See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/339882546

Psychological Hardiness

Chapter · May 2022

DOI: 10.4324/9780367198459-REPRW120-1

CITATIONS READS
4 8,793

3 authors, including:

Jason L Judkins Brian A. Moore

U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine Kennesaw State University
27 PUBLICATIONS   78 CITATIONS    57 PUBLICATIONS   292 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Trends in the Incidence of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Among Active Duty Military Personnel Between 2008 and 2015 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jason L Judkins on 27 June 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

RUNNING HEAD: A LEADER’S SOCIAL IDENTITY FOR GROUP CHANGE

Psychological Hardiness

Jason L. Judkinsa,b, Brian A. Moorea,c Tyler Collettea

a
Department of Psychology, University of Texas at San Antonio, 1 UTSA Circle, San Antonio,
TX 78249, USA
b
United States Army, 187th Medical Battalion, Medical Professional Brigade, 2745 Harney Path

STE 187, Joint Base San Antonio Fort Sam Houston, Texas 78234

c
Department of Psychiatry, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, 7550 IH-

10 West, Suite 1325, San Antonio, TX 78229, USA

*Corresponding author: Jason Judkins, Department of Psychology, University of Texas at San

Antonio, 1 UTSA Circle, San Antonio, TX 78249, USA. Tel: +1 210-685-3987. Fax: +1 210-

562-6710. E-mail: Jason.judkins@utsa.edu

 2

Abstract

Social change is a process by which social groups and societies alter their structure and culture

over time. Leadership, looking through the lens of social identity theory, is an example of a

mechanism for social change where leaders have the ability to positively shift patterns of

behaviors in their followers with increased levels of psychological hardiness. A group takes on

the personality of their leader, therefore a leader who exudes the components of hardiness will

positively influence fellow group members or subordinates to embrace hardiness and lead to a

positive social change. This chapter will explore factors of leadership, and examine how great

leaders’ use of psychological hardiness components can result in social level changes in those

who follow them.

Keywords: leadership, hardiness, positive social change

 3

Psychological Hardiness

The American Sociology Association defines social change as “the process through

which social groups and societies alter their structure and culture over both long and short

timeframes” (American Sociological Association, 2017). Such changes traditionally encompass

macro level elements like war, revolution, significant events such as the civil rights movement,

and aggregate forms of individual differences (Form & Wilterdink, 2019). Psychologists have

long been interested in how individuals can affect change in others due to their social dynamics

and roles. For example, how do great leaders positively shift patterns of behavior in their

followers? What characters of the leader predict positive changes, and can those elements be

learned? The following chapter will explore the role of psychological hardiness in influencing

leadership and examine how leaders that possess high levels of psychological hardiness can

result in social level changes within their subordinates.

1. Psychological Hardiness

Maddi (2006) defines hardiness as, “a cognitive/emotional amalgam constituting a

learned, growth-oriented, personality buffer” (P. 160). It consists of cognitive, emotional, and

behavioral features and describes the capability of individuals to maintain a healthy status during

turbulent times (Bartone, Kelly, & Matthews, 2013).

The theoretical background of hardiness stems from the work of Kobasa and Maddi

(1977), Heidegger (1986), Frankl (1960), and Binswanger (1963) on existential philosophy and

psychology (Bartone et al., 2013). It broadly describes how individuals view themselves and

their surroundings (Bartone et al., 2013). Existential psychology iterates the importance of an

individual’s continuous search for meaning and purpose within an ever-changing and
 4

unpredictable environment (Maddi, 2004). Existentialists believe that courage is required to

accomplish this goal and psychological hardiness has the necessary components to facilitate

courage in individuals.

Individuals with a high level of hardiness tend to perceive life as meaningful and

purposeful, even during tumultuous times. Bartone and colleagues (2013) state that individuals

with high hardiness levels will perceive a stressful situation as interesting and worthwhile, a

chance to exercise control, and an opportunity for growth. Basically, as conceptualized,

hardiness protects individuals from the negative effects of stress within multiple contexts; such

as sports (Maddi & Hess, 1992), military and first responders (Bartone & Snook, 1999; Florian,

Milkulincer, & Taubman, 1995), and college students (Lifton, Seay, & Bushke, 2000; Maddi et

al., 2006). Psychological hardiness consists of the following three attitudes: control,

commitment, and challenge.

