Twin Research (1998) 1, 216–223
© 1998 Stockton Press All rights reserved 1369–0523/98 $12.00
http://www.stockton-press.co.uk/tr
Natur e vs nur tur e: A r e l eader s bor n or made? A behavi or
geneti c i nvesti gati on of l eader shi p styl e
A ndrew M Johnson 1, Phi l i p A Vernon 1, Jul i e M M cCarthy 1, M i ndy M ol son 2, Jul i e A Harri s1 and
Kerry L Jang3
1
Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, USA
3
Department of Psychiatry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
2
Wi th the r ecent r esur gence i n popul ar i ty of tr ai t theor i es of l eader shi p, i t i s ti mel y to consi der the
geneti c deter mi nati on of the mul ti pl e factor s compr i si ng the l eader shi p constr uct. I ndi vi dual
di ffer ences i n per sonal i ty tr ai ts have been found to be moder atel y to hi ghl y her i tabl e, and so i t
fol l ow s that i f ther e ar e r el i abl e per sonal i ty tr ai t di ffer ences betw een l eader s and non-l eader s,
then ther e may be a her i tabl e component to these i ndi vi dual di ffer ences. Despi te thi s connecti on
betw een l eader shi p and per sonal i ty tr ai ts, how ever, ther e ar e no studi es of the geneti c basi s of
l eader shi p usi ng moder n behavi or geneti c methodol ogy. The pr esent study pr oposes to addr ess the
l ack of r esear ch i n thi s ar ea by exami ni ng the her i tabi l i ty of l eader shi p styl e, as measur ed by sel fr epor t psychometr i c i nventor i es. The M ul ti factor Leader shi p Questi onnai r e (M LQ), the Leadershi p A bi l i ty Eval uati on, and the A djecti ve Check l i st w er e compl eted by 247 adul t tw i n pai r s
(183 monozygoti c and 64 same-sex di zygoti c). Resul ts i ndi cated that most of the l eader shi p
di mensi ons exami ned i n thi s study ar e her i tabl e, as ar e tw o hi gher l evel factor s (r esembl i ng
tr ansacti onal and tr ansfor mati onal l eader shi p) der i ved fr om an obl i quel y r otated pr i nci pal
components factor s anal ysi s of the M LQ. Uni var i ate anal yses suggested that 48% of the var i ance
i n tr ansacti onal l eader shi p may be expl ai ned by addi ti ve her i tabi l i ty, and 59% of the var i ance i n
tr ansfor mati onal l eader shi p may be expl ai ned by non-addi ti ve (domi nance) her i tabi l i ty. M ul ti var i ate anal yses i ndi cated that most of the var i abl es studi ed shar ed substanti al geneti c
covar i ance, suggesti ng a l ar ge over l ap i n the under l yi ng genes r esponsi bl e for the l eader shi p
di mensi ons.
Keyw or ds: l eadershi p styl e, behavi or geneti cs, transformati onal
l eadershi p, heri tabi l i ty
A great deal of behavi oral geneti c research has been
conducted i nto vari ous personal i ty trai ts, resul ti ng
i n the consensus that personal i ty i s dependent on
both geneti c and envi ronmental i nfl uences. The
majori ty of tw i n studi es has demonstrated moderate
to l arge geneti c contri buti ons to many personal i ty
di mensi ons.1,2 On average, i ndi vi dual di fferences i n
personal i ty have been found to be approxi matel y
40% heri tabl e.2
Current sci enti fi c thought on l eadershi p may be
traced to Gal ton,3 w ho conducted the fi rst study of
the geneti c basi s of l eadershi p. The mai n thesi s of
Gal ton’s w ork w as not, how ever, l eadershi p, nor di d
he address the heri tabi l i ty of l eadershi p i n a modern
sense, ow i ng to the underdevel oped geneti c methodol ogy of hi s ti me. Gal ton’s subjects w ere 100 i ndi vi d-
Correspondence: A ndrew M Johnson, Department of Psychol ogy,
Uni versi ty of Western Ontari o, London, Ontari o N6A 5CZ,
Canada. Tel : 519 680 5997; Fax: 519 661 3961; E-mai l :
ajohnson@jul i an.uw o.ca
Recei ved 6 October 1998; accepted 14 October 1998
l eadershi p, transacti onal
ual s w hom he consi dered to be ‘great men’, i nsofar
as they had attai ned emi nence i n thei r fi el d to an
extent real i zed by onl y 1 i n 4000 i ndi vi dual s. He
then undertook to exami ne the pedi gree of these
men, concl udi ng that, si nce ‘greatness’ appeared to
be more preval ent w i thi n the fami l y hi story of these
subjects than w oul d be expected i n the publ i c at
l arge, ‘greatness’ i s w hol l y due to the acti on of genes.
It w as a smal l l eap from thi s to trai t theori es, and the
‘great man’ theory of Wi l l i am James.4 James bel i eved
that i ndi vi dual s are chosen by the si tuati on, due to
some i ntri nsi c qual i ty that makes them sui tabl e to
l ead or to ‘i ni ti ate movement’.
