Dattner Consulting

Papers: Birth Order and Leadership

In his 1996 book Born to Rebel, Frank Sulloway presents an all-encompassing theory about the ways in which birth order determines personality and behavior. According to evolutionary theory, sibling rivalry for "physical, emotional, and intellectual resources from parents" (p. 21) causes clear, consistent and enduring differences between siblings, which hold across cultures and throughout history.

In his book, Sulloway mentions some of the implications of birth order for leadership. In a survey of the literature, I found that there have been several studies of possible links between birth order and the traits and behaviors of leaders. However, none of these studies have involved business leaders. In this paper, I will examine Sulloway's findings and claims, survey the existing literature on birth order and leadership, try to reconcile birth order findings with leadership trait theories, and discuss possible implications for business leadership. I will argue that birth order will be a significant predictor of managerial leadership style, and will discuss possible hypotheses. Finally, I will suggest possible ways in which this assertion could be tested.

According to Sulloway, differing strategies for currying parental favor lead to distinct personalities for siblings born into different ordinal positions. However, moderating variables such as gender, temperament, physical characteristics, socio-economic class, family size, and degree of conflict between siblings and parents can alter the basic impact of birth order on personality.

For example, firstborn siblings who have a high degree of conflict with their parents can rebel and take on certain attributes that are usually associated with younger siblings. Another example of a way in which birth order can fail as a predictor of behavior is if the firstborn sibling is disabled, the younger sibling may take on some firstborn personality characteristics.

Despite these potential confounds, Sulloway claims that the following patterns are usually true. Firstborn siblings' best strategy is to support the status quo represented by their parents. First borns are consistently "ambitious, conscientious, and achievement-oriented." (p. 21), more accomplished academically, and because they are initially bigger, stronger, and smarter than their younger siblings, firstborns are "more assertive, dominant, confident, and overrepresented among political leaders." (p. 69).

Younger siblings on the other hand, are born into a family system where one or more niches are already occupied by older siblings who have the benefit of age and experience. As a result, it is in the evolutionary interest of younger siblings to rebel against the status quo represented by their parents and their older siblings. As Sulloway writes: "when older siblings were uniformly accomplished at spear throwing, it was time to invent the bow and arrow." (p. 98).

Sulloway presents evidence in his book that these differences between first borns and later borns are the best predictor of whether a scientist would support a radical theory, such as Darwin's theory of evolution, when it is first proposed. In analyzing 28 different scientific revolutions, Sulloway found that more open-minded younger borns were up to ten times as likely to support a new theory than were conservative-minded firstborns.

Middle siblings, who lack the dominance of firstborns and the higher degree of attention given to last borns are in a precarious situation and therefore must learn to be diplomatic and political in order to get their way. Only children and twins represent special cases- only children tend to be similar to first borns, and conflict between identical twins is likely to be lower than between other siblings, because identical twins share the same genes. Conflict between fraternal twins is also likely to be lower because they are the same age as one another, and therefore there is less incentive to find and protect different niches.

Systematic research about birth order and leadership has been hampered by inconsistent classifications of birth order. For example, some researchers count siblings who died during childhood while others do not, and this can be a critical difference since, for example, roughly 25% of United States Presidents lost an infant sibling. Some researchers have coded boys as firstborn even if they had an older sister, in some studies siblings with more than five years between them are considered separately, and middle borns have been inconsistently classified. (Hudson, 1992). Polygamous marriages in some cultures further complicate analysis of birth order (Hudson, 1990) as do second marriages in our own culture (Wagner & Schubert, 1977).

Literature Review

Chemers (1970) administered Fiedler's LPC scale to 350 students at the University of Delaware, and hypothesized that because of their respective roles in their families, firstborns would be more task oriented and later borns would be more relationship oriented. Chemers found significant support for his hypotheses- firstborns were more likely to be low LPC and laterborns were more likely to be high LPC. These findings were replicated by Hardy (1972) in two groups- black sixth graders in Washington D.C. and 66 white undergraduates at a midwestern university. Chemers' findings were replicated at a p <.05 level in both populations.