Control deals with the belief that an individual can control, manipulate, or influence

events and is rooted within Lefcourt’s (1973) control beliefs and Rotter’s concept of locus of

control (Rotter, Seeman, & Liverant, 1962). A high level of control leads to individuals with a

high level of self-efficacy that they positively influence change within a new situation (Bartone,

2013). Commitment refers to individuals’ belief that they are involved in something desirable. It

is influenced by Antonovsky’s (1974) sense of coherence and White’s (1959) self-awareness and

striving for competence. The primary benefit to developing a hardiness-commitment is the

acquisition of a sense of internal balance and confidence. This enables an individual to develop a

realistic assessment during times of trial (Bartone et al., 2013). In addition, commitment can

influence increased attention and adaptability within dynamic environments, leading to the

generation of creative alternative responses to situations.

 5

Finally, challenge stems from Maddi’s (1967) ‘ideal identity’ and Fiske and Maddi’s

(1961) variety in experience. It encompasses a positive outlook on change and a belief that it is

an exciting opportunity to excel (Skomorovsky & Sudom, 2011). Individuals are motivated to

learn and embrace the challenges of new things. Individuals with a high level of hardiness-

challenge flourish within novel experiences and view them as an opportunity for growth.

Psychological hardiness is not innate and has been proven that it can be learned (Maddi,

2007). Hardiness training has been validated throughout the literature in various populations. The

nursing community has embraced the positive effects of hardiness training. A study by

Henderson (2015) demonstrated that hardiness education of nurses helped prevent burnout and

stress. The training increased hardiness scores as measured by the Personal Views Survey Third

Edition Revised (Maddi et al., 2006) and as hardiness increased, burnout and stress decreased.

Another hardiness training study used the 30-item Cognitive Hardiness Scale and showed similar

effects (Rowe, 1999). The authors employed a 6-week hardiness program designed to curb

burnout in 325 health-care providers. The results revealed lower symptoms of burnout in

individuals that received the training as compared to the control group at two and six months

post-training. Hardiness training has been offered to undergraduates at the University of

California as a quarter course. After completion of the hardiness training, the undergraduates

demonstrated increased levels of hardiness using the HardiSurvey III-R (Maddi & Khoshaba,

2001) and grade point average (Maddi, Harvey, Khoshaba, Fazel, & Resurreccion, 2009).

2. Leadership and Psychological Hardiness

A leader is a person charged with the unique opportunity to have disproportionate

influence, direction, persuasion and inspiration of consensual individuals (Chemers, 2001;

Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan, 1994). Leaders are part of a group and the action of leadership is a
 6

social interaction between the leader and the subordinate group members (Dasborough &

Ashkanasy, 2002). Broadly speaking, there are three main leadership types: transformational,

transactional, and passive-avoidant.

Transformational leadership places an emphasis on subordinate development through

support and high expectations. In addition, transformational leaders utilize intellect, inspiration,

idealism, and consideration for developing subordinates (Johnsen, Jarle, Staale, Bartone, &

Nissestad, 2009). Transformational leaders are observant of their subordinates’ needs and

encourage future progression and achievement (Chen, Bian, & Hou, 2014). The aim is to

transform the subordinate or environment and encourage subordinates to be accepting of changes

that are congruent with the organization’s mission and vision (Nanjundeswaraswamy & Swamy,

2014). This is accomplished by providing subordinates the autonomy to problem solve from their

perspective and in the context of a proper articulation of the vision. This type of leadership has

proven to yield higher levels of group efficacy (Nanjundeswaraswamy & Swamy, 2014).

Conversely, transactional leaders place an emphasis on the contract between the leader

and the subordinate. With this style there comes a reliance on evaluation of performance, as this

dictates the type of response the subordinates receive from the leader. In general, the

transactional leader provides the subordinate with a task and the leader utilizes a positive or

negative reward system to influence subordinate performance during task completion

(Nanjundeswaraswamy & Swamy, 2014). In addition, transactional leaders may place greater

constraints on their subordinates and reduce perceived opportunities for creativity (Wei, Yuan, &

Di, 2010).

