This article may not exactly replicate the final version published in the APA journal.

It is not the
copy of record. © American Psychological Association www.apa.org/journals/amp

Accepted for publication in Consulting Psychology Journal (Winter 1994)

Trouble at the Top: Causes and Consequences of Managerial

Incompetence
Robert Hogan
Abstract: Although textbook authors largely ignore the problem of leadership,
people responsible for the operation of real organizations usually understand its
importance. After reviewing some of the reasons why academics tend to ignore
leadership, this paper describes some relevant findings tucked way in the
empirical literature that are important for consultants who advise organizations
about leadership problems. The paper pays special attention to the problem of
managerial incompetence—those cases where managers with excellent social
skills ultimately derail, usually because they are unable to build a team.

Introduction

The problems that people are interested in often reflect their biographies. My
interest in leadership comes from several years in the Navy, an experience that “TITLE”
left me with two enduring convictions: first, leadership is a crucial component of
organizational effectiveness; and second, the standard leadership practices in the
Navy inhibit the ability of individual fighting units to meet their own
organizational goals. In the years since then I have come to suspect that my
„AUTHOR(s)“
youthful observations about the Navy apply to many other organizations.

The notion that leadership is a crucial factor in human affairs seems not to be
widely shared by authors of textbooks in social psychology, industrial/
organizational psychology, or organizational behavior. The reader is invited to
consult the indexes of the leading textbooks in these fields to verify the degree to
which the authors are interested in leadership.

Despite the indifference of textbook writers, the academic study of leadership is a

flourishing enterprise, with a large number of papers appearing each year. But
this empirical literature seems constrained, if not biased, in certain systematic
ways that have to do with politics and ideology. The net result is that it is hard to
know what to conclude from a review of that empirical literature.

1
Educational Publishing Foundation and Division of Consulting Psychology Journal – Winter 1994
The first bias has to do with the fact that people who want academic careers must
publish in refereed journals. The most effective strategy for these people is to
study narrowly defined problems that can be analyzed in a relatively short time.
As applied to leadership, this means doing questionnaire studies with
undergraduates—and the larger issues of leadership and organizational
effectiveness tend necessarily to be avoided.

The second problem has to do with the fact that every manuscript must be
reviewed. Editors choose reviewers who have published on the topic of the
article being reviewed, and who, therefore, have a vested interest in their views
being supported—as opposed to being challenged. Consequently, the politics of
the journal review process tend to impose a kind of conformity to received
opinion on each field of research. I realize that it is bad form to talk about this
silent pressure toward orthodoxy, but understanding the process helps me to
understand the slow progress in certain areas of psychology.

A third bias concerns the fact that many people who write about organizational
issues take a sociological or structuralist perspective on organizational behavior.
In this view, the primary determinant of peoples’ actions are transpersonal—i.e.,
they include concepts such as salary structure, organizational culture or climate,
institutional history, the economy, or the reward system. The issue is not
whether these structural factors have an effect; the point is that, to the degree
that one focuses on these structural issues, one necessarily ignores the impact of
leadership on the organization’s performance.

A fourth bias reflects the success of humanistic psychology in capturing the

allegiance of organizational researchers. From the perspective of humanistic
psychology, a primary task of an organization is to help the incumbents self-
actualize. When terms such as intrinsic motivation, self development, personal
enhancement, growth promoting experiences, or personal involvement are used,
we see the influence of humanistic psychology. The problem is that, to the degree
that an organization focuses on the personal growth needs of the incumbents—
whatever they might be—the organization will tend to ignore the problem of
leadership—because leadership is about organizational effectiveness not self
actualization.

By far the most persistent bias, however, is behaviorism—as reflected, for

example, in Mischel’s well known (1968) book, and in much modern
experimental social psychology—cf. Ross & Nisbet, 1991. These writers are
critical of the concept of personality per se that is, they dispute the notion that
what people do reflects stable structures inside them. Behaviorists prefer to

2
Educational Publishing Foundation and Division of Consulting Psychology Journal – Winter 1994
explain peoples’ actions in terms of situational contingencies, factors in their
environment that elicit or suppress their behavior. This has had a chilling effect
on leadership research because, to the degree that one takes the concept of
leadership seriously, one is necessarily committed to taking seriously the concept
of personality.

For these reasons and others not mentioned here, the academic study of
leadership has not converged on an agreed upon set of findings. But there are
people who need advice and recommendations about choosing and developing
leaders. Finding little help in academic research they then turn for assistance to
the huge popular literature on leadership. In this literature, an author typically
interviews a sample of “leaders” and then writes up his or her impressions.
Although the essays often contain useful insights, the research is unsystematic,
usually not verifiable, and the material is typically written by persons with no
significant leadership experience.

