Personality and Individual Differences 56 (2014) 190–192
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Short Communication
‘Big’ men: Male leaders’ height positively relates to followers’ perception
of charisma
Melvyn R.W. Hamstra ⇑
University of Amsterdam, Work and Organizational Psychology, The Netherlands
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 5 October 2012
Received in revised form 25 July 2013
Accepted 12 August 2013
Available online 23 September 2013
Keywords:
Height
Charisma
Leadership
Sex differences
Physical characteristics
a b s t r a c t
Physical height is associated with beneficial outcomes for the tall individual (e.g., higher salary and likelihood of occupying a leadership position), presumably because being tall constituted an adaptive characteristic in ancestral societies. Although this account hinges on the presence of an evolved positive
social-perceptual bias toward tall people, little direct evidence exists for this claim. Physical height literally implies the ability to reach higher, see further, and have greater overview; it also affords dominance,
which others may equate with ability as well. Hence, leaders’ physical height may be positively related to
followers’ belief that a leader has extraordinary talents, that is, charisma. However, because leadership
positions were, in ancestral societies, occupied by males, an evolutionary perspective might further suggest that height is less relevant to followers’ perceptions of female leaders. In line with this reasoning, the
current study found a positive relationship between male leaders’ height and their followers’ perceptions
of charisma, while no such relationship was found for female leaders.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Physical height substantially affects individuals’ success in society, predicting outcomes such as higher salary and increased likelihood of occupying leadership positions (Judge & Cable, 2004).
Evolutionary psychology might suggest that height provides such
an advantage due to the presence of an evolved positive social-perceptual bias toward taller individuals. Such a bias may have been
adaptive because having a tall person lead the way in battle was
intimidating to the enemy or because tall leaders were better
peacekeepers within the group (Van Vugt, Hogan, & Kaiser,
2008). Thus, the tall advantage is inherently linked to, and plausibly stems from, the general evolutionary benefits of leadership.
Although height is often regarded as advantageous because tall
leaders are thought to be given more respect, status, and are more
highly valued by others (see Stulp, Buunk, Verhulst, & Pollet,
2012a), little direct evidence exists for this claim. The current
study seeks to provide such evidence by linking leaders’ physical
height to followers’ perceptions of their leaders’ charisma. However, this study further proposes and shows that height is an
important factor in the perception of charisma for male and not
for female leaders.
A number of studies indirectly support the notion that being tall
holds positive social-perceptual consequences. First, taller individ⇑ Address: University of Amsterdam, Work and Organizational Psychology,
Weesperplein 4, 1018XA Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Tel.: +31 (0)205255818.
E-mail address: [email protected]
0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.08.014
uals earn more money and are more likely to emerge as leaders
(Judge & Cable, 2004; Stogdill, 1948). Second, physical height has
been found to correlate with self-ratings of dominance, self-confidence, and independence (Melamed, 1992, 1994) and other-ratings
of dominance (Montepare, 1995). Third, males’ physical height
tends to make them more attractive to women, and more successful in a reproductive sense (Salska et al., 2008; Stulp, Pollet, Verhulst, & Buunk, 2012b). Fourth, successful or dominant
individuals are perceived as taller than non-successful or nondominant individuals (Hensley & Angoli, 1980; Marsh, Yu, Schechter, & Blair, 2009). Fifth, physically taking more space is perceived
by others as an act of dominance and leads others to behave more
submissively (Tiedens & Fragale, 2003). Although these studies directly or indirectly show that there is an advantage to being tall,
and evolutionary psychology provides a clear theoretical rationale
for this, there is still little direct empirical indication of why this
may be the case.
Although, in ancestral society, the access to valuable resources
may have been greater for tall and dominant individuals simply
because such individuals had the ability to physically coerce others, such practices are less acceptable in modern western society.
Currently, social consequences such as salary increases and transition into leadership positions depend heavily on others’ judgments. That is, they results from others’ decisions regarding who
should receive greater access to resources. These decisions are
likely to be affected by others’ subjective impressions regarding
individuals. Thus, the social benefits that tall individuals receive
from others are also likely to depend on those others’ perceptions
M.R.W. Hamstra / Personality and Individual Differences 56 (2014) 190–192
about the individual, implying that height should relate to others’
perception of the individual as someone endowed with certain
abilities.
