Skip to main content

Thinking and behavioral styles as described by self versus others: a replication and extension with male and female managers


The Life Styles Inventory (LSI) is among the first and most widely used 360 feedback surveys for management and leadership development. The LSI measures 12 thinking and behavioral styles reflecting three, more general, personal orientations that are related to managerial effectiveness. Previous studies demonstrated the reliability and validity of an early version of the LSI, which was completed by both self and others using paper-based surveys. The current study replicates the original reliability and validity analyses with data on a recent sample of 6899 male and female managers and their respondents using the current, online version of the survey. Analyses on these data were conducted for the total sample and for male and female managers separately. The results of the current study confirm the three-factor structure—Constructive, Passive/Defensive, and Aggressive/Defensive—identified by previous studies. In addition, the current version of the LSI scales demonstrates levels of internal consistency reliability, inter-rater reliability, consensual validity (between and self and others), and criterion-related validity that are as strong or slightly stronger than those reported in earlier studies. The results show that Constructive ways of thinking and behaving are positively related to the effectiveness of both male and female managers and that Aggressive/Defensive thinking and behavior detracts from their effectiveness. The results for Passive/Defensive thinking and behavioral styles and effectiveness are more complex and somewhat different for males versus females. The strengths and limitations of the study are discussed along with the implications for using the LSI in management development and in future research on gender and leadership.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Code availability

Not applicable.

Data availability

The data for this project are proprietary but may be obtained with Data Use Agreements with Human Synergistics. Researchers interested in access to the data may contact the corresponding author. It can take some months to negotiate data use agreements and gain access to the data. The author will assist with any reasonable replication attempts.


  • Antonioni D (1996) Designing an effective 360 degree appraisal feedback process. Organ Dyn 25:24–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bales RF (1950) Interaction process analysis: a method for the study of small groups. Addison-Wesley, Reading MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Blake RR, Mouton JS (1964) The managerial grid. Gulf, Houston

    Google Scholar 

  • Bliese PD (2000) Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: implications for data aggregation and analysis. In: Klein KJ, Kozlowski SWJ (eds) Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: foundations, extensions, and new directions. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp 349–381

    Google Scholar 

  • Block J, Kuckertz A (2018) Seven principles of effective replication studies: strengthening the evidence base of management research. Manag Rev Q 68:355–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohannon J (2015) Many psychology papers fail to replicate tests. Sci 349:910–911

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunzel J (2020) Overconfidence and narcissism among the upper echelons: a systematic literature review. Manag Rev Q.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bureau of labor statistics 39 percent of managers in 2015 were women. U.S. Department of Labor. Accessed 3 April 2020

  • Butler AM, Kwantes CT, Boglarsky CA (2014) The effects of self-awareness of perceptions of leadership effectiveness in the hospitality industry: a cross-cultural investigation. Int J of Intercult Relat 40:87–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carli LL, Eagly AH (2012) Gender and leadership. In: Antonakis J, Day D (eds) The nature of leadership, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 437–476

    Google Scholar 

  • Cattell RB (1948) Concepts and methods in the measurement of group syntality. Psychol Rev 55:48–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Church A (1997) Managerial self-awareness in high-performing individuals in organizations. J Appl Psychol 82:281–292

  • Collins J (2001) Good to great: why some companies make the leap and others don’t. HarperCollins, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooke RA, Lafferty JC (1981) Level 1: Life styles inventory-an instrument for assessing and changing the self-concept of organizational members. Human Synergistics, Plymouth MI

  • Cooke RA, Rousseau DM (1983a) The factor structure of the level 1: life styles inventory. Educ Psychol Meas 43:449–457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooke RA, Rousseau DM (1983b) Relationship of life events and personal orientations to symptoms of strain. J Appl Psychol 68:446–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooke RA, Rousseau DM, Lafferty JC (1987) Thinking and behavioral styles: consistency between self-descriptions and descriptions by others. Educ Psychol Meas 47:815–823

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly AH, Johannesen-Schmidt MC, van Engen ML (2003) Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: a meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychol Bull 129:569–591

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Festinger L (1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance. Row Peterson, Evanston IL

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleenor JW, Smither JW, Atwater LE, Braddy PW, Sturm RE (2010) Self-other rating agreement in leadership: a review. Leadersh Q 21:1005–1034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forsythe DR (2018) Group dynamics, 7th edn. Cengage Learning, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenleaf RK (2002) Servant leadership: a journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness 25th anniv edn. Paulist Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Gratzinger PA, Warren RA, Cooke RA (1990) Psychological orientations and leadership: thinking styles that differentiate between effective and ineffective managers. In: Clark KE, Clark MB (eds) Measures of leadership. Leadership Library of America, West Orange NJ, pp 239–248