Dagenais (1979) sought to replicate Chemers' findings with 180 nurses, using a Leadership Opinion Questionnaire. In this instrument, "structure" is meant to capture task orientation and "consideration" is meant to capture relationship orientation. There were no significant results. Dagenais concludes "These findings are yet another addition to the growing number of empirical studies which are at worst, inconclusive, and at best, show a weak relationship." (p. 152).

Seeking to test whether the link between birth order and Fiedler's LPC held at very early ages, Hardy, Hunt, & Lehr (1978) administered a "least preferred playmate" test to 36 nursery school children. A Chi Square showed no significant results for boys, but there were significant results for girls-- firstborns were more task oriented and laterborns were more relationship oriented. The question arises, however, can playing be considered a task?

There is other evidence that first born females are more likely to be leaders, such as Eckstein, (1977), who found that first born women were more likely to lead campus organizations at a college in Virginia, and Sandler and Scalia, (1975), who found no significant effect for birth order on the likelihood that men would be leaders in a religious organization, but did find an effect for firstborn women. Unfortunately, none of these authors provide a theoretical explanations for why birth order effects may be more robust for women and girls than for men and boys.

Commenting on the inconclusive findings with respect to birth order and task versus relationship orientation, Ernst & Angst (1983) wrote: "higher task orientation may be a personality variable associated with smaller sibships. There is as yet no sufficient evidence that first borns are more task-oriented than laterborns, but the measure of Oesteem for the least preferred co-worker' may be a promising field for further, better controlled investigations." (p. 149).

Unfortunately, in the present review, no subsequent tests of this finding were encountered.

In a 1987 dissertation, Greene investigated whether birth order was a determinant of leadership style by administering a Leadership Opinion Questionnaire to 80 Southern Baptist Pastors, 34 of whom were first born and 46 of whom were later borns. Greene used Adlerian theory to derive the same hypotheses as Dagenais (1979): later borns will be higher on consideration, and first borns will be higher on structure. Greene found significant statistical support for his first hypothesis, but not for the second.

Ostroff (1993), like Dagenais (1979) and Greene (1987) sought to extend Alfred Adler's birth order theories to the two leadership dimensions of structure and consideration. According to Ostroff, Adlerian theory makes the following claims about birth order and leadership (all of which mesh well with the claims put forth by Sulloway):

"Firstborns acquire leadership traits emphasizing rules, authority, power, independence, traditions, organization, and a concern with status. Laterborns acquire leadership traits emphasizing social activities, a sense of community, and warmth in individual and group cooperation, thus, less emphasis on authority and rules." (p. 9)."

Using the above claims of Adler as a starting point, Ostroff hypothesizes "the first born is more likely to be structure-oriented, while the later born is more likely to be consideration-oriented in leadership style." (p. 9). Ostroff administered Fleishman's Leadership Opinion Questionnaire (LOQ), designed to assess initiating structure versus consideration, to 232 public school administrators in Arizona, and classified the respondents as either first borns or later borns. No significant results were obtained.

Political scientists have also tested whether there is a linkage between birth order and political behavior. Hudson, 1992, tested five questions about the relationship between birth order and leadership for 55 world leaders such as Nasser, Kennedy, and Mobutu. The first question she investigated was whether there were differences in birth order distribution between the world leaders and an Oartificial control population' . As Sulloway would have predicted, there was an overrepresentation of first borns and an underrepresentation of last borns. Hudson's second question was whether the relationship between birth order and leadership was different in different parts of the world. She did not find any statistically significant results for this question. Her third question was whether the level of development of a nation would correlate with the birth order of the leader, and she found some evidence, although not at a significant level, that less-developed nations tend to have early born leaders while more developed nations have later born leaders. Hudson's fourth question was whether open versus closed societies would have leaders with different birth orders, and found no significant results. The final question that was tested in this study was whether world leaders would differ on the basis of birth order on eight characteristics: nationalism, belief in one's own ability to control events, need for power, need for affiliation, conceptual complexity, self-confidence, distrust of others, and task/affect orientation. Depending on the coding scheme utilized for birth order, Hudson's findings were non-significant or inconclusive on these eight dimensions. A larger sample size might have helped her find clearer patterns.

