Journal of Asia-Pacific Business, 13:302–319, 2012

Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1059-9231 print/1528-6940 online
DOI: 10.1080/10599231.2012.718674

ARTICLES

Implicit Leadership Theories of Bruneians

SYAMIMI LIM
Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei, Darussalam

ROZHAN OTHMAN
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

ALI YUSOB ZAIN and DAYANGKU SITI ROZAIDAH PENGIRAN

Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei, Darussalam

A leader’s effectiveness is affected by the followers’ acceptance of

the leader as their leader. Followers rely on their cognitive schema
to judge whether someone deserves to be considered a leader. This
cognitive schema is the implicit leadership theory (ILT) individu-
als have on the qualities of a leader. When leaders are perceived
as conforming to this ILT, they are seen as leaders, and follow-
ers accept their influence attempt. This study examined the ILT
of Bruneians. The findings indicate that Bruneians are associated
with a distinct ILT and shows that gender and personality variables
predict the variation in ILT.

KEYWORDS Brunei, implicit leadership theories, personality

INTRODUCTION

Research on leadership has seen a number of shifts in focus. Early studies

on leadership were focused primarily on what leaders do, putting particular
emphasis on leadership style. By the 1970s there was a shift in focus, and
more attention was given to the issue of leader–member relationship (Liden
& Maslyn, 1998). This line of work basically highlights the fact that leaders

Address correspondence to Syamimi Lim, Faculty of Business, Economics and Policy

Studies, Universiti Brunei Darussalam, JalanTungku Link, BE1410, Bandar Seri Begawan,
Brunei, Darussalam. E-mail: syamimi.ariff@ubd.edu.bn

302
 Implicit Leadership Theories of Bruneians 303

develop a differentiated relationship with their followers, preferring some

over others. These preferred followers become a part of the leader’s in-group
and are given more support, access to resources, and more responsibilities.
The 1980s saw another shift in leadership research. This shift was from
a leader-centric approach in understanding leadership to one that is follower
centric (Felfe & Peterson, 2007; Holmberg & Akerblom, 2006). The basic idea
proposed by this line of work is that effective leadership is not just about
the leader’s behavior. It is also dependent on the perception of the followers
toward the leader (Schyns, Kroon, & Moors, 2008). This line of research
argues that followers’ perception of their leader is affected by their implicit
leadership theory (ILT). Individuals possess cognitive schema that serves as a
framework in distinguishing leaders from nonleaders (Keller, 1999; Kenney,
Blascovich, & Shaver, 1994). This cognitive schema serves as a “lay theory” of
the attributes of a leader (Werth, Markel, & Forster, 2006). Those conforming
to these schema-consistent expectations are categorized as leaders and are
considered as worthy of influence (Epitropaki & Martin, 2004; Ling, Chia, &
Fang, 2000; Offermann, Kennedy, & Wirtz, 1994). Followers accept them as
deserving to be followed.
Evidence from the extant literature on ILT shows that there are distinct
differences in the ILT of different countries (Abdalla & Al-Homoud, 2001;
Epitropaki & Martin, 2004; Holmberg & Akerblom, 2006; Kenny et al., 1994;
Ling et al., 2000; Subramaniam, Othman, & Sambisivan, 2010). Ling et al.
(2000) argued that culture provides the mental programming that defines
expectations on leadership style. Culture is a collective and social construct
that, among other things, expresses itself through expectations of leader
behavior. National entities are relatively stable configurations of structure
of identities and interests. These identities and interests are codified in the
form of formal rules and norms that shapes collective beliefs and attitudes
(Holmberg & Akerblom, 2006).
Earlier studies have shown that the ILT held by Malaysians, Gulf Arab,
and Swedish respondents differ considerably (Abdalla & Al-Hamoud, 2001;
Holmberg & Akerblom, 2006; Subramaniam et al., 2010). Four of the six
leadership descriptors in the Malaysian ILT study focus on leader behavior in
managing followers. In this regard, the Malaysian ILT resembles the U.S. ILT.
The Gulf Arab leadership descriptors indicate an ILT that expects leaders
to focus on driving and managing performance. The Swedish ILT, on the
other hand, is based on a combination of descriptors that include providing
a sense of direction, leader character, and compliance with social norms.
It is in the light of this understanding that we seek to examine the ILT of
Bruneians. Our review of literature shows that there has not been any study
of this nature in Brunei. In addition, this study makes an important contribu-
tion to the understanding of leadership across different cultures and national
boundaries. Besides identifying the Brunei ILT, this study also examines the
predictors of ILT. Although countries tend to be associated with distinct ILTs,
304 S. Lim et al.

evidence also suggests that there can be considerable variations in the ILT of
individuals within a culture (Ling et al., 2000).

