European Management Journal Vol. 16, No. 5, pp. 529–539, 1998 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reservedPergamon

Printed in Great Britain0263-2373/98 $19.00 + 0.00PII: S0263-2373(98)00030-9

Personality andEntrepreneurialLeadership:A Study of the Heads ofthe UK’s Most SuccessfulIndependent CompaniesNIGEL NICHOLSON, London Business School

Through an empirical study of the heads of theUK’s top independent companies, comparing themwith sample norms and a management controlgroup, the paper re-examines the question ofwhether there is an entrepreneurial leadership per-sonality profile. Several distinctive features arereported and discussed. Contrary tocommon stereotypes, theleaders are not open-minded risk-takers somuch as single-minded, thick-skinned, domin-ating individuals.Results arediscussedwithin

the frame of the new discipline of evolutionary psy-chology. 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rightsreserved

The question of whether there is a leadership person-ality profile has had a chequered history, bedevilledby inconsistent treatments. In academic research thisquestion was once popular and suggested variouslists of traits, all highly situational dependent(Stogdill, 1974). Since then the proposition has

become deeplyunfash-

ion-

PERSONALITY AND ENTREPRENEURIAL LEADERSHIP: A STUDY

able. Attention switched from the identification offactors which might predict accession to leadershiptowards the less determinist search for methods andrecipes for developing leaders. Management stylesand leadership behaviours — i.e. more malleablequalities than ‘traits’ — have predominated (Smithand Peterson, 1988; Yukl, 1994).

Yet writings for managerial audiences have con-tinued to implicate personality traits as requiredleadership qualities. Lists of character qualities havestarted to reappear, as in Pfeffer portrait of the neces-sary attributes for the effective exercise of leadershippower (Pfeffer, 1992), and Kotter’s depiction of howleaders qualitatively differ from managers (Kotter,1990). Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) note and applaudthis resurgence of interest in the trait approach.They conclude:

‘Regardless of whether leaders are born or made or somecombination of both, it is unequivocally clear that leadersare not like other people. Leaders do not have to be greatmen or women by being intellectual geniuses or omniscientprophets to success, but they do need to have the ‘rightstuff’ and this stuff is not equally present in all people.Leadership is a demanding unrelenting job with enormouspressures and grave responsibilities. It would be a pro-found disservice to leaders to suggest that they are ordi-nary people who happened to be in the right place at theright time. Maybe the place matters, but it takes a specialkind of person to master the challenges of opportunity.(p. 59)’

However, this proposition has lacked attention withthe aid of new ideas and instrumentation from per-sonality research, a field which has, in recent years,advanced considerably in its conceptual sophisti-cation, reliability of measurement models, and pre-dictive validity (Nicholson, 1996). A consensus hasbeen developing around a universal five-factor struc-tural model of personality (Digman, 1990), alongsideevidence for the genetic basis of a large amount ofthe variance in personality and temperament (Buss,1991; Bates and Wachs, 1994). It is also the case thatpersonality trait profiles exhibit remarkable stabilityover the life span (Bloch, 1981). The new disciplineof evolutionary psychology additionally offers atheoretical frame for synthesising these develop-ments into a coherent explanation of the relationshipbetween leadership and personality (Nicholson,1997).

These factors argue for a fresh look at how and whyleader profiles might differ from other groups. Thepresent study affords a unique opportunity to exam-ine this question, by examining the full personalityprofiles of 43 leaders of the UK’s most successfulindependent companies, i.e. an elite group of busi-ness entrepreneurs. These are compared with a con-trol group of middle managers and published normsfrom a gold-standard ‘Big Five’ personality instru-ment, the NEO-PI-R.

Leadership and Personality

Let us first consider some reasons why leaders mightnot differ from other groups, before considering whythey might. Arguments against distinctive leaderprofiles include the following:

1. Leaders arrive at their positions by differentmeans: emergent, inherited, appointed, electedetc.. One might expect style and personality tovary according to which route and set of motiveshave led them to their positions.

2. Individuals self-select or are selected to lead bydifferent criteria according to the situations inwhich they are required to function. Another wayof making the same point is that the personalityor style of a leader will have a different kind of‘fit’ with organisations of varying kinds.

3. Times change, and the valued qualities of leader-ship are subject to the dictates of local fashion. Thequalities of the successful leader in today’s climateof change might differ substantially from thosepopular in the conditions of former times. Thesame argument applies to culture. A leader maybe judged to be effective by the differing valuesystems and standards of host cultures.

The last point draws attention to the fact that theliterature on leadership is predominantly American,heavily infused with individualistic values. Somewriters have critically questioned this approach, chal-lenging the dominant conceptions of the field(Meindl, 1990), offering social constructionist alterna-tives to its interpretation (Hosking and Morley, 1991),or by-passing the whole question of leader identitythrough a focus upon process dynamics (Manz andSims, 1990) and substitutes for leadership (Kerr andJermier, 1978). The general balance of recent scholar-ship is interactionist — which personality character-istics entrepreneurial leaders display depends uponspecific situational demands (Chell, 1985).