    Google Scholar 

  • Grijalva E, Newman DA, Tay L, Donnellan MB, Harms PD, Robins RW, Yan T (2015b) Gender differences in narcissism: a meta-analytic review. Psychol Bull 141(2):261–310

  • Hernandez W, Luthanen A, Ramsel D, Osatuke K (2015) The mediating relationship of self-awareness on supervisor burnout and workgroup civility & psychological safety: a multilevel path analysis. Burn Res 2:36–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lafferty JC (1973) Level I: life styles inventory (self-description). Human Synergistics, Plymouth MI

    Google Scholar 

  • Lafferty JC (1976) Level II: life styles inventory (description by others). Human Synergistics, Plymouth

    Google Scholar 

  • Lafferty JC, Cooke RA (2010a) Life styles inventory 1 (self description). Human Synergistics International, Plymouth

    Google Scholar 

  • Lafferty JC, Cooke RA (2010b) Life styles inventory 2 (descriptions by others). Human Synergistics International, Plymouth

    Google Scholar 

  • Lafferty JC and Associates (1989) Life styles inventory leader’s guide. Human Synergistics International, Plymouth

    Google Scholar 

  • Lechermeier J, Fasshacht M (2018) How do performance feedback characteristics influence recipients’ reactions? A state-of-the art review on feedback source, timing, and valence effects. Manag Rev Q 68:145–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin J (1991) The circumplex pattern of the life styles inventory. Educ Psychol Meas 51:567–572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masi RJ, Cooke RA (2000) Effects of transformational leadership on subordinate motivation, empowering norms, and organizational productivity. Int J Organ Anal 8:16–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maslow AH (1954) Motivation and personality. Harper & Row, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Maccoby M (2000) Narcissistic leaders: the incredible pros, the inevitable cons. Harv Bus Rev 78:69–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayo M, Kakarika M, Pastor JC, Brutus S (2012) Aligning or inflating leadership self-image? A longitudinal study of responses to peer feedback in MBA teams. Acad Manag Learn Educ 11:631–652

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCrae RR, Costa Jr PT, Martin TA, Oryol VE, Rukavishnikov AA, Senin IG, Hrebickova M, Urbanek T (2004) Consensual validation of personality traits across cultures. J Res Pers 38:179–201

  • McGrath JE (1984) Groups: Interaction and performance. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Nediger WG, Chelladurai P (1989) Life styles inventory: its applicability in the Canadian context. Educ Psychol Meas 49:901–909

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Northouse PG (2016) Leadership: theory and practice, 7th edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowack KM, Mashihi S (2012) Evidence-based answers to 15 questions about leveraging 360-degree feedback. Consult Psychol J Pract Res 64:157–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paustian-Underdahl SC, Walker LS, Woehr DJ (2014) Gender and perceptions of leadership effectiveness: a meta-analysis of contextual moderators. J Appl Psychol 99:1129–1145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pratch L, Jacobowitz J (1996) Gender, motivation, and coping in the evaluation of leadership effectiveness. Consult Psychol J Pract Res 48:203–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal SA, Pittinsky TL (2006) Narcissistic leadership. Leadersh Q 17:617–633

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scarborough W (2018) “What the data says about women in management between 1980 and 2010. Harv Bus Rev. Accessed 29 July 2020

  • Schein EH, Schein P (2018) Humble leadership: the power of relationships, openness, and trust. Berrett-Koehler, Oakland

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider L, Schimmack U (2009) Self-informant agreement in well-being ratings: a meta-analysis. Soc Indic Res 94:363–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song W, Quast LN, Center BA (2018) An examination of associations among manager-boss gender, self-awareness, and managerial derailment. Hum Resour Dev Int 21:125–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stogdill RM (1963) Manual for the leader behavior description questionnaire—Form XII. Ohio State University Bureau of Business Research

  • Van Velsor E, Taylor S, Leslie JB (1993) An examination of the relationships among self-perception accuracy, self-awareness, gender, and leader effectiveness. Hum Resour Manag 32:249–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ware ME, Leak GK, Perry NW (1985) Life Styles Inventory: Evidence for its factorial validity. Psychol Rep 56:963–968

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weir K (2015) A reproducibility crisis? Monit Psychol 46:39

  • Wofford C (2018) Women are “bossy” and men are “decisive.” #Cornell360 Accessed 5 January 2021

  • Yammarino FJ, Atwater LE (1997) Do managers see themselves as others see them? Implications of self-other rating agreement for human resource management. Organ Dyn 25:35–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zenger J, Folkman J (2019) Research: women score higher than men in most leadership skills. Harv Bus Rev. Accessed 28 July 2020

  • Zheng W, Kark R, Meister A (2018) How women manage the gendered norms of leadership. Harv Bus Rev. Accessed 18 December 2020

Download references


Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data assembly and analysis were performed by Janet L. Szumal, Cheryl A. Boglarsky, and Robert A. Cooke. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Janet L. Szumal and all authors commented on subsequent versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cheryl A. Boglarsky.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors report affiliation or involvement in an organization with a financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript. Specifically, Janet L. Szumal and Cheryl A. Boglarsky have affiliation with the publisher of the materials discussed and examined in the manuscript as employees of Human Synergistics, Inc., the publisher and distributor of the Life Styles Inventory®. Robert A. Cooke is owner and CEO of Human Synergistics.


