During my time as an MBA student, my career coach was an interesting presence. He was at times very helpful and insightful, putting me in contact with some great people at the places I wanted to work. He could also be a little aloof, often forgetting what we had talked about in past meetings and not always offering the most actionable advice. In the end, his work with me could have been better and it could have been worse.
Of course, I'm not going to write an entire post about the efficacy of my career coach. What I am interested in, and what led me down the rabbit hole I take you through in this post, relates to something he said during one of our meetings. In this meeting, we were discussing what I thought my strengths were and how I would be able to communicate them to interviewers. Because I've done quite well in school and have always aced standardized tests, I said that my main strength was being really, really smart. My career coach rebuffed this saying that a lot of people were smart, and that I needed to communicate what my "special sauce" was. He then followed that up by saying that people on the super-high end of the intelligence spectrum were actually less good at managing than others than people of somewhat high intelligence. That is, he said there was a "curvilinear" relationship between intelligence and management abilities.
While I certainly took his "special sauce" advice to heart (learning agility is not only a better way to phrase what I was trying to get at; it's also more meaningful), I was taken aback by his second assertion. It definitely surprised me that added intelligence could hinder my career opportunities, but I ended up not thinking much more about it and moving on.
...Until the next semester. I was enrolled in a class pertaining to management and HR, which I actually enjoyed a great deal. One of the books we read was (predictably) entitled 100 Things You Need to Know: Best People Practices for Managers & HR. The book is sectioned into 100 small chapters with bits of insight and research pertaining to HR-related questions. One subset of the chapters deals with intelligence and how it relates to managerial success. One of those chapters included this quote (emphasis added):
"Intelligence is a necessary but not sufficient cause of adulthood success in careers that demand creativity or leadership. Further findings reveal that excessive intelligence seems to hurt, with the most effective people being somewhat smarter than average for their group, but not too much smarter." (Eichinger, 2006)
Upon reading that, I remembered what my career coach had said, and began to wonder if it was true. I could definitely understand how added intelligence might have diminishing returns when it comes to managing people, but it seemed strange and counter-intuitive that such skills would actually decrease with added intelligence. If one's intelligence naturally causes them to be aloof or something like that around others, wouldn't he or she be able to use that intelligence to avoid this? I know that this assertion may seem rather trivial in the grand scheme of things (and it's definitely a big generalization, which the 100 Things book itself keeps advising against). However, I was in the middle of trying to map out my post-MBA career, which meant that information that tells me that I may not be as great of a manager or leader as I thought was (and still is) very relevant.
Luckily for me, one of the other classes I was enrolled in at the time involved a deep dive into the academic side of marketing. As part of this class, we had just completed a "library quest" where we went to Hesburgh and read from a lot of different journals, magazines, and other publications in order to better understand the depth and breadth of knowledge that was available to us. Because of my increased confidence and research skills that arose from this activity, and because the 100 Things book is well cited, I undertook the process of finding out whether or not this assertion was true.
* * *
The obvious place to start was with the citation from the book. I was hoping this would lead directly to a study with data that supported this statement, but that was not the case (more on this in a minute). While most of the journals I investigated during my library quest were available online, the Annals of Child Development, which was discontinued in 1998, was most certainly not. Thus, I journeyed all the way up to the 13th floor of Hesburgh to find the necessary volume. I ended up getting the following quote from a book that sits about 20 feet from Hesburgh's office, so that's pretty cool. Returning to the main subject, here is the quote that almost certainly is the source of the 100 Things reference:
"The literature on both creativity and leadership frequently contains the speculation that an excessive intelligence might even militate against personal influence. (...) Will likely yield a curvilinear, concave downward function between intelligence and creativity or leadership. Under many common conditions, for example, the highest odds of exercising personal influence in a group is enjoyed by that individual with an IQ only around 1.2 standard deviations above the mean IQ of the group." (Simonton, 1987)
One thing I learned from both the marketing academia class and this line of investigation was that academic papers pile citations on top of citations. If something is cited from somewhere else, then that somewhere else is not always (or perhaps, is not usually) the first source of the finding. As you might imagine, this can give rise to the same problem we see in the "telephone game." Since I hadn't yet arrived at the end of this investigative road, I continued along my journey.
