Constructive Leader Behaviors, Likelihood of Derailment, and the Cuboid Personality Framework: A Replication and Extension of Gough (1990)

Gough (1990b) applied the California Psychological Inventory's (CPI) “cuboid” framework to various leadership contexts, noting the potential for continued, future application of this model within the leadership domain. However, subsequent to this initial investigation (and one similarly oriente...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of leadership studies (Hoboken, N.J.) N.J.), 2013-12, Vol.6 (4), p.6-24
1. Verfasser: Kulas, John T.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Gough (1990b) applied the California Psychological Inventory's (CPI) “cuboid” framework to various leadership contexts, noting the potential for continued, future application of this model within the leadership domain. However, subsequent to this initial investigation (and one similarly oriented but differently executed project), no cuboid follow‐up has taken place. Applying the framework to a large sample of international managers, cuboid classifications were recorded across cultural regions, gender, race, age, organizational level, and industry. Associations with indices of leadership effectiveness and derailment were documented via averaged 360° ratings. Results generally support norm‐favoring individuals as exhibiting leadership advantage, although this effect differed slightly across the leadership dimension being assessed (although remaining relatively stable across hierarchical leadership position). Potential future applications of the cuboid model to the management and leadership domains are suggested primarily in the topical areas of cross‐cultural leadership (different occupancy rates were documented across regions of origin), leadership emergence (interpersonally oriented, norm‐favoring individuals predominantly occupied leadership positions), and leader development (low “satisfaction” and rule‐questioning leaders were generally rated as having lower effectiveness ratings and an increased likelihood of derailment).
ISSN:1935-2611
1935-262X
DOI:10.1002/jls.21264