There are merits to all these positions, and the last isespecially in tune with current orthodoxy. Althoughsuperficially attractive, it seems to leave open allpossible relationships, while popular conception andmanagement writing continues to insist that entrepr-eneurial leaders are distinctive in motive and charac-ter. There is still a case to be answered for a con-trolled empirical test. It is necessary to consider whatreasoning might underlie such a test, i.e. what mightmake entrepreneurial leaders’ personalities differentfrom other groups?

The first quality would seem likely to be the desireto lead. Although one can argue that some appointed,elected, emergent and hereditary leaders have beendragged reluctantly into their positions, some meas-ure of consent is a minimal requirement, and in mostcases leadership is an active desire which has beenfulfilled (Burns, 1978). Those who strongly demur

PERSONALITY AND ENTREPRENEURIAL LEADERSHIP: A STUDY

tend not to stick with it, or they experience a changein their attitudes through resocialisation to fit therole, i.e. they come to acquire the qualities which fitthem for the experience.

Second, one could also argue that the qualities forwhich individuals are elevated to leadership pos-itions are logically (if not empirically) unrelated totheir desires. People are brought into leadership pos-itions because they fill a perceived need. Therefore,the common characteristic is the belief by others thatthe individual will be successful in the tasks of theorganisation. Commonalities in leadership character-istics can therefore be expected in relation to the com-mon tasks that organisations have to undertake.

What can be predicted on the basis of these twoobservations? The new discipline of evolutionarypsychology offers a fresh, if unfashionable, approachto this question.

Entrepreneurial Leadership: anEvolutionary Approach

Evidence is amassing from various sources(palaeontology, neuropsychology, biogenetics,anthropology etc.) that the modern life of humansrests upon a platform of much more ancient geneti-cally founded dispositions which evolved to equip usfor a world we no longer inhabit: the Pleistocene cul-ture of hunter – gatherer clans in a savannah environ-ment (Nicholson, 1997). Features of human existencereplicated over all known cultures, past and present,derive from this shared human nature (Tooby andCosmides, 1992). Among these, of relevance to ourcurrent theme are the universality of hierarchy andstatus aspirations, the politics of networking, andgender differences. The first of these, hierarchy andstatus seeking, insists that the problem of leadershipwill not evaporate with culture change. It also sug-gests that dominance within a hierarchy is a relevantgoal for most would-be leaders (McClelland, 1987).Second, dominance is generated by an individual’sability to satisfy the material and psychological needsof others through performance, and the ability tocommunicate and negotiate mutually advantageousrelationships. Third, there is an in-built gender biasagainst female leaders through their generally lowermotivations to lead and the partiality of their prefer-ences against what is necessary to lead successfullyin many organisations as currently structured (Eaglyand Karau, 1991).

On the empirically sound assumption of adult stab-ility and genetic foundation of personality, one couldhypothesise that leaders will exhibit traits favouringdominance, coalition building and impression man-agement: specifically, aspects of extraversion andconscientiousness. One may invert this general pre-

diction with an alternative formulation that, rather itis the absence of these traits which is counter indica-tive of leadership. Thus, before one can sensiblyaddress the question of leadership traits, one needsto be clear about whether traits are sought as sufficientconditions for individuals to rise to positions of lead-ership, whether they are necessary conditions, orwhether they are probable conditions for leadership.

Let us briefly consider the implications of these threestances, since it is rare for people talking about qual-ities of leadership to make clear which of them theyare adopting. The first is the strongest position: traitsas sufficient conditions means that the mere pos-session of a psychological profile is sufficient to pro-pel a person into a leadership position. The secondis slightly weaker, it argues that the presence orabsence of certain traits would make it difficult orimpossible for a person to attain and sustain a pos-ition of leadership. The third probabilistic position isweaker still; only arguing that certain traits are desir-able for individuals aspiring to be leaders, and willgenerally enhance their chances of becoming leaders.Note, here we are saying nothing about how leadersperform, only whether there is a link between traitsand role attainment. The samples in the presentstudy are all successful by the definition of the sam-pling frame, but no doubt could and do vary in theireffectiveness in various aspects of their roles, an issuebeyond the scope of the present investigation.

Much managerial writing on leadership, as we haveseen, seems to imply the first, strong position thatindividuals who possess certain traits will rise to pos-itions of leadership. If one assumes these traits havea genetic basis, then, in a sense, this is tantamount toproposing that some people are ‘born leaders’.Despite their strong sounding claims, few writerswould want to take this extreme position, and preferto retreat to the weaker probable condition position,that these characteristics are desirable aids to theascent of leaders. A thought experiment on thistheme makes one sympathetic to this retreat — theidea that leadership qualities are completely visibleto others through some kind of ‘signalling’ of theirpresence, and that this makes them irresistiblechoices for leadership positions, is, frankly, implaus-ible. However, it is much more plausible to take thealternative strong formulation, that without certaintraits, leadership roles will be uncongenial to thepoint of aversion. Without particular qualities ofcharacter the motivation to lead and the ability tosustain leadership positions will be difficult. To thisextent some people are not so much ‘born leaders’ asothers are ‘born not to lead’. This possibility is rarelyconsidered. In this study of leaders and non-leaderswe shall examine what light can be shed upon thesevarious positions, via two kinds of comparison:

(a) comparisons with the personality instrumentoriginating normative sample

PERSONALITY AND ENTREPRENEURIAL LEADERSHIP: A STUDY

(b) comparisons with a selected managerial con-trol group from the author’s database.