The Simonton article had two citations related to the above passage. There was another article from another psychology journal and something called Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership. What was interesting about this was how the sources came from two completely different disciplines, which shows how much interconnectedness there is between different areas of study. Here is the passage from the management book:
"Five competent studies (out of 25) suggested that 'one of the most significant findings concerning the relation of intelligence to leadership is the extreme discrepancies between the intelligence of potential leaders and that of their followers militate against the exercise of leadership....' Ghiselli reported supporting evidence. In a study of three groups of managers, he found that 'the relationship between intelligence and managerial success is curvilinear with those individuals earning both low and very high scores being less likely to acheive success in management positions than those with scores at the intermediate level." (Bass, 1981)
And here is the quote from the journal article:
"Though a curvilinear relationship between intelligence and creativity has often been suggested, the only formal test (with negative results) of this hypothesis we are aware of was conducted by Simonton in a reanalysis of Cox's historical geniuses - a sample quite probably too rarified to be a particularly good test of the curvilinear hypothesis." (Barron, 1981)
There are quite a few takeaways from these passages. First, you can see how both of these cite past studies which means each of them will lead me (and you, if you are still reading) further down the rabbit hole. Second, the Ghiselli test sounds like it might be fairly conclusive, so that will be particularly interesting to follow up on. Third, the journal article quotes a study from Simonton, who just happens to be the author of the article that 100 Things draws upon. This means that Simonton quotes someone in his article who then quotes his own study. Just cite your own study, man! Finally, the Simonton study mentioned in the article seems to indicate that there isn't any proof of this curvilinear relationship, so it will be interesting to put this up against the Ghiselli test.
Let's start by following up on the first passage from the Stogdill's book. It was rather difficult to determine exactly what the author meant by the "supporting evidence" from Ghiselli. The book cited many studies by Ghiselli as well as others. The study that seemed the most promising at first didn't seem to address the issue, as the results of the data analysis supported the introductory assertion that "...a positive relationship exists between the occupational level of jobs and the validity of intelligence tests is, of course, well known." (Ghiselli, 1963a). This assertion was stated as a conclusion of one of his earlier studies which contained much of the same analysis and wording. What this study basically shows is that people higher up in management tend to be more reliably intelligent. It doesn't offer any findings on whether or not intelligence determines success in those roles, so this appears to be a dead end.
Another potential font of supporting evidence was a 1948 article by the namesake of the book, Ralph Stogdill himself. Much of the text from that is very similar, but I will quote from the original source:
"...Extreme discrepancies between the intelligence of potential leaders and their followers miliate against the exercise of leadership. Hollingworth found that 'among children with a mean IQ of 100, the IQ of the leader is likely to fall between 115 and 130 IQ. That is, the leader is likely to be more intelligent, but not too much more intelligent than the average of the group led." (Stogdill, 1948)
The article goes on to talk about how the reason behind this is likely communication. A child with average intelligence is not likely to be able to understand the words and/or ideas coming from the child with superior intelligence. This makes sense, and I don't really have any problems with the study or the conclusion. However, I'm not sure how a study of children would necessarily lend itself to making similar conclusions about adults. First, the leaders of the child groups are not necessarily being selected with the same goals in mind, and they are not being graded on the success of their leadership. This shows a fundamental difference with what the 100 Things book is trying to demonstrate. Second, adults with very high intelligence should typically be able to understand that they are very intelligent and thus be able to make the level of their communication appropriate to their audience, which weakens the theoretical underpinning of the argument. This passage appears to be getting us closer to our goal, but it still seems incomplete.
In the end, a second study by Ghiselli seems to be the best support of the assertion from the Stogdill book. This is a one page article (!) that details a brief study assessing intelligence levels and managerial success. The conclusion states that:
"It appears that the relationship between intelligence and managerial success is curvilinear with those individuals earning both low and very high scores being less likely to achieve success in management positions than those with scores at intermediate levels." (Ghiselli, 1963b)
Jackpot! Looks like the 100 Things book was right. My blog post is finished.
Actually, I just remembered something my professor said (the one from the marketing academia class). He said, in as many words, that "all studies are flawed." What this means, is that no study is perfect since they are all based on making certain assumptions or only studying certain samples of the population. In this case, I don't think this particular study is very useful. First, there are no theoretical underpinnings to this study (as I said, it's a one page article). It's entirely possible that there is some mechanism in the brain that makes those with extreme intelligence bad at management, but rather than providing some insight into how this might work, the study really just shows some interesting data and leaves it at that. Second, the study treats success as a binary distinction, which is a little simplistic for my taste. Third, and most importantly, the data do not hold up to statistical rigor. If you click the above link, you'll see the presentation of the data, which makes it look like the highest-end group is indeed less successful as a manager. Of course, you will also notice that the highest-end group is comprised of a total of 13 people. Thus, I did some late night chi-square analysis to see if the observed percentage are statistically meaningful:
The summary answer is that no, the data do not indicate that these results aren't simply the product of random chance. The long answer is that the p-value of 0.76 is far too large for us to reject the null hypothesis that all of the intelligence groups produce the same ratio of successful managers (for more info on how the chi-square goodness of fit test works, see the link from earlier). These results do suggest that there is something worth investigating, but they are hardly conclusive one way or the other. If this ends up being the main source of the assertion from the 100 Things book, then I will feel confident in my feeling that it isn't true (or at least that we don't know if it's true).