Sci enti sts began to research l eadershi p w i th the
i ntenti on of di scoveri ng w hi ch personal i ty trai ts
di sti ngui sh those w i th thi s abi l i ty from those w i thout. To thi s end, researchers compi l ed l i sts of trai ts
that had been associ ated w i th l eadershi p, typi cal l y
through observati ons of the characteri sti cs of publ i cl y vi si bl e l eaders. Stogdi l l 5 surveyed hundreds of
arti cl es, and concl uded that the most i mportant
trai ts w ere (i n order of i mportance): ori gi nal i ty,
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 31 Jul 2017 at 22:36:37, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1375/twin.1.4.216
Born to lead
AM Johnson et al
217
popul ari ty, soci abi l i ty, judgement, aggressi veness,
desi re to excel , humor, cooperati veness, l i vel i ness,
and athl eti c abi l i ty. To si mpl i fy cl assi fi cati on further,
he proposed a rough taxonomy of l eadershi p, w i th
si x di mensi ons, fi ve of w hi ch w ere personal i ty trai ts
(capaci ty, achi evement, responsi bi l i ty, parti ci pati on,
and status). The si xth di mensi on w as the si tuati on.
It w as Stogdi l l ’s5 reference to the i mportance of the
si tuati on that prompted the greatest reacti on from
the sci enti fi c communi ty. A s a consequence of thi s
arti cl e, there arose an i ncreased l evel of research
acti vi ty i nto the si tuati on as the pri mary determi nant
of emergent l eadershi p abi l i ty.6 Trai t theori es are,
how ever, seei ng a resurgence i n popul ari ty among
researchers. A s i s often the case w hen theoreti cal
model s sw i ng from one extreme to another, the best
avai l abl e answ er may be a compromi se betw een the
tw o. A l though i t i s becomi ng i ncreasi ngl y cl ear that
there are systemati c trai t di fferences betw een l eaders
and non-l eaders,6,7 there are si tuati onal , organi zati onal , and moti vati onal characteri sti cs that affect
the success of the i ndi vi dual w i thi n the l eadershi p
rol e.8 One w i del y accepted model of l eadershi p styl e
i s the transacti onal –transformati onal model proposed by Burns.9 Transacti onal l eadershi p refers to a
l eadershi p styl e i n w hi ch the l eader offers promi ses
of rew ards and benefi ts i n exchange for feal ty.
Transformati onal l eadershi p, on the other hand,
i nvol ves the use of i nspi rati onal techni ques, to
i nspi re fol l ow ers to suppress thei r ow n i nterests i n
favor of the l ong-term benefi t of the group.9
If i ndi vi dual di fferences i n the personal i ty characteri sti cs of l eaders may be determi ned, i t seems
l ogi cal to determi ne the extent to w hi ch these
characteri sti cs, and the overal l construct of l eadershi p, are heri tabl e. Thi s notw i thstandi ng, i n over
2000 ci tati ons si nce 1990 i nvol vi ng a l eadershi p
construct taken from Psychological Abstracts, none
has empl oyed a modern behavi or geneti c approach.
Thi s study w as desi gned to address thi s i ssue,
appl yi ng a tw i n study paradi gm to several psychometri c measures of l eadershi p.
Exami nati on of the heri tabi l i ty of l eadershi p i s an
i mportant contri buti on to l eadershi p research for a
number of reasons. The most i mmedi ate benefi t of
such an anal ysi s i s to provi de some i ni ti al answ ers to
the questi on of w hether l eaders are ‘born or made’.
A nother i mportant feature of geneti c anal yses, how ever, i s the exami nati on of contri buti ons due to an
i ndi vi dual ’s uni que experi ences, a component of
envi ronmental vari ance that can onl y be properl y
i denti fi ed w i th data col l ected i n a tw i n (or si mi l arl y
geneti cal l y i nformati ve) sampl e. When consi deri ng a
personal i ty construct such as l eadershi p styl e, the
magni tude of thi s envi ronmental component may
gi ve some i ndi cati on of the degree to w hi ch trai ni ng
w oul d be effecti ve for any gi ven di mensi on.
M ethod
Parti ci pants w ere part of a l arge behavi or geneti c
i nvesti gati on spanni ng mul ti pl e personal i ty constructs.10 The subjects w ere 247 adul t tw i n pai rs:
183 pai rs of monozygoti c (M Z) tw i ns (149 femal e
pai rs, mean age = 45.1 years, SD = 16.5; 34 mal e
pai rs, mean age = 45.1 years, SD = 15.8), and
64 same-sex di zygoti c (DZ) tw i n pai rs (55 femal e
pai rs, mean age = 42.8 years, SD = 17.6; 9 mal e
pai rs, mean age = 33.9 years, SD = 8.9). The subjects
represent a w i de vari ety of backgrounds and l evel s of
educati on.
Subjects compl eted three sel f-report questi onnai res assessi ng di fferent facets of l eadershi p behavi or: the M ul ti factor Leadershi p Questi onnai re
(M LQ),11 the Leadershi p A bi l i ty Eval uati on (LA E),12
and the A djecti ve Checkl i st (A CL).13 These questi onnai res w ere mai l ed to subjects, al ong w i th
i nstructi ons for thei r compl eti on and the promi se of
a chance to w i n one of 10 cash pri zes of $100 i n
return for fi l l i ng i n the questi onnai res. Compl eted
questi onnai res w ere returned i n stamped, preaddressed envel opes. Subsequentl y, 10 subjects
w ere randoml y sel ected from among those w ho had
returned thei r compl eted questi onnai res and these
subjects w ere sent the pri ze money.
