Leadership dimensions

Dr. M. Roussety MBA, MLed, PhD

Leadership dimensions
Within the context of the behavioural science, more
particularly organisational behaviour, Robbins et al., (2004)
broadly defines organisation, which I adapt (for the
express purpose of this review) to include the word
financial, and now reads, a consciously coordinated
social unit, composed of two or more people, that functions
on a relatively continuous basis to achieve a common
financial goal or a set of financial goals.

Leadership dimensions
By giving the organisation a requisite financial purpose, I
intentionally narrow the definition to exclude social units
such as army corps, schools, political parties, sporting
teams whose raison dtre materially differ to that of
financial-centric organisations. This small but significant
change gives contextual clarity and purpose to many of the
key leadership principles being explored in this work and
reflects this reviews underlying interest in occupationrelated behaviour.

Leadership dimensions
The above definition of the organisation clearly
establishes its relational dependency on the workings
of groups in an open system model. More precisely, it
relies on groups of two or more people to coordinate
as a social unit in order to achieve its financial goals.
In

effect,

this

principle

postulates

that

the

organisation cannot attain its goals without the

workings of groups and an effective leader.

Leadership dimensions
Furthermore,
behavioural,

when

notably

investigating
issues

such

organisational
as

leadership

effectiveness, it is important to clearly specify the

level(s) of analysis at which phenomena are expected
to exist (House, Rousseau and Thomas-Hunt, 1995;
and Klein, Danseuse and Hall, 1994). Consequently in
this review, my discussion refers generally and
equally

to

departments.

individuals,

dyads,

work-groups,

and

Leadership dimensions
To begin the conceptual classification of key leadership
dimensions

and

sub-dimensions/factors

contained

in

contemporary literature, the concept of Leader Capital (LC),

Follower Capital (FC), and Situational Milieu (SM) is presently
introduced and developed in detail later in this paper. These
leadership concepts

will be systematically applied to classify

and

key

compress

the

leadership

dimensions

and

sub-

dimensions/factors into fixed variables that are able of being

consistently and systematically applied in evaluating leadership
models of differing theoretical constructs.

Leadership dimensions
This task is validated by the fact that conceptual
definitions of leadership components employed in
empirical, theoretical, and meta-analytic studies have
typically evolved independently of one another and
lacking in alignment with one guiding theoretical
perspective, as respective authors strive for differentiation
and prominence by developing new rather than
consolidating existing concepts (Schriesheim et al., 1999;
and Raush, 2005).

Leadership dimensions
In

keeping

with

the

rudimentary

three-dimensional

leadership model that contemplates the interdependence of

leader, follower and situation (Mahsud et al., 2010:562), and
consistent with the view that leadership theories need to
embrace task structure of the job, level of situational stress,
level

of

group

support,

the

leaders

intelligence

and

experience; and follower characteristics such as personality,

experience, ability and motivation (Robbins et al., 2004:352).

Leadership dimensions

Personality and Background Factors

Leadership dimensions
Background
biographical:-

factors
those

can
that

be
can

grouped
be

as

objectively

determined such as age, gender and race (Robbins et

al., 2004:40), whereas

non-biographical (dynamic)

factors comprise those that

are not so objectively

determined and largely influenced by social and

environmental conditioning such as values, needs,
motivations, attitudes, capabilities and skills..

Leadership dimensions
Personality and Background Factor Scale (PBFS), biographical
factors are what they are, and cannot be changed by human
interference, however non-biographical factors are not prescribed by
nature and can be manipulated to diverging levels of complexities
and temporal constraints. It is generally accepted that, of the nonbiographical

factors,

personality

is

stable

and

straddles

the

boundaries of biographical and dynamic factors (McCrae and Costa,

1990; and Kornor and Nordvik, 2004); and is the most complex to
understand and transmute.

Leadership dimensions
Background
biographical:-

factors
those

can
that

be
can

grouped
be

as

objectively

determined such as age, gender and race (Robbins et

al., 2004:40), whereas

non-biographical (dynamic)

factors comprise those that

are not so objectively

determined and largely influenced by social and

environmental conditioning such as values, needs,
motivations, attitudes, capabilities and skills..