The final leadership style, passive-avoidant or laissez-faire, is described by Bass and

Avolio (1990) as, the leader “generally has neither transactions nor agreements with followers.
 7

Decisions are often delayed; feedback, rewards, and involvement are absent; and there is no

attempt to motivate followers or to recognize and satisfy their needs” (p. 20). Usually, laissez-

faire leaders lack presence or use a passive and avoidant style. This may contribute to meeting

the needs of their subordinates (Skogstad, Einarsen, Torsheim, Aasland, & Hetland, 2007).

Several studies have assessed the relation between elements of psychological hardiness

and leadership within a military environment. Johnsen et al., (2009) used the Dispositional

Resilience Scale-15-R and examined whether personality hardiness predicted peer ratings of

leadership styles within Norwegian Naval cadets. The authors determined that hardy-

commitment was a predictor of all leadership styles and hardy-challenge positively predicted

transformational and transactional leadership, and negatively predicted passive-avoidant.

Finally, Eid, Johnsen, Bartone, and Nissestad (2007) evaluated the change in

transformational leadership within 66 Norwegian Navy cadets after completing a stressful

military exercise. The authors were interested in whether psychological hardiness facilitated a

change in leadership style. They reported that hardiness was a predictor of transformational and

transactional leadership right after the exercise and the effect lasted for at least six months after.

In addition, hardiness played a role in decreasing laissez-faire style after the military exercise.

3. Psychological Hardiness, Social Identity, and Leadership

Psychological hardiness influences positive change in performance within various roles,

including leadership. The mechanism behind this change can be better understood by

incorporating the social identity theory of leadership. A main tenet of social identity theory of

leadership is that effective leaders are required to understand that they are perceived by their

subordinates as prototypical members of the group and the leaders’ self-perception or identity
 8

molds their beliefs, feelings, behaviors, and attitudes towards their group (Hogg, van

Knippenber, & Rast III, 2012; Leary & Tangney, 2003). A firm understanding of self-perception

or identity is important as it provides leaders with the ability to define and manage the identity of

a group and influence subordinates’ attitudes and behaviors (Balmer, 2008). This joint

involvement is a shared identity between leaders and subordinates, such that all members of the

group share the group’s identity and allow the leader to become the primary voice of that group

(Reicher, Haslam, & Hopkins, 2005). Thus, the leader is an active component for facilitating

change within the social functioning from an internal and external perspective.

Bartone (2006) provided a psychological hardiness framework that incorporates

components of the social identity theory of leadership and illustrates the aspects of psychological

hardiness for influencing positive leadership and social change within a group. He stated that

leaders with high levels of hardiness can positively alter the perceptions of their subordinates and

influence a greater usage of hardiness principles during stressful experiences. For example,

cohesion within a military unit provides an example of how leaders can influence social change

within a group. Within the military, a unit is a group of individuals within the same organization

that are given a prescribed role to achieve a certain mission and there are leaders at various levels

responsible for successful completion of tasks. These leaders are assigned to units by a source

external to the unit and yield the authority or capability to empower and embrace their

subordinates. It is important for military leaders to take an active role in obtaining or managing

the perception of being a prototypical member of the unit. Military leaders have the ability to

define what the unit stands for through the mission and vision statement. The social atmosphere

of a unit takes on the personality of their leader. So, in order for subordinates to perceive their

leader as having a high level of hardiness, the leader needs to interact, demonstrate to
 9

subordinates that they are committed to them and their future development, and properly

communicate that challenges are necessary, manageable, and beneficial.

Commitment is important because it is related to performance for subordinates.

Perception of a high level of commitment in a leader facilitates higher levels of performance by

subordinates. Examples of increased performance include fewer instances of tardiness, less

subordinate turnover, and higher reported satisfaction in social relationships.