The M LQ i s an 80-i tem measure requi ri ng subjects
to rate the appl i cabi l i ty of i tems to thei r ow n
behavi or, usi ng a 5-poi nt scal e. The test consi sts of
ni ne measures of l eadershi p behavi or: attri buted
chari sma, i deal i zed i nfl uence, i nspi rati onal moti vati on, i ntel l ectual sti mul ati on, i ndi vi dual i zed consi derati on, conti ngent rew ard, acti ve managementby-excepti on, passi ve management-by-excepti on,
and l ai ssez-fai re l eadershi p. A ttri buted chari sma
refers to an i ndi vi dual ’s percei ved chari sma i n nonbehavi oral si tuati ons, and may be thought of as a
physi cal chari sma. Ideal i zed i nfl uence refers to the
i ndi vi dual ’s chari sma i n behavi oral si tuati ons. The
i nspi rati onal moti vati on scal e measures the l eader’s
tendency to cause fol l ow ers to respond to thei r task
on an emoti onal l evel . Scores on the i ntel l ectual
sti mul ati on vari abl e refl ect the degree to w hi ch the
l eader provi des tasks or subtasks that represent an
appropri ate l evel of mental chal l enge to thei r fol l ow ers. The i ndi vi dual i zed consi derati on scal e i s a
measure of how w el l the l eader provi des personal
attenti on to each member of the target group.
Conti ngent rew ard represents the exchange of val ue
for performance. The tw o forms of managementby-excepti on (acti ve and passi ve) are qui te si mi l ar,
w i th both forms i nvol vi ng a l ai ssez-fai re l eadershi p
styl e unti l the si tuati on commands thei r attenti on (i n
other w ords, unti l the si tuati on demands correcti on).
To remedy a probl em si tuati on, how ever, an acti ve
l eader w i l l set performance standards and moni tor
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 31 Jul 2017 at 22:36:37, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1375/twin.1.4.216
Born to lead
AM Johnson et al
218
subordi nates careful l y, w hi l st the passi ve l eader w i l l
suggest that the si tuati on must be remedi ed, but
provi de no concrete method for the amel i orati on of
the probl em. Fi nal l y, i ndi vi dual s w ho are compl etel y non-i nvol ved w i th the fol l ow er group
(except i n an advi sory capaci ty) typi fy the l ai ssezfai re l eadershi p styl e. The M LQ al so contai ns the
cri teri on scal e ‘extra effort’, w hi ch measures the
degree to w hi ch the i ndi vi dual i nspi res others to
w ork beyond the i mmedi ate requi rements of the task
at hand, and perform ‘above and beyond’ the cal l of
the si tuati on. A l though subordi nate rati ngs of l eader
performance are preferabl e, the extra effort scal e
provi des a useful compari son vari abl e for the other
l eadershi p vari abl es.11 Bass14 provi des a good
descri pti on of the constructi on methods and
assumpti ons underl yi ng the M LQ.
The LA E i s a 50-i tem questi onnai re desi gned to
measure the deci si on pattern or soci al cl i mate i n
w hi ch the l eadershi p behavi or i s l i kel y to take pl ace.
The i ndi vi dual i s presented w i th 50 hypotheti cal
si tuati ons and i s requi red to i denti fy w i th the l eader,
choosi ng the deci si on mode that he or she bel i eves i s
best for the descri bed si tuati on. Each si tuati on
descri bes four types of deci si on: l ai ssez-fai re, democrati c–cooperati ve, autocrati c–submi ssi ve, and autocrati c–aggressi ve. Lai ssez-fai re l eadershi p i s typi fi ed
by a l ack of i nvol vement w i th group members
beyond the rol e of advi sor or mentor, w hi l st democrati c–cooperati ve l eadershi p emphasi zes attenti on
to the group dynami c among fol l ow ers, w i th deci si ons bei ng made through the consensus of the
fol l ow er group. Both autocrati c–submi ssi ve and
autocrati c–aggressi ve l eadershi p styl es i nvol ves the
di recti on of the group accordi ng to the l eader’s pl an,
and al l ow l i ttl e devi ati on from the l eader’s preconcei ved noti on of w hat shoul d be done. A utocrati c–submi ssi ve l eaders, how ever, al l ow fol l ow ers
to determi ne how they w i sh to achi eve the objecti ve,
w hi l st autocrati c–aggressi ve l eaders defi ne the process as w el l as the objecti ve.12 One can al so cal cul ate
a total l eadershi p score by w ei ghti ng the deci si on
mode scores to di scri mi nate opti mal l y betw een
l eaders and non-l eaders. Cassel and Stanci k 12 recommend that an i ndi vi dual ’s total l eadershi p score on
the LA E be one tenth of the sum of thei r l ai ssez-fai re
score (mul ti pl i ed by seven), thei r democrati c–cooperati ve score, and thei r autocrati c–submi ssi ve score
(mul ti pl i ed by four). The autocrati c–aggressi ve score
does not enter i nto cal cul ati ons of the total l eadershi p score.
The A CL i s a l i st of 300 descri pti ve adjecti ves, 47
of w hi ch w ere judged by the present authors to be
rel evant to l eadershi p behavi or (see Tabl e 1). Subjects w ere to respond to the ful l adjecti ve checkl i st
on a 5-poi nt Li kert scal e. It w as hoped (and subsequentl y confi rmed) that thi s modi fi cati on to the
ori gi nal format of the A CL w oul d yi el d a more
rel i abl e measure than havi ng subjects si mpl y ti ck
any adjecti ves they fel t w ere descri pti ve of them.
The 47 adjecti ves judged to be rel evant to l eadershi p
behavi or w ere aggregated to form an adjecti val
l eadershi p measure.