IMPLICIT LEADERSHIP THEORY

ILT Formation
Individuals use cognitive schema to categorize perception (Holmberg &
Akerblom 2006). Because of the cognitive limitations imposed by bounded
rationality, this schema serves as a simplifying mechanism in facilitating
judgment and perception (Phillips & Lord, 1982). It is used as a percep-
tual abstraction and relies on summary labels to categorize stimuli (Felfe &
Petersen, 2007; Epitropaki & Martin, 2004). In assessing leaders, this cognitive
schema serves as a person’s ILT.
Offermann et al. (1994) defined ILT as the structure and content of
cognitive categories that are used to differentiate leaders from nonleaders.
These cognitive categories are the personal characteristics of the ideal leader
(Ling et al., 2000). The term leader is used as a cognitive category to classify
people. Followers develop certain leader-role expectations of their leaders.
A person is classified as a leader when he or she exhibits qualities that
conform to the characteristics used in this categorization (Phillips & Lord,
1982). Individuals use ILT as a part of their organizational sense-making
process (Epitropaki & Martin, 2005).
The success of a leader’s influence attempts depends on whether the
followers accord the power of leadership to the leader (Kenney et al.,
1994). Followers use ILT as the basis for interpreting the behavior of their
leader and as the basis for deciding on their own behavior in relating
to the leader. Followers reciprocate by accepting the leader’s influence
attempts when the leader conforms to their followers’ ILT. They accord
the leader with status and esteem. Citing Hollander’s idiosyncrasy credit
model, Kenney et al. (1994) argued that leaders win credits and the ability
to influence followers by behaving in ways that are congruent with follower
expectations. Followers also use cognitive categories to classify whether
a leader is considered an effective or ineffective leader (Offermann et al.,
1994; Phillips & Lord, 1982).
Keller (1999) explained that a person’s ILT is the product of social learn-
ing that takes place throughout the entire lifetime. She argued that one of the
main sources of this learning is the leadership behavior exercised by one’s
parents. Epitropaki and Martin (2004) pointed out that ILT is also shaped
by exposure to social events, interpersonal interactions, and earlier expe-
riences with leaders. There is considerable debate on whether a person’s
ILT is easily changed. Some researchers argue that ILT can change as a
result of one’s experience to different leaders and their leadership styles;
others argue that ILT is fairly stable and is more likely to change only when
 Implicit Leadership Theories of Bruneians 305

individuals experience major dissonance that forces them to reevaluate their

currently held ILT. Epitropaki and Martin’s (2004) longitudinal study on ILT
in 2005 provides evidence to support the contention that the ILT held by
individuals is fairly stable.

BACKGROUND OF BRUNEI

Brunei is situated in the north of the island of Borneo. The geographic area
of Brunei is 5,765 square km. It has a population of 414,400 (Department
of Economic Planning and Development, 2010). The demographic makeup
of Brunei consists of various ethnic groups comprising Malays (two thirds
of the population), Chinese, and other indigenous groups that includes the
Murut, Dusun, and Iban (Roberts & Poh, 2008). Historically, Brunei became a
British protected state in 1888 and finally gained independence in 1984. The
old Brunei was not as rich as it is today as oil and gas was only discovered
in large quantity in 1928 (Yunus, 2007).
The country has an unemployment rate of 3.7%, and a labor force
of 188,800 people. According to the Brunei Economic Development Board
(BEDB; 2010), Brunei generates 90% of its export earnings from hydrocar-
bon resources, and this constitutes 50% of its gross domestic product (GDP).
Brunei owes much of its wealth to the production of oil and gas. Brunei
is currently the fourth largest producer of oil in South East Asia and the
ninth largest exporter of liquefied natural gas in the world. The Brunei gov-
ernment has declared the desire to diversify Brunei’s economy to reduce
the country’s reliance on oil and gas. These efforts include initiatives to
increase in-bound tourism and increase agriculture output especially in rice
production.
However, progress toward achieving this goal has been slow. The coun-
try’s economy continues to rely on its export earnings from oil and gas.
A recent report singled out public servants for criticism for this slow progress.
Public-sector employees are said to be risk averse, complacent, and lacking
personal initiative to lead the diversification of the country’s economy (Goh,
2010). This may be due to the people being sheltered from difficulties for so
long and have become complacent due to the generous benefits given by
the government.
Chan and Pearson’s (2002) comparison of managerial values in Malaysia,
Singapore, and Brunei found that Brunei managers attached considerable
more importance to having flexible work hours and value having good inter-
personal relationships in the workplace than their counterparts in Malaysia
and Singapore. Managers in Singapore and Malaysia rate the opportunity for
self-improvement and promotion as well as autonomy in decision making
more highly than their Brunei counterpart. These differences in managerial
work values suggest that Bruneians subscribe to a distinct set of values.
306 S. Lim et al.

It naturally raises the question of whether these differences have implications

on how Bruneians perceive leadership.

BRUNEI ILT

Research on Brunei in general is very limited, and research on management

practice in Brunei is even more limited. As such, the approach taken by
this study is to build from the limited research available and explore further
issues related to leadership in Brunei. We seek to identify the Brunei ILT.
In addition to this, we intend to examine variations in ILT within Brunei.
Most studies on ILT sought to examine it as a national-level phenomenon.
We believe there are also variations in ILT within each country. We build
this argument based on the understanding that ILT is the product of social-
ization (Keller, 1999). Even though there are some common denominators
within each national culture that leads to the development of distinct ILTs
in each country, the socialization experience within each society is also
shaped by variations within the country. We examined whether public-sector
and private-sector employees hold to distinctly different ILT. The reason for
our interest in examining this is the different socialization experience of
public- and private-sector employees. In general, performance outcomes in
private-sector organizations are more salient, and private-sector employees
are commonly held accountable for their performance.
Gender has also been found to predict variation in ILT. Paris (2004)
found differences in the ILT held by men and women. Her study using
data from 17 countries found female respondents attaching more importance
to participative leadership. We also examined the extent gender predicts
variation in ILT in Brunei.
We also posit that personality difference across individuals can lead to
variations in leadership expectations. Among the personality variables that
are said to affect a person’s leadership expectations that has been discussed
in the literature include need for growth, need for structure, and need for
leadership (Schyns et al., 2008). We include these variables in examining the
variations in the Brunei ILT.