Before elaborating on these, we should also considerwhether entrepreneurial leaders can be expected todiffer from other leaders and non-leaders in any spe-cific respects. The literature yields patchy and incon-sistent claims and results (Furnham, 1992) but hasgenerally placed emphasis on traits favouring risk-taking behaviours, such as ‘sensation seeking’. It ishard to make a case for this as either a necessary ora sufficient condition. One can conceive of this asmotive for some but no means all entrepreneurial lea-ders, in other words it falls into the weaker categoryof contingent probability. It may be expected to be amarginally more frequent trait among entrepreneur-ial leaders than among managers generally. Alongsimilar lines, there is reason to expect the leaders tobe above average on aspects of openness to experi-ence (Begley and Boyd, 1987). A stronger case canbe made for need for achievement, and research hasgenerally confirmed a positive relationship betweenthis and entrepreneurship (Cromie, 1987).

The study tests for two of the three kinds of relation-ship outlined above. The strong positive ‘sufficient’causal relationship is not tested, for reasons givenabove and is not testable. The alternative ‘necessary’cause hypothesis is tested, with predictions basedupon the research record and the reasoning of thisdiscussion, for various specific dimensions. This istested by a search for the absence of high or lowscores on specified dimensions. The weaker ‘probabi-listic’ causal relationship is tested for a larger numberof dimensions, by a search for differences in pre-dicted directions between the Leader sample and twocomparison groups. One of these comparison groupsis the NEO normative sample of American males.Since this is a mixed sample, representing hetero-geneous occupations and classes, predicted differ-ences relate as much to managerial occupations ingeneral as to leadership roles. Accordingly, more ofthese are expected than for the second comparisonsample, a control group of UK managers in non-lead-ership positions.

Hypotheses

In accordance with the reasoning of the previous sec-tion, three sets of predictions are offered. These areset out in Table 1.

1. Relatively few of the strong ‘necessary’ conditionpredictions are made. These include low ‘vulner-ability’, in effect a stress avoidance measure, onwhich high scores would be counter indicative towhat is generally acknowledged to be a high stressposition; ‘assertiveness’ and ‘activity’, among themost common traits identified in the literature;openness to ‘actions’, on the strong reasoning that

willingness to undertake new course of action is anecessary condition of entrepreneurial leadership;‘achievement striving’, again as indicated by theliterature; and low ‘deliberation’, on the reasoningthat quick decision-making is another fairly con-stant role requirement of the position.

2. Differences with NEO norms are more widely pre-dicted, on the basis of the known characteristics ofmanagerial and leadership roles and how they arelikely to differ from the experiences and orien-tations of more heterogeneous male samples.These include lower Neuroticism on two facetsand higher on one, ‘impulsiveness’; various higherExtraversion and Openness facets, lower Agree-ableness (i.e. less nurturant and more tough-minded), and higher Conscientiousness on twofacets denoting drive and lower scores on facetsdenoting more risky and deviant orientations.Overall higher Conscientiousness is predicted onthe evidence that this scale has been found to bemost predictive of work performance (Barrick andMount, 1991), which is presumed to be an ante-cedent to accession to leadership.

3. Predictions as to how the leaders will differ fromthe middle-management control group identifyleadership characteristics more specifically. Lower‘self-consciousness’ and higher ‘impulsiveness’ arepredicted on the basis of self-selection toward roledemands requiring exposure and opportunitiesfor self-gratification. Higher ‘assertiveness’ and‘sensation-seeking’ are predicted as above. No dif-ference is predicted on ‘activity’ since there seemsto be no case for arguing that this would be lowerin a general managerial sample than for leaders:activity is an equally valued attribute in eitherrole. Higher openness to ‘actions’ is predicted asabove, and likewise the three lower Agreeablenessfacets — on the reasoning that leaders have to begenerally more tough-minded than managers. Theopposite prediction for ‘compliance’ follows thereasoning that competitive striving with peers ismore characteristic of middle managers than lead-ers, for whom its salience is reduced. Finally,lower Conscientiousness is predicted on severalfacets, on the reasoning that leaders are bufferedfrom operational demands for order and controlby immediate subordinates, though higher‘achievement striving’ and ‘self-discipline’ areseen as desirable attributes for leaders more thanmanagers. The prediction of lower ‘deliberation’again is specific to the role demands of entrepren-eurial leadership, i.e. the need for speedydecision-making.

