Tag Archives | Lawrence Pfaff

Pfaff, Lawrence A., Karyn J. Boatwright, Andrea L. Potthoff, Caitlin Finan, Leigh Ann Ulrey, and Daniel M. Huber. “Perceptions of Women and Men Leaders Following 360‐Degree Feedback Evaluations.” Performance Improvement Quarterly 26, no. 1 (2013): 35-56.

Abstract: In this study, researchers used a customized 360-degree method to examine the frequency with which 1,546 men and 721 women leaders perceived themselves and were perceived by colleagues as using 10 relational and 10 task-oriented leadership behaviors, as addressed in the Management-Leadership Practices Inventory (MLPI). As hypothesized, men and women leaders, as well as their supervisors, employees, and peers, perceived women leaders to employ nine of the 10 relational leadership behaviors significantly more frequently than men leaders. Additionally, the employees’ perceptions of their women leaders’ use of task-oriented behaviors were significantly higher when compared to similar assessments from the employees of men leaders. However, the leaders as well as their supervisors and peers perceived men and women leaders’ use of task-oriented behaviors as approximately equal. Broader implications of these findings are discussed.

Schullery, Nancy M., Stephen E. Schullery, Paul Knudstrup, and Lawrence A. Pfaff. “The Relationship between Personality Type and 360-Degree Evaluation of Management Skills.” Journal of Psychological Type 69, no. 11 (2009): 141-155.

Abstract: The relationship between managers’ MBTI®-based personality type and their 360-degree evaluations based on the Management-Leadership Practices Inventory (MLPI) was examined. Correlations were computed between managers’ memberships in 52 personality type groups and their scores on 20 essential managerial skills, average skill scores, and people-related and task-related factor scores—all assessed by boss, employees, peers, and self. Among the many relationships observed was the unanimous positive evaluation of SJ managers’ task-factor skills by their bosses, employees, and peers. ENP and ENFP managers were also rated positively overall and on the people factor by their peers. In contrast, SP managers were rated negatively overall and on the task factor by their peers, and ISTP managers received negative overall ratings by both peers and employees. NJ, INJ, and ESFP managers received negative ratings by their bosses either overall or on the task factor. In several cases, change of a single letter could shift the group from a negative to a positive category: NJs to SJs, ISTPs to ISTJs, and ESFPs to ENFPs. There was no relationship with the E-I preference.