difference between the
successful and the less successful managers
and clearly support the view that the lack of
results in company B ± compared to company
A ± has to be found in the personality of the
top-managers and the composition of the
personalities in the group. Detail orientation
is not in itself an obstacle to successful
management. The need for details only
becomes a problem if you also need to have
rules, frames and structures. If the manager
is more detail-oriented and less system
flexible than average, he and the company
have, or will have, problems in making
results.
It is difficult for a persons, who has a low
score on system flexibility and a high score
on details, to function 100 per cent under
unorganised, unstructuralised and inscruta-
ble conditions. This creates insecurity.
Therefore, this person uses every bit of his
intellectual and mental capacity in the
attempt ± via organising and planning ± to
make control, check and knowledge. And in
this attempt, the details play an important
part owing to the fact that the person feels
that he cannot control the entirety before he
controls the details. Such a behaviour can be
extremely appropriate when you have to
perform tasks within fields such as finance,
economics, programming, development of
technical constructions, word processing,
translations etc. However, this behaviour is
not very expedient when you have to manage
a company consisting of several thousands
or, for that matter, just a couple of hundred
employees. The top manager must be able to
rise from the daily operational level to the
strategic level in relation to leadership.
The four functions of the company
A presentation of the development profile
When we find such a big difference in the
results of companies A and B, it is perhaps
owing to the fact that the top-manager and
the management team of company B, as a
consequence of their personalities, use too
much time to solve problems at the opera-
tional level and not enough time at the
strategic level. According to a theory formu-
lated on the basis of data obtained via the
profile analysis, I have developed a develop-
ment profile, which registers on which of
these levels, a person focuses most. Both
groups of managers have completed the
development profile, so we may see if there is
a connection between theory and practice,
but before I go through the concrete results, I
will briefly outline the idea and the theory
behind the analysis.
Studies of two groups of people who, over a
period of respectively six and nine years,
have completed the profile analysis two or
three times, show a very regular pattern in
the development of the 16 personality traits
on which we operated in the profile analysis.
Finn Havaleschka Changes in the personality profiles of 30 per
Personality and leadership: a cent of approximately 500 people who took
benchmark study of success part in the project came about during the
and failure
period. This means that 70 per cent com-
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal pleted the questionnaire behind the profile
20/3 [1999] 114±132 analysis in more or less the same way every
time. In relation to the 30 per cent, two very
interesting patterns turned up.
First, it appeared that the trend of the
individual personality trait always went
towards the same direction. Second, it ap-
peared that the traits which developed ± as
well as the order in which they developed ±
depended on the age. The personality traits of
the head always developed from a lower to
higher score. This means, from a lower to a
higher degree of system flexibility; from a
higher degree of detail dependency to a lower
degree; from a lower degree of abstract
Figure 16
The 14 successful managers and their placing in relation to details and
flexibility
Figure 17
The managers of company A and B and their placing as regards details and
flexibility
thinking to a higher degree; from security
orientation to willingness to take risks; and
from a higher degree of need of support to a
lower degree. In proportion to my ideas and
theories behind these personality traits, the
registered direction corresponds to a devel-
opment of the ability to structuralise of the
individual person. If we develop, it will
always be towards a larger ability to struc-
turalise the unstructuralised. In practice,
this only means that we ± in the course of
time ± develop our ability to take care of
ourselves and to trust our own intellectual
and mental capacity. That is, if we develop,
which, as mentioned, 70 per cent of the
registered persons behind this theory did not
do. This means that they do not do anything
to challenge their intellectual competence
and mental capacity. Which, consequently,
will not bring about any development.
It applied to the social factors that em-
pathy, self-control and confidence-trust al-
ways developed from a lower to a higher
level, while social contact and social flex-
ibility developed from the extreme and
towards the average. All the ego-drive factors
± apart from the independence score ± devel-
oped from a lower to a higher score. The need
for independence also developed from the
extreme and towards the middle.
It is worth noting that nobody changed
their response to the profile analysis, which
resulted in the fact that some of the traits of
analyses number two and three turned in the
opposite direction to what I just described. It
is also worth noting that none of the 30 per
cent developed on all the 16 personality
traits. The general pattern was a develop-
ment on two to four personality traits.