Sampling and Procedure

The analysis draws upon three data sets.

First, are NEO norms, as given in the instrument

PERSONALITY AND ENTREPRENEURIAL LEADERSHIP: A STUDY

Table 1 Predicted Absent Scores (Necessary Conditions) and Mean Differences with Comparison Samples(Probabilistic Conditions) on NEO Domains and Facets

Dimensions and scales Predicted absent scores Predicted mean difference with Predicted mean differencesNEO norms with Management sample

NeuroticismN1 AnxietyN2 Angry hostilityN3 DepressionN4 Self-consciousness Lower LowerN5 Impulsiveness Higher HigherN6 Vulnerability High range Lower

Extraversion HigherE1 WarmthE2 GregariousnessE3 Assertiveness Low range Higher HigherE4 Activity Low range HigherE5 Excitement-seeking Higher HigherE6 Positive emotions

Openness to experience HigherO1 FantasyO2 AestheticsO3 FeelingsO4 Actions Low range Higher HigherO5 IdeasO6 Values Higher

Agreeableness LowerA1 Trust LowerA2 Straightforwardness Lower LowerA3 Altruism Lower LowerA4 Compliance Lower HigherA5 Modesty Lower LowerA6 Tender-mindedness Lower

Conscientiousness HigherC1 Competence LowerC2 Order LowerC3 Dutifulness Lower LowerC4 Achievement striving Low range Higher HigherC5 Self-discipline Higher HigherC6 Deliberation High range Lower Lower

manual (Costa and McCrae, 1992), for the 500 malesin their norming sample.

Second is the author’s accumulating archive on man-agers and professionals, from which the managerialcontrol sample was drawn. This sample was accessedvia two main sources: managers attending companyspecific courses, open management developmentprogrammes and executive postgraduate degree pro-grammes (excluding MBAs) at London BusinessSchool. The second source was via consulting assign-ments with an Executive Search organisation andother clients with whom management development

assignments had been conducted. This populationnumbered around 200 at the time of the presentstudy, and was heterogeneous in nationality, type offirm, and function. Selecting for UK nationality, priv-ate sector, and non-leadership status yielded thepresent control sample.

Third, the target leadership sample was accessed viaa published listing of the UK’s top performing inde-pendent companies in 1993–4 by The Independent, aUK national newspaper from a database maintainedby Price Waterhouse, a management consultancyfirm. A letter of invitation to take part in a study of

PERSONALITY AND ENTREPRENEURIAL LEADERSHIP: A STUDY

‘Leadership and Personality’ was written to the chiefexecutive of the top 116 companies listed. The letterpromised to give personalised personality profilefeedback to participants, and asked CEOs to returna prepaid postcard to indicate their willingness toparticipate. Some 68 cards were returned. To thesethe NEO questionnaire was dispatched along with ashort questionnaire requesting biographical andoccupational data. Forty-three fully completed ques-tionnaires were received, a response rate of 38 percent. This is an acceptable level of response for a ‘coldcall’ survey, and could be regarded as quite high,given the time demands of completion of the longform of the NEO for busy CEOs. Respondents wereevenly distributed across the performance range, i.e.evenly drawn from the top middle and bottom of thelist, suggesting there is no performance bias in thesampling.

Within two weeks of returns a specially designedNEO profile form was returned to individuals alongwith a letter on interpretation of results. The formwas designed to eliminate socially undesirable traitlabels, and the letter explained limits to interpretation(e.g. that the instrument was for ‘normal’ popu-lations, and that scores represented preferences notbehaviours or skills).

Measures and Sample Characteristics

The NEO-PI-R is one of the most recently developedpersonality inventories and benefits from extensivevalidation and trialing (see Costa, 1996). It is a ‘BigFive’ measure, designed to measure the five dimen-sions around which personality trait theory has con-verged as the most parsimonious and comprehensivetheoretical structure for measurement (Digman,1990). The five dimensions are Neuroticism(propensity for emotional responsiveness), Extraver-sion (outgoing and active orientation), Openness toExperience (creativity and adaptiveness), Agree-ableness (nurturance and tender-mindedness), andConscientiousness (need for order and control). Eachscale has six facets, as shown in Table 1.

The full version of the NEO (form S, for self-completion) has 240 items and takes 30–40 min tocomplete.

In addition respondents were asked to complete ashort additional form, providing biographical, occu-pational and organisational details. From the latterthe following sample characteristics were obtained.

Age: range: 26–63, mean: 44.4; S.D. 7.50

Sex: all male

Length of service: range: 6 months to 39 years, mean:11.6; S.D.: 8.97.

Organisation size: 1–10: 2%; 11–50: 12%; 51–100: 16%;101–250: 23%; 251–750: 33%; 750–1500: 7%; 1500–3000: 7%.

Business type: manufacturing: 23%; consultancy andbusiness services: 21%; high technology firms:16%;sales, retail and wholesale:14%; financial services:7%; transport: 7%; publishing and printing: 5%;construction: 2%; personal services: 2%.

