Running head: Need Achievement & ILTs

Need Achievement and Implicit Leadership Theories

Need Achievement & ILTs

2
Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between an individuals level of
need achievement and their implicit leadership theory (ILT). Based on the literature on both need
achievement and leadership, there is considerable overlap in an individual who is high in success
seeking and traits that characterize a transformational leader. With a sample of at least 500
individuals, recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk, completed two measures for both ILT
measurement and Need Achievement measurement. Results should indicate a significant
correlation between individuals who would be considered success-seekers in need achievement
literature, and individuals preferred ILT being that of a transformational leader. A linear
regression will be used to analyze the results. If the correlation is found, this research could serve
as a building block to future research that further analyzes and manipulates the relationship
between ILTs and need achievement.
Keywords: Need Achievement, Implicit Leadership Theory, Transformational Leadership

Need Achievement & ILTs

Need Achievement and Implicit Leadership Theories

The research on leadership has been widely varied in its approach to explanations of the
development of implicit leadership preferences. Ethnicity (Burris, Ayman, Che, & Min, 2013),
time (Epitropaki & Martin, 2005), gender (Hoyt & Burnette, 2013), and individual differences
(Keller, 1999) can affect the development of implicit leadership theories (ILTs) in individuals.
Implicit leadership theories have been shown to interact with a variety of work-related issues
such as job attitudes and job performance (Epitropaki, Sy, Martin, Tram-Quon, & Topakas,
2013). However, virtually no research has examined the role that an individuals need to achieve
can affect their leadership preferences.
Achievement motivation has been investigated extensively, drawing heavily from need
achievement theory (Atkinson, 1957). Atkinsons theory of need achievement suggests that
individuals can be generalized of their motivation to either approach success or to avoid failure
in different tasks. Individual differences are attributed as the reason that some individuals will
approach tasks more readily while others choose to prevent the possibility of failure in their tasks
(Atkinson, 1957). While achievement motivation has primarily been studied in school settings,
the usefulness of integrating into a work environment could provide insightful information on
employee productivity and satisfaction, especially in a leadership context.
This study will attempt to find a correlation between an individuals ILT and their need to
achieve in the workplace. Specifically, the hypothesis of this study is that individuals who
display a high need to achieve will prefer a transformational leadership preference rather than a
preference for an anti prototypical type. This research will set the foundation for future research
tying the interlocking contingency of worker satisfaction and leader-follower relations. If this
study is a success, future research will be able to move into an applied approach of increasing an

Need Achievement & ILTs

employees need to achieve by matching up leadership preferences that facilitate increased

productivity and happiness.
Need Achievement Theory
Research
Much of need achievement theorys research pertains to academics and the school
environment. However, the concepts developed in Atkinsons (1957) research can be applied in a
work setting today. Atkinson (1957) suggests that individuals can be characterized by their
motivation to either approach situations or be withdrawn when presented with situations.
Additionally, whether a person chooses to approach a situation or avoid, they can be further
characterized as being motivated by the fear of failure or the desire for success. At work,
individuals come across a variety of situations in which they must either avoid or approach and
are driven by the desire to succeed or avoid failure. For example, an employee seeking a
promotion can either be driven by fear layoffs of unnecessary staff (failure avoidance) or from
simply the enhancement their career.
Atkinsons theory of need achievement can be conceptualized in a 2x2 matrix where
individuals can be rated on aspects of failure avoiding and success seeking. This model allows
researchers to represent individuals who may have conflicting attitudes towards situations or
individuals who have no conflicting motives and instead a straightforward approach to situations
(Weigand & Geller, 2004). If there is a relationship between need achievement and ILTs, an
individual who is high on success seeking and low failure-avoiding should have an ILT that is
representative of a transformational leader.

Need Achievement & ILTs

Success Seekers
Individuals characterized as success seekers in Atkinsons typologies have a high
expectancy of success and low fear of failure (Covington & Omelich, 1991). Success seeking
individuals have been shown to succeed by focusing on success rather than failure and are
reported to be high in self-efficacy, personal control (Covington & Omelich, 1991; Martin,
Marsh, & Debus, 2001). The forces driving these individuals overlaps with leadership traits that
define transformational leaders.
Transformational Leadership
In a recent study, Hamstra, Van Yperen, Wisse, & Sassenberg (2014) conducted
exploratory research on the effects of leadership styles and achievement motivation. Their
findings suggest that a followers (employee) perception of transformational leadership were
associated with the followers interpersonal standards of competence to their achievementstriving at work. In essence, a followers view of transformational leadership correlates with their
validation of mastering goals. A correlation would mean that an employee whose boss could be
characterized as a transformational leader would facilitate the employees goals and
achievements. For this study, this is important because it will explore the mediator/moderator
role that ILTs have in the relationship between success seeking and transformational leadership.
Implicit Leadership Theories
Recent Research
Early research on ILTs came about from research on leadership categorization derived
from the limited capacity model (Rosch, 1978). According to the limited capacity model,
individuals use pre-existing schemas and limited information processing resources when
responding to situations where information is limited. This model essentially allows for an