One additional factor which further complicates an understanding of any stable relationship between birth order and leadership is culture and history. For example, in a culture which followed the tradition of primogeniture, differences between siblings are part of the economic and social reality, and this is likely to lead to very family dynamics and personality differences between siblings than would be present today. (Zweigenhaft, 1975). Likewise, in some cultures there has been the tradition of educating only oldest sons, which introduces another confound into an understanding of personality as the mediator between birth order and leadership success.

At a much lower level of explanation, some claim that birth order effects are partly biologically based. Somit, Arwine & Peterson, (1994) cite claims that earlier born children get the benefit of a richer uterine environment than do later borns. However, the authors also mention the opposing point of view- that younger borns have an advantage in that mothers have been prepared for the demands of pregnancy.

Somit, Peterson, & Arwine, (1994) sought to determine whether Presidential behavior could be explained by birth order. In an analysis of 1,425 Presidential vetoes between 1920 and 1988, the authors found no significant effect for birth order. These non-significant findings correspond with Zweigenhaft (1975), who found no correlation between birth order and voting behavior among members of Congress. Somit, Peterson & Arwine (1994) also examined whether birth order might account for the "best-known typology of presidential personality" which was developed by James David Barber, and found that it did not.

In their 1996 book, Birth Order and Political Leadership, Somit, Arwine & Peterson examined whether birth order was a factor in presidential elections, Supreme Court appointments, Congressional elections, American military leaders, British Prime Ministers, the Papacy, Political Elites in the USSR and in the United Nations, and great generals in history. After education level was controlled for, there was no effect for birth order and US Presidents. For Supreme Court justices there was an overrepresentation of first borns, but the authors believe this is also an artifact of education. The authors also make the same claim with respect to their finding that first borns are overrepresented in the House of Representatives. They found no birth order effect for American military leaders or British Prime Ministers. Findings for the Papacy were inconclusive because the authors were only able to obtain the birth order of 11 out of 41 post-reformation Popes. Soviet leadership was unique in that none of the leaders from the revolution in 1917 until 1991 was a first born. No consistent patterns emerged among the Secretaries General of the United Nations. Finally, no patterns emerged for great generals. However, it is clear from this book that the authors' agenda is to prove that birth order has no effect on political behavior.

Unfortunately, Somit, Arwine & Peterson and many of the other authors encountered in this review are easily able to alter a few variables in order to support their conclusions. The fact that they found no birth order effects for US Presidents while Stewart (1992) did is just one example of contradictory findings and inconsistent methodologies in this literature.

Stewart, (1992) found that crises moderates the likelihood that a leader will be from a given ordinal position. He hypothesized that leaders are likely to be first borns in times of war or confrontation, and later borns in times when there are domestic struggles for power. In an analysis of British Prime Ministers and American Presidents, Stewart received statistical support for these hypotheses. However, Sulloway feels that these results can be challenged because the classification of times in history was not validated.

In 1993, Somit, Peterson & Arwine wrote "to date there is no persuasive evidence of any significant relationship between birth order and political behavior." (p. 157). The above literature review supports this statement. Some researchers found birth order effects while others did not. However, inconsistent methodologies prevent any firm conclusions to be drawn. In the next section, I will examine how trait theories of leadership could be combined with Sulloway's findings in order to explain birth order differences in leadership styles.

Birth order and trait theories of leadership

Trait theories of leadership have been criticized for focusing on single dimensions while ignoring the ways in which traits relate to one another (Bass, 1990). Even trait theories that incorporate constellations of traits do not have much empirical support and ignore situational factors (Kenny & Zaccaro, 1983). Like the birth order and leadership literature, the trait literature has its share of inconsistent results and divergent methodologies.