The sample was thus quite heterogeneous, and com-paring the distribution by business type with that ofthe full listing from which the leader sample wasdrawn revealed no difference to suggest a samplingbias. No data were available to compare respondentswith non-respondents on other variables. Any sam-pling bias seems likely to be the result of personalfactors, e.g. interest in the topic and motivation togive time to the study. This, of course, could impacton the main measure, and this will be considered inthe interpretation of findings.

Results

Table 2 shows descriptive statistics on the NEO forthe three comparison samples, from which it may bebriefly noted that variances on measures are mostlysimilar across the three samples. Table 3 shows theresults of the three difference tests to evaluate thepredictions shown in Table 1.

Let us evaluate results from the most general to themost specific case, i.e. starting with comparison withNEO norms, then between leaders and control group,and third evaluate the strongest formulation, that ofnecessary conditions for leadership. Then, finally, weshall look at all three sets together to evaluate consist-encies and inconsistencies among them.

Leaders Vs Neo Norms

As expected there are widespread differences — 12out of 34 significant at the 5 per cent level on two-tailed t-tests. Several of these (shown in bold type)are as predicted — a cluster of scales indicatingdominance, toughness, and conscientiousness. Theonly exceptions, i.e. non-predicted differences(shown in italic) are on overall Neuroticism, aesthet-ics (O2) and dutifulness (C3). These only elaboratethe themes of the confirmed hypotheses. The duti-fulness finding is the most noteworthy, since it wasopposite to the direction predicted. The implicationof the prediction is that entrepreneurial leaders playfast and loose with the rules. The results show thatthis would be a misleading stereotype — a disci-plined conformism typifies this sample. Turning toother predictions which failed, several are of interest.There is no suggestion that this sample is more

PERSONALITY AND ENTREPRENEURIAL LEADERSHIP: A STUDY

Table 2 Means and S.D. for the Three Samples

Domains and facets (a) Leadership sample (N = (b) NEO norm sample (N = (c) Control group43) 500) (management) sample (N =

57)

Neuroticism 67.37 (20.90) 75.2 (19.9) 74.18 (24.20)N1 Anxiety 12.42 (5.80) 13.3 (4.9) 13.09 (6.02)N2 Angry Hostility 12.14 (6.07) 12.2 (4.5) 11.77 (5.37)N3 Depression 9.44 (4.57) 11.6 (5.2) 11.96 (5.40)N4 Self-consciousness 10.74 (3.80) 13.7 (4.3) 13.14 (5.02)N5 Impulsiveness 16.65 (5.02) 15.3 (4.2) 16.46 (5.12)N6 Vulnerability 5.98 (3.05) 9.2 (3.7) 7.75 (4.93)

Extraversion 120.26 (14.11) 108.5 (18.5) 119.74 (19.53)E1 Warmth 20.47 (4.49) 22.3 (4.0) 20.54 (4.40)E2 Gregariousness 16.60 (4.46) 16.0 (4.9) 19.14 (4.20)E3 Assertiveness 22.88 (4.17) 16.3 (4.7) 19.84 (5.54)E4 Activity 23.60 (3.91) 17.3 (4.3) 22.02 (4.15)E5 Excitement-seeking 16.19 (4.69) 17.2 (4.7) 18.02 (4.94)E6 Positive emotions 20.51 (4.18) 19.5 (4.3) 20.18 (4.60)

Openness to experience 109.42 (18.57) 120.1 (16.1) 115.04 (18.17)O1 Fantasy 15.60 (5.54) 17.0 (4.7) 15.67 (5.31)O2 Aesthetics 14.37 (5.85) 16.7 (5.4) 15.30 (6.34)O3 Feelings 20.81 (4.17) 19.7 (3.8) 20.68 (3.77)O4 Actions 17.07 (4.77) 16.1 (3.8) 20.68 (3.77)O5 Ideas 18.33 (5.66) 19.8 (5.0) 19.81 (5.24)O6 Values 23.23 (3.58) 20.8 (4.5) 23.89 (3.07)

Agreeableness 105.09 (19.92) 120.1 (16.1) 107.44 (18.98)A1 Trust 19.58 (5.50) 20.9 (4.3) 20.11 (4.68)A2 Straightforwardness 16.07 (4.62) 20.3 (4.3) 16.65 (4.69)A3 Altruism 20.98 (4.01) 22.8 (3.6) 20.56 (4.28)A4 Compliance 13.65 (4.52) 18.1 (3.7) 15.88 (4.75)A5 Modesty 16.28 (4.75) 18.1 (4.4) 16.25 (4.70)A6 Tender-mindedness 18.53 (4.83) 19.9 (3.8) 18.00 (3.86)

Conscientiousness 131.51 (20.15) 123.6 (17.4) 122.23 (21.32)C1 Competence 22.49 (3.78) 22.5 (3.5) 22.42 (3.78)C2 Order 20.19 (5.07) 18.9 (4.1) 17.05 (4.45)C3 Dutifulness 25.14 (3.64) 23.2 (3.9) 22.81 (4.50)C4 Achievement striving 23.72 (4.37) 19.3 (4.1) 21.84 (4.96)C5 Self-discipline 23.12 (4.37) 21.8 (4.2) 21.12 (5.03)C6 Deliberation 16.86 (5.07) 17.8 (4.0) 16.98 (4.63)

impulsive, excitement-seeking, and open to experi-ence than the general population of the NEOnorms — again a disconfirmation of the entrepren-eurial stereotype. Other non-predicted results are thefailure of differences on two of the Agreeablenessscales (A5 and A6) to attain significance, though theformer would be under a one-tailed test. Similarlydifferences on C5 and C6 are in the predicted direc-tions, but non-significant.