In total , 16 measures of l eadershi p w ere obtai ned,
the rel i abi l i ti es of w hi ch ranged from moderate (LA E
A utocrati c–A ggressi ve, α = 0.55), to hi gh (A CL
Leadershi p, α = 0.91); medi an α = 0.78. Rel i abi l i ti es
for al l personal i ty scal es may be found i n Tabl e 2.
Subjects al so compl eted a zygosi ty questi onnai re,15
w hi ch has a reported accuracy of 93% i n compari son
w i th the resul ts of bl ood-typi ng.16
Tabl e 1
A djecti ves contai ned i n the A CL l eadershi p scal e
A ggressi ve
A l ert
A ppreci ati ve
A uthori tati ve
Busi ness-ori ented
Capabl e
Cari ng
Chari smati c
Ci vi l i zed
Consci enti ous
Co-operati ve
Deci si ve
Del i berate
Demandi ng
Dependabl e
Dri ven
Dynami c
Effi ci ent
Empathi c
Enterpri si ng
Enthusi asti c
Entrepreneuri al
Extraverted
Farsi ghted
Tabl e 2
scal es
Frank
Hard-w orki ng
Havi ng i ni ti ati ve
Honest
Independent
Industri ous
Inspi ri ng
Leaderl i ke
Li keabl e
M ethodi cal
M oderate
M oti vated to achi eve
Perseveri ng
Pow erful
Responsi bl e
Sel f accepti ng
Sel f moni tori ng
Strong
Thoughtful
Tol erant
Trustw orthy
Versati l e
Wel l adjusted
Rel i abi l i ti es of the M LQ, LA E, and A CL-r l eadershi p
Scale
LA E A utocrati c–aggressi ve
LA E A utocrati c–submi ssi ve
LA E Lai ssez-fai re
LA E Democrati c–cooperati ve
LA E Total
M LQ A ttri buted chari sma
M LQ Ideal i zed i nfl uence
M LQ Inspi rati onal moti vati on
M LQ Intel l ectual sti mul ati on
M LQ Indi vi dual i zed consi derati on
M LQ Conti ngent rew ard
M LQ M anagement-by-excepti on, acti ve
M LQ M anagement-by-excepti on, passi ve
M LQ Lai ssez-fai re
M LQ Extra effort
A CL Leadershi p
a
From Cassel R, Stanci k E.12
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 31 Jul 2017 at 22:36:37, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1375/twin.1.4.216
α
0.55a
0.59a
0.58a
0.91a
0.90a
0.74
0.82
0.84
0.82
0.87
0.83
0.65
0.69
0.71
0.81
0.91
Born to lead
AM Johnson et al
219
Resul ts
Preliminary analyses
M eans w ere computed for each raw scal e score based
on the w hol e sampl e and w i thi n each ki nshi p group.
A one-w ay anal ysi s of vari ance w as performed on
each vari abl e to compare the means betw een ki nshi p
groups, usi ng each member of each tw i n dyad as an
i ndependent repl i cati on. None of the vari abl es demonstrated a si gni fi cant mean di fference betw een M Z
and DZ tw i ns, and tests for heterogenei ty of vari ance
i ndi cated that there w ere no si gni fi cant di fferences
i n vari ances betw een ki nshi ps.
A s w as demonstrated by M cGue and Bouchard,17
the presence of age and sex effects on a trai t score
can seri ousl y bi as esti mates of geneti c and envi ronmental components. To avoi d these confounds,
correcti ons for age and sex effects w ere made by
computi ng compl etel y standardi zed resi dual scores
from the mul ti pl e regressi on of each score on age and
sex. A l l further anal yses are based on these transformed scores.
hi gh posi ti ve l oadi ng from conti ngent rew ard (0.80),
but thi s does not necessari l y pose a probl em for
i nterpretati on, gi ven that transformati onal and transacti onal l eadershi p are not mutual l y excl usi ve l eadershi p styl es, and the use of conti ngent rew ards i s a
val i d extensi on of transformati onal l eadershi p
behavi or.18 The second rotated factor of the sol uti on
accounts for 20.9% of the vari ance, and i s i denti fi abl e as transacti onal l eadershi p, possessi ng hi gh
posi ti ve l oadi ngs from acti ve managementby-excepti on
(0.73),
passi ve
managementby-excepti on (0.84), and l ai ssez-fai re l eadershi p
(0.72). Thi s factor anal ysi s i s si mi l ar to anal yses that
have been undertaken i n previ ous anal yses, and the
factors arri ved at i n thi s fashi on may be seen to be
representati ve of the hi gher-l evel l eadershi p factors
of
transacti onal
and
transformati onal
l eadershi p.11,18
Because the LA E w as not desi gned to tap hi gher
l evel factors, i t w as not reduced beyond the scal e
scores, nor w as i t i ncl uded i n a factor anal ysi s w i th
the M LQ scal e scores.