I have finished following up on the sources from the Stogdill book, so let's take a look at the sources behind the Barron article. If you will recall, that article shared in my skepticism of the curvilinear claims. As I also said, the article quotes a study from Simonton, who we have already heard from in this post. This will help us to better understand where he was coming from in his quote. The study in question performs multivariate analysis on the data from Cox's historical geniuses subset mentioned in the article quote above. What is most interesting about this is that once the author adds control variables such as year of birth to the equation, "intelligence...exhibits neither a linear nor a curvilinear relation with ranked eminence." (Simonton, 1976). At this point, other variables correlated with intelligence, such as education, do a better job of explaining leadership success than just intelligence itself.
That article does throw out the curvilinear hypothesis in the beginning, so I did want to quickly address that. The author states:
"Moreover, since individuals can also be too intelligent to make successful leaders, the association between intelligence and leader eminence may be curvilinear." (Simonton, 1976)
This passage cites two studies. The first study simply reiterates what all the others have said, without offering up anything else, so it's not particularly useful for our purposes. The second study is more interesting. That study examines the results of multiple studies concerning individual behavior in groups in order to come to some sort of consensus about the effects various factors have on such behavior. In the section concerning intelligence's effect on leadership there is a lot of data that suggests that "the positive association between intelligence and leadership is found to be highly significant.... However, the magnitude of the relationship is less impressive; no correlation reported exceeds .50, and the median r is roughly .25." (Mann, 1959). Nowhere in that section, nor the final conclusion is there any mention of the curvilinear relationship. It seems that this avenue, too, is a dead end.
In the end, it appears from my (admittedly amateur) research that the assertion from the 100 Things book has two primary sources:
- The research that indicates leaders among children typically don't deviate far from the norm. I didn't spend much time verifying this because it seemed to be pretty much accepted in many of the articles I read, and it's somewhat tangential to the topic at hand. This may indeed be an avenue towards proving the statement from the 100 Things book, but it doesn't directly address it, so we can't really be confident in the conclusion from this alone.
- The (flawed) 1963 study from Ghiselli that shows the curvilinear relationship between intelligence and leadership.
Given this shaky foundation, it seems difficult to say we should apply this assertion substantively. This is, those in charge of hiring managers should not necessarily be wary of hiring those with very high intelligence if they are otherwise qualified. Let me be clear that I am not rejecting the hypothesis at all; it may indeed be true. What I am saying is that it isn't an extensions of some basic common sense/logic, and I haven't found any ironclad support for it in the research that would make me question that logic. In whole, this exercise taught me a number of things:
1. Don't be afraid to check facts. We can't each spend the amount of time it would take to check every fact we come across. Given our constraints, we have to determine what sources of information and reliable and go from there. However, if something seems especially fishy and that thing affects your life in some way, you should take the time to investigate it further. It did not take me a great deal of time to track down the information contained in this post, which certainly helps (luckily for me, I had some time between graduation and moving where I was able to do this). Given the proliferation of information on the internet, it is continuously getting easier and easier to do this.
2. Academic writings, in spite of their vaunted air, are not perfect. It is certainly tempting to see that something is highly researched and peer-reviewed and accept that as truth. In reality though, the people who assemble such findings are just as biased, resource-starved, and imperfect as you or me. I certainly give a lot of credence to what I read in academic publications, but it's good to play the part of the skeptic at least every now and then.
3. Findings that come from abnormalities in data need to be supported by some theoretical foundation. Saying that it appears that there is a curvilinear relationship between leadership and intelligence because of the data is fine. However, without some plausible explanation (or at least idea of how to determine an explanation), all it is is data. The communication gap theory that I saw in other articles (mostly the ones that talk about data related to children) certainly could explain that relationship, but I never really saw the connection spelled out in what I read.