(a) Leaders Vs Managers

All the findings reported above could be argued toreflect differences between a managerial population

and the general public. The tests shown in column Bof Table 3 provide the critical test of whether theseuniquely reflect their leadership status. As expected,there are fewer significant differences on this test, butonly a minority of these are as predicted. These areless self-consciousness (N4), more assertiveness (E3),and higher self-discipline (C5). Others in the samedirection as those for the (a) series tests, above, viz.lower vulnerability (N6), less compliance (i.e. morecompetitive, (A4), and higher Conscientiousness.Again, results fail to confirm the notion that leadersare more excitement-seeking (E5) or lower in deliber-ation (C6). Other findings, where leaders differ frommanagers but not the general public (i.e. the NEO

PERSONALITY AND ENTREPRENEURIAL LEADERSHIP: A STUDY

Table 3 Hypothesis Testing: Group Comparisons and Absent Extreme Values

Domains and facets (a) Leadership sample vs NEO (b) Leadership sample vs (c) Percentile range of scoresnorm sample t-tests and P management control sample t- on NEO norms

tests and P

Neuroticism (total) − 2.46* − 1.47 0–97N1 Anxiety − 1.01 − 0.56 0–98N2 Angry Hostility − 0.07 0.32 0–100N3 Depression − 2.08* − 2.46* 0–94N4 Self-consciousness − 3.05** − 2.62** 0–90N5 Impulsiveness 1.48 0.19 0–100N6 Vulnerability − 3.31* − 2.07* 0–87

Extraversion (total) 8.20** 0.16 27–98E1 Warmth − 1.93 − 0.08 0–97E2 Gregariousness 0.49 − 2.90** 1–97E3 Assertiveness 6.12** 3.01** 16–100E4 Activity 5.90** 1.93 43–100E5 Excitement-seeking − 1.02 − 1.87 2–100E6 Positive emotions 1.01 0.37 2–98

Openness (total) − 0.56 − 1.52 1–99O1 Fantasy − 1.55 − 0.06 0–96O2 Aesthetics − 2.55* − 0.75 0–97O3 Feelings 1.15 0.16 0–100O4 Actions 1.04 − 3.04** 2–100O5 Ideas − 1.62 − 1.35 7–99O6 Values 1.76 − 0.99 10–99

Agreeableness (total) − 12.91** − 0.60 0–100A1 Trust − 1.47 − 0.52 0–98A2 Straightforwardness − 4.32** − 0.62 0–93A3 Altruism − 2.08* 0.50 0–96A4 Compliance − 5.03** − 2.38* 0–89A5 Modesty − 1.93 0.03 0–94A6 Tender-mindedness − 1.39 0.61 0–100

Conscientiousness (total) 6.77** 2.20* 6–100C1 Competence − 0.01 0.09 1–100C2 Order 1.43 3.28** 4–100C3 Dutifulness 1.99* 2.79** 7–100C4 Achievement striving 4.97** 1.94 7–100C5 Self-discipline 1.37 2.08* 4–100C6 Deliberation − 1.07 − 0.12 0–100

Predicted significant results are shown in bold, unsupported predictions are shown in italicTwo-tailed t-tests, *P , 0.05; **P , 0.01

norm sample) are of particular interest. These are thatleaders are less gregarious (E2) and less open toactions (O4) than managers but not the norm sample,the latter finding in direct contradiction of prediction.Last are findings where leaders differ from NEOnorms but not other managers. These are activity (E4)as predicted, and on the A Scale, not predicted, instraightforwardness (A2) and altruism (A3).

(b) Predicted Absent Scores

Column C of Table 3 shows the ranges obtained onall scales. On this extreme test, as expected there is

little evidence of visible truncation of scores — theleaders cover the range on most scales. It is a matterof judgement where one would draw the limit for asignificant absence of scores. Only two facet scalesdeviate strongly from the norm of widespread distri-butions: assertiveness (E3) and activity (E4). Overallextraversion also shows a notable absence of lowscores. More marginal is the finding on the opennessto values (O6) scale, where no-one falls in the bottom10 per cent. Since the t-tests failed to identify this asa significant difference, the result can be disregarded.