In the Next part of this paper I would like to propose seven conclusions that I
believe can be culled from, and are justified in terms of, the empirical literature.
Some of these conclusions are better supported than others, but all are in
principle verifiable. Some authorities would not agree with me regarding some
of these conclusions. Moreover, the review is not comprehensive; rather, it is
somewhat selective and reflects my own orientation toward personality,
leadership, and organizational effectiveness. I sincerely hope, however, that the
reader won’t find the conclusions hopelessly idiosyncratic.

Before beginning the discussion, it would be useful to define leadership. The

appropriate context for thinking about leadership, I believe, is in terms of human
nature. Many writers, from Plato to Hobbes to Freud to Donald Campbell, have
concluded that people are prone to selfishness. People are genetically
programmed toward egocentrism and, left to their own devices, they will behave
selfishly. But people also evolved as group living animals; they always live in
groups and their groups are in competition with one another—ask the Bosnian
Muslims. In this context, leadership can be seen as a person’s ability to persuade
other members of a group to forego, for a while, the pursuit of their individual
goals, and act in concert to pursue a group goal. Usually this group goal, when
attained, will have consequences for the welfare of the individual members, and
the goal won’t be achievable except by acting together. Leadership always, in
some sense, involves rallying people to a cause.

1. Effectiveness.

3
Educational Publishing Foundation and Division of Consulting Psychology Journal – Winter 1994
The study of leadership should focus on effectiveness; effectiveness is the bottom
line in discussions of leadership. A frequent strategy in leadership research is to
compare the characteristics of persons at the top of an organization with persons
at lower levels in the organization. Alternatively, a researcher might test entry
level managers, follow them up, and compare their evaluations at Time 1 with
their Status at Time 2. Such research tells us a lot about what kind of people get
promoted in an organization but not a lot about the characteristics of effective
leadership. Why? Because promotions often depend on politics, on working for
someone who is picked to move up, or on simply not making waves. Promotions
sometimes reflect effective leadership performance, but not always or
necessarily.

Nor should we confuse successful entrepreneurship with effective leadership.

Some entrepreneurs—e.g., Ross Perot—seem able to stimulate others to pursue a
common goal, but others—Henry Ford, Howard Hughes—were terrible leaders.

The proper way to study leadership is to compare the characteristics of persons

in charge of successful groups with persons in charge of comparable groups that
were less successful—e.g., Wellington vs. Boneparte, Ulysses S. Grant vs. Robert
E. Lee, Vincent Lombardi vs. all others. There are problems associated with
doing this kind of research but it is the only research that gets at the heart of the
leadership problem.

2. What Is Personality?

I am persuaded that effective leadership is rooted in individual personality. This

is not a view that is widely shared. Part of the reason this view is not more
widely held may be because the relationship between personality and effective
leadership has been obscured by terminological confusions. Researchers often
define personality in terms of whatever personality scale they plan to use in their
study. But we can define the word more precisely than that. The word
personality is actually defined in two distinct ways, and these definitions have
consequences for how we think about leadership. I refer to these definitions as
personality from the perspective of the actor, and personality from the
perspective of the observer.

A. Personality from the perspective of the actor. Personality from the perspective
of the actor refers to the structures or processes inside a person that cause him or
her to behave in characteristic ways. It is, in a sense, the ultimate explanation for
a person’s behavior. The problem with trying to analyze personality in this sense
is that the structures inside people are not available for public scrutiny and, as a

4
Educational Publishing Foundation and Division of Consulting Psychology Journal – Winter 1994
result, they are hard to study. Moreover, various writers over the years have
proposed a number of different models for thinking about personality from the
perspective of the actor and it is hard to know what to believe. Freud has his
intrapsychic structures of Id, ego, and superego, Jung has his archetypes, Rogers
has his need for unqualified positive regard, and so on.

My problem with these theories is, in part, that they are hard to evaluate. But my
bigger problem has to do with the fact that they all are theories about the
individual and have nothing to say about how we deal with other people. As
noted above, humans evolved as group living animals, and personality develops
in response to our efforts to deal with the other members of our groups.
Specifically, it seems to me that the two major problems in life concern (a) getting
along with other people, and (b) acquiring as much status as we can in order to
promote the welfare of our offspring. These tasks are dealt with during social
interaction, which largely concerns negotiating with others for acceptance and
status or respect.

