Government/Public Sector Managers/Executives/Administrators
To examine the relationship between personality profiles and exemplary
leadership practices of mid-level and executive level law enforcement and corrections
Three county sheriff's offices and three police departments in Florida
participated. Three hundred thirty-two (279 were certified law enforcement and 53 were
certified corrections officers) subjects were administered a demographic survey (agency
type, type of certification, rank, length of time in law enforcement/corrections, length of
time in rank, number of assignments at current rank, total number of assignments, number
of different agencies employed with, education level, age, gender, race, numbers of
reprimands, suspensions, and terminations), the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and
the LPI (self and observer).
There were no significant differences in the proportion of MBTI profiles
by rank or agency (police vs. sheriff). None of the five regression analyses revealed a
significant relationship between the 8 MBTI preference categories and the ratings by the
superiors and the subordinates within each of the five leadership practices (LPI-Other).
For the LPI-Self ratings and the MBTI preference categories there were significant
relationships for Challenging, Modeling and Encouraging; however, none of the regression
weights for the individual predictors were significant because there was a high degree of
correlation among the predictors. The Pearson correlation coefficients for the MBTI and
the LPI (Self) were significant for Challenging (positive with extraversion and intuition;
negative with introversion and sensing); Modeling (positive with sensing and judging;
negative with intuition and perceiving); and, Encouraging (positive with extraversion and
judging; negative with introversion, intuition, and perceiving). MBTI preference categories
of thinking and feeling had no significant correlations with any of the five leadership
practices; also, no one MBTI preference category was found to be significantly correlated
with all five leadership practices. Overall, the number of MBTI categories the leaders and
subordinates have in common does not greatly influence the mean scores on the LPI; the
same is true between superiors' and leaders' number of MBTI categories in common.
There was strong inter-rater agreement (correlation) between the LPI scores provided by subordinates and superiors across all five leadership practices; while there
were no significant correlations between self scores and those provided by superiors. Selfratings
and subordinates' ratings were correlated for Challenging and Inspiring, but not for
Enabling, Modeling and Encouraging.
There were no statistically significant differences in LPI-Self scores based upon
respondent educational level, organizational level (rank), gender, or race; the same was true
for LPI-Other scores. Age (and length of service) were negatively correlated with
Challenging, Inspiring and Encouraging. There were some interesting relationships
between LPI scores and the extent to which leaders had been disciplined, reprimanded,
suspended, etc. during their career. For example, those who had never received a
reprimand or been suspended during their careers had significantly higher scores on
Enabling than did their counterparts who had been reprimanded or suspended.