The current study proposes and finds that male leaders’ physical height positively relates to followers’ perceptions of leaders’
charisma, referring to ‘‘. . .a certain quality of an individual personality by virtue of which he is considered extraordinary and
treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least
specifically exceptional powers or qualities’’ (Weber (1922)
1968, p. 241). The finding that taller individuals are more likely
to emerge as leaders is evidence of a link between height and
the possession of social power. Power through height, in turn,
may stem from a symbolic or metaphorical representation of actual physical ability that is associated with height (Duguid &
Goncalo, 2012). More specifically, physical height may literally
be taken by others as a signal of the ability to reach higher, to
see further, and to have an overview of others and the situation,
implying that a tall individual may be perceived as possessing
relatively exceptional qualities, or, charisma. Moreover, the
dominance afforded by height also implies ability, as power,
dominance, or strength implies that a leader is able to physically
dominate others. However, in ancestral societies, male leadership was the norm, implying the evolution-based perceptual
effects of height may be less relevant to perceptions of female
leaders (Van Vugt et al., 2008). In support of this idea, Melamed
(1992, 1994) found that self-reported independence and
self-confidence was only correlated with height for male participants. Thus, the current study tested the hypothesis that
leaders’ physical height is positively related to followers’ perception of charisma for male, but not for female leaders.
191
3. Results
Physical height was positively and significantly correlated with
subordinates’ perceptions of charisma for male leaders, r (82) = .26,
p = .02 (R2 = .07), but not for female leaders, r (40) = .09, p = .59.
The difference between these two correlations was significant,
Fisher Z = 1.79, p = .04. The observed relationship remained significant, r (77) = .26, p = .02 (R2 = .07), and identical in size, when controlling for leaders’ age, tenure, and number of contracted hours
per week in the leadership position. For female leaders, the link between height and charisma remained non-significant, r (77) = .15,
p = .41.
To ensure that this relationship was unique to perceptions of
charisma (and not some other or more general aspect of leadership), other leadership variables were also analyzed. Leader height
was not significantly related to measures of contingent reward
transactional leadership, r (82) = .04, p = .71 (for men) and r
(40) = .21, p = .20 (for women), active management by exception,
r (82) = .05, p = .66 (for men) and r (40) = .05, p = .76 (for women), passive management by exception, r (82) = .05, p = .65
(for men) and r (40) = .25, p = .12, or general perceived leader
effectiveness, r (82) = .14, p = .23 (for men) and r (40) = .05,
p = .75 (for women). Nearly identical outcomes were shown when
using the control variables mentioned above. Again, leader height
was not significantly related to measures of contingent reward
transactional leadership, r (77) = .05, p = .66 (for men) and r
(35) = .27, p = .11 (for women), active management by exception,
r (77) = .05, p = .64 (for men) and r (35) = .09, p = .61 (for women), passive management by exception, r (77) = .06, p = .60
(for men) and r (35) = .19, p = .30, or general perceived leader
effectiveness, r (77) = .15, p = .17 (for men) and r (35) = .01,
p = .96 (for women).3
2. Methods
Participants were 122 leaders from diverse organizations in the
Netherlands (40 female, 82 male) ranging in age from 21 to
63 years (M = 43.36, SD = 10.63) who reported their physical height
in centimeters (Mmale = 183.09, SDmale = 8.64; Mfemale = 173.18,
SDfemale = 6.93).1 Between one and seven subordinates per leader
(M = 3.66, SD = 0.89) reported on their perceptions of their leader’s
charisma, assessed with the transformational leadership subscale
of the multi-factor leadership questionnaire using five point scales
(M = 3.57, SD = 0.58, a = .95; Dutch version by Den Hartog, Van
Muijen, & Koopman, 1997). Example items are ‘‘This leader shows
extraordinary competencies in everything he/she does’’ and ‘‘This
leader is a symbol of success and accomplishment’’. Subordinates
were instructed that their responses were confidential and they returned the questionnaires to the researchers themselves.2
In order to be able to provide evidence that the hypothesized
relationship was unique to perceptions of charisma, rather than
something more general about leadership, a number of other leadership variables were also assessed: contingent reward transactional leadership (the extent to which leaders reward good
performance), active management by exception (the extent to
which leader monitor and correct followers’ mistakes), passive
management by exception (the extent to which leaders interfere
only when things go wrong), and a general assessment of perceived
leadership effectiveness (van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg,
2005).
