Intuiting or rationalising self-other agreement in leadership?

Abstract

Purpose

Congruent self-other agreement in leadership evaluations is associated with positive outcomes such as work unit performance. In contrast, poor self-other agreement in leadership evaluations is associated with negative outcomes such as leaders making ineffective job-relevant decisions. This study examined whether the extent of leaders’ preference for intuitive and rational thinking predicted self-other agreement in leadership evaluations.

Design/methodology/approach

Self-ratings and follower ratings of transformational leadership were analysed for 160 dyad pairs of leaders and followers (n = 320). Leaders self-rated their preference for rational and intuitive thinking. Response surface analysis was used to model the relationship between self-other agreement and leaders’ thinking styles.

Findings

As ratings of transformational leadership increased in both leaders and followers, we observed higher scores on preferences for both rational and intuitive thinking. Leaders’ preference for intuitive thinking showed a curvilinear relationship with self-other agreement, such that more intuitive thinking was related to higher leader–follower congruence in ratings of transformational leadership. We further uncovered that higher leader preferences for rational thinking were related to increased leader–follower disagreement in transformational leadership ratings.

Originality/value

Research has focused more on the outcomes than antecedents of self-other agreement in leadership. Thinking styles have undergone limited examination as antecedents of self-other agreement in leadership evaluations. Thinking styles are semi-malleable traits that can be used for the selection of leadership potential and developed to improve leadership performance. The current research suggests that relationships between thinking styles and self-other agreement on leadership effectiveness are more complicated than first thought.