Appendix 1

Life styles inventory ™ (LSI) style descriptions (sample items in Italics)


The Humanistic-Encouraging style reflects an interest in the growth and development of people, a high positive regard for them, and sensitivity to their needs. People with this style devote energy to counseling and coaching others, interact with others in a thoughtful and considerate way, and provide them with support and encouragement. (encourages others, willing to take time with people).

The Affiliative style reflects an interest in developing and sustaining pleasant relationships with others. People with this style share their thoughts and feelings with others, are friendly and cooperative, and make others feel like they are part of the team. (cooperative, likes to include others in activities).

The Achievement style is based on the need to attain high quality results on challenging projects, the belief that outcomes are linked to one’s effort rather than chance, and the tendency to personally set challenging yet realistic goals. People exhibiting this style think ahead and plan, explore alternatives before acting, and learn from their mistakes. (enjoys a challenge, sets own goals).

The Self-Actualizing style is based on needs for personal growth, self-fulfillment, and the realization of one’s potential. People exhibiting this style demonstrate a strong desire to learn and experience things, creative yet realistic thinking, and a balanced concern for people and tasks. (optimistic & realistic, high personal integrity).


The Approval style reflects a need to be accepted and a tendency to tie one’s self-worth to being liked by others. People with this style try very hard to please others, make a good impression, and be agreeable or obedient. (generous to a fault, agrees with everyone).

The Conventional style reflects a preoccupation with conforming and “blending in” with the environment to avoid calling attention to oneself. People with this style tend to rely on established routines and procedures, prefer to maintain the status quo, and desire a secure and predictable work environment. (thinks rules more important than ideas, conforming).

The Dependent style reflects a need for self-protection coupled with the belief that one has little direct or personal control over important events. People who exhibit this style (possibly as a result of recent changes in their personal or work lives) allow others to make decisions for them, depend on others for help, and willingly obey orders. (obeys too willingly, very respectful to superiors).

The Avoidance style reflects apprehension, a strong need for self-protection, and a propensity to withdraw from threatening situations. People with this style “play it safe” and minimize risks, shy away from group activities and conversations, and react to situations in an indecisive or non-committal way. (evasive, leaves decisions to others).


The Oppositional style reflects a need for security that manifests itself in a questioning, critical and even cynical manner. Though people exhibiting this style ask tough questions that can lead to better ideas, they might also emphasize even minor flaws, use criticism to gain attention, and blame others for their own mistakes. (slow to forgive a wrong, opposes new ideas).

The Power style reflects needs for prestige and influence and the tendency to equate self-worth with controlling others. People with strong tendencies along this style dictate (rather than guide) the actions of others, try to run everything themselves, and treat others in aggressive and forceful ways—which, ironically, limits their true influence. (runs things by self, abrupt).

The Competitive style is based on a need to protect one’s status by comparing oneself to others, outperforming them, and never appearing to lose. People with this style seek recognition and praise from others, view even non-competitive situations as a contest or challenge to “prove” themselves, and try to maintain a sense of superiority. (overestimates ability, gets upset over losing).

The Perfectionistic style is based on the need to attain flawless results and avoid failure, and involves the tendency to equate self-worth with the attainment of unreasonably high standards. People who exhibit this style are preoccupied with details, place excessive demands on themselves and others, and tend to show impatience, frustration, and indifference to the needs of others. (de-emphasizes feelings, impatient with own errors).

Research and Development by: Robert A. Cooke, Ph.D. and J. Clayton Lafferty, Ph.D. Style names, descriptions and items are copyrighted © and used by permission. From J. C. Lafferty (1986), Life Styles Inventory Self-Development Guide, Plymouth MI USA: Human Synergistics. All Rights Reserved.

Appendix 2

See Table

Table 13 Correlations between LSI 1/LSI 2 (in Italics) and effectiveness items


Appendix 3

See Table

Table 14 Passive/defensive styles (LSI 1) of most effective (Top 10%) versus least effective (Bottom 10%) managers: current sample results based on scales with all items versus without changed items


Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Szumal, J.L., Boglarsky, C.A. & Cooke, R.A. Thinking and behavioral styles as described by self versus others: a replication and extension with male and female managers. Manag Rev Q (2021).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI:


  • Life styles inventory
  • 360 feedback
  • Gender differences
  • Managerial effectiveness
  • Leadership development