Need for Growth

Need for growth is a construct developed in the job design literature by
Hackman and Oldham (1975). It is a measure of individuals’ desire to grow
and develop within their jobs. Individuals who score high on measures of
need for growth are motivated to learn new things, stretch their perfor-
mance, and strive to do better in their jobs (Shalley, Gilson, & Blum, 2009).
In this study, we examined the effect of followers’ need for growth on
their ILT, because need for growth has been shown to be more relevant
 Implicit Leadership Theories of Bruneians 307

in explaining how people react to their working environments and interact

with their working partners than other related work values, such as Protestant
work ethic (Wanous, 1974). It is hypothesized that subordinates who are
high in their need for growth scores would endorse leaders who demon-
strate qualities that promote “growth satisfaction.” This is consistent with the
similarity–attraction theory, which states that people tend to engage in more
positive social interactions with those who are similar to them (Berscheid
& Walster, 1969; Byrne, 1971). Followers with high need for growth will be
more attracted to leaders who are able to facilitate their personal growth.
We therefore expect need for growth to explain variation in ILT.

Need for Structure

Moskowitz (1993) explained that individual differences shape the way infor-
mation is perceived and processed. The same stimulus is often perceived
differently by different individuals. When presented with complex or a
huge amount of information, some individuals seek to reduce the cognitive
load in one of two ways. One response is to avoid information to limit
the amount of information someone has to absorb. Another response is
to structure the information into simple categories (Neuberg & Newsom,
1993). Individuals use cognitive structure as a mean for understanding the
environment without using a lot of cognitive resources. It enables them to
simplify a complicated world.
Neuberg and Newsom (1993) termed this preference for simplifying real-
ity as need for structure. It is the disposition individuals have to cognitively
structure their world in a simple and unambiguous way. Individuals differ
in their need for structure. Individuals with high need for structure tend to
lead a simple and tightly organized life. They are more likely to enact rou-
tines and prefer familiar social situations. They also have a chronic desire for
structure and clarity in most situations and rely on simplified and structured
ways of dealing with complexities (Elovainio & Kivimaki, 2001). They tend
to be easily irritated when faced with ambiguity and lack of structure (Schultz
& Searleman, 1998).
Evidence indicates that individuals with high need for structure prefer
leaders who are more autocratic (Neuberg & Newsom, 1993). Such leaders
provide more structure and simplify the reality for such individuals. Thus,
we expect followers with high need for structure to develop ILTs that are
distinctly different from those with low need for structure.

Need for Leadership

De Vries, Roe, and Taillieu (2002) defined need for leadership as “the extent
to which an employee wishes the leader to facilitate the path towards indi-
vidual, group and/or organizational goals” (p. 122). They explained that it
308 S. Lim et al.

is an acquired need that can change with circumstances. It is typically a

product of a person’s assessment of his or her level of competence and self-
confidence in his or her ability to perform a task. When a person perceives
himself or herself as lacking the ability to deal with a work situation he or
she is more likely to feel the need for leadership. He or she expects the
leader to intervene and play an active role in helping him or her. We expect
individuals who have high need for leadership to prefer leaders who are
involved and active in leading them. On the other hand, individuals with
low need for leadership prefer leaders who provide them with autonomy
and empowerment.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

We hope that by undertaking this study, we will be contributing to knowl-

edge in two ways. The first is uncovering the ILT in Brunei, a country that
has received very little attention among researchers. This study will help pro-
vide insight on the ILT among Bruneians. It will also help contribute to the
emerging literature on implicit leadership theories by contributing toward
developing a greater understanding of the variation in ILT across countries.
Second, we hope that by seeking to examine the relationship between
a number of personality variables as predictors of ILT further we will be
able to also provide a better understanding of why variations in ILT exists
within national entities. This understanding will have implications for lead-
ership effectiveness in each country and, likewise, how leadership training
is conducted.
Brunei is a country that relies extensively on the expatriate work force
to fulfill its manpower requirements. The expatriate work force in Brunei
comes from many different countries and cultures. Such a diverse work force
inevitably presents a potential for conflict. This study hopes to help address
this problem by informing practitioners of the distinct features of leader-
ship expectations among Bruneians. This knowledge can help organizations
develop a more effective induction program and predeparture briefing of
their expatriate managers. In addition, we hope to also identify variations
in ILT among Bruneians by assessing the extent differences in demographic
and personality variables predict variations in the ILT held by Bruneians.