In this context the key structures inside people that explain their social behavior
are: (a) their identities—the views they hold regarding their own competencies
and how others will usually regard them; (b) their goals—what they are trying to
achieve; and (c) their typical methods of interacting with others—how they
normally relate to other people.

Personality from the perspective of the observer concerns a person’s personality

as it is perceived by the others with whom he or she interacts—it is the
distinctive impression that a person makes on others. Unlike personality from
the actor’s perspective, this second form of personality is open to public
inspection and, is therefore, something that can be studied in a normally
objective fashion. Four points about personality from the observer’s perspective
are particularly noteworthy.

First, this aspect of personality is essentially equivalent to a person’s reputation,

and reputations are both stable and consequential—people are often hired (or
not) on the basis of their reputations.

Second, a person’s reputation will reflect the amount of status and social
acceptance he or she enjoys in his or her social groups. Reputations are a form of
score keeping in the great game of life, and smart players pay attention to how
they are being evaluated by others—e.g., modern Presidents of the United States
have polls taken to evaluate their level of acceptance or popularity about once a
week.

5
Educational Publishing Foundation and Division of Consulting Psychology Journal – Winter 1994
Third, because reputations reflect an evaluative summary of a person’s past
actions, and because the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, it
follows that reputations can be used to predict how a person will behave in the
future. Reputations have considerable utility as a way of forecasting a person’s
future conduct.

Finally, in contrast with personally from the actor’s perspective, we have a

relatively well defined and accepted taxonomy of personality from the observer’s
perspective. This taxonomy is the sot- called Five Factor Model (FFM)—cf.
Goldbert, 1993. The FFM maintains, and I agree, that each person’s reputation
can be profiled in terms of five dimensions of interpersonal evaluation. The first
is called Adjustment and concerns a person’s apparent self confidence and ability
to handle stress. The second is called Ascendance and reflects a person’s social
impact—person’s high on this dimension are outgoing and assertive; persons
low on this dimension are quite and withdrawn. The third dimension is called
Agreeableness and reflects the degree to which a person seems pleasant and
friendly as opposed to tough and critical. The fourth dimension is called
Conscientiousness, and concerns trustworthiness and integrity. The final
dimension is called Intellectance, Culture, or Openness; this is the least well
defined aspect of reputation. In my view this dimension concerns creativity at
the high end and concrete mindedness at the low end.

The Five Factor Model describes what I call the bright side of personality, is that
aspect of personality that is seen in an interview or in scores on a measure of
normal personality such as the California Psychological Inventory (CPI), the
16PF, or our measure, the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI).

3. Personality and Leader Effectiveness.

To study the links between personality and leader effectiveness it is important

first to decide which definition of personality one should use. This issue rarely
comes up in the empirical literature.

Despite the importance of the topic, there is little research linking personality
and effective leadership. Indeed, I have been able to find only two published
studies on the topic, but the results are credible and interesting. In the first,
House, Spangler, and Woycke (1991) compare the personality characteristic of
successful and less successful US. Presidents, House, et al. defines success in
terms of a President’s evaluations by his cabinet members, his legislative
accomplishments, and historians’ ratings of his greatness. House conceptualizes

6
Educational Publishing Foundation and Division of Consulting Psychology Journal – Winter 1994
personality in terms of McClelland’s needs; in those terms, effective presidents.
Compared to less effective presidents, were characterized by strong needs for
power and achievement, and they were highly energetic and socially assertive. In
the terminology of the FFM, the profile of the effective Presidents was high
Adjustment, Ascendance, and prudence.

In the second study, Chidester, Helmreich, Gregorich, and Geis (1991) compared
the personality characteristics of more and less effective captains of commercial
air liner flight crews. Here effectiveness was defined in terms of the number and
severity of the errors made by the crew—the fewer, the more effective the crew.
The captains of the crews with the fewest errors were described as warm,
friendly, self confident, and able to stand up to pressure—in terms of the FFM,
high Agreeableness and Adjustment. Conversely, the captains of the crews with
the most errors were described as arrogant, hostile, boastful, egotistical passive
aggressive, or dictatorial. As I will note later, the FFM doesn’t deal with these
evaluative categories, but these categories are reliably associated with
managerial incompetence in a variety of occupations.

4. The Key Tasks of Leadership.

The links between the bright side of personality and managerial performance tell
us what competent leaders look like in an interview, in an assessment center, or
on a measure of normal personality. The next question concerns what they
should do; just because a person looks like an effective leader doesn’t mean he or
she knows what to do in the leader role.