Control also plays a role for leaders making social changes within groups. Leaders can

use control to manage their subordinates’ perceptions and manipulate the level of cohesion

within the group through direct interactions and involvement in subordinate development. This

can be achieved by the leader providing autonomy for subordinates and provide them with a

sense of control over their mission.

The final component of hardiness, challenge, can be utilized to facilitate group social

change. Leaders need to understand that challenges are necessary to facilitate change within the

group. Leaders who understand this tend to communicate to subordinates that challenges are

positive opportunities to succeed and encourage subordinates to take on challenges. This can lead

to a changed mindset within subordinates that includes increased motivation to take on

challenging tasks and a greater production due to increased ambition.

In summary, a group takes on the personality of their leader; therefore a leader who

embraces and communicates the components of hardiness will positively influence fellow group

members or subordinates to embrace hardiness and lead to a positive social change.

 10

References

American Sociological Association (2019, August 29). Social change. Retrieved from

https://www.asanet.org/topics/social-change

Antonovsky, A. (1974). Conceptual and methodological problems in the study of resistance

resources and stressful life events. In B.S. Dohrenwend & B.P. Dohrenwend (Eds.),

Stressful life events: Their nature and effects (pp. 245-258). New York: Wiley.

Balmer, J. M. T. (2008). Identity based views of the corporation: Insights from corporate

identity, organisational identity, social identity, visual identity, corporate brand identity

and corporate image. European Journal of Marketing 42, 879–906.

doi:10.1108/03090560810891055

Bartone, P.T. (2006). Resilience under military operational stress: Can leaders influence

hardiness? Military Psychology, 18, 131-148. doi: 10.1207/s15327876mp1803s_10

Bartone, P.T., Kelly, D.R., & Matthews, M.D. (2013). Psychological hardiness predicts

adaptability in military leaders: A prospective study. International Journal of Selection

and Assessment, 21, 200-210. doi:10.1111/ijsa.12029

Bartone, P.T., & Snook, S.A. (1999). Cognitive and personality factors predict leader

development in US Army cadets. Paper presented at 35th International Applied Military

Psychology Symposium, May, Florence, Italy

Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J. (1990). Developing transformational leadership: 1992 and beyond.

Journal of European Industrial Training, 14, 21-27.

https://doi.org/10.1108/03090599010135122
 11

Binswanger, L. (1963). Being in the world: Selected papers of Ludwig Binswanger. New York:

Basic Books.

Chemer, M.M. (2001). Leadership effectiveness: An integrative review. In M. Hogg & S.

Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes (pp. 379-

399). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Chen, A.S., Bian, M., & Hou, Y. (2014). Impact of transformational leadership on subordinate’s

EI and work performance. Personnel Review, 44, 438-453. doi:10.1108?PR-09-2012-

0154

Dasborough, M.T. & Ashkanasy, N.M. (2002). Emotion and attribution of intentionality in

leader-member relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 615-634.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00147-9

Eid, J., Johnsen, H., Bartone, & Nissestad, O.A. (2007). Growing transformational leaders:

Exploring the role of personality hardiness. Leadership and Organization Development

Journal, 29, 4-23. doi:10.1108/01437730810845270

Fiske, D.W. & Maddi, S.R. (Eds.). (1961). Functions of varied experience. Homewood, IL:

Dorsey Press.

Florian, V., Milkulincer, M., & Taubman, O. (1995). Does hardiness contribute to mental health

during a stressful real life situation? The roles of appraisal and coping. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 68(4), 687–695.

Form, W. & Wilterdink, N. (2017). Social change. In the Encyclopedia Britannica. Chicago, IL:

Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. Retrieved on August 29, 2019 from

https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-change
 12

Frankl, V. (1960). The doctor and the soul. New York: Knopf.

Haslam, A., Reicher, S. D. & Platow, M. J. (2011). The new psychology of leadership: Identity,

influence and power. New York: Psychology Press

Heidegger, M. (1986). Being and time. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.

Henderson, J. (2015). The effect of hardiness education on hardiness and burnout on registered

nurses. Nursing Economics, 33(4), 204-209.