Further to this extremely interesting pattern
± especially to the practical leader and HRD-
consultant ± there is a clear tendency to-
wards the fact that the development of the
traits of the individual is age-determined.
This means that the factors, and conse-
quently the qualities, of our personality
develop in a specific order.
In the age group from 24 to approximately
30 years, generally speaking, there were
primarily one or more traits of the ego-drive
factors which developed. That is, higher self-
confidence, bigger desire of having influence,
greater motive of achievement, etc. The next
development step often take place from age 30
to the end of 30s. It was primarily the social
factors' traits: higher empathy, more self-
control, more trust, from more important
need of social contact to less important, or
the opposite, from the shy solitary soul to a
more open and relaxed attitude to other
people. From the mid to the late 30s and up to
the mid and late 40s it was time for the
[ 125 ]
Finn Havaleschka
Personality and leadership: a
benchmark study of success
and failure
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
20/3 [1999] 114±132
[ 126 ]
structural factors. This tendency is illu-
strated in Figure 18.
From this, you can in short conclude that
the development of the age from the begin-
ning of the 20s until the end of the 40s starts
with the legs, later on hits the heart and ends
with the head. Hereafter the question auto-
matically arises; what was the difference
between those who developed one or more of
the 16 personality traits and those who did
not? It did not have anything to do with age,
social status, education, profession, address,
or any of the usual social-psychological
factors which we normally examine in such
situations. In fact, there was only one thing
which separated the 30 per cent from the 70
per cent, and it was the fact that 98 per cent of
the 30 per cent had taken up new employment
during the project period. Some of them more
or less performed the same tasks as earlier,
but in another organisation and together
with new people. Others performed totally
new tasks, in new functions, in a new
organisation, together with new people. Only
2 per cent of the group who did not show any
development in the profile, did change job
and organisation. Consequently, if you are
forced to do things, which you are not used
to, in new surroundings, with new people,
then you develop. To do the same things as
you are used to, together with the same
people, does not develop the head, the heart
or the legs. The concept of action learning, as
developed, by Revans (1971), seems to be the
best facilitator for personal development.
Figure 18
Development model
Under all circumstances, we can take it for
granted that there will be no development in a
social vacuum. We develop together with
other people in our endeavours to perform the
day-to-day tasks. Consequently, at different
stages in our lives, we will have to focus on,
be good at or become better and better at
performing specific kinds of tasks. These
tasks must have relation to the traits, which I
have defined in the head, heart and leg-model.
The head has to do with structure and
change, the heart has to do with social contact
and people, and the legs have to do with
practical accomplishment. And this is the
basic idea behind the development profile.
Whether we are highly educated or not, we
normally start our career by solving the
tasks which the company already knows how
to solve. We do not provide new knowledge to
the company, but we get it ourselves. And
that knowledge is the knowledge about some
of all the basic factors which make an
organisation function. In this period, we
solve tasks within the baser function, as I call
it, that is, tasks such as calculations, pur-
chasing, shipping, administration, within
production, IT etc. We may grow within the
baser function, specialise in these things, be
good at the more complex baser tasks, to
develop a new IT-system, to balance an
account, to work with a new production
technique, but however, we still find our-
selves in a baser function. We work within
the established structures of the company
and we are at the operative level. Personality
traits such as order, structure, need of
Finn Havaleschka
Personality and leadership: a
benchmark study of success
and failure
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
20/3 [1999] 114±132
planning, detail orientation and security
orientation are required to be able to func-
tion well solving baser tasks.
Only when we move from baser to result-
producing tasks, does new qualitative devel-
opment occur. Often it occurs, in the begin-
ning of our 20s, when we want to earn more
money in order to obtain independence of the
authorities, which until now has limited our
independence. For instance our parents, the
schoolteacher, and the master. And we get
this independence when we canalise the
energy down to the legs. We develop our ego
by becoming salesmen, by putting more
activity into production, by thinking of how
to make things faster and make more profit.