Before passing on to discuss the results, one possiblesource of bias needs to be considered — namely that

PERSONALITY AND ENTREPRENEURIAL LEADERSHIP: A STUDY

the differences described under (a) above reflect anational rather than a functional difference, sinceboth the leadership and management samples areBritish, and the NEO Norm is North American. Totest for this possibility, from the author’s data archivea further sample of 41 male American executives wasextracted — a mix of managers, leaders and pro-fessionals, i.e. close to the UK samples in function,but equal to the NEO norm sample on nationality. Ifthe results reported above were a cultural artifact,one would expect no differences between the Amer-ican control group and the NEO norm sample inthose areas were we have found leader/NEO normdifferences but no UK leader/manager differences.This only occurs for one result: the overall Neuroti-cism score. Since this result is quite marginal, and thepattern is not replicated in the N-Scale facet scores,it can be disregarded, especially since this has not thefocus of our literature-derived hypotheses.

Discussion

Let us start by considering the toughest test appliedto these data — the search for necessary attributes ofthe leader. Assertiveness is a candidate for this sinceleaders on the t-tests score significantly higher thanboth managers and the NEO norm sample. Is this suf-ficient to say that no-one with a really low score onthis scale could attain and retain a leadership pos-ition? It would only take a single case to disconfirmthe generalisation, and it seems more reasonable tomake the somewhat weaker claim that assertivenessis one of the strongest requirements for leaders. Thelarger distributional deficit is on activity (E4) wherenone of the leaders falls below the 43rd percentile.Since leaders do not differ from managers on thisscale, one might be drawn to the even stronger con-clusion that it is a necessary condition for managersgenerally (none of the American control sample fall

Table 4 Significant Differences Between Leaders, Managers and NEO Norms

Leaders differ from NEO norms, not from Leaders differ from managers, not from Leaders differ from managers and NEOmanagers NEO norms norms

Big Five scales

Lower neuroticism Higher conscientiousnessHigher extraversionLower agreeableness

Facets

High activity (E4) Lower gregariousness (E2) Lower depression (N3)Lower aesthetics (O2) Higher order (C2) Lower self-consciousness (N4)Lower straightforwardness (A2) Higher self-discipline (C5) Lower vulnerability (N6)Lower altruism (A3) Higher assertivneess (A3)Higher achievement-striving (C4) Lower actions (O4)

Lower compliance (A4)Higher dutifulness (C3)

below the 13th percentile on this measure). Again, aweaker conclusion seems merited, that low scores onthis dimension constitute a significant handicap forwould-be leaders and managers.

In similar vein, let us now turn to consider what aremore general predictors of leadership status. Fromthe results we get a clear image of how leaders andmanagers differ from each other, and from the gen-eral population of the NEO norms. These are sum-marised in Table 4.

The results do suggest that there are character differ-ences between our entrepreneurial leaders and othermanagers. The image is not always comfortable, whatcould be summarised as an emotionally armourplated single-mindedness. Unlike managers they arestress-resistant, unselfconscious, assertive, non-experimental in their actions, conscientious, conform-ist and competitive.

This brings us back to one of the key questions inleadership, though severely neglected as an unfash-ionable issue in modern management — are leadersborn or made? Evolutionary psychology puts thisback on the agenda, starting from the propositionthat personality differences represent geneticallyadaptive profiles, fitting individuals for varyingniches in human society. The findings in column oneof Table 4 can help us here. These represent the attri-butes which distinguish managers from the generalpopulation. These indicate more extravert and tough-minded individuals are found in managerial occu-pations (the Neuroticism result can be disregardedon the basis of the American control test describedabove). Is this the result of socialisation or self-selec-tion? Of course both processes may be at work, butgiven the high stability of personality traits self-selec-tion would seem to be implicated. If this is so, thenthe results in column 3 of Table 4 suggest that onlythose managers with thick skins and powerful self-

PERSONALITY AND ENTREPRENEURIAL LEADERSHIP: A STUDY

interested ambitions will pursue paths out of theranks of their fellow managers into positions of lead-ership. Column 2 of Table 4 also contains theintriguing suggestion that factors which typify man-agers, such as sociability and high needs for orderand self-discipline, are less evident among the lead-ers. One tentative inference from these findings isthat potential entrepreneurial leaders are eitherresistant to the socialisation that shapes managerialpersonality or they enter the profession as slight mis-fits with the social and organisational norms of man-agement, but with the powerful will to escape intoleadership.

