482 



MORALE AND LEADERSHIP 



jobs to which an individual might be as- 

 signed at a given time and of the characteris- 

 tics which he should accordingly possess at 

 that time, but longitudinally as well, that is 

 in terms of the individual's promoteability 

 to positions of broader responsibility. Per- 

 sonality is rarely a fixed quantity, and so, in 

 evaluating an individual's potentialities for 

 filling a longitudinal series of leadership jobs 

 (assuming they can be kno\vn in advance), 

 it is probably unwise to demand of him all 

 of the characteristics which they would re- 

 quire if considered cross-sectionally. But 

 it is important to consider his potentialities 

 for growth. In terms of research this points 

 to the need for investigating leaders' careers, 

 preferably through long-term, follow-up 

 studies. 



Methods of Studying Leader Personality 



Most of the numerous studies of person- 

 ality factors in leadership have been re- 

 viewed by Jenkins (54) and Stogdill (86). 

 The record, as Jenkins remarks, is not a 

 brilliant one. Part of the explanation for 

 this, as previously suggested, may be found 

 in an inadequate conception of leadership, 

 in insufficient study of leadership behavior 

 in specific situations, and in defective cri- 

 teria. Another factor responsible may be 

 the means employed to study personality. 

 In the majority of cases leadership studies 

 have used trait measures based either on 

 pencil-and-paper tests or questionnaires, or 

 on ratings, frequently ratings made by mem- 

 bers of the leader's group. And the number 

 of traits considered has frequently been very 

 small. If, as seems probable, various char- 

 acteristics or various personalities may make 

 for effective leadership in a given situation, 

 then consideration of but a few aspects of 

 personality might be expected to yield mea- 

 ger results. 



General developments in personality ap- 

 praisal in recent years, and specific attention 

 to the problems of officer selection during 

 World War II, have made available a rich 

 variety of techniques which, although in 



some cases not yet amenable to precise quan- 

 tification, offer considerable promise for 

 adequately comprehensive analyses of the 

 personalities of leaders or potential leaders. 

 Most of these techniques were embodied in 

 the assessment program worked out by the 

 Office of Strategic Services (79), in part on 

 the basis of the procedures of the British 

 War Ofiicer Selection Boards (36). In addi- 

 tion to a number of standard pencil-and- 

 paper tests and special questionnaires, the 

 OSS program included personal interviews, 

 projective tests, tests of physical daring and 

 endurance, special tests of observation, mem- 

 ory, propaganda skills and other abilities 

 thought necessary in OSS agents, sociometric 

 tests and situational tests bearing on leader- 

 ship and social relations. Of particular in- 

 terest among those last mentioned are the 

 leaderless group, assigned leadership, con- 

 struction test (directing clumsy "stooges"), 

 panel discussion, stress interview, dramatic 

 improvisations (of roles assigned with refer- 

 ence to some fictitious situation), and an 

 informal debate with hard liquor abundantly 

 available. The tests were administered to 

 candidates during a three-day stay at a 

 country estate, during which the candidates 

 had to maintain a fictitious identity, and 

 during which, also, the tests were supple- 

 mented by a host of informal observations. 



Conclusive evidence on the validity of the 

 OSS procedures is lacking. Validity coeffi- 

 cients determined in various ways were rela- 

 tively low. Partial responsibility for this, 

 at least, was attributed to various factors 

 other than the selection procedures them- 

 selves, notably the criteria. For the British 

 program, and the similar program followed 

 by the Australian Army, Gibb (37) has re- 

 ported significant superiority in the perform- 

 ance of selected men at OflEicer Training 

 Units. Data on combat performance are 

 presumably not available. 



From various other sources comes some 

 additional evidence concerning certain of the 

 specific procedures mentioned in connection 

 with the OSS program. Both the Army 