RESEARCH PROBLEM

The preceding discussion leads us to the definition of our research prob-

lem. Basically, this research addresses the question of whether there is a
distinct ILT held by Bruneians. In addition, we are also examining whether
demographic and personality variables can explain the variation in the ILT
held by Bruneians. The specific research questions for this study are
 Implicit Leadership Theories of Bruneians 309

1. Is there a distinct Brunei ILT?

2. Is there variation in the ILT held by Bruneians?
3. Are there differences between the ILT held by male and female Bruneians
and between those employed in the public sector and those employed in
the private sector?
4. Do (a) need for growth, (b) need for leadership, and (c) need for structure
predict variation in ILT among Bruneians?

RESEARCH METHOD

This study was conducted in two stages. The first stage focused on uncover-
ing the Brunei ILT. The second stage focused on examining the relationships
proposed in the research questions.

Data Collection
The first stage of the data collection used small focus groups to uncover the
Brunei ILT. We followed the approach used by Ling et al. (2000), Kenney
et al. (1994), and Offermann et al. (1994) where we elicited from the partic-
ipants their input on the characteristics of an effective leader. No definitions
of a leader or effective leadership were given to them.
Fifty Bruneians participated in this stage of data collection. Twenty
four were public-sector employees who were participants of a training
program. Another twenty-six participants were private-sector employees
from three firms. Each respondent was asked to provide 15 words or
statements that describe these qualities. The responses were collated and
organized. Responses that are synonymous were combined, and responses
that were mentioned three times or fewer were excluded. The second
stage involved a survey using the descriptors obtained from Stage 1 to
assess the Brunei ILT using a larger sample and to examine the research
questions.

Instrument Development
The final list of leadership descriptors obtained from Stage 1 was used
to develop the questionnaire to measure ILT. A total of 55 descriptors of
leader characteristics were included in this questionnaire. Respondents were
asked to indicate the degree of importance of each descriptor in making
a leader an effective leader. Need for structure was measured using an
11-item instrument developed by Neuberg and Newsom (1993). DeVries
et al.’s (2002) 17-item instrument was used to measure need for leader-
ship. Hackman and Oldham’s (1975) 5-item instrument was used to measure
need for growth. All variables were measured using a 7-point Likert-type
scale.
310 S. Lim et al.

TABLE 1 Respondents’ Profile

Number of Respondents

1. Nationalitya
Bruneians 290
Brunei permanent resident 34
Non-Bruneians 3
2. Employment sectora
Public sector 165
Private sector 171
Nongovernmental organization 6
3. Gender
Male 125
Female 202
4. Mean age = 34.8 years
a
24 respondents did not state their nationality and gender.

Sample
Six private-sector organizations and eight public-sector organizations were
approached for questionnaire distribution. A total of 351 usable responses
were received. The respondents’ profile is shown in Table 1. For the pur-
pose of this study Brunei permanent residents are treated as Bruneians.
This is because under Brunei law it takes around 20 years to be eligi-
ble for permanent resident status, and permanents residents are usually
educated, raised, and socialized in Brunei. Independent sample t test was
performed to compare the mean scores of Bruneians and Brunei perma-
nent residents, and the outcome did not reveal any systematic differences
between them. Data from non-Brunei respondents were excluded from
analysis.

Data Analysis
Independent sample t test was used to examine the difference between
public- and private-sector ILT. Factor analysis was used to ascertain whether
the Brunei ILT form distinct types. Regression analysis was used to examine
whether personality variables predict variations in ILT.

FINDINGS

Respondents were given 55 descriptors of leader characteristics to rate.

Table 2 shows the top 10 descriptors. A t test was performed to identify
descriptors that have statistically significant differences in mean scores for
public-sector and private-sector respondents. Table 3 presents the statistically
 Implicit Leadership Theories of Bruneians 311

TABLE 2 Mean Score of Top 10 Leadership Descriptors

Descriptor M SD

Responsible 6.7822 .58095

Trustworthy 6.6562 .72067
Honest 6.6361 .74043
Knowledgeable 6.5673 .76502
Effective decision making 6.5473 .73982
Disciplined 6.5072 .79732
Efficient 6.5043 .74518
Committed 6.4667 .74293
Teamwork 6.4480 .78678
Fair 6.4413 .76947

TABLE 3 Differences in Leadership Descriptors in Brunei Public and Private Sector

Public Private

ILT Descriptor M SD M SD t Significance

Honest 6.73a 0.59 6.56 0.85 2.10 0.05

Knowledgeable 6.71a 0.56 6.46 0.90 3.02 0.01
Empathic 6.02 0.89 6.25a 0.82 −2.51 0.05
Effective decision making 6.64a 0.71 6.48 .74 2.03 .04
Motivator 6.20 0.84 6.46a .74 −2.75 .00
Esprit de corps 5.94 0.96 6.15a 0.95 −2.00 0.05
ILT = implicit leadership theory.
a
p ≤ 0.05.