Let us conclude by revisiting the issues raised at thestart of this paper. What do these results imply for ageneralisable leader personality? We have not ana-lysed issues of how the leaders came to their pos-itions, the criteria which advanced them or the localtemporal themes which might favour them. The firsttwo of these would argue against any kind of gener-alisation, and indeed render improbable the resultswe have obtained here. The findings thus do suggestthat there the profile we have arrived at has sometrans-situational robustness, given the heterogeneityof the sample’s types of organisation. The third point,that times change and the qualities of successful lead-ership with them, raises the issue of whether the pro-file we have described is one for our times and mod-ern business culture. The counter argument fromevolutionary psychology is that the characteristics ofsocial institutions requiring leadership have biogen-etic themes — i.e. the business cultures we createexhibit repeated themes of functioning clansthroughout human history (Tooby and Cosmides,1992). The implication is that many leadership pos-itions, perhaps especially in small- to medium-sizedenterprises such as we have studied here, are con-tested and retained by ‘alpha’ males with high needsfor dominance, and these are recurrent themes in thebusiness environment. Quite different qualities mightbe expected for leaders of corporate and publicbureaucracies. The profile this study has revealedseems to fit this account: tough minded people, unat-tracted by social distractions, not diverted by curi-osity, and driven by a surpassing need for activedominance. The profile may not be of characters wemight warm to, but it suggests we need them, to dowhat we might choose not to.

References

Barrick, M.R. and Mount, M.K. (1991) The big five dimensionsand job performance: a meta-analysis. Personnel Psy-chology 44, 1–26.

Begley, T. and Boyd, D. (1987) A comparison of entrepreneursand managers of small firms. Journal of Management 13,99–108.

Bates, J.E. and Wachs, L.D. (eds) (1994) Temperament: Individ-ual Differences of the Interface of Biology and Behavior. APAPress, Washington D.C.

Bloch, J. (1981) Some enduring and consequential structuresof personality. In Further Explorations in Personality, edsA.I. Rabin, J. Aronoff, A.M. Barclay and R.A. Zucker.Wiley, New York.

Burns, J.M. (1978) Leadership. Harper and Row, New York.Buss, D.M. (1991) Evolutionary personality psychology.

Annual Review of Psychology 42, 459–491.Chell, E. (1985) The entrepreneurial personality: a few ghosts

laid to rest?. International Small Business Journal 3, 43–54.Costa, P.T. (1996) Work and personality: use of the NEO-PI-

R in industrial/organizational psychology. Applied Psy-chology: An International Review 45, 225–242.

Costa, P.T. and McCrae, R.R. (1992) NEO PI-R ProfessionalManual. Psychological Assessment Resources Inc.,Odessa, FL.

Cromie, S. (1987) Motivations of aspiring male and femaleentrepreneurs. Journal of Occupational Behavior 8, 251–261.

Digman, J.M. (1990) Personality structure: emergence of thefive-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology 41, 417–440.

Eagly, A.H. and Karau, S.J. (1991) Gender and the emergenceof leaders: a meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 60, 685–710.

Furnham, A. (1992) Personality and Work. Routledge, London.Hosking, D.M. and Morley, I.E. (1991) A Social Psychology of

Organising. Harvester Wheatsheaf, London.Kerr, S. and Jermier, R.L. (1978) Substitutes for leadership:

their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behaviorand Human Performance 22, 375–404.

Kirkpatrick, S.A. and Locke, E.A. (1991) Leadership: do traitsmatter?. Academy of Management Executive 5, 48–60.

Kotter, J.P. (1990) A Force for Change: How Leadership Differsfrom Management. Free Press, New York.

Manz, C.C. and Sims, H.P. Jr. (1990) SuperLeadership. Berkley,New York.

Meindl, J.R. (1990) On leadership: an alternative to the con-ventional wisdom. Research in Organizational Behavior,Vol. 12, pp. 159–204. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.

McClelland, D. (1987) Characteristics of successfulentrepreneurs. Journal of Creative Behavior 21, 219–233.

Nicholson, N. (ed.) (1996) Work and personality. Applied Psy-chology: An International Review 45(3).

Nicholson, N. (1997) Evolutionary psychology and organiza-tional behavior. In Creating Tomorrow’s Organizations: AHandbook for Future Research in Organizational Behaviour,eds C. Cooper and S. Jackson. Wiley, Chichester.

Pfeffer, J. (1992) Managing with Power. Harvard BusinessSchool Press, Boston, MA.

Smith, P.B. and Peterson, M.F. (1988) Leadership. Organizationsand Culture. Sage, London.

Stogdill, R.M. (1974) Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of theLiterature. Free Press, New York.

Tooby, J. and Cosmides, L. (1992) The psychological foun-dations of culture. In The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psy-chology and the Generation of Culture, eds J.H. Barkow, L.Cosmides and J. Tooby. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Yukl, G. (1994) Leadership in Organizations, 3rd edn. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

PERSONALITY AND ENTREPRENEURIAL LEADERSHIP: A STUDY

NIGEL NICHOLSON,London Business School,Sussex Place, Regent’sPark, London NW15SA, UK.

Nigel Nicholson is Pro-fessor of OrganisationalBehaviour at LondonBusiness School, wherehe is also currentlyResearch Dean and

Chairman of the PhD Programme. In addition to hisstudies of personality and leadership, he co-leads aproject on risk and decision-making among financetraders in the City of London. Concurrently, he ispursuing the theoretical and practical developmentof Evolutionary Psychology in the organisationalfield. He had published numerous books and articlesin these and other areas, including careers andorganisational change. He has been honoured withan award from the Academy of Management for hiscontribution to theory.