We act at short sight. Things must happen,
we have to move on, make a career and, once
in a while, we find out that the established
structures of the baser function have an
extremely restrictive influence on our in-
itiative and possibilities to produce results,
right now, in the result function. The tasks of
the result function are short-sighted, process-
oriented and operative, and bring about the
development in personality traits such as
competition, influence, self-confidence, psy-
chological strength etc.
The more we get to know the result
function, the more we learn that the legwork
alone does not do it. If we only focus on
ourselves, our own ego, it will be difficult to
get any further. But perhaps, or should I say
fortunately, we run into conflicts because of
that, which force us to learn to listen, decline,
mediate. And with this, the development of
the heart qualities begins. We put more
emphasis on empathy, a social balanced
behaviour, confidence-trust, social flexibil-
ity. With these skills, and with the experi-
ence of the very structure-determined baser
function and the more process-oriented re-
sult function, we have got an experience,
which makes us the qualified integrator. As a
natural consequence of our own develop-
ment, we begin to focus on the tasks of what I
call the integrator function. We now under-
stand that systems, machinery and people
have to be integrated to function together,
and we have formed some qualified ideas of
the best way to do it. Here it is the practical
experience rather than the theoretic ballast,
which makes the difference. And by this, we
have ± nice and quietly ± acquired the
competence to solve the more tactical and
strategical tasks in the organisation.
But what use is our well-developed leg- and
heart work to us, if our experience from
solving baser, results and integrator tasks
tells us that the problems are owing to the
fact that the time, the technology, the market
have out-distanced the traditional structure,
technology and processes of the baser and
result functions? We may integrate just as
much as we want, but there will not be more
results due to that. At most, we can avoid
stagnation. So, we have to do something,
perhaps something radical. We have to let go
of what is tying up our intellectual and
mental potential. We have to let go of the
established baser conception. And thus the
development of the ability to structuralise
begins. We see new patterns, new structures.
And we plunge into it with the authority
arising from well-developed heart- and leg-
work, and the experience and growth in
competence coming from doing this kind of
work. We are now taking an active share ± as
task performers ± in the development func-
tion of the company. We work strategically
and long-termed. Figure 18 gives an overview
of the outlined development idea.
In practice, we develop our head-, heart-
and legwork successively by taking part in
the baser, result, integrator and developer
functions. But not everyone runs through
such a development. Some people stop their
development in the middle of the baser
period. They continue in the baser function
and perform the day-to-day practical busi-
ness. Others continue in the baser function
too, but become advanced specialists. Others
again continue to the result function, but
stop there. The fact that they rise, make a
career, earn money, they perceive as devel-
opment ± personal development, but the
motive is primarily the ego. And if the worst
should come to the worst, it will be a question
of running faster, and being even more goal-
directed and convincing. However, others
find personal resources to get further. They
are the ones who learn that not everything is
created by legwork and ego alone, and that
some things are easier if you step aside and
listen. And first when you allow yourself to
listen, you may realise that something is
fundamentally wrong, where after you put
forward new ideas in relation to the way to
do things. Not because you have a desire to be
an MD, but because you have a qualified
guess to what and how you can do things
better.
The basic for this development idea is
outlined in In Search of Leadership (Hava-
leschka, 1991). See also Erikson (1968) and
Maslow (1968). It is worth mentioning that
I'm not describing four different type as, for
example, Adizes (1979) and MacCoby (1976;
1981). Although it is clear that the four
descriptions are very similar. I like to
emphasise the dynamic development per-
spective which can bring you from a lower to
a higher degree of mental (intellectual-cog-
nitive) freedom, social freedom, psychic
[ 127 ]
Finn Havaleschka
Personality and leadership: a
benchmark study of success
and failure
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
20/3 [1999] 114±132
[ 128 ]
freedom and self-esteem. Even though the
aforementioned figures show that most of us
(70 per cent), appear to behave like the same
type most of our lives.