In my view, there are four primary tasks of leadership and I have organized
them in terms of where they came in the process of building a team. The first task
is to recruit talented persons to the team, group, or organization. In many cases,
managers inherit their teams and must make do with what they have. But in time
they may have opportunities to recruit new members, and it is the leader’s job to
choose talented new people. Conversely, it is a major mistake for the person in
charge to delegate the recruitment process to another person—if he or she can in
fact control this process.

The second task of leadership is to motivate, energize, or otherwise inspire the

members of the team or group. The primary mechanism for both recruiting and
inspiring is a vision. Capable leaders can develop and articulate a vision that
others find interesting engaging, compelling, or worth working for. Usually the
vision involves a view of the group as performing better than it currently is, of
becoming something better, of accomplishing more or better things so that, in the

7
Educational Publishing Foundation and Division of Consulting Psychology Journal – Winter 1994
end, the team members can think better of themselves and, in some cases, be
materially better off than they were before.

The third task of leadership is to be a resource for the group in reaching its goals.
This will obviously involve matters such as acquiring resources and forming
useful coalitions with members of other groups. In my judgment, however, the
most important part of this task is strategic planning—identifying the specific
steps through which the vision can be realized. The strategic planning process is
in principle an empirical activity but all too often it becomes an exercise in make
believe—as in asking “Where would we like to be in five years?” without
examining the feasibility of the proposed goals in view of the group’s strengths
and shortcomings relative to the capabilities of the group’s major competition.

The final task of leadership is to evaluate continuously how the group is doing in
terms of the first three tasks--are the new people more talented than the original
team? What is the current status of the team’s morale? Is team’s strategy still
effective or should it be revised?

5. What Is the Base Rate of Flawed Leadership?

The discussion thus far has concerned the characteristics of effective managers or
leaders. The fact is, however, that the typical person in a leadership position in
the government, the military, and private enterprise is not an effective leader.
Indeed, one might argue that, in many cases, the typical manager sinks below
ineffectiveness and becomes, at times, destructive. Hogan, Raskin, and Frazzini
(1990) observe that, in organizational climate research from the mid-1950’s to the
present, 60% to 75% of the employees in every organization typically report that
the worst aspect of their job is their immediate supervisor. In an effort to
stimulate research on this topic, Hogan et al. (1990) suggested that the base rate
for managerial incompetence in America is between 60% and 75%—a suggestion
that was met with open disbelief by their academic colleagues.

Nonetheless, the figure is not a bad first approximation. For example, DeVries
(1992) estimates that the failure rate among corporate executives in the United
States over the past 10 years has been at least 50%. Shipper and Wilson (1991),
using data from 101 departments in a large hospital, report the base rate for
incompetent management in that organization was 60%. Millikin-Davies (1992)
estimates a 50% base rate for managerial incompetence in a large aerospace
organization that she studied. The newspapers report several instances of
berserk postal employees, maddened by harsh and incompetent supervision,
retaliating in a violent and dramatic fashion.

8
Educational Publishing Foundation and Division of Consulting Psychology Journal – Winter 1994
6. The Dark Side of Charisma.

There are a number of reasons why the base rate of managerial incompetence is
so high. These reasons include the fact that the academic culture has argued for
years that leadership doesn’t exist. The reasons also include the manner in which
leaders are chosen, and the manner in which they are trained (or not trained).
But, consistent with the primary theme of this paper, I believe a major problem
occurs at the level of personality.

Benz (1985) published the first analyses of this problem under the heading of
managerial derailment He studied the root causes for why senior executives
were promoted, or were dismissed, at Sears in the 1950’s and 1960’s. He reports
that all these executives were bright, assertive, self confident, and self
disciplined, but that some nonetheless failed. The themes associated with their
failure included playing politics, being dishonest, arrogant, over- controlling, etc.
Benz concluded that, in the most general case, the failed executive had an
“overriding personality defect” or flaw that prevented him from building a team.

Similarly, research at the Center for Creative Leadership (e.g., Lombardo,

Ruderman, & McCauley, 1988; McCall & Lombardo, 1983) concludes that
managers who derail are perceived (i.e., personality from the perspective of the
observer) as untrustworthy, too ambitious, indecisive, micro managing,
insensitive, abrasive, or aloof. Again, these are qualities that erode a person’s
ability to recruit and motivate a team. The reader will also note the similarities
between the characteristics of derailed managers and of the captains of poor
performing air line crews.