Leadership dimensions
This phenomenon is such that researchers in leadership
theory are polarised (Brown, 1988; and Barrick et al., 2001) as
to how much of leader or follower behaviour is shaped by
personality

characteristics,

but

has

not

discouraged

the

research and meta-analytic efforts of prominent authors such

as Lopes et al., (2003); Raja et al., (2004); McCrae and Costa
(2004); Schyns and Felfe (2006); Bauer et al., (2006); Berneth
et al., (2007); and Nahrgang et al., (2009) towards establishing
credible correlations.

Leadership dimensions

To expound this concept, I now refer to each of the

non-biographical factors for a more comprehensive
analysis of each of their respective roles in leadership
effectiveness.

Leadership dimensions
Personality:- Pe
Personality is the unique pattern of psychological
and behavioral characteristics by which each person
can be compared and contrasted with other people
(Bernstein et al., 2006:540) and dimensions of
individual differences in tendencies to show consistent
patterns of thoughts, feelings and actions (McCrae et
al.,

1990:23)

which

are

shaped

by

hereditary,

environmental and moderated by situational factors.

Leadership dimensions
The study of personality has to date been voluminously
covered from an empirical and theoretical perspective as
personality traits are deemed valid predictors of behaviour
(Hough et al., 1990; Barrick and Mount, 1993:111; and
Kornor and Nordvik, 2004:49) and more broadly by Cooper
and

McClenaghan

organisational

(2008:1:2)

behaviour

when

they

presupposes

stated
that

that

human

behaviour in an organisational context is substantively

predictable.

Leadership dimensions
The accuracy of predicting behaviour is enhanced by the
empirical observation that human behaviour, especially in
the workplace, is relatively consistent across situations and
time. That is, human behaviour is driven by a persons
personality, which is most resistant to change. To that end,
various models have been developed to try, to the extent
possible, to make an objective assessment of otherwise
subjective traits of human personality, i.e., Myers-Briggs
Type Indicator.

Leadership dimensions
However, the MBTI has not been clinically proven to be a
valid measure (Robbins et al., 2004:103), unlike Allport and
Cattells Five-Factor-Model (FFM) which Costa and McCrae
(1992)

subsequently revised into a hierarchical taxonomy

comprising,

extraversion

(e.g.,

sociable,

talkative

and

assertive), agreeableness (e.g., good-natured, cooperative,

and

trusting),

dependable,

Conscientiousness

persistent

and

(e.g.,

responsible,

achievement

emotional stability (viewed from the negative pole;

oriented),

Leadership dimensions
Although disagreement abounds amongst academics as to the
theoretical validity of FFM (Block, 1995) in predicting leadership
style and recently confirmed by Bono and Judge (2004:908) in
summary, results of the present study provide the first metaanalytic evidence on the relationship between personality and
transformational and transactional leadership. Results indicate
generally modest validities overall

Leadership dimensions
It is worth noting that even though personality as an active metamoderator of leadership behaviour has been the subject of
leadership research since the early 1970s, not much work had been
done on the five distinct domains of FFM (Murphy and Ensher,
1999:562) until Berneths research. This point is further reinforced
by my analysis of work undertaken by Schriesheim et al., (1999:63113) where the authors chronicled the evolution of LMX theory with
an analytical focus on the theoretical definitions (57 identified) and
Sub-Domains (164 identified) embedded in 147 LMX studies (10
theoretical and 137 empirical) from 1972 to 1998.

Leadership dimensions
My

analysis

entails

qualitative

and

quantitative

decomposition of these definitions and domains to enable the

attribution of each of the 164 Sub-Domains to one of the nonbiographical factors of greater contextual congruence and I
found that personality was the most (66%) considered dimension
in 147 LMX studies. Similar research by Bono and Judge (2004)
found that out 15,000 studies on leadership since 1990, 12%
considered the personality dimension, which I suspect would be
significantly higher had they adopted the attribution approach of
my analysis rather than search for the keywords personality
and leadership.

Leadership dimensions
The FFM is by far been the dominating force in contemporary
research in personality (Bernstein et al., 2006:555) across
different cultures (Barrick and Mount, 1993:111) and as a
consequence has substantively contributed to our ability to
predict behaviour. However, as Bernstein et al., (2006:555)
caution, even if the big-five model is correct and universal, its
factors are not all-powerful, because situations also affect
behaviour. To put it in context of leadership theory, this
suggests that leader or follower behaviour is not moderated by
personality

alone,

but

correlated to other factors

is

instead

positively

or

negatively

Leadership dimensions
Accepting the above, it is reasonable to assert that
personality is remarkably stable (Kornor and Nordvik,
2004:45; and Robbins et al., 2004:101), is genetically wired
(Tellegen et al., 1998), therefore complex and resistant to
change,

influences

non-biographical

factors

of

leaders/followers (Nahrgang et al., 2008:258) and has

implications in leadership behaviour (De Vader and Alliger,
1986; Matthews and Dreary, 1988; and Barrick et al.,
2001).