1
The physical height of male and female participants in this study is representative
for the average Dutch height for males and females above the age of 20 (see http://
statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?DM=SLEN&PA=81175ENG&D1=13-24&D2=12&D3=a&D4=0&D5=l&LA=EN&VW=T).
2
The ratings about charisma deriving from different followers about the same
leader were aggregated. ICC1 was .50 and ICC2 was .79. Within-group reliability Rwg
was .87.
4. Discussion
As expected, male leaders’ physical height was found to be positively related to their followers’ perception of charisma. Female
leaders’ physical height, in contrast, was not significantly related
to their followers’ perception of charisma. This finding is in line
with an evolutionary perspective on height and leadership, which
would predict that height is particularly important for men, and
less so for women (cf., Van Vugt et al., 2008). This study indicates
that tall male leaders are perceived by others as more charismatic
and thereby contributes to, and extends, previous work in this area
which has provided evidence of more or less the opposite relationship (perceptions about another person’s height are influenced by
social cues; e.g., Marsh et al., 2009), found that taller men are more
likely to emerge as leaders (Stogdill, 1948), and are better able to
exert authority (Stulp et al., 2012a), and that height predicts selfreported and other-rated dominance and self-confidence
(Melamed, 1992, 1994). As such, this study may be seen as advancing an understanding of why tall males are more likely to become
leaders or to be more successful in general. That is, height may be
related to social success because tall males are perceived to have
exceptional qualities, a perception that is likely to bias employment and promotion decisions. This study further contributes to
an understanding of the perceptual nature of leadership, and in
particular, of charismatic leadership by showing that male leaders’
physical height may be a significant determinant of followers’ perceptions of charisma.
3
An additional (multi-level) analysis was carried out to test whether the observed
relationships differed as a function of subordinates’ gender. No significant interactions with subordinate gender emerged from this analysis, ps >.36, suggesting that
male and female subordinates similarly perceived taller males to be more
charismatic.
192
M.R.W. Hamstra / Personality and Individual Differences 56 (2014) 190–192
This study also found that female height did not predict their
followers’ perceptions of charisma. Perhaps this is not surprising,
as height primarily affords an evolutionary benefit to males (Stulp
et al., 2012a). A question for future research, however, would then
be what physical characteristics may determine followers’ perception of charisma of female leaders. Likely candidate variables are
certain physical features associated with beauty, as more attractive
individuals are also perceived as more intelligent (cf., Kanazawa,
2011), that is, as having greater capabilities. Furthermore, this
would also imply that attractiveness of male leaders is an alternative explanation of why they are perceived as more charismatic.
That is, height is associated both with attractiveness and with charisma. It should be noted that, although charisma here was measured using items that reflect the definition according to Weber
(1922 [1968]), other definitions of charisma seem to include
attractiveness as well. However, it may be noted that this is generally not the case in the leadership literature.
The aim of this study was to investigate whether leaders’ height
predicts relevant others’ (followers’) perceptions of charisma.
Although followers’ perceptions seem the most relevant in this regard, the study only investigated leaders. Given that tall individuals, as shown by previous research, are more likely to emerge as
leaders (Stogdill, 1948), one may object that conclusions about
the size of this correlation in the population at large cannot be provided with great certainty. That is, if leaders are taller on average to
begin with, a restriction of range or selection bias may be present
in these data. As such, the current finding may represent an underestimation of the correlation between height and perceived exceptional ability in the general population. Nevertheless, the current
study clearly showed that there is variance in perceptions of leaders’ charisma, variance that can be partly explained by male leaders’ physical height. A limitation of this study is that the number of
female leaders was quite a lot smaller than that of male leaders
and that subordinates’ height was not assessed. Although (see footnote 2) subordinate gender did not moderate the effects of leader
gender and height, future research might take into account the ratio, that is the difference between leader and follower height, as a
factor in charisma.