I very much enjoyed going through a little research project like this. It shined the light on some of the great things about the academic world, while also putting some of its imperfection on display. Most importantly, it got me a little bit closer to learning the truth about that which I set out to learn, and it showed me that I had the ability to do this. Although the focus of college is often classes, grades, and extra-curriculars, this activity helped me get to the heart of what it's all about: the unabashed pursuit of knowledge. I heartily recommend it if there's something that you want to learn more about.
Works cited:
Barron, F. and Harrington D.M. (1981). "Creativity, intelligence and personality." Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 439-476.
Bass, B.M. (1981). Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership. New York: Free Press.
Eichinger, Robert W, Michael M Lombardo, and Dave Ulrich (2006). 100 Things You Need to Know: Best People Practices for Managers and HR. Lominger Limited Inc.
Ghiselli, E.E (1963a). "The Vailidity of Management Traits in Relation to Occupational Level." Personnel Psychology. 1963, 16, 109-113.
Ghiselli, E.E (1963b). "Intelligence and Managerial Success." Psychological Reports, 1963, 12.1, 898.
Gibb, CA (1969). "Leadership." Handbook of Social Psychology (volume 4, ed 2). Addison-Wesley.
Mann, RD (1959). "A Review of the Relationships Between Personality and Performance in Small Groups." Psychological Bulletin, 1959, 56, 241-270.
Simonton, DK (1976). "Biographical Determinants of Achieved Eminence: A Multivariate Approach to the Cox Data." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 218-226.
Simonton, DK (1987). "Developmental Antecedents of Achieved Eminence." Annals of Child Development, 4, 131-169.
Stogdill, RM (1948). "Personal Factors Associated with Leadership: A Survey of the Literature." Journal of Psychology, 1948, 25, 35-71.
"The literature on both creativity and leadership frequently contains the speculation that an excessive intelligence might even militate against personal influence. (...) Will likely yield a curvilinear, concave downward function between intelligence and creativity or leadership. Under many common conditions, for example, the highest odds of exercising personal influence in a group is enjoyed by that individual with an IQ only around 1.2 standard deviations above the mean IQ of the group." (Simonton, 1987)
One thing I learned from both the marketing academia class and this line of investigation was that academic papers pile citations on top of citations. If something is cited from somewhere else, then that somewhere else is not always (or perhaps, is not usually) the first source of the finding. As you might imagine, this can give rise to the same problem we see in the "telephone game." Since I hadn't yet arrived at the end of this investigative road, I continued along my journey.
The Simonton article had two citations related to the above passage. There was another article from another psychology journal and something called Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership. What was interesting about this was how the sources came from two completely different disciplines, which shows how much interconnectedness there is between different areas of study. Here is the passage from the management book:
"Five competent studies (out of 25) suggested that 'one of the most significant findings concerning the relation of intelligence to leadership is the extreme discrepancies between the intelligence of potential leaders and that of their followers militate against the exercise of leadership....' Ghiselli reported supporting evidence. In a study of three groups of managers, he found that 'the relationship between intelligence and managerial success is curvilinear with those individuals earning both low and very high scores being less likely to acheive success in management positions than those with scores at the intermediate level." (Bass, 1981)
And here is the quote from the journal article:
"Though a curvilinear relationship between intelligence and creativity has often been suggested, the only formal test (with negative results) of this hypothesis we are aware of was conducted by Simonton in a reanalysis of Cox's historical geniuses - a sample quite probably too rarified to be a particularly good test of the curvilinear hypothesis." (Barron, 1981)
There are quite a few takeaways from these passages. First, you can see how both of these cite past studies which means each of them will lead me (and you, if you are still reading) further down the rabbit hole. Second, the Ghiselli test sounds like it might be fairly conclusive, so that will be particularly interesting to follow up on. Third, the journal article quotes a study from Simonton, who just happens to be the author of the article that 100 Things draws upon. This means that Simonton quotes someone in his article who then quotes his own study. Just cite your own study, man! Finally, the Simonton study mentioned in the article seems to indicate that there isn't any proof of this curvilinear relationship, so it will be interesting to put this up against the Ghiselli test.
Let's start by following up on the first passage from the Stogdill's book. It was rather difficult to determine exactly what the author meant by the "supporting evidence" from Ghiselli. The book cited many studies by Ghiselli as well as others. The study that seemed the most promising at first didn't seem to address the issue, as the results of the data analysis supported the introductory assertion that "...a positive relationship exists between the occupational level of jobs and the validity of intelligence tests is, of course, well known." (Ghiselli, 1963a). This assertion was stated as a conclusion of one of his earlier studies which contained much of the same analysis and wording. What this study basically shows is that people higher up in management tend to be more reliably intelligent. It doesn't offer any findings on whether or not intelligence determines success in those roles, so this appears to be a dead end.