different mean scores. This finding indicates that there are differences in the
ILT held by public- and private-sector employees.
The ILT descriptors were factor analyzed using principal component
analysis (PCA) and Varimax rotation. Examination of the scree plot shows
that a four-factor solution is the most appropriate. The descriptors loading
on Factor 1 are indicative of a preference of leaders who manage their rela-
tionship with others. We therefore labeled this factor Leader Relationship
Orientation (LRO). The descriptors loading on Factor 2 are indicative of a
preference for leaders who are supportive and develop others, and this fac-
tor is thus labeled Leader Development Orientation (LDO). Factor 3 includes
descriptors that show a preference for leaders who are approachable, com-
petent, motivate others, and pay attention to nurturing teamwork. We labeled
this factor Leader Work Management Capabilities (LWMC). Descriptors load-
ing on the Factor 4 indicate a preference for leaders who have upright
personal qualities. This factor is thus labeled Leader Integrity (LI). Table 4
shows the factors extracted. The four factors are positively correlated, giving
support to an interpretation that the factors constitute four dimensions of a
Brunei ILT rather than four different types of ILTs (see Table 5).
The items loading on each factor were aggregated, and the mean scores
computed. The score for each ILT dimension was further examined using
312 S. Lim et al.

TABLE 4 Four-Factor Solution of Leadership Descriptors

Factor 1 LRO Factor 2 LDO Factor 3 LWMC Factor 4 LI

Goodhearted (.797) Have communication Committed (.680) Trustworthy (.718)

skills (.730)
Friendly (.756) Effective decision Capable (.669) Unbiased (.654)
maker (.690)
Helpful (.705) Gives encouragement Approachable (.648) Honest (.652)
to others (.623)
Courteous (.620) Respectful to others Integrity (.644) Fair (.634)
(.588)
Humble (.584) Experienced (.587) Visionary (.579) Sincere (.538)
Considerate (.577) Open minded (.577) Motivator (.574) Responsible (.529)
Caring (.575) Good role model (.566) Creative (.511) Transparent (.484)
Patient (.566) Positive thinker (.529) Intelligent (.481) Credible (.431)
Not wasteful (.564) Recognize contribution Accountable (.475) Show interests in
(.520) subordinates
welfare (.425)
Emphatic (.531) Innovator (.517) Charismatic (.441)
Willing to (.530) Disciplined (.514) Teamwork (.407)
compromise
Good character (.479) Knowledgeable (.502) Trusts subordinates
(.398)
Esprit de corps (.469) Effective coach (.488) Focused (.382)
Courageous (.418) Good listener (.483) Firm (.366)
Diligent (.456)
Efficient (.452)
Attentive (.381)
Eigenvalue:
23.17 2.32 2.01 1.71
LRO = Leadership Relationship Orientation; LDO = Leader Development Orientation; LWMC = Leader
Work Management Capabilities; LI = Leader Integrity.
KMO = 9.50, Significance = .000. Figure in parentheses is factor loading.

TABLE 5 Correlation between Brunei ILT factors

M LRO LDO LWMC LI

LRO 6.10 .928

LDO 6.36 .823 (.000) .942
LWMC 6.28 .759 (.000) .817 (.000) .902
LI 6.41 .774 (.000) .760 (.000) .742 (.000) .863
ILT = implicit leadership theory; LRO = Leadership Relationship Orientation; LDO = Leader
Development Orientation; LWMC = Leader Work Management Capabilities; LI = Leader Integrity.
Figure in parentheses is statistical significance level.
Figure on diagonal is Cronbach’s alpha.

t test to determine whether there are differences in these four dimen-

sions between public- and private-sector employees and across gender. The
outcome shows that there are no statistically significant differences between
private- and public-sector employees. However, there were differences in
 Implicit Leadership Theories of Bruneians 313

the ILT score across gender. Female Bruneians attach more importance to
LRO and LDO (see Table 6).
The relationships between the personality variables and the four ILT
dimensions were examined using regression analysis. This was done to
assess whether the different personalities are related with the different ILT
factors. Because gender and sector of employment were found to be associ-
ated with some of the ILT descriptors (in the case of gender, with two of the
leadership factors) they were included as control variables in this analysis.
Table 7 presents these regression equations. Need for growth and need for
structure are statistically significant predictors of LRO. Need for leadership
is close to attaining statistical significance in predicting LRO (β = .114, p =
.056). Of the two control variables, gender was statistically significant in pre-
dicting LRO (β = .130, p = 0.021). Need for structure is a slightly stronger pre-
dictor (β= .172, p = .003) of LRO than need for growth (β= .147, p = .011).
All three personality variables are statistically significant predictors of
LDO, with need for growth being the strongest predictor (β = .273, p =
.000). The control variable gender is also a significant predictor of LDO
(β = .174, p = .001). Only need for growth is a personality variable that

TABLE 6 Mean Scores for ILT Dimensions across Gender

ILT Dimensions Gender M SD Significance

LRO Male 6.009a .771 .032

Female 6.183a .621
LDO Male 6.254a .707 .005
Female 6.443a .482
LWMC Male 6.207 .657 .070
Female 6.338 .543
LI Male 6.349 .672 .085
Female 6.463 .494
ILT = implicit leadership theory; LRO = Leadership Relationship Orientation; LDO = Leader
Development Orientation; LWMC = Leader Work Management Capabilities; LI = Leader Integrity.
a
p ≤ 0.05.