Focus on the company manager
A question of development of personal
competence
The question is now, where are the managers
of the two companies in this development
cycle? Simply on the assumption that the
quality of what you perform at a later stage,
at a higher level, is dependent on the quality
of your personal development and of what
you learned at an earlier stage at a lower
level, any top-level manager should be in the
integrator and developer period and have
gone through the development coming from
the baser and result period. He or she should
be qualified and able to concern themselves
with the integrator and developer tasks of the
company. However, this does not signify that
the top-level manager should not, occasion-
ally, perform some baser and result tasks too.
But it should always be determined by the
situation (e.g. owing to lack of other people to
perform it), and not be a consequence of lack
of personal development. The funny thing is
that we can always and quickly return to
what we have learned earlier, while it is not
possible, instantly, to go forward to some-
thing which we have not understood yet. To
go back does not take any time. To go forward
may take a long time. To go from the
integration to the short-sighted, concrete
activities where we personally have to create
the results ourselves, is as easy as to take a
step backwards. It is only a question of will-
power. But to take one step forward, towards
the art of integration, might take years of
returning crises before we understand. How
far the management team of company A has
come is indicated in Figure 19.
The graphic figure of the development and
focus of the A-group does not leave much
doubt. The group is placed as it has to
according to both theory and model. They are
persons who focus on integration of people,
systems and machinery, as well as the
demands of the future to the baser function of
the company. The development profile of
Figure 19 has been drawn on the basis of the
median-score of the group, and therefore
shows where the management team mainly
has its focus. The profile goes far out into the
corners of the squares as the person or the
group focus more on the task described.
In Figure 20, the score of the individual
leader, as to each of the four functions, has
been sketched in. We get an impression of the
spreading of the group. Here, we can see that
there is ``only'' one person with high scores in
the baser- and result-producer fields. This
one person is the financial manager. The rest
of the group is in the integrator- and devel-
oper-fields. As mentioned, this does not
signify that they cannot work with baser- and
result-producer tasks. It only means that you
do not find their primary focus here. All six
leaders score positively in the integrator-
field and four of them also score positively in
the developer-field. No doubt the manage-
ment team is where it should be, according to
both theory and model, that is, with the main
stress laid on the strategic functions. And
when you know about the age, education and
experience of these people, there is no doubt
that they have been through the development
of the baser and result functions. They are
not just a bunch of theorists, even though
this part of their background is as it should
be as well. They know things from practice.
They know how to integrate, to formulate
visions and to think out strategies without
losing the grounding, and they can carry
through the strategies with such a suitably
unbureaucratic and delegating style that the
operative employees feel responsible and
take initiatives.
We know that company A produces good
results, while company B is a little on the
heels. Could it be owing to the focus of the
group and the development of the leaders, or
the lack of it? The answer appears from
Figures 21 and 22.
As it appears, the management team of
company B is placed totally opposite to the
team of company A. The weight is attached to
the operational spheres. The group consists
of very concrete action-oriented people who
try to produce results through a high degree
of focusing on the baser functions of the
organisation. The results are that they are
functioning as highly-educated specialists,
within the established structures and frames
of the baser and result functions. Four of the
five B-group managers focus on the baser and
result functions. Only one has a reasonably
distinct focus on the developer function.
Compared to this, the A-management team
has four people who focus on development,
and these four, plus two more, also focus on
integration. These distinct differences must
make a difference in the daily management.
Furthermore, the top-manager of the B-group
scores one distinct minus on the developer
function (91), while the A-group manager
scores plus 36. See the development profiles
of the two managers in Figures 23 and 24.
Seen in the light of the ideas and the theory
behind the development profile, it is inter-
esting to notice that the majority of the
Finn Havaleschka
Personality and leadership: a
benchmark study of success
and failure
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
20/3 [1999] 114±132
Figure 19
Development profile of the leader-group of company A
Figure 20
The placing of the management team of company A
leaders of company A have a rather untradi-
tional background before they started their
careers in company A. I have mentioned
before that the managing director, prior to
his academic education, had gone through a
practical commercial training. This means
that he has been an apprentice in a business
office for four years and consequently
learned the baser function in details. He has
also been a salesman and a sales manager
and through this he has learned the
result-producing function thoroughly. The
technical director has a background as flight
officer, this means that he made a career as
civil pilot before he started his engineering
education. After he had finished his engi-
neering education, he was engaged in a
production plant and worked both as fore-
man and as production manager before he
ended up as technical director. The sales and
marketing manager has, like the managing
director, been through a traditional com-
mercial training before he took a degree at
the graduate level. The production director
also has an untraditional background, in the
sense that he has a graduate degree in
economics and an undergraduate in science.