Some traits, however, have received support in a number of studies. Bass (1990) reviewed the literature and presented evidence for and against a variety of traits. I will present Bass' findings for the traits that have relevance to Sulloway's findings. However, any attempt to combine the two theories in order to make predictions about or to provide explanations for leadership behavior will suffer from the limitations of both literatures.

Intelligence is a variable that many researchers have suspected correlates with leadership. Bass (1990) found that all but 5 of 23 studies, leaders have higher intelligence than do non-leaders. However, the effect of intelligence is small and is moderated by other variables. Sulloway presents evidence that firstborns have higher IQ's than do laterborns, although he cautions that true differences may be only one IQ point between adjacent siblings. Therefore, any predictions about the difference between the likelihood that a firstborn is more likely to be a leader or to be an effective leader than a laterborn because of intelligence will be severely limited by the weak link between intelligence and leadership and by the weak link between birth order and intelligence.

Corresponding to intelligence, Bass presents findings that in 22 out of 23 studies leaders had better academic records than non-leaders. Sulloway also presents evidence that firstborns are, on average, better students than laterborns. However, many theorists have argued that cultural norms throughout history made it more likely that family resources would be allocated to the education of older children, and therefore no definitive statements can be made about any intrinsic differences in academic ability between first borns and later borns.

Bass cited studies from the 1930s in which correlations between .13 and .21 were reported for leadership and adaptability. This might be a promising area for future research, in that one of Sulloway's most robust findings about differences between firstborns and later borns are centered around the greater adaptability of later borns. Later borns are more adaptable because they are born into a family context in which the firstborn niche is already occupied, and they are therefore forced to adapt their personalities in order to fill unoccupied niches.

Bass cites the findings of 17 studies on responsibility which consistently found that leaders are more responsible than are followers. Sulloway mentions that firstborns are likely to be significantly more conscientious than later borns because they have a "strong motivation to satisfy parental expectations." (p. 69) and because they are forced to be responsible by parental delegation of caring for younger siblings. Sulloway found 20 studies that confirmed that firstborns are more conscientious than laterborns, and no studies that refuted those findings. Perhaps caring for younger siblings serves as an older sibling template for caring for followers.

Sulloway claims because of firstborn's greater size, strength, and developmental progress, "firstborns should score higher than laterborns on those behaviors that tend towards Oassertiveness' and Odominance.' " (p. 69) and cites studies that support this assertion. This finding can be considered in conjunction with Bass' finding that leaders were more likely to be dominant in 11 studies. However, in 4 other studies dominance caused leaders to be rejected, and in 2 studies there was no effect of dominance. A test of the effect of dominance on leadership would, as would the other characteristics mentioned here, require control of moderating follower characteristics and situational variables.

Bass presents evidence that confidence and self assurance was consistently higher in leaders than in non-leaders. This finding also suggests that more confident firstborn siblings are more likely to be leaders and to succeed as leaders. Firstborns are confident because they are used to being bigger and stronger than their younger siblings.

Confidence is a trait that works well both within and between trait theories of leadership and Sulloway's theories about birth order. Other traits may be more problematic, because of contradictory findings within the trait research, within Sulloway's work, or because there is no clear link between the given trait and birth order findings. There are traits mentioned by Sulloway that do not seem directly related to the findings of trait theories of leadership and vice versa.

For example, Sulloway found that firstborns identify more with their parents. I did not encounter any research into the question of whether the degree of identification with one's parents is a predictor of leadership. However, one could make the argument that identification with one's parents will correlate with a "positive attitude toward authority figures", which was cited by Yukon (1994) as a factor in managerial advancement.

There are also findings in the trait literature that do not mesh with Sulloway's work. For example, Yukon & Van Fleet (1991) write "Individual traits that appear to be related to managerial effectiveness and advancement include high energy level, stress tolerance, integrity, emotional maturity, and self-confidence." (p. 150). With the exception of self-confidence, which I mentioned earlier, none of these other traits directly relate to Sulloway's birth order findings. More research could clarify how these traits and those mentioned by Sulloway could be combined into larger constellations in order to better predict the relationship between personality and leadership.