Factor analyses
Univariate genetic analyses
Because the M LQ w as desi gned to tap mul ti pl e
facets of a tw o-di mensi onal factor space (i e transformati onal and transacti onal l eadershi p), hi gher
order factors w ere extracted from a pri nci pal components factor anal ysi s of the M LQ, and the resul ti ng
factors w ere obl i quel y rotated to faci l i tate i nterpretati on. The resul ti ng factor matri x i s presented i n
Tabl e 3. Tw o factors w ere extracted, based on an
exami nati on of the scree pl ot. The fi rst rotated factor
of the sol uti on obtai ned i n thi s fashi on accounts for
50.9% of the total vari ance i n the sampl e space, and
i s i denti fi abl e as transformati onal l eadershi p, as i t
has hi gh posi ti ve l oadi ngs from attri buted chari sma
(0.84), i deal i zed i nfl uence (0.88), i nspi rati onal moti vati on (0.88), i ntel l ectual sti mul ati on (0.82), and
i ndi vi dual i zed consi derati on (0.87), al l of w hi ch are
consi dered to be the scal es of the M LQ that desi gnate
transformati onal l eadershi p.11 Factor one al so has a
Usi ng LISREL 8,19 uni vari ate geneti c anal yses w ere
conducted to assess the rel ati ve contri buti ons of
geneti c and envi ronmental effects to i ndi vi dual
di fferences on the 16 l eadershi p vari abl es and the
tw o M LQ factor scores (transformati onal and transacti onal l eadershi p). For al l vari abl es, a ful l A CE
model w as fi t fi rst, to determi ne the proporti on of
vari ance that i s attri butabl e to addi ti ve geneti c
effects (A ), common envi ronmental effects (C), and
speci fi c envi ronmental effects (E). If the presence of
non-addi ti ve geneti c effects w as i ndi cated (i e w hen
the M Z correl ati on w as more than tw i ce the DZ
correl ati on), then an A DE model w as appl i ed to the
data, exami ni ng the proporti on of vari ance attri butabl e to addi ti ve geneti c effects, non-addi ti ve (domi nance) geneti c effects (D), and speci fi c envi ronmental effects. These ful l model s w ere then
systemati cal l y decomposed i nto three model s, A E,
CE, and DE, compri si ng onl y tw o sources of vari ati on each. The fi nal model fi t to the data w as an E
model , compri si ng onl y one source of vari ati on,
namel y speci fi c envi ronmental vari ance. To determi ne w hi ch model afforded the ‘best fi t’ to the data,
the χ2 obtai ned from each model w as di vi ded by i ts
degree of freedom, and the model w i th the l ow est
χ2:df rati o w as consi dered to be the best fi t to the
data. M axi mum l i kel i hood esti mates resul ti ng from
thi s anal ysi s w ere squared to produce esti mates of
the vari ance due to each of the effects speci fi ed by
the model .20 The best fi tti ng model for each vari abl e
may be found i n Tabl e 4. The best-fi t model for each
of the vari abl es demonstrated a good fi t to the data.
Tabl e 3 Vari max rotati on of pri nci pal components sol uti on for
the M LQ
A ttri buted chari sma
Ideal i zed i nfl uence
Inspi rati onal moti vati on
Intel l ectual sti mul ati on
Indi vi dual i zed consi derati on
Conti ngent rew ard
M anagement-by-excepti on, acti ve
M anagement-by-excepti on, passi ve
Lai ssez-fai re
Ei genval ues
Percentage of vari ance
I
II
0.84
0.88
0.88
0.82
0.87
0.80
0.35
–0.13
–0.36
4.58
50.90
–0.08
–0.01
–0.17
0.05
–0.11
0.22
0.73
0.84
0.72
1.88
20.90
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 31 Jul 2017 at 22:36:37, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1375/twin.1.4.216
Born to lead
AM Johnson et al
220
A s i s apparent from Tabl e 4, vi rtual l y every l eadershi p scal e demonstrated evi dence of heri tabi l i ty,
w i th the excepti ons of M LQ conti ngent rew ard, M LQ
passi ve management-by-excepti on, and M LQ l ai ssez-fai re. A mong the scal es that evi dence geneti c
determi ni sm, there i s roughl y an even spl i t betw een
addi ti ve and non-addi ti ve sources of vari ance, w i th
effects rangi ng from 0.30 to 0.59. Because conti ngent
rew ard, passi ve management-by-excepti on, and l ai ssez-fai re l eadershi p (the onl y uni vari ate model s not
di spl ayi ng heri tabl e components) represent tw o
thi rds of the transacti onal l eadershi p di mensi on, as
proposed by Avol i o, Bass, and Jung,21 thi s mi ght
i ndi cate that i ndi vi dual di fferences i n thi s form of
l eadershi p are predomi nantl y envi ronmental l y
determi ned. Indeed, the other component of transacti onal l eadershi p, acti ve management-by-excepti on,
possesses the smal l est amount of addi ti ve geneti c
vari ance, at 0.30.
The heri tabi l i ty of the M LQ factor scores w as
exami ned w i th uni vari ate geneti c model s by anal yzi ng the factor scores i n a fashi on si mi l ar to the
Tabl e 4
anal yses conducted on the scal e scores. The resul ts
of these anal yses are al so contai ned i n Tabl e 4. The
best fi tti ng model for both transacti onal and transformati onal l eadershi p i ndi cated the presence of
geneti c effects, w i th addi ti ve effects for transacti onal
l eadershi p, and non-addi ti ve effects for transformati onal l eadershi p.
Multivariate genetic analyses
Tabl e 5 contai ns phenotypi c correl ati ons betw een
the scal es of the LA E, the A CL l eadershi p scal e, the
tw o M LQ l eadershi p factors (transformati onal and
transacti onal l eadershi p), and M LQ extra effort.