Another potential font of supporting evidence was a 1948 article by the namesake of the book, Ralph Stogdill himself. Much of the text from that is very similar, but I will quote from the original source:
"...Extreme discrepancies between the intelligence of potential leaders and their followers miliate against the exercise of leadership. Hollingworth found that 'among children with a mean IQ of 100, the IQ of the leader is likely to fall between 115 and 130 IQ. That is, the leader is likely to be more intelligent, but not too much more intelligent than the average of the group led." (Stogdill, 1948)
The article goes on to talk about how the reason behind this is likely communication. A child with average intelligence is not likely to be able to understand the words and/or ideas coming from the child with superior intelligence. This makes sense, and I don't really have any problems with the study or the conclusion. However, I'm not sure how a study of children would necessarily lend itself to making similar conclusions about adults. First, the leaders of the child groups are not necessarily being selected with the same goals in mind, and they are not being graded on the success of their leadership. This shows a fundamental difference with what the 100 Things book is trying to demonstrate. Second, adults with very high intelligence should typically be able to understand that they are very intelligent and thus be able to make the level of their communication appropriate to their audience, which weakens the theoretical underpinning of the argument. This passage appears to be getting us closer to our goal, but it still seems incomplete.
In the end, a second study by Ghiselli seems to be the best support of the assertion from the Stogdill book. This is a one page article (!) that details a brief study assessing intelligence levels and managerial success. The conclusion states that:
"It appears that the relationship between intelligence and managerial success is curvilinear with those individuals earning both low and very high scores being less likely to achieve success in management positions than those with scores at intermediate levels." (Ghiselli, 1963b)
Jackpot! Looks like the 100 Things book was right. My blog post is finished.
Actually, I just remembered something my professor said (the one from the marketing academia class). He said, in as many words, that "all studies are flawed." What this means, is that no study is perfect since they are all based on making certain assumptions or only studying certain samples of the population. In this case, I don't think this particular study is very useful. First, there are no theoretical underpinnings to this study (as I said, it's a one page article). It's entirely possible that there is some mechanism in the brain that makes those with extreme intelligence bad at management, but rather than providing some insight into how this might work, the study really just shows some interesting data and leaves it at that. Second, the study treats success as a binary distinction, which is a little simplistic for my taste. Third, and most importantly, the data do not hold up to statistical rigor. If you click the above link, you'll see the presentation of the data, which makes it look like the highest-end group is indeed less successful as a manager. Of course, you will also notice that the highest-end group is comprised of a total of 13 people. Thus, I did some late night chi-square analysis to see if the observed percentage are statistically meaningful:
The summary answer is that no, the data do not indicate that these results aren't simply the product of random chance. The long answer is that the p-value of 0.76 is far too large for us to reject the null hypothesis that all of the intelligence groups produce the same ratio of successful managers (for more info on how the chi-square goodness of fit test works, see the link from earlier). These results do suggest that there is something worth investigating, but they are hardly conclusive one way or the other. If this ends up being the main source of the assertion from the 100 Things book, then I will feel confident in my feeling that it isn't true (or at least that we don't know if it's true).
I have finished following up on the sources from the Stogdill book, so let's take a look at the sources behind the Barron article. If you will recall, that article shared in my skepticism of the curvilinear claims. As I also said, the article quotes a study from Simonton, who we have already heard from in this post. This will help us to better understand where he was coming from in his quote. The study in question performs multivariate analysis on the data from Cox's historical geniuses subset mentioned in the article quote above. What is most interesting about this is that once the author adds control variables such as year of birth to the equation, "intelligence...exhibits neither a linear nor a curvilinear relation with ranked eminence." (Simonton, 1976). At this point, other variables correlated with intelligence, such as education, do a better job of explaining leadership success than just intelligence itself.