Trait theories and birth order research could both benefit by an examination not only of constellations of traits within individuals, but between individuals who derive their power from coalitions or partnerships. Yukon & Van Fleet, (1991) complain that there has been scarce research into the traits of executives teams. Sulloway, in an interview with Forces Magazine, Sulloway cited Steven Jobs and Steven Wozniak, co-founders of Apple Computer, as a team in which there were complementary characteristics which can be explained by birth order. Jobs was the extroverted and entrepreneurial firstborn, while Wozniak was the "laid-back genius". (p. 150). There was a synergy between them that enabled both to succeed together while they may not have succeeded separately.

Directions for future research

As outlined above, there are many reasons why no definitive predictions can be made about the relationship between birth order and leadership on the basis of the aforementioned literature. In addition, my interest is in the relationship between birth order and business leadership, which has not yet been the subject of empirical research. As a starting point, I feel it would be prudent to make predictions from Sulloway's most robust and central argument: that firstborns are likely to support the status quo while laterborns are likely to support innovation.

This finding has many potential implications for the behavior of business managers. In today's rapidly changing, globally competitive business environment, it is imperative that business leaders constantly implement technological and procedural innovations in order to successfully compete. In interviews, Sulloway has said that his theories would lead to the prediction that laterborns would be much more likely to be adaptable in the ways mandated by contemporary business. Although he has not conducted any systematic research to test this assertion, he provides anecdotal evidence in support. Bill Gates of Microsoft and Lou Gerstner of IBM are two paradigmatic examples of laterborns who were able to transform their organizations in order to adjust to rapid change. One possible direction for research would be to have experts rate companies as innovative or not innovative, and than correlate those ratings with the respective birth orders of the founder, CEO, or top management team members.

If Sulloway's predictions are true, then younger born leaders should exhibit greater behavioral flexibility than first borns, and behaviorally flexible managers should be more successful. This question could be tested using a variety of questionnaires, laboratory exercises, and field studies. If it were established that laterborn leaders have greater behavioral flexibility and that this flexibility is a key predictor of success, then a related hypothesis could be that that laterborn/behaviorally flexible leaders will feel more comfortable managing in today's business world. Less established hierarchies are likely to unnerve firstborns, who take comfort in stability and status.

Laterborns are also more likely to succeed in the global economy because, as rebels, they tend to travel more and to be more open to other cultures and perspectives. It would be relatively straightforward to see whether laterborns are more likely to volunteer for and succeed at international assignments. Using the same logic as for international assignments, it could also be hypothesized that laterborns will do better in a diverse workplace. Attitude surveys could determine if laterborns feel more comfortable in heterogeneous teams.

Conclusion

Few people would disagree that early family experiences and sibling rivalry are important influences on personality. Likewise, few people would disagree that personality is a necessary, though not sufficient, predictor of leader behavior and success. The debate ensues when an attempt is made to describe the specific ways in which birth order influences personality, personality influences leadership, and therefore, the specific ways in which birth order influences leadership.

I advocate using Sulloway's most compelling and best supported findings-- that firstborns are more conservative and laterborns are more rebellious and adaptable-- as a starting point for a program of research that could untangle the ways in which birth order may influence the behavior of business leaders. I advocate using today's business environment as an operationalization of a situation that is likely to be more hospitable to later born managers.

My hypothesis is that the research that I have suggested would show an effect for birth order on personality and an effect for personality on success in business management. However, even if the research does not find a clear relationship between birth order and the situationally moderated success of contemporary business leaders, the proposed studies could still be valuable in delineating groupings of personality traits, and then testing whether those groups of traits predict success in the changing workplace. As Sulloway said in an interview with the author of this paper, birth order is only a shorthand proxy for what we really want to know- how constellations of traits and characteristics can lead to accurate predictions of attitudes and behaviors in different situations.