Correl ati ons i n bol d are si gni fi cant at P < 0.01. A s
one w oul d expect, gi ven that these vari abl es are
purported to measure the same general construct,
most are hi ghl y i ntercorrel ated. Wi thi n the LA E, i t
w oul d appear that the overal l scal e score for the LA E
(LA E total ) i s predomi nantl y measuri ng a l ai ssezfai re l eadershi p styl e. Democrati c–cooperati ve l eadershi p mi ght be consi dered to be the best LA E
M Z and DZ correl ati ons and geneti c anal yses for LA E, A CL, and M LQ scal es
Variable
MZ
DZ
a2
(SE)
d2
(SE)
c2
(SE)
e2
(SE)
LA E A utocrati c–aggressi ve
0.32
0.09
—
—
LA E A utocrati c–submi ssi ve
0.31
0.05
—
—
LA E Lai ssez-fai re
0.41
0.29
LA E Democrati c–co-operati ve
0.35
0.15
—
—
LA E Total
0.36
0.28
—
—
A CL Leadershi p
0.50
0.16
0.42
(0.057)
0.36
(0.061)
0.38
(0.060)
—
0.33
(0.062)
0.31
(0.066)
—
—
M LQ A ttri buted chari sma
0.50
0.13
—
M LQ Ideal i zed i nfl uence
0.50
0.18
M LQ Inspi rati onal moti vati on
0.54
0.20
0.48
(0.054)
—
0.49
(0.054)
0.49
(0.053)
—
—
M LQ Indi vi dual i zed consi derati on
0.50
0.20
—
M LQ Intel l ectual sti mul ati on
0.47
0.20
—
M LQ Conti ngent rew ard
0.25
0.27
—
0.55
(0.051)
0.52
(0.053)
0.47
(0.054)
—
M LQ M anagement-by-excepti on, acti ve
0.31
0.11
M LQ M anagement-by-excepti on, passi ve
0.31
0.31
0.30
(0.068)
—
—
M LQ Lai ssez-fai re
0.28
0.33
—
—
M LQ Extra effort
0.48
0.05
—
M LQ Factor I
Transformati onal l eadershi p
M LQ Factor II
Transacti onal l eadershi p
0.58
0.21
—
0.47
0.33
0.48
(0.055)
0.48
(0.056)
0.59
(0.051)
—
0.67
(0.040)
0.69
(0.042)
0.58
(0.038)
0.64
(0.040)
0.62
(0.040)
0.51
(0.037)
0.51
(0.037)
0.52
(0.036)
0.45
(0.034)
0.48
(0.036)
0.53
(0.037)
0.75
(0.040)
0.70
(0.042)
0.69
(0.038)
0.71
(0.037)
0.52
(0.038)
0.41
(0.035)
0.52
(0.037)
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.25
(0.067)
—
0.31
(0.060)
0.29
(0.061)
—
—
—
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 31 Jul 2017 at 22:36:37, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1375/twin.1.4.216
r2(df)
3.59 (4)
0.99 (4)
1.25 (4)
0.44 (4)
2.58 (4)
1.95 (4)
0.84 (4)
2.92 (4)
2.49 (4)
1.71 (4)
1.16 (4)
0.11 (4)
3.52 (4)
2.86 (4)
3.60 (4)
0.66 (4)
1.16 (4)
4.09 (4)
Born to lead
AM Johnson et al
221
exempl ar of transformati onal l eadershi p, w hi l st l ai ssez-fai re l eadershi p i s probabl y the best LA E i ndi cator of transacti onal l eadershi p. The A CL l eadershi p
scal e i s al so l i kel y to be a good i ndi cator of
transformati onal l eadershi p, as i t i s hi ghl y posi ti vel y
correl ated w i th M LQ factor 1.
Havi ng noted that the putati ve model of transformati onal / transacti onal l eadershi p appears to cut
across the three psychometri c measures used i n the
study, i t i s i nteresti ng to note the extent to w hi ch the
scal es share common geneti c vari ance. Usi ng M x,22
bi vari ate Chol esky decomposi ti ons w ere performed
on al l possi bl e pai rs of LA E subscal es, the M LQ
factors, the A CL l eadershi p scal e, and the M LQ extra
effort scal e. Tabl es 6 and 7 contai n esti mates of the
geneti c and envi ronmental correl ati ons (respecti vel y) betw een the LA E scal es, M LQ factors, A CL
l eadershi p scal e, and the M LQ extra effort scal e,
w i th correl ati ons si gni fi cant at P < 0.05 i n bol d. (In
the i nterest of brevi ty, onl y reduced scores are
reported at a mul ti vari ate l evel . The compl ete matri x
of phenotypi c and geneti c correl ati ons i s avai l abl e
Tabl e 5 Phenotypi c correl ati ons betw een transformati onal / transacti onal l eadershi p, M LQ extra effort scal e, l eadershi p abi l i ty
eval uati on scal es, and adjecti ve checkl i st l eadershi p scal e
LAE
Autocratic–
aggressive
LA E A utocrati c–aggressi ve
LA E A utocrati c–submi ssi ve
LA E Democrati c–co-operati ve
LA E Lai ssez-fai re
LA E Total
M LQ Extra effort
A CL Leadershi p
M LQ Factor 1
M LQ Factor 2
0.02
–0.40
–0.14
–0.22
0.00
–0.04
–0.04
0.07
LAE
LAE
Autocratic– Democratic—
submissive co-operative
–0.29
–0.28
0.03
–0.06
–0.06
–0.08
0.08
–0.65
–0.73
0.27
0.22
0.32
–0.33
LAE
Laissezfaire
LAE
Total
MLQ
Extra effort
ACL
Leadership
MLQ
Factor 1
0.92
–0.24
–0.18
–0.26
0.28
–0.27
–0.21
–0.29
0.28
0.50
0.76
–0.18
0.60
–0.27
–0.09
Correl ati ons i n bol d are si gni fi cant at p<0.01; M LQ Factor 1 = Transformati onal Leadershi p; M LQ Factor 2 = Transacti onal Leadershi p
Tabl e 6 Geneti c correl ati ons betw een transformati onal / transacti onal l eadershi p, M LQ extra effort scal e, l eadershi p abi l i ty eval uati on