This means that he has come from the more
administrative/economic side of business
life before he became a production manager.
Other things being equal, this is a group of
people who have looked for tasks that could
challenge and develop their intellectual and
mental capacity, social skills and self-esteem.
These people have in their personality some
of the same characteristics that Pinchot III
(1985) uses to describe the personality quali-
ties of the real Intrapreneur, who is first of all
a person who combines visions and actions,
and who is anti-bureaucratic. As real entre-
preneurs, the intrapreneurs are not driven
by a need for power; instead, their motivation
stems from a very high need for achievement,
according to McClelland (1975; 1976).
The management team of company B do
not have the same industrial experience. The
sales and marketing manager is the one who
has the most differentiated background and
experience ± a little like his colleague in
company A. The financial manager has a
background in economics and accounts, with
a graduate in economics. The managing
director, the production director and the
technical director are all engineers and have
made the traditional career for academically
educated engineers. This means that after
they ended their education they started more
or less directly in a specialist function and
thereafter applied for more management-
oriented functions in production. Conse-
quently, they do not have experience from
the extent of a company's baser function.
Basically, they are specialists and do still
function widely as such.
This means that their angle or approach
the day-to-day tasks is the same. A person
functioning differently ± and therefore com-
ing with other alternative angles of incidence
± will have difficulties in getting influence in
such a group, especially if he is not the
managing director. In practice, it was seen
when a highly-placed manager ± previously
[ 129 ]
Finn Havaleschka
Personality and leadership: a
benchmark study of success
and failure
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
20/3 [1999] 114±132
Figure 21
Development profile of the management team of company B
Figure 22
The placing of the management team of company B
[ 130 ]
member of the top management team ± was
left out of influence during a period of two-
three years or, in reality, chose to put himself
outside influence. The profile analysis of this
person shows a person with a very high score
on structure (contrary to the relatively low
scores of his former colleagues). The devel-
opment profile of the person concerned
shows a person placed in the strategic fields;
integrator and developer (contrary to the
management team, who are placed mainly in
the operative fields; baser and result func-
tions). A person with the right personality, in
the right position together with the wrong
people ± it is not strange that he chose to
withdraw.
Because of the anonymity of these people,
it is unfortunately not possible to state
profoundly the outlined, extremely interest-
ing connections between education, experi-
ence, career and success. On the other hand,
we have seen similar stories before. The most
interesting is perhaps that we, with the
presented analyses and theories, can register
the picture and thus help others not to fall
into the same situation.
Conclusion
The top-level management team in company
B consists primarily of low-structuralised
persons, who primarily focus on the baser
and result functions of the company. The
opposite applies to the management team of
company A. Here, everybody ± except one ±
are high-structuralised persons. They are
persons who, in their management, primarily
focus on the integrator and developer func-
tions. The group of managers in company A
primarily works at the strategic level, while
group B primarily works at the operational
level. According to the theories and models
that the profile- and development-analyses
are based upon, it is logical that company A
is more successful than company B.
It is in the leadership, which is determined
by the personality of the top manager and the
composition of the personalities of the group
of managers, that we find the difference
between success and failure.
What led to the composition of the indivi-
dual companies' top management? Why does
the A-company consist of high-structure
persons and integrators/developers, while
the B-company consists of low-structure
persons and baser/result-producers? The
pattern is so well-known and discussed that it
will be the final remark in this conclusion.
Even though we know it and have been
warned against it, it is within human nature
to engage people with whom we communi-
cate well and therefore take a liking to during
the interview. If you are a low-structure
person, you will take a liking to the man who
controls the details and who has distinct and
specified plans of how the tasks should be
performed. You attach great importance to
the well-documented motives and concrete
explanations of the candidate. The low-
structure person takes a liking to and en-
gages the people who approach and work on
Finn Havaleschka
Personality and leadership: a
benchmark study of success
and failure
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
20/3 [1999] 114±132
Figure 23
Function profile of the managing director of company A
Figure 24
Function profile of the managing director of company B
problems in the same way as himself, and
who attaches importance to or puts focus on
the same functions in the company as he
does. The result is that he engages copies of
himself ± without being conscious of it.