As this study assessed height and charisma, it remains possible
for unconsidered variables to affect the uncovered relationship
(although demographic variables such as age and tenure did not
predict charisma perceptions). For example, some authors have
suggested that height is related to societal success because it covaries with actual intelligence (Lynn, 1990). Intelligence, in turn,
has also been found to predict leadership success (Judge, Piccolo,
& Kosalka, 2009). In this regard, it is important to note that leaders’
height did not relate to assessment of other leadership variables
such as perceived leader effectiveness and transactional leadership
dimensions, which are also essential aspects of leadership effectiveness (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Therefore, the positive correlation
between height and charisma perceptions, combined with the non-
correlation between height and other variables, lends support to
the notion that height is related to the perceived possession of relatively exceptional qualities.
References
Den Hartog, D. N., Van Muijen, J. J., & Koopman, P. L. (1997). Transactional versus
transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 70, 19–34.
Duguid, M. M., & Goncalo, J. A. (2012). Living large: The powerful overestimate their
own height. Psychological Science, 23, 36–40.
Hensley, W. E., & Angoli, M. (1980). Message, valence, familiarity, sex, and
personality effects on the perceptual distortion of height. Journal of
Psychology, 104, 149–156.
Judge, T. A., & Cable, D. M. (2004). The effect of physical height on workplace success
and income: Preliminary test of a theoretical model. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89, 428–441. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.428.
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A
meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89,
755–768. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755.
Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Kosalka, T. (2009). The bright and dark sides of leader
traits: A review and theoretical extension of the leader trait paradigm. The
Leadership
Quarterly,
20,
855–875.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.leaqua.2009.09.004.
Kanazawa, S. (2011). Intelligence and physical attractiveness. Intelligence, 39, 7–14.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2010.11.003.
Lynn, R. (1990). The role of nutrition in secular increases in intelligence. Personality
and Individual Differences, 11, 273–285. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/01918869(90)90241-I.
Marsh, A. A., Yu, H. H., Schechter, J. C., & Blair, R. J. R. (2009). Larger than life:
Humans’ nonverbal status cues alter perceived size. PLoS ONE, 4, e5707. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005707.
Melamed, T. (1992). Personality correlates of physical height. Personality and
Individual Differences, 13, 1349–1350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/01918869(92)90179-S.
Melamed, T. (1994). Correlates of physical features: Some gender differences.
Personality and Individual Differences, 17, 689–691. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
0191-8869(94)90143-0.
Montepare, J. M. (1995). The impact of variations in height on young children’s
impressions of men and women. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 19, 31–47.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02173411.
Salska, I., Frederick, D. A., Pawlowski, B., Reilly, A. H., Laird, K. T., & Rudd, N. A.
(2008). Conditional mate preferences: Factors influencing preferences for
height. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 203–215. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.paid.2007.08.008.
Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership; A survey of the
literature. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 2, 535–571.
Stulp, G., Buunk, A. P., Verhulst, S., & Pollet, T. V. (2012a). High and mighty: Height
increases authority in professional refereeing. Evolutionary Psychology: An
International Journal of Evolutionary Approaches to Psychology and Behavior, 10,
588–601.
Stulp, G., Pollet, T. V., Verhulst, S., & Buunk, A. P. (2012b). A curvilinear effect of
height on reproductive success in human males. Behavioral Ecology and
Sociobiology, 66, 375–384. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00265-011-1283-2.
Tiedens, L. Z., & Fragale, A. R. (2003). Power moves: Complementarity in dominant
and submissive nonverbal behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
84(3), 558–568. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.3.558.
van Knippenberg, B., & van Knippenberg, D. (2005). Leader self-sacrifice and
leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of leader prototypicality. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 90, 25–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.25.
Van Vugt, M., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2008). Leadership, followership, and
evolution: Some lessons from the past. American Psychologist, 63, 182–196.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.3.182.
Weber, M. (1922). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. Totowa,
NJ: Bedminster. 1968.