How is it that persons with these undesirable qualities are able to achieve
leadership positions? There are a number of reasons, but the one that I find most
interesting is the fact that arrogance, insensitivity, vindictiveness, selfishness,
and dishonesty can, and often do, coexist with well developed social skills. I
refer to these unpleasant qualities as “dark side” characteristics. They are
extensions of normal personality; they are not pathological per se’ they are hard
to detect in an interview or with a measure of normal personality; and they are
associated with derailment. Thus, a person who has the appropriate bright side
characteristics may very well have problems on the dark side—but the problems
will primarily afflict that person’s subordinates.

7. Flow to Detect Flawed Managers.

Managers are typically evaluated by their superiors. One talent that characterizes
many bad managers is the ability to ingratiate themselves with their superiors.

9
Educational Publishing Foundation and Division of Consulting Psychology Journal – Winter 1994
But subordinates always know who the bad managers are and can tell you if they
are asked. Although research on this topic is limited, subordinate appraisals
seem correlated with leadership effectiveness—which is, once again, the bottom
line in managerial evaluation. For example, in a study cited earlier, Shipper and
Wilson (1991) gathered subordinate appraisals of the managers of 68 units at a
large hospital. These appraisals correlated between .22 and .46 with engineered
standards of productivity for the work groups involved. Thus, bad management
is associated with lower productivity.

What are the dimensions of subordinate appraisal that predict managerial

effectiveness? Harris and Hogan (1992) asked a group of workers to rate their
managers using a multi-dimensional managerial evaluation form; each manager
was also rated for overall effectiveness, in addition, the managers completed the
HPI, a measure of normal personality based on the FFM (R. Hogan & J. Hogan,
1992), and a measure of the DSM III, Axis 2 personality disorders. Six findings
from this study are important for this discussion.

First, the subordinates’ ratings of their managers correlated in the .50+ region
with ratings of these managers by their superiors. Second, the managers’ self-
ratings were uncorrelated with the ratings provided by their subordinates or
superiors. Third, as a group, the managers had an inflated view of their
performance-in contrast with their subordinates, they rated their own
performance as nearly perfect. Fourth, the superiors evaluated the managers
largely in terms of their technical competence— which is the aspect of their
performance to which they are primarily exposed. Filth, the subordinates
evaluated their managers largely in terms of how much they trusted them. The
foregoing two points show that, although subordinates and superiors may agree
about a manager’s performance, they are keying on different aspects of that
performance—the superiors focus on technical expertise, the subordinates focus
on integrity.

Finally, to return to the primary theme of this essay, both the good and the poor
managers had the necessary bright side characteristics—they were confident,
energetic, and socially skilled—as assessed by the HPI. However, the ineffective
managers were insensitive, suspicious, and self-centered as assessed by the
inventory of personality disorders. Subordinates ratings of managerial
effectiveness reflected the presence of undesirable dark side qualities that
demotivate subordinates and impede the productivity of the work team.

8. What To Do About Flawed Managers.

10
Educational Publishing Foundation and Division of Consulting Psychology Journal – Winter 1994
I will close this essay by noting some lessons for practicing consultants.

The first lesson is not to confuse ascendancy with managerial effectiveness. The
persons at the top of large organizations will usually have talent for self-
promotion, but only some will have talent for leadership. This, in turn, means
that on many occasions the person who invited you (the consultant) to do a
climate survey or an evaluation of the management team will be a source of the
problem that he or she wants you to help resolve.

A second lesson is that a person may have the talent for management but still not
have developed the appropriate skills—in the same sense that, just because a
person is well-coordinated, doesn’t mean that he or she can hit a golf ball or a
back hand return of service. Thus, to evaluate a person’s managerial
performance, you will need more information than what you get from an
interview or an assessment center.

The third lesson is that, in order to evaluate a manager or group of managers, it

is best to rely on four sources of information. The first is upward appraisals; ask
the people who work for the manager to evaluate that person. These people will
always be able to give you some insight into the person’s performance. Next, ask
the manager to complete an inventory of normal personality and one of the new
inventories of personality disorders—this will tell you about the person’s bright
and dark side characteristics. Then it is important to get some sense about how
the manager’s unit is performing, relative to other, comparable units in that or
other organizations. Finally, ask the subordinates to give you some critical
incidents of notably good or poor performance by this manager. When these four
sources of information are put together, you will have a good picture of the
person’s talents and shortcomings as a manager.