Leadership dimensions
Values:- V
Values comprise our feelings of what's right or wrong, are
shaped from our formative years by environmental factors. They
are generally stable, and enduring, thereby often impede
objectivity and rationality. They assist in shaping our attitudes
and general behaviour (Rokeach et al., 1989:775-84); or as
Ravlin and Meglino (1987:667) put it: - values influence the
selection and interpretation of external stimuli, thereby affecting
the organisation of behavioral choices or the formulation of
alternative courses of action.

Leadership dimensions
Mahsud et al., (2010) narrow it down to ethical
leadership

which

they

maintain

includes

altruism,

honesty, empowerment, fairness, and justice, and these

values are a core aspect of several theories that have been
prominent in the leadership literature in recent years,
including servant leadership (Russell and Stone, 2002; and
Smith et al., 2004), spiritual leadership (Fry, 2003); and
authentic leadership (Gardner et al., 2005).

Leadership dimensions
As indicated on the high-low continuum in Fig. 1, values
are the most resistant to change out of the six dynamic
factors (values, needs, motivations, attitudes, capabilities,
and skills) that are driven by personality. It has been
successfully argued that values of individuals in an
organisational setting vary according to their occupational
cohorts (Munson and Posner, 1980; and Frederick and
Preston, 1990).

Leadership dimensions
Rokeachs Value Survey identified that executives, union
members, and activists had diverse value sets, which he
grouped as terminal and instrumental. For the executive
cohorts

terminal

security,
happiness

values

freedom,
whereas

included

sense

of

instrumental

self-respect,

family

accomplishment,
values

consisted

and
of

honest, responsible, capable, ambitious, and independent.

Leadership dimensions
Reverting to the connection that Ravlin and Meglino
(1987); Rokeach et al., (1989); Ayman et al., (1995); Varma
et al., (2005); and Mahsud et al., (2010:565)

make

between values and behaviour, and more particularly the

composition of terminal and instrumental values; it is hard
not to expect a leaders style and his ultimate effectiveness
to be influenced by his values.

Leadership dimensions
As Frederick and Weber (1990:132) rightly state when
discussing

the

organisations:-

way

different

cohorts

behave

in

when critical stakeholder groups within

organisations interact over economic and social issues,

built-in differences in personal value preferences will most
likely be manifested:- even in those with leadership roles,
thereby engendering predictable behaviour patterns. The
consequential impact of values on a leaders style is
insightfully expressed by Mahsud et al., (2010:565)

Leadership dimensions
Ethical values are likely to encourage leaders to use
more

relations-oriented

behaviours

with

subordinates when they are appropriate for the

situation. A leader who values altruism is more likely
to be supportive and helpful to subordinates. A
leader who values empowerment is more likely to
use delegation. A leader who values personal growth
and fairness is more likely to develop subordinates
and

provide

advancement.

equal

opportunities

for

career

Leadership dimensions
A leader who values humility and fairness is more
likely to provide recognition to subordinates who
make important contributions to the mission rather
than claiming credit for them. Leaders with strong
ethical

values

will

not

deceive

or

exploit

subordinates, and they will not be abusive or unkind

in their behaviour towards subordinates.

Leadership dimensions
Needs: N
A need is a biological requirement for well-being
(Bernstein et al., 2006:401), which captures the essence of
Maslow

(1943)s

hierarchy

of

physiological,

safety,

belongingness and love, esteem and self-actualisation

needs and when considered in an organisational context
can be condensed to the need for affiliation, power and
achievement (Levinson, 1994; McClelland, 1961; and Stahi,
1986).

Leadership dimensions
However those basic needs are influenced by personality
along with values and vary in form and motive from one
individual to another. As researched by Sheldon et al.,
(2001), a group of college students cited the need for
autonomy, relatedness to others, competence, and selfesteem to prevail over the need for luxury or selfactualisation.