It is not the same case in relation to the
high-structure person. This person has been
through a personal developing process in-
cluding both the baser and the result periods.
At the same time, has developed his ability to
structuralise from a lower to a higher level.
This means that he has developed his general
knowledge, he has become or given himself a
mental excess which makes it possible for
him to remain objective in relation to the
company's actual need of management. He
has got beyond the ego-centred result period.
He engages people who can meet the needs of
the company instead of his own personal
needs. This makes the difference in leader-
ship and team-building, and also between
company A and company B.
References
Adizes, I. (1979), How to Solve the Mismanagement
Crises, Dow Jones, Homewood, IL.
Bruner, J.S. (1956), A Study of Thinking, Wiley,
New York, NY.
Buzan, T. (1994), Book of Genius, Stanley Poul,
London.
Cattell, R.B. (1946), Description and Measurement
of Personality, Harcourt, New York, NY.
Cattell, R.B. (1950), Personality: A Systematic
Theoretical and Factual Study, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
Erikson, E.H. (1968), Identity, Youth and Crises,
W.W. Norton, New York, NY.
Havaleschka, F. (1991), In Search of Leadership,
Garuda Research Institute, Knebel.
Havaleschka, F. (1996a), Validity of the Garuda
Profile, Predictive Value, Garuda Research
Institute, Knebel.
Havaleschka, F. (1996b), Validity of the Garuda
Profile, Content Validity, Garuda Research
Institute, Knebel.
Havaleschka, F. (1997a), The Personality of the
Leader, Garuda Research Institute, Knebel.
Havaleschka, F. (1997b), The Leaders Choice,
Garuda Research Institute, Knebel.
Havaleschka, F. (1998), Validity Studies of the
Profile Analysis, Garuda Research Institute,
Knebel.
Jaques, E. (1976), A General Theory of Bureau-
cracy, Heinemann Educational, London.
Jaques, E., Gibson, R.O. and Isaac, D.J. (1978),
Levels of Abstraction in Logic and Human
Action, Heinemann, London.
Kline, P. (1993), The Handbook of Psychological
Testing, Routledge, London & New York, NY.
MacCoby, M. (1976), The Gamesman, the New
Corporate Leaders, Simon & Schuster,
New York, NY.
MacCoby, M. (1981), The Leader, Ballantine
Books, New York, NY.
McClelland, D.C. (1953), The Achievement Motive,
Irvingstones, New York, NY.
McClelland, D.C. (1975), Power: The Inner Experi-
ence, Irvingstones, New York, NY.
McClelland, D.C. (1976), The Achieving Society,
Irvingstones, New York, NY.
Maslow, A. (1954), Motivation and Personality,
Harper, New York, NY.
[ 131 ]
Finn Havaleschka
Personality and leadership: a
benchmark study of success
and failure
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
20/3 [1999] 114±132
[ 132 ]
Maslow, A. (1968), Toward a Psychology of Being, Bringbert, D. and McGrath, J.E. (1982), ``A net-
Van Nostrand, New York, NY. work of validity concepts within the research
Murray, E.J. (1964), Motivation and Emotions,
process'', Forms of Validity in Research,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
No. 12, June, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Pinchot III, G. (1985), Intrapreneuring, Harper &
Cattell, R.B. and Kline, P. (1977), The Scientific
Row, New York, NY.
Revans, R.W. (1971), Developing Effective Man- Analysis of Personality and Motivation,
agers, Praeger, London. Academic Press, New York, NY.
Mumford, A. (Ed.) (1984), Insights in Action
Learning, MCB University Press, Bradford.
Further reading
Pervin, L.A. (1993), Personality, Theory and
Anastasi, A. (1982), Psychological Testing,
Macmillan, New York, NY. Research, Wiley, New York, NY.