TABLE 7 Regression Equation between Personality Traits and Leadership Descriptor Factors

Independent Variables

Dependent Need for Need for Need for

Variables Growth Leadership Structure Sector Gender R2

LRO .147 (.011)a .114 (.056) .172 (.003)a −.009 (.870) .130 (0.021)a .106
LDO .273 (.000)a .120 (.035)a .112 (.047) −.054 (.291) .174 (.001)a .159
LWMC .268 (.000)a .103 (.080) .037 (.523) −.049 (.384) .125 (.025)a .117
LI .238 (.000)a .026 (.655) .140 (.015)a −.066 (.240) .100 (0.070) .103
LRO = Leadership Relationship Orientation; LDO = Leader Development Orientation; LWMC = Leader
Work Management Capabilities; LI = Leader Integrity.
a
p ≤ 0.05.
Figures above are beta coefficients, and figures in parentheses are statistical significance levels.
314 S. Lim et al.

is statistically significant in predicting LWMC. The control variable gender is

also statistically significant predictor of LWMC (β = .125, p = .025). Need for
growth and need for structure are also statistically significant predictors of
LI. Need for growth (β = .238, p = .000) is a stronger predictor of LWMC
than need for structure (β = .140, p = .015). Neither of the control variables
are statistically significant predictors of LI.

DISCUSSION

The findings of this study provide support to the contention that Bruneians
subscribe to a distinct ILT. A comparison of the top 10 Brunei ILT descrip-
tors along with the findings of Phillips and Lord’s (1982) U.S. study suggest
that the ILT held in these two countries have different emphasis. The U.S.
ILT tends to center on what leaders do in managing followers. U.S. follow-
ers appear to expect leaders to provide leadership to the work group. The
Brunei ILT focuses more on the personal character of the leader. Ling et al.
(2000) examined ILT in China, and their factor analysis of the Chinese ILT
descriptors also yielded in four factors. Two of the factors found in their
study, Personal Morality and Interpersonal Competency, are similar to LI and
LRO found in this study. In these two countries, it appears that followers
attach considerable importance to the personal character of the leader.
It is tempting to infer that this may be due to differences in the Asian
versus Western view of leadership. However, the findings on the ILT of
Malaysians (an Asian country and, Gulf Arab and Swedish respondents
(Abdalla & Al-Hamoud, 2001; Holmberg & Akerblom, 2006; Subramaniam
et al., 2010) do not support this contention. These studies use a different
methodology in that descriptors of leader behavior were taken from the
The Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior, Effectiveness Research
Project (House et al., 2004). However, the findings show that four of the six
leadership descriptors in the Malaysian ILT study focus on leader behavior
in managing followers. In this regard, the Malaysian ILT resembles the U.S.
ILT. The Gulf Arab ILT descriptors indicate that followers expect their lead-
ers to focus on driving and managing performance. The Swedish ILT, on the
other hand, is based on a combination of descriptors that include providing
a sense of direction, leader character, and compliance with social norms.
It is also tempting to attribute the importance attached to descriptors such
as “responsible,” “trustworthy,” and “honesty” to Islam. The influence of Islam
in Brunei is pervasive. Brunei’s state’s ideology is MIB, which in English stands
for Malay-Islamic monarchy that highlights the role of Islam in the country.
However, a comparison with the ILT in non-Muslim countries, specifically
China and Sweden, indicates that respondents in these countries also consider
these traits to be important characteristics of effective leaders (Holmberg &
Akerblom, 2006; Ling et al., 2000). As such, it would be unsafe to attribute the
importance of these traits amongst Bruneians as being due to Islam.
 Implicit Leadership Theories of Bruneians 315

The comparison between the ILT held by public and private sector
respondents in Table 3 indicates that public-sector employees are associ-
ated with ILT descriptors that center on the personal character of the leader.
This can be seen in the higher mean scores for the descriptors honest and
knowledgeable. The higher mean score for “effective decision making” indi-
cates the expectation that leaders need to be decisive. For private-sector
employees, the descriptors emphatic, motivator, and esprit de corp are all
indicative of a preference for leaders who possess good soft skills and are
able to cultivate high-quality relationship with their followers. This finding
suggests that public- and private-sector Bruneians develop different expec-
tations of the role of their leader as a result of their different socialization
experiences. The typical private-sector organization is more performance ori-
ented. This finding indicates that Bruneians who are employed in the private
sector understand this norm but at the same time expect their leader to be
supportive of them.
The difference between public- and private-sector employees also sug-
gests that the ILT held by individuals continue to evolve throughout their
adult life. The workplace provides an important socialization experience that
shapes the perception of ideal leader attributes. Future studies should con-
sider the duration of work experience in a sector of employment, instead of
just sector of employment, as a predictor of the ILT individuals develop.
The mean scores shown in Table 5 suggest the possibility that the ILT
factors exist in a hierarchy. Bruneians expect their leader to demonstrate
integrity (LI, M = 6.41), followed by the expectation that leaders develop
their followers (LDO, M = 6.36), and then followed by the expectation that
leaders manage work effectively (LWMC, M = 6.28) and finally that lead-
ers demonstrate good relationship skills (LRO, M = 6.10). Seen from the
point of view of subordinates, these four factors constitute traits (LI) and
competencies (LDO, LWMC, and LRO) needed to lead effectively in Brunei.
The implication from this finding is important. It indicates that Bruneians
attach a lot of importance to assessing their leaders’ personal integrity in
determining whether to accept their leader’s influence attempt. Perception
of a leader’s personal integrity shapes followers’ perception of the legiti-
macy of their influence attempt. Leaders who are perceived to lack personal
integrity may have difficulty winning over commitment from followers. They
may be able to use their position power to get compliance from their follow-
ers but would have considerable difficulty developing quality relationship
with their followers. Various research evidence shows that leader–member
relationship quality is important in affecting performance and motivational
level (Ashkanasy & O’Connor, 1997; Epitropaki & Martin, 2005; Wat & Shaffer,
2005).
However, being a person of integrity alone is merely a necessary but not
sufficient condition to lead effectively. Bruneians also expect their leaders to
dedicate their effort to developing their followers by being a good commu-
nicator, behave as a good role model, being respectful toward others, being
316 S. Lim et al.