scal es, and adjecti ve checkl i st l eadershi p scal e
LAE
Autocratic–
aggressive
LA E A utocrati c–aggressi ve
LA E A utocrati c–submi ssi ve
LA E Democrati c–co-operati ve
LA E Lai ssez-fai re
LA E Total
M LQ Extra effort
A CL Leadershi p
M LQ Factor 1
M LQ Factor 2
0.34
–0.38
–0.25
–0.23
0.06
–0.05
–0.04
–0.36
LAE
LAE
Autocratic– Democratic—
submissive co-operative
–0.20
–0.45
–0.21
–0.22
–0.13
–0.25
0.08
–0.72
–0.78
0.39
0.38
0.47
–0.42
LAE
Laissezfaire
LAE
Total
MLQ
Extra effort
ACL
Leadership
MLQ
Factor 1
0.97
–0.29
–0.27
–0.30
0.48
–0.34
–0.33
–0.35
0.56
0.85
0.90
–0.31
0.88
–0.33
–0.21
Correl ati ons i n bol d are si gni fi cant at p<0.05; M LQ Factor 1 = Transformati onal Leadershi p; M LQ Factor 2 = Transacti onal Leadershi p
Tabl e 7 Envi ronmental correl ati ons betw een transformati onal / transacti onal l eadershi p, M LQ extra effort scal e, l eadershi p abi l i ty
eval uati on scal es, and adjecti ve checkl i st l eadershi p scal e
LAE
Autocratic–
aggressive
LA E A utocrati c–aggressi ve
LA E A utocrati c–submi ssi ve
LA E Democrati c–co-operati ve
LA E Lai ssez-fai re
LA E Total
M LQ Extra effort
A CL Leadershi p
M LQ Factor 1
M LQ Factor 2
0.10
–0.38
0.09
–0.21
–0.08
–0.02
–0.04
0.26
LAE
LAE
Autocratic– Democratic—
submissive co-operative
–0.35
–0.20
0.14
0.07
0.02
0.06
0.08
–0.62
–0.72
0.21
0.10
0.23
–0.22
LAE
Laissezfaire
LAE
Total
MLQ
Extra effort
ACL
Leadership
MLQ
Factor 1
0.89
–0.20
–0.10
–0.23
0.09
–0.19
–0.11
–0.23
0.06
0.18
0.61
–0.05
0.29
–0.20
0.05
Correl ati ons i n bol d are si gni fi cant at p<0.05; M LQ Factor 1 = Transformati onal Leadershi p; M LQ Factor 2 = Transacti onal Leadershi p
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 31 Jul 2017 at 22:36:37, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1375/twin.1.4.216
Born to lead
AM Johnson et al
222
on request.) M ost of the phenotypi c correl ati ons may
be decomposed to fi nd a si gni fi cant geneti c component, i ndi cati ng that there i s a strong common source
of geneti c vari ati on underl yi ng the di fferent di mensi ons of l eadershi p.
Di scussi on
Uni vari ate geneti c anal yses reveal ed that psychometri c measures of l eadershi p demonstrate moderate
to l arge heri tabi l i ti es i n most di mensi ons of the
construct. A l though transformati onal l eadershi p
demonstrated a cl earl y geneti c determi nati on, further exami nati on of the transacti onal l eadershi p
domai n i s w arranted, gi ven that several of the
transacti onal l eadershi p scal es yi el ded model s that
di d not i ncl ude addi ti ve or non-addi ti ve geneti c
effects.
Hi gher l evel l eadershi p factors, constructed from
the M LQ, represent transformati onal and transacti onal l eadershi p. Uni vari ate geneti c anal yses i ndi cated that both of these factors w ere heri tabl e, w i th
transformati onal l eadershi p demonstrati ng nonaddi ti ve heri tabi l i ty, and transacti onal l eadershi p
demonstrati ng addi ti ve heri tabi l i ty. Thi s i s an i nteresti ng fi ndi ng i n i tsel f, because i t suggests that
transformati onal l eadershi p mi ght be of greater
evol uti onary si gni fi cance, as i t has been proposed
that trai ts expressi ng domi nance heri tabi l i ty patterns may be more adapti ve to the organi sm.23 In
compari ng these factors to the scal es from the LA E
and the A CL, through mul ti vari ate geneti c anal yses,
i t becomes cl ear that a great deal of the vari ance
shared by these vari abl es i s attri butabl e to common
genes, because the correl ati ons among the majori ty
of the vari abl es contai n si gni fi cant common geneti c
i nfl uences.
One l i mi tati on of the present study l i es i n the
nature of the l eadershi p measures: they are excl usi vel y sel f-report questi onnai res. It w oul d be i nteresti ng to exami ne a sampl e of behavi oral measures of
l eadershi p w i thi n a tw i n sampl e, or perhaps to send
an eval uati on versi on of l eadershi p batteri es to
someone i n a subordi nate posi ti on to the tw i ns, so
that thi s i ndi vi dual mi ght eval uate the tw i ns’ l eadershi p performance. In a si mi l ar vei n, i t w oul d be
i nteresti ng to exami ne i ndi vi dual percepti ons of an
i deal l eader w i thi n a sampl e of tw i ns. Bass14
addresses the i dea that peopl e tend to thi nk of thei r
i deal l eader i n si mi l ar terms, and that thi s i deal
l eader i s typi cal l y a transformati onal l eader.