Leadership dimensions
Further to this, Baumeister and Leary (1995); and Oishi
et al., (1999) make the point that needs associated with
basic survival and security generally take precedence over
those relating to self-enhancement or personal growth.
That being said, it is reasonable to draw the inference that
human behaviour in an organisational setting is most likely
to exhibit motives for affiliation, power, and achievement.
To that end, research has established a strong relationship
between needs and job performance

Leadership dimensions
Motivations:- M
Motivation is the process that account for an individual's
intensity, direction, and persistence of effort towards
attaining a goal (Mitchell, 1997), it is the interaction of the
individual and the situation (Robbins et al., 2004:164); it is
the force, either internal or external to a person that
arouses enthusiasm and persistence to pursue a certain
course of action. The individual is constrained by his
personality and to an extent, the situation is moderated by
that individuals values and needs.

Leadership dimensions
Accepting that intensity relates to how hard the work effort is
and that the direction of that effort either accrues to the
individual or the organisation, then given the situation, the goal
may not be attained unless there is a degree of persistence:duration of effort. Building on Daft and Pirola-Merlo (2009:230)
who posit that people have basic needs, such as the needs for
food, recognition or monetary gain, that translate into internal
tension that motivates specific behaviour to fulfil those needs

Leadership dimensions
it will be the intimate fusing of personality, values and
needs of the individual that will lead the effort: - behaviour
required for intensity, direction and persistence. It must
also be said that motivation is fluid and dynamic, so much
so that it must be kept in check to ensure that it is justified
in context of the structure, goals, and visions of the
organisation.

Leadership dimensions
Attitudes:- At
Attitudes comprise cognitive, affective, or behavioral elements
that reflect our likes as well as dislikes and is evaluative in intent
(Olson et al., 1993) which is consistent with the thinking of
Bernstein et al., (2006:70) except that they go further to say that
attitudes are derivatives of values, which is further reinforced by
Ayman et al., (1995:152) by writing that values assist in shaping
attitudes as well as general behaviour, to which

Robbins et al.,

(2004:70) add:- attitudes are less stable and complex than values,
which is consistent with where they respectively situate on the PBFS
continuum.

Leadership dimensions
As Brooke et al., (1988) reason, attitudes are manifested in a
broad triad of organisational dimensions: - job satisfaction, job
involvement, and organisational involvement. Job satisfaction
refers to the individuals own evaluation of whether or not
he/she is gratified by the job at hand and more or less reflects
his/her present and future needs. Depending on those needs,
the resultant behaviour may be counter-productive to personal
and/or organisational goals.

Leadership dimensions
On the other hand job involvement is more of a
psychological concept. It is the extent that the
individual

connects

and

identifies

with

the

job

together with the effort required for reward and a

measure of self-worth (Blau and Boal, 1987:290). This
psychological condition appears to be driven more by
motivations, which in turn are driven by the combined
workings of personality, values, and needs.

Leadership dimensions
It is a form of self-efficacy which Bandura (1977) defines
as the conviction that one can successfully execute the
behaviour required to produce the outcomes and similarly
Schyns and Von Collani (2002: 227) describe occupational
self-efficacy as ones belief in ones own ability and
competence to perform successfully and effectively in
situations and across different tasks in a job.

Leadership dimensions
Organisational commitment is the last of Brookes
attitudinal dimensions and manifests much the same
emotions as does job commitment except that, Blau and
Boal (1987) point out, it is centered on the organisation
and its goals rather the job, and defined by Mowday et al.
(1982:27)

as

identification
organisation.

relative
with,

and

strength

of

involvement

an
in,

individuals
a

particular

Leadership dimensions
Meyer and Allen (1991:67) went further to break down
this

commitment

into

three

dimensions:

affective,

continuance, and normative. They explained that affective

commitment

refers

to

the

employees

emotional

attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the

organisation, whereas continuance commitment refers to
an awareness of the cost associated with leaving the
organisation, and normative commitment reflects a
feeling of obligation to continue employment.

Leadership dimensions
To that end Mael and Ashforth (1992); and Dutton et al.,
(1994) reveal that most people desire to belong to and
identify with an organisation that is believed to have
socially valued characteristics. Regardless of whether their
opinion

is

accurate,

such

internal

employees

own

assessments can influence how they interact with and

within the organisation (Clardy, 2005; and Mignonac et al.,
2006).

Leadership dimensions
This phenomenon is often referred to as perceived
external prestige (Mael and Ashforth, 1992), or construed
external image (Dutton et al., 1994) and is of increasing
interest to researchers and practitioners for the reason that
it has broad implications for attitudes and behaviours in
organisations (Herrbach and Mignonac, 2004).