open minded, provide encouragement, and coaching (LDO). In addition to

this, Bruneians also expect leaders to manage work effectively by being deci-
sive, creative, being capable motivating, provide vision, and foster teamwork
(LWMC). And finally, Bruneians expect their leaders to possess interper-
sonal relationship skills (LRO). Among other things, they are expected to
be helpful, courteous, humble, good hearted, and considerate.
A possible implication from the findings of this study is in trust
development. Researchers recognize that trust is an important element in
building high-quality leader–member relationship (Clark & Payne, 2006).
Trust enhances the willingness of individuals to engage in collaborative and
helping behavior (Poon, 2006). Chatterjee and Pearson (2002) and Clark and
Payne (2006) pointed out that followers gauge the extent of trust they should
give to their leader by assessing the leader’s integrity, competence, and open-
ness. The trust that forms between followers and the leader can be based
on experience and expertise or honesty, openness, and concern (Terwell,
Harrinck, Ellenes, & Daanen, 2009). The former is shaped by the leader’s
capabilities and is termed competence-based trust and the latter is shaped
by the leader’s personal character and is termed integrity-based trust. The
importance attached to LI by Bruneians suggests that Bruneians consider
integrity-based trust as the most important foundation of their relationship
with their leaders.
It is not clear, however, whether integrity-based trust precedes and is a
prerequisite to the development of competency-based trust. The LRO, LDO,
and LWMC are related to characteristics tied to benevolence and work com-
petencies. It will be interesting to determine whether competence-based trust
is developed after the formation of integrity-based trust. However, the cross
sectional nature of the data of this study does not permit a more unequivocal
conclusion on this issue.
The three personality variables examined in this study attach different
levels of importance to these four leadership factors. Followers with high
need for growth expect their leaders to exhibit all four forms of leader-
ship behavior. Followers with high need for leadership expect their leaders
to behave in ways that nurture and develop those under their supervision.
Individuals with high need for structure expect their leaders to exhibit LRO,
LDO, and LI. It is a surprise that high need for structure is not related to
LWMC. Given their desire for more certainty, we expect that individuals with
high need for structure to desire leader behavior that provides more struc-
ture at work. However, the evidence here does not support this view. The
relationship between control variable gender and three of the four leadership
factors indicates that female Bruneians expect their leader to be good at
managing relationships, developing others, and demonstrating that they are
committed and capable at managing work.
The difference between male and female respondents found in this
study is in line with Paris’s (2004) finding on the differences in the lead-
ership qualities desired by men and women. As mentioned earlier, her study
 Implicit Leadership Theories of Bruneians 317

found female respondents attaching more importance to participative lead-

ership. Even though the Brunei data does not indicate a stronger preference
for a more participative leadership style among female respondents, it does
show that they attach considerably more importance to a more benevolent
leadership style than male respondents. This suggests that effective leader-
ship of female Bruneians require a slightly different approach than leading
male Bruneians.
By incorporating personality variables as predictors of ILT, this study
offers a more in- depth explanation of the variations in ILT within a coun-
try. For practitioners, this understanding helps them avoid simple national
stereotypes of the appropriate leadership behavior. Although there are some
dominant characteristics of the ILT held within a country, it also important
for leaders to be flexible and adapt their leadership behavior to their follow-
ers’ personalities. Predeparture training for expatriates will also benefit from
this finding by providing a more nuanced understanding of the complexities
of leading in Brunei.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study indicate that Bruneians subscribe to a distinct ILT.
The evidence also shows that personality and gender predicts variation in the
ILT of Bruneians. Our examination of the relationship between personality
variables and ILT shows that there are differences in the leadership attributes
desired by different personalities. This finding adds to our understanding of
ILT formation. Different personalities develop different expectations of the
ideal leader attributes. It indicates that in addition to nationality, personality
provides a more fine-grained explanation of ILT. This is an issue that has
not been addressed in past ILT studies and warrants further investigation in
future studies.
Future studies should consider using longitudinal data to examine ILT
formation. This will help us understand deeper how socialization in the work
place shapes ILT. This is necessary given that we found private- and public-
sector employees are associated with distinct ILTs. This examination will help
us identify the levers that shape and reshape ILT in the workplace. This will
have important implications in managing leader–member relationship and in
change management.

REFERENCES

Abdalla, I. A., & Al-Homoud, M. A. (2001). Exploring the implicit leadership theory
in the Arabian Gulf States. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50(4),
506–531.
Ashkanasy, N. M., & O’Connor, C. (1997). Value congruence in leader-member
exchange. Journal of Social Psychology, 137, 647–662.
318 S. Lim et al.

Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1969). Attitudes and attraction. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 35–89). New York, NY:
Academic Press.
Brunei Economic Development Board. (2010). Economic overview. Retrieved from
http://www.bedb.com.bn/why_ecoverview.html.
Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Chan, C. C., & Pearson, C. A. L. (2002). Comparison of managerial work goals among
Bruneian, Malaysian and Singaporean managers. Journal of Management
Development, 27(1), 545–556.
Chatterjee, S. R., & Pearson, C. A. L. (2002). Trust and managerial transition: evidence
from there small Asian economies. Cross Cultural Management, 9(4), 19–28.
Clark, M. C., & Payne, R. L. (2006). Character-based determinants of trust in leaders.
Risk Analysis, 26(5), 1161–1173.
Department of Statistics, Department of Economic Planning and Development.
(2010). Brunei Darussalam statistical year book 2010. Brunei Darussalam:
Bandar Seri Begawan.
De Vries, R. E., Roe, R. A., & Taillieu, T. C. B. (2002). Need for leadership as a
moderator of the relationships between leadership and individual outcomes.
The Leadership Quarterly, 13(2), 121–137.
Elovainio, M., & Kivimaki, M. (2001). The effects of personal needs for structure and
occupational identity in the role stress process. The Journal of Social Psychology,
141, 365–378.
Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2004). Implicit leadership theories in applied set-
tings: 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, 659–676.
Felfe, J., & Petersen, L. (2007). Romance of leadership and management deci-
sion making. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16(1),
1–24.
Goh, D. N. (2010, September 3). Are civil servants a major damper on development?
Brunei Times, p. 6.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 159–170.
Holmberg, I., & Akerblom, S. (2006). Modelling leadership-implicit leadership
theories in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 22, 307–329.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture,
Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 societies. Thousand
Oak, CA: Sage.
Keller, T. (1999). Images of the familiar: Individual differences and implicit leadership
theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10(4), 589–607.
Kenney, R. A., Blascovich, J., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). Implicit leadership theo-
ries: prototypes for new leaders. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 14(4),
409–437.
Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange:
an empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management,
24(1), 43–72.
 Implicit Leadership Theories of Bruneians 319

Ling, W., Chia, R. C., & Fang, L. (2000). Chinese implicit leadership theory. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 140, 729–739.
Moskowitz G. B. (1993). Individual differences in social categorization: the influ-
ence of personal need for structure on spontaneous trait inference. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 65(1), 132–142.
Neuberg, S. L., & Newsom, J. T. (1993). Personal need for structure: Individual dif-
ferences in the desire for simple structure. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 65, 113–131.
Offermann, L. R., Kennedy, J. K., & Wirtz, P. W. (1994). Implicit leadership theories:
Content, structure and generalizability. Leadership Quarterly, 5, 43–58.
Paris, L. D. (2004, August). The effects of gender and culture on implicit leader-
ship theories: a cross-cultural study. Academy of Management Best Conference
Paper. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting. New
Orleans, LA.
Phillips, J. S., & Lord, R. G. (1982). Schematic information processing and perceptions
of leadership in problem-solving groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(4),
486–492.
Poon, J. M. L. (2006). Trust-in-supervisor and helping coworkers: moderating effect
of perceived politics. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(6), 518–532.
Roberts, C., & Poh, O. L. (2009). Brunei Darussalam: Cautious on political reform,
comfortable in ASEAN, pushing for economic diversification. In D. Singh (Ed.),
Southeast Asian affairs 2009 (p. 418). Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian
Studies.
Schultz, P. W., & Searleman, A. (1998). Personal need for structure, the Einstellung
task, and the effects of stress. Personality and Individual Differences, 24,
305–310.
Schyns, B., Kroon, B., & Moors, G. (2008). Follower characteristics and the per-
ception of leader-member exchange. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(7),
772–788.
Shalley, C. E., Gilson, L. L., & Blum, T. C. (2009). Interactive effects of growth
need strength, work context, and job complexity on self-reported creative
performance. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 489–505.
Subramaniam, A., Othman, R., & Sambisivan, M. (2010). Implicit leadership the-
ory among Malaysian managers: Impact of the leadership expectation gap on
leader-member exchange quality. Leadership and Organizational Development
Journal, 31(4), 351–371.
Terwell, B. W., Harrinck, F., Ellenes, N., & Daanen, D. (2009). Competence-based
and integrity-based trust as predictors of acceptance of carbon dioxide capture
and storage. Risk Analysis, 28(8), 1129–1140.
Wat, D., & Shaffer, M. A. (2005). Equity and relationship quality influences on
organizational citizenship behaviors. Personnel Review, 33(4), 407–422.
Werth, L., Markel, P., & Forster, J. (2006). The role of subjective theories for lead-
ership evaluation. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
15(1), 102–127.
Wanous, J. P. (1974). Individual differences and reactions to job characteristics.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(5), 616–622
Yunus, R. (2007, May 12). Brunei’s discovery of oil. The Brunei Times, p. 12.
Copyright of Journal of Asia-Pacific Business is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.