Need Achievement & ILTs

individual to fill-in-the-blank with information previously exposed to so individuals can

approach novel situations with relative ease (Epitropaki, Sy, Martin, Tram-Quon, & Topakas,
2013). Regarding ILTs, individuals are suggested to develop their concepts of an ideal leader
through socialization and past experiences with leaders (Lord, Foti, & De Vader, 1984). In a
business context, it is hypothesized that individuals use their ILTs as a comparison to the
manager or boss in order to form an impression and to evaluate the quality of exchanges between
the employee and the boss (Epitropaki, Sy, Martin, Tram-Quon, & Topakas, 2013). Smith and
Zarate (1990) found that people use both category-representations (i.e. prototypes) and target
based representations (i.e. exemplars) to represent leader categories. Lord and Maher (1991)
found that this leadership categorization approach was more applicable in the workplace rather
than models of information processing giving reason why most research focuses on leadership
categorization in ILTs. This study hypothesizes that individuals high in need achievement will
develop on exemplar or prototype that matches up with a transformational leadership type.
Generalizability
When generalizing ILT research, researchers have focused on three areas: gender, culture,
and employee groups (e.g. age, work experience) (Epitropaki, Sy, Martin, Tram-Quon, &
Topakas, 2013). Research has supported assessing ILTs generalizability between males and
females (Offerman, Kennedy, & Wirtz, 1994). However, differences between males and females
have been found in the importance placed upon certain traits. In males, aggression and
competitiveness were rated higher in importance than females, but females rated helpfulness and
self-confidence higher in importance than males (Deal & Stevenson, 1998). Research concerning
the generalizability of ILT findings across cultures has been mixed. Bryman (1987) found that
ILTs do not differ too much between the United Kingdom and the United States but Gerstner and

Need Achievement & ILTs

Day (1994) found that ILTs do differ across the eight countries surveyed (France, Germany,
Honduras, India, Taiwan, China, Japan, and the United States). However, some leadership types
are common across cultures such as leaders who are charismatic or team-oriented (Javidan,
Dorfman, De Luque, & House, 2006). Across employee groups, Epitropaki & Martin (2004)
found that leadership prototypes do not vary across aspects such as age, tenure, or position in a
company. With the present study, generalizability will be an important concept to account for
when distributing results as need achievement may affect males and females or different cultures
differently.
Impact on Job Attitudes and Performance
While it is important to know whether or not need achievement has an effect on ILTs,
knowing that an ILT will affect an employees attitude or performance about their job is
important. If there is no correlation between job attitudes or performance and ILTs, there is no
reason to continue research on this relationship. Concerning job attitudes, Epitropaki & Martin
(2005) found in a longitudinal study that employees perceptions of managers can affect their
attitudes of that manager if the employees ILT does not match with their manager or boss. A
mismatch between employee ILT and actual manager leadership style can have consequences
regarding an employees and bosss exchanges, affecting the employees desire to advance in a
company or have high organizational citizenship. ILTs have also been shown to have an effect
on job performance. Unfortunately, very little research has been conducted showing an effect on
ILTs alone but results have been positive when including implicit followership theories (IFTs)
with leader-member exchange as a mediating variable (Epitropaki, Sy, Martin, Tram-Quon, &
Topakas, 2013). If the correlation is found between need achievement and ILTs, future research

Need Achievement & ILTs

could examine the effect of the leaders perceptions of followers as an important variable in
affecting an employees need to achieve.
Method
Sample
Participants used in the study will consists of [400!] participants, recruited from the
Amazon survey administration program, mTurk. The sample will be composed of an equally
diverse group of individuals. The participants will consist of 50% split between males and
females between the ages of 18-65. Participants are required to work a minimum of 20 hours per
week at a job for two years or to be working full-time at a job for any length. The ideal sample
will also include at most 50% Caucasian with other ethnicities equally portioned.
Procedure
First, participants will complete a simple demographics questionnaire. This survey will
consist of items such as ethnicity, age, employment status, length of employment, industry, and
gender. Participants will not be pre-selected or given information that their data will only be used
if they meet the criteria of working either full time or 20-hours a week for two years. By keeping
employment status requirements unclear to participants, participants who would otherwise fake
for the monetary gain from completing the survey will no longer have an incentive to do so,
increasing control. A payment of 50 cents will be given to all participants who complete the
study.
Participants will then complete the Implicit Leadership Measure developed by
Offermann, Kennedy, Jr., & Wirtz (1994). This measure will consists of 50 statements, from the
original 160, on a 1-10 scale where participants will rate their supervisor, leader, or effective
leader ranging from not at all characteristic to extremely characteristic. According to