The fourth lesson concerns how to give the manager feedback regarding his or
her performance. By and large, the assessment information mentioned above,
although invaluable, will be of most use to you; it will be too abstract for a
manager to use effectively. A more important problem is that the problem
managers won’t pay any attention to the negative feedback contained in the
assessment data. Whatever the symptoms of bad managers—narcissism,
dishonesty, insensitivity, paranoia—they will also be characterized by an
inability to admit their mistakes, which means that assessment feedback will
rarely penetrate their consciousness.

How then do you provide managers with information regarding their

performance that they will listen to and find useful? Obviously the more flawed

11
Educational Publishing Foundation and Division of Consulting Psychology Journal – Winter 1994
the manager, the more difficult the problem. One answer is direct evaluation of
their performance, either through role playing or by videotaping and then
critiquing their performance. A second and more intrusive method is to observe
the person directly by following the, manager around for a day or so. In this way
you can provide feedback regarding specific actions and behaviors.

My reading of the data suggests that short term interventions, even those lasting
as long as a week, tend not to have enduring effects in terms of improving a
manager’s performance. To make a real change in a person’s performance, it
seems necessary to continue the intervention for a prolonged period of time,
which means gathering repeated self and subordinate evaluations, and
monitoring the performance of the manager’s group over an extended period of
time. In order to help really flawed managers, you must do two things. First, you
must demonstrate to them that, although their manner of treating subordinates
may bring them short term results, his in the long term self-defeating and likely
to lead to derailment. Second, you must provide them with alternative ways of
conceptualizing managerial performance, give them specific examples of their
own good and poor performance, and then develop a regular system of
performance evaluation and feedback.

A necessary precondition for these kinds of interventions, however, is that a

manager be able to admit that his or her performance needs to be improved.
Usually this “insight” will be provided by that person’s superiors. The worse the
manager, the larger the discrepancy between his or her self- evaluation and the
evaluations provided by his or her subordinates (cf. Shipper, 1993); the bad ones
just don’t get it. And they won’t until they are fired.

12
Educational Publishing Foundation and Division of Consulting Psychology Journal – Winter 1994
References
Bentz, V. J. (1985). A view from the top: A thirty year perspective of research devoted to
discovery, description, and prediction of executive behavior. Paper, 93rd
Annual Convention, American Psychological Association, Los
Angeles.

Chidester, T. R., Helmreich,. R. L., Gregorich, S. E., & Gels, C. E. (1991). Pilot
personality and crew coordination. International Journal of Aviation
Psychology, 1, 25-44.

DeVries, D. L. (1992). Executive selection; Advances but no progress. Issues &

Observations, 12, 1-5.

Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality trait. American

Psychologist, 48, 26-34.

Harris, G., & Hogan, J. (1992). Perceptions and personality correlates of managerial
effectiveness. Paper, 13th Annual Psychology in the Department of Defense
Symposium, U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, Co.

Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (1992). The Hogan Personality Inventory manual. Tulsa:
Hogan Assessment Systems.

Hogan, R., Raskin, R, & Fazzini, D. (1990). The dark side of charisma. In K. E. Clark
& M. B. Clark (Eds.) Measures of leadership. West Orange, NJ:
Leadership Library of America. Pp. 343-354.

House, R. J., Spangler, W. D., & Woycke, J. (1991). Personality and charisma in the
U.S.

Lombardo, M. M., Ruderman, M. N., & McCauley, C. D. (1988). Explanations of

success and derailment in upper-level management positions. Journal of
Business and psychology, 2. 199-216.

McCall, M. W., & Lombardo, M. M. (1983). Off the track: When and how successful
executives get derailed. (Tech Report No. 21) Greensboro, NC: Center
for Creative Leadership.

Millikin-Davies, M. (1992). An exploration of flawed first-line supervision.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Tulsa.

13
Educational Publishing Foundation and Division of Consulting Psychology Journal – Winter 1994
Mischel, W. (1968) Personality Assessment. NY: Wiley Ross, L., & Nisbett, R. E.
(1991) The persona and the situation. NY: McGraw-Hill.

Shipper, F., & Wilson, C. L. (1991). The impact of managerial behaviors on group
performance, stress, and commitment. Paper, Research conference on
leadership, Center for Creative Leadership, Colorado Springs, CO.

About the author: Robert Hogan, Ph.D., is McFarlin Professor and Chair,
Department of Psychology, University of Tulsa, (Tulsa. OK 74104).
Correspondence should be addressed to the author at P.O. Box 521176, Tulsa, OK
74152,

14
Educational Publishing Foundation and Division of Consulting Psychology Journal – Winter 1994