A l though thi s questi on has been approached from a
psychometri c standpoi nt, i t has yet to be exami ned
from a behavi or geneti c stance, and there i s substanti al i nformati on to be had from such an anal ysi s,
as i s i l l ustrated by the present study. Fi nal l y, i t
shoul d be noted that due to an i mbal ance i n sex
composi ti on w i thi n the sampl e, al l effects of sex
w ere removed from the anal ysi s. Future research
may be di rected at exami ni ng l eadershi p i n a sampl e
of adul t tw i ns contai ni ng a more substanti al number
of mal e subjects, to al l ow for the study of sex
effects.
Thi s study represents the fi rst behavi or geneti c
study to exami ne psychometri c i ndi ces of l eadershi p
and, as such, the resul ts are expl oratory and requi re
repl i cati on. Despi te thi s fact, i t i s encouragi ng to
note that the resul ts appear to be general i zabl e,
i nsofar as they are consi stent across mul ti pl e measures of l eadershi p. It i s unl i kel y that thi s study w i l l
end al l debate on the topi c of w hether l eaders are
born or made. It does, how ever, provi de prel i mi nary
empi ri cal data regardi ng the contri buti ons of both
geneti c and envi ronmental factors to i ndi vi dual
di fferences i n l eadershi p styl e.
Refer ences
1 Loehl i n JC. Genes and Environment in Personality Development. Sage Publ i cati ons: London, 1992.
2 Pl omi n R, DeFri es JC, M cCl earn GE. Behavioral Genetics: A
Primer, 2nd edn. WH Freeman: New York, 1990.
3 Gal ton F. Hereditary Genius. A ppl eton: New York, 1869.
4 James W. Great men, great thoughts, and thei r envi ronment.
Atlantic Monthly 1880; 46: 441–459.
5 Stogdi l l R. Personal factors associ ated w i th l eadershi p: A
survey of the l i terature. J Psychol 1948; 25: 35–71.
6 Bass B. Bass and Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership, 3rd edn.
Free Press: New York, 1990.
7 Lord RG, DeVader CL, A l l i ger GM . A meta-anal ysi s of the
rel ati on betw een personal i ty trai ts and l eadershi p percepti ons: A n appl i cati on of val i di ty general i zati on procedures. J
Appl Psychol 1986; 61: 402–410.
8 Ki rkpatri ck S, Locke E. Leadershi p: Do trai ts matter? In: Steers
RM , Porter LW, Bi gl ey GA (eds). Motivation and Leadership at
Work, 6th edn. M cGraw -Hi l l : New York, 1996, pp 186–199.
9 Burns JH. Leadership. Harper & Row : New York, 1978.
10 Vernon PA , M cCarthy JM , Johnson A M , Jang KL, Harri s JA .
Indi vi dual di fferences i n mul ti pl e di mensi ons of aggressi on: A
uni vari ate and mul ti vari ate geneti c anal ysi s. (Tw i n Research,
i n press).
11 Bass B, Avol i o B. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Form
5X – Sel f). Consul ti ng Psychol ogi sts Press: Pal o A l to, CA ,
1991.
12 Cassel R, Stanci k E. The Leadership Ability Evaluation –
Revised. Western Psychol ogi cal Servi ces: Los A ngel es, CA ,
1982.
13 Gough H, Hei l brun A . The Adjective Checklist Manual.
Consul ti ng Psychol ogi sts Press: Pal o A l to, CA , 1983.
14 Bass B. Does the transacti onal -transformati onal l eadershi p
paradi gm transcend organi zati onal and nati onal boundari es?
Am Psychologist 1997; 52(2): 130–139.
15 Ni chol s R, Bi l bro W. The di agnosi s of tw i n zygosi ty. Acta
Genet Stat Med 1966; 16: 265–275.
16 Kasri el J, Eaves L. The zygosi ty of tw i ns: Further evi dence on
the agreement betw een di agnosi s by bl ood groups and w ri tten
questi onnai res. J Biosoc Sci 1976; 8: 263–266.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 31 Jul 2017 at 22:36:37, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1375/twin.1.4.216
Born to lead
AM Johnson et al
223
17 M cGue M , Bouchard TJ Jr. A djustment of tw i n data for the
effects of age and sex. Behav Genet 1984; 14: 325–343.
18 Bass B. Leadershi p: Good, better, best. Organiz Dynam 1985;
13(3): 26–40.
19 Jöreskog K, Sörbom D. LISREL 8: A Guide to Program and
Applications, 3rd edn. Sci enti fi c Softw are: M ooresvi l l e, IN,
1993.
20 Neal e M C, Cardon LR. Methodology for Genetic Studies of
Twins and Families. Kl uw er A cademi c: Dordrecht, 1992.
21 Avol i o B, Bass B, Jung D. Construct val i dati on and norms for
the M ul ti factor Leadershi p Questi onnai re (M LQ – Form 5X).
CLS Report 95-4. Bi nghamton Uni versi ty: Center for Leadershi p Studi es, 1995.
22 Neal e M C. M x: Stati sti cal M odel i ng (4th ed.). Box 126 M CV,
Ri chmond, VA 23298. Department of Psychi atry, 1997.
23 Jensen A R. The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability.
Praeger: Westport, CT, 1998.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 31 Jul 2017 at 22:36:37, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1375/twin.1.4.216