Need Achievement & ILTs

Offermann, Kennedy, Jr., & Wirtz (1994), a factor analysis and trait-sorting task revealed 8
factors relating to implicit leadership theory: Sensitivity, Dedication, Tyranny, Charisma,
Attractiveness, Masculinity, Intelligence, and Strength. The coefficient alpha for these factors
ranges from .74 to .94.
The next step will involve participants completing the Need Achievement scale
developed by Furst (1966). This questionnaire consists of nine statements on a Likert scale where
participants either strongly agree or strongly disagree with statements regarding their perception
to achieve at work. This questionnaire was adapted from school to settings to work settings to
make it more applicable to work environments. According to Furst (1966), this scale will sample
an individuals aspects of self-concept that reflects both what they think of themselves and how
their peers and bosses think of them.
Finally, participants will be paid 50 cents for study completion through Amazon mTurks
payment system. Survey completion time will take an average of 10 minutes to complete all
items.
Planned Analysis
This study will utilize a simple linear regression analysis. This simple analysis will be
done to show any correlations between individuals scores on the ILT Measure and the Need
Achievement Measure. Additionally, this study will be able to analyze additional factors such as
different lengths of employment and how that matches up with ILTs and Need Achievement as
well as taking an additional analysis validating past research regarding ILTs and demographics
factors.

Need Achievement & ILTs

10
References

Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivation determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psychological Review,

64, 359-372.
Bryman, A. (1987). The generalizability of implicit leadership theory. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 127(2), 129-141.
Burris, K., Ayman, R., Che, Y., & Min, H. (2013). Asian americans' and caucasians' implicit
leadership theories: Asian stereotypes, transformational, and authentic leadership. Asian
American Journal of Psychology, 4(4), 258-266.
Covington, M. W., & Omelich, C. L. (1991). Need achivement revisited: Verification of
Atkinson's original 2x2 model. In C. D. Spielberger, I. G. Sarason, Z. Kulcsar, & G. L.
Van Heck, Stress and emotion (Vol. 14). New York, New York: Hemisphere.
Deal, J. J., & Stevenson, M. A. (1998). Perceptions of female and male managers in the 1990s:
Plus a change. Sex Roles, 38(3-4), 287-300.
Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2004). Implicit leadership theories in applied settngs: Factor
structure, generalizability and stability over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89,
293-310.
Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2005). From ideal to real: A longitudinal study of the role of
implicit leadership theories on leader-member exchanges and employee outcomes.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 659-676.
Epitropaki, O., Sy, T., Martin, R., Tram-Quon, S., & Topakas, A. (2013). Implicit leadership and
followership theories "in the wild": Taking stock of information-processing approaches to
leadership and followership in organizational settings. The Leadership Quarterly, 24,
858-881.

Need Achievement & ILTs

11

Furst, E. J. (1966). Achievement Motivation Scale. doi:10.1037/t19133-000

Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1994). Cross-cultural comparison of leadership prototypes. The
Leadership Quarterly, 5(2), 509-517.
Hoyt, C. L., & Burnette, J. L. (2013). Gender bias in leader evaluations: Merging implicit
theories and role congruity perspectives. Personaliuty and Social Psychology Bulletin,
39(10), 1306-1319.
Hoyt, C. L., Simon, S., & Innella, A. N. (2011). Taking a turn toward the masculine: The impact
of mortality salience on implicit leadership theories. Basic and Applied Social
Psychology, 33, 374-381. doi:10.1080/01973533.2011.614173
Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., De Luque, M. S., & House, R. J. (2006). In the eye of the beholder:
Cross cultural lessons in leadership from project GLOBE. Academy of Management
Perspectives, 20(1), 67-90.
Keller, T. (1999). Images of the Familiar: Individual Differences and Implit Leadership Theories.
The Leadership Quarterly, 10(4), 589-607.
Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1991). Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions
and performance. Boston, Massachusetts: Unwin Hyman.
Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J., & De Vader, C. L. (1984). A test of leadership categorization theory:
Internal structure, information processing, and leadership perceptions. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 34(3), 343-378.
Martin, A. J., Marsh, H. W., & Debus, R. L. (2001). A quadripolar need achievement
representation of self-handicapping and defensive pessimism. American Educatonal
Research Journal, 38, 583-610.

Need Achievement & ILTs

12

Offermann, L. R., Kennedy, J. J., & Wirtz, P. W. (1994). Implicit Leadership Measure.
doi:10.1037/t15593-000
Offerman, L. R., Kennedy, J. J., & Wirtz, P. W. (1994). Implicit leadership theories: Content,
structure, and generalizability. The Leadership Quarterly, 5(1), 43-58.
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch, & B. B. Lloyd, Cognition and
categorization (pp. 27-48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Smith, E. R., & Zarate, M. A. (1990). Exemplar and prototype use in social categorization.
Social Cognition, 8(3), 243-262.
Weigand, D. M., & Geller, E. S. (2004). Connecting positive psychology and organizational
behavior management: Achievement motivation and the power of positive reinforcement.
Journal of Orgnizational Behavior Management, 24(1), 3-25.