That article does throw out the curvilinear hypothesis in the beginning, so I did want to quickly address that. The author states:
"Moreover, since individuals can also be too intelligent to make successful leaders, the association between intelligence and leader eminence may be curvilinear." (Simonton, 1976)
This passage cites two studies. The first study simply reiterates what all the others have said, without offering up anything else, so it's not particularly useful for our purposes. The second study is more interesting. That study examines the results of multiple studies concerning individual behavior in groups in order to come to some sort of consensus about the effects various factors have on such behavior. In the section concerning intelligence's effect on leadership there is a lot of data that suggests that "the positive association between intelligence and leadership is found to be highly significant.... However, the magnitude of the relationship is less impressive; no correlation reported exceeds .50, and the median r is roughly .25." (Mann, 1959). Nowhere in that section, nor the final conclusion is there any mention of the curvilinear relationship. It seems that this avenue, too, is a dead end.
* * *
In the end, it appears from my (admittedly amateur) research that the assertion from the 100 Things book has two primary sources:
- The research that indicates leaders among children typically don't deviate far from the norm. I didn't spend much time verifying this because it seemed to be pretty much accepted in many of the articles I read, and it's somewhat tangential to the topic at hand. This may indeed be an avenue towards proving the statement from the 100 Things book, but it doesn't directly address it, so we can't really be confident in the conclusion from this alone.
- The (flawed) 1963 study from Ghiselli that shows the curvilinear relationship between intelligence and leadership.
Given this shaky foundation, it seems difficult to say we should apply this assertion substantively. This is, those in charge of hiring managers should not necessarily be wary of hiring those with very high intelligence if they are otherwise qualified. Let me be clear that I am not rejecting the hypothesis at all; it may indeed be true. What I am saying is that it isn't an extensions of some basic common sense/logic, and I haven't found any ironclad support for it in the research that would make me question that logic. In whole, this exercise taught me a number of things:
1. Don't be afraid to check facts. We can't each spend the amount of time it would take to check every fact we come across. Given our constraints, we have to determine what sources of information and reliable and go from there. However, if something seems especially fishy and that thing affects your life in some way, you should take the time to investigate it further. It did not take me a great deal of time to track down the information contained in this post, which certainly helps (luckily for me, I had some time between graduation and moving where I was able to do this). Given the proliferation of information on the internet, it is continuously getting easier and easier to do this.
2. Academic writings, in spite of their vaunted air, are not perfect. It is certainly tempting to see that something is highly researched and peer-reviewed and accept that as truth. In reality though, the people who assemble such findings are just as biased, resource-starved, and imperfect as you or me. I certainly give a lot of credence to what I read in academic publications, but it's good to play the part of the skeptic at least every now and then.
3. Findings that come from abnormalities in data need to be supported by some theoretical foundation. Saying that it appears that there is a curvilinear relationship between leadership and intelligence because of the data is fine. However, without some plausible explanation (or at least idea of how to determine an explanation), all it is is data. The communication gap theory that I saw in other articles (mostly the ones that talk about data related to children) certainly could explain that relationship, but I never really saw the connection spelled out in what I read.
I very much enjoyed going through a little research project like this. It shined the light on some of the great things about the academic world, while also putting some of its imperfection on display. Most importantly, it got me a little bit closer to learning the truth about that which I set out to learn, and it showed me that I had the ability to do this. Although the focus of college is often classes, grades, and extra-curriculars, this activity helped me get to the heart of what it's all about: the unabashed pursuit of knowledge. I heartily recommend it if there's something that you want to learn more about.
Works cited:
Barron, F. and Harrington D.M. (1981). "Creativity, intelligence and personality." Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 439-476.
Bass, B.M. (1981). Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership. New York: Free Press.
Eichinger, Robert W, Michael M Lombardo, and Dave Ulrich (2006). 100 Things You Need to Know: Best People Practices for Managers and HR. Lominger Limited Inc.
Ghiselli, E.E (1963a). "The Vailidity of Management Traits in Relation to Occupational Level." Personnel Psychology. 1963, 16, 109-113.
Ghiselli, E.E (1963b). "Intelligence and Managerial Success." Psychological Reports, 1963, 12.1, 898.
Gibb, CA (1969). "Leadership." Handbook of Social Psychology (volume 4, ed 2). Addison-Wesley.
Mann, RD (1959). "A Review of the Relationships Between Personality and Performance in Small Groups." Psychological Bulletin, 1959, 56, 241-270.
Simonton, DK (1976). "Biographical Determinants of Achieved Eminence: A Multivariate Approach to the Cox Data." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 218-226.
Simonton, DK (1987). "Developmental Antecedents of Achieved Eminence." Annals of Child Development, 4, 131-169.
Stogdill, RM (1948). "Personal Factors Associated with Leadership: A Survey of the Literature." Journal of Psychology, 1948, 25, 35-71.
No comments:
Post a Comment