Leadership dimensions

Leadership dimensions
Capabilities:- C
Capabilities
developed

refer to the ability that is present or can be

which

is

necessary

to

achieve,

consisting

of

intellectual and physical abilities (Robbins et al., 2004:44-45). To

follow, Dunnette (1976) argues that intellectual ability can be
multi-dimensionally

classified

as

number

aptitude,

verbal

comprehension, perceptual speed, inductive and deductive

reasoning,

spatial

visualisation,

and

memory.

Conversely,

Fleishman (1979) tags physical abilities with strength, flexibility

and other factors such as body coordination, balance, and
stamina.

Leadership dimensions
Capabilities:- C
Capabilities
developed

refer to the ability that is present or can be

which

is

necessary

to

achieve,

consisting

of

intellectual and physical abilities (Robbins et al., 2004:44-45). To

follow, Dunnette (1976) argues that intellectual ability can be
multi-dimensionally

classified

as

number

aptitude,

verbal

comprehension, perceptual speed, inductive and deductive

reasoning,

spatial

visualisation,

and

memory.

Conversely,

Fleishman (1979) tags physical abilities with strength, flexibility

and other factors such as body coordination, balance, and
stamina.

Leadership dimensions
Capabilities:- C
Capabilities

refer to the ability that is present or can be

developed which is necessary to achieve, consisting of intellectual

and physical abilities (Robbins et al., 2004:44-45). To follow,
Dunnette (1976) argues that intellectual ability can be multidimensionally

classified

as

comprehension,

perceptual

speed,

reasoning,

spatial

visualisation,

number

aptitude,

inductive
and

and

memory.

verbal
deductive

Conversely,

Fleishman (1979) tags physical abilities with strength, flexibility

and other factors such as body coordination, balance, and
stamina.

Leadership dimensions
Based on the above, capabilities are vital links in the chain of
goal

achievement.

In

dynamic

organisational

setting,

individuals are not always assigned jobs meritoriously. There are

times when job appointments are politically motivated or are just
circumstantially inherited. This, according to Robbins et al.,
(2004:46) can be problematic as sometimes jobs make different
demands on people and that people differ in the abilities they
possess which may obstruct the likelihood of achieving personal
and organisational goal. Conversely, at times individuals are
posted to roles for which they are overly qualified to do, which
can cause frustration, dampen motivation.

Leadership dimensions
Irrespective of personality, values, needs, motivations and
attitudes; efforts to achieve a goal better or worse that another
can and will to a large extent depend on capacity. Saying that, if
the capacity to do exists and the individuals needs, motivations
and attitude are where they ought to be, then learning and
training can bridge the gap between what one individual can do
well and another do better. This obviously hits a chord with Daft
and Pirola-Merlo (2009:60) who write that the differences in task
readiness (affected by training, ability, skills etc.) call for a
certain type of leadership style that differs for members with a
high level of task readiness and training can change leadership
behaviour and attitudes

Leadership dimensions
Similarly, a study of MBA graduates by Cheng and Ho (2001)
showed that, since individuals with high commitment to their
careers have the intention of improving skills and performance in
their jobs, they are likely to exert considerable effort towards
learning the training content. As a result, research has been
exploring the underlying attributes and behaviours of leaders who
successfully perform these contemporary leadership roles in order
to identify leadership selection and training criteria for the
recruitment and development of effective leaders (Church and
Waclawski, 1998).

Leadership dimensions
Skills:- Sk
Skills

means the competence to achieve which is

gained through experience and training. They can be either

emotional or physical and

feature at the polar end to

personality on the PBFS indicating that they can be the

most responsive to change over a relatively small time
period when compared to the other non-biographical
factors discussed above..

Leadership dimensions
Competence can be considered in terms of technical,
general business, and interpersonal skills (Gabarro, 1987;
Butler, 1991; and Mishra's, 1994) all of which are needed
in nearly all roles, but individually in some more so than
others. At the end of it all, the individual who travels well
along the PBFS continuum but falters before acquiring the
necessary skills may become inextricably failure-bound.

Leadership dimensions
Dr. Maurice Roussety is an Executive Consultant at DST
Advisory and Lecturer in Small Business, Franchising and
Entrepreneurship at Griffith University in Queensland,
Australia. Maurice holds a PhD from the Griffith University
in Intellectual Property and Franchise Goodwill Valuation.
He also holds a Masters degree in Leadership and a Master
of Business Administration.