Hogan, R., Curphy, G.J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership: Effectiveness and

personality. American Psychologist, 49, 493-504. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.49.6.493

Hogg, M.A., van Knippenberg, D., & Rast III, D.E. (2012). The social identity theory of

leadership: Theoretical origins, research findings, and conceptual developments.

European Review of Social Psychology, 23, 258-304. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2012.741134

Johnsen, B.H., Eid, J., Pallesen, S., Bartone, P.T., & Nissestad, O.A. (2009). Predicting

transformational leadership in Naval cadets: Effects of personality hardiness and training.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39, 2213-2235. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00522.x

Kobasa, S.C. & Maddi, S.R. (1977). Existential personality theory. In R. Corsini (Ed.), Current

personality theories (p. 82-98). Itasca, IL: Peacock.

Leary, M. R., & Tangney, J. P. (2003). Handbook of self and identity. New York7 The Guilford

Press.
 13

Lefcourt, H.M. (1973). The function of the illusions of control and freedom. American

Psychologist, 28, 417-425. doi:10.1037/h0034639

Lifton, D.E., Seay, S., & Bushke, A. (2000). Can student ‘hardiness’ serve as an indicator of

likely persistence to graduation? Baseline results from a longitudinal study. Academic

Exchange Quarterly(2), 73–81.

Maddi, S. (1967). The existential neurosis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 72, 311-325.

Maddi, S.R. (2004). Hardiness: An operationalization of existential courage. Journal of

Humanistic Psychology, 44, 279-298. doi:10.1177/0022167804266101

Maddi, S.R. (2006). Hardiness: The courage to grow from stresses. The Journal of Positive

Psychology, 1, 160-168. doi:10.1080/17439760600619609

Maddi, S.R. (2007). Relevance of hardiness assessment and training to the military context.

Military Psychology, 19, 61-70. doi:10.1080/08995600701323301

Maddi, S.R., Harvey, R.H., Khoshaba, D.M., Fazel, M., & Resurreccion, N. (2009). Hardiness

training facilitates performance in college. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4, 566-

577. doi:10.1080/17439760903157133

Maddi, S.R., Harvey, R.H., Khoshaba, D.M., Lu, J.L., Persico, M., & Brow, M. (2006). The

personality construct of hardiness, III: Relationships with repression, innovativeness,

authoritarianism, and performance. Journal of Personality, 74(2), 575-597.

Maddi, S.R., & Hess, M. (1992). Personality hardiness and success in basketball. International

Journal of Sports Psychology, 23(4), 360–368.

Maddi, S.R., & Khoshaba, D.M. (2001). HardiSurvey III-R: Test development and internet

instruction manual. Irvine, CA: Hardiness Institute

 14

Nanjundeswaraswamy, T.S. & Swamy, D.R. (2014). Leadership styles. Advances in

Management, 7(2), 57-62.

Reicher, S. D., Haslam, S. A., & Hopkins, N. (2005). Social identity and the dynamics of

leadership: Leaders and followers as collaborative agents in the transformation of social

reality. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 547–568. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.06.007

Rotter, J.B., Seeman, M., & Liverant, S. (1962). Internal vs. external locus of control of

reinforcement: A major variable in behavior theory. In NF. Washburne (Ed.), Decisions,

values and groups (pp. 473-516). London: Pergamon Press.

Rowe, M.M. (1999). Teaching health-care providers coping: Results of a two-year study.

Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 22, 511-527. doi:10.1023/A:1018661508593

Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S., Torsheim, T., Aasland, M.S., & Hetland, H. (2007). The

destructiveness of laissez-faire leadership behavior. Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology, 12, 80-92. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.12.1.80

Skomorovsky, A. & Sudom, K.A. (2011). Psychological well-being of Canadian forces officer

candidates: The unique roles of hardiness and personality. Military Medicine, 176, 389-

396. doi:10.7205/MILMED-D-10-00359

Wei, F., Yuan, X., & Di, Y. (2010). Effects of transactional leadership, psychological

empowerment and empowerment climate on creative performance of subordinates: A

cross-level study. Frontiers of Business Research in China, 4, 29-46. doi:

10.1007/s11782-010-0002-6

View publication stats