• No results found

THE MODERATING ROLE OF LEADERS’ EXTRAVERSION IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEADERS’ AGE AND CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "THE MODERATING ROLE OF LEADERS’ EXTRAVERSION IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEADERS’ AGE AND CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP"

Copied!
24
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

THE MODERATING ROLE OF LEADERS’

EXTRAVERSION IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

LEADERS’ AGE AND CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP

Master thesis, MscBA, specialization Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business

(2)

ABSTRACT

The expected life span of humans has increased, which leads to an older workforce and older leaders in management positions. Despite these developments, little attention in the literature has been paid to the relationship between leaders’ age and behavior. The present study addresses this issue by examining the relationship between leaders’ age and charismatic leadership. It is hypothesized that leaders’ extraversion will act as a key moderator, buffering the negative relationship between leaders’ age and charismatic leadership behavior. Data are obtained from 31 leaders and their subordinates from different Dutch organizations. Contrary to the predictions, the results suggest neither the relationship between leaders’ age and charismatic leadership behavior, nor the moderating role of leaders’ extraversion. In conclusion, several directions of future research on the role of leaders’ age are outlined.

(3)

INTRODUCTION

Over the last few decades, the expected life span of humans has increased markedly. Humans are living longer, and the expected life span has reached more than eighty years in most industrialized countries (Burger, Baudisch & Vaupel, 2012). Consequently, the number of older people in the workforce has increased (Fraser, McKenna, Turpin, Allen & Liddle, 2009). Not only employees, but also leaders in organizations are becoming older. As stated by Walter and Scheibe (2013: 2), “Theorists propose age-related changes in the behaviors and outcomes of leaders”. Notwithstanding, there has been little research on leadership that takes the age of leaders into account, and the conclusions of these studies are rather inconsistent (Walter & Scheibe, 2013).

In this thesis, I will therefore examine the relationship between leaders’ age and charismatic leadership. Charismatic leadership has received much attention in the leadership literature (van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013). A charismatic leader is able to transform the needs, values, and preferences of followers from self-interests to collective interests (Shamir, House & Arthur, 1993). In addition, a charismatic leader wants followers to become committed to the mission of the leader, makes personal sacrifices in the interest of the mission, and performs above and beyond the call of duty (Shamir et al., 1993). Most important behaviors of charismatic leaders are advocating a novel and appealing vision, inspiring followers by emotional appeals to values, acting in unconventional ways, making self-sacrifices, and being confident and optimistic (Yukl, 2013).

Among the few empirical studies examining the age-charismatic leadership linkage, some researchers have concluded that the core dimensions of charismatic leadership occur more frequently among younger leaders (Oshagbemi, 2004). In contrast, other researchers have found that charismatic leadership behavior is mostly performed by older, rather than by younger leaders (Barburo, Fritz, Matkin & Marx, 2007). Hence, the relationship between leaders’ age and charismatic leadership needs to be further investigated, because the research on this topic is limited and inconsistent. At the same time, it is clear that leaders’ age is an important factor in charismatic leadership. Kakabadse, Kakabadse & Myers (1998) conclude, for example, that the attitudes of younger and older leaders differ and can lead to different leadership behaviors between younger and older leaders. Therefore, we need to know more about how leaders’ age influences such leadership behaviors.

(4)

(2011) suggest that leaders’ age and charismatic leadership behaviors are not related per se, but this relationship may be moderated by third variables (Zacher et al., 2011). This work concludes, for example, that “[…] leadership success declines with increasing age unless leaders become more generative with age.” (Zacher et al., 2011: 241). ‘Generative’ here means that leaders are less focused on their own gains and careers, while focusing more on guiding members of the younger generation (Zacher et al., 2011).

I will use Socio-Emotional Selectivity Theory (SST) to better explain the relationship between leaders’ age and charismatic leadership and to uncover key moderators in this regard. SST is commonly defined as “a life-span theory of motivation that maintains that as time passes and individuals approach endings, activities that are devoid of meaning are less interesting and desirable” (Ernsner-Hersfield, Mikels, Sullivan & Carstensen, 2008: 158). Three different mechanisms of SST will be used to explain the relationship between leaders’ age and charismatic leadership and highlight the potential role of moderating factors. In particular, SST suggests that older individuals (1) prefer to express more low-arousal positive emotions; (2) care more about harmony and social relationships; (3) take less risk than younger individuals (Carstensen, Isaacowits & Charles, 1999; Ernsner-Hersfield et al., 2008;Kabacoff, 2002). As will be outlined in the theory section, all of these mechanisms may negatively associate with charismatic leadership.

Moreover, based on SST, I suggest extraversion will be an important moderator in the age-charismatic leadership linkage. Several authors have positively linked extraversion with transformational and charismatic leadership (Bono & Judge, 2004; De Vries, 2012; Felfe & Schyns, 2006; Grant, Gino & Hofmann, 2011). Extraversion can be defined as the personality tendency to be outgoing, assertive, talkative, and excitement-seeking (Bono & Judge, 2004). However, despite these consistent results, no empirical evidence thus far has been obtained on how extraversion may influence charismatic leadership at different ages. Extraversion might influence the relationship between leaders’ age and charismatic leadership by shaping the described mechanisms of SST. In the theory section, I will argue that the main characteristics of extraversion enable a person to express more high-arousal positive emotions, to be more self-confident, and to take more risks, which, in turn, may lead to a more charismatic leadership even among older leaders.

(5)

and, therefore, can enhance our understanding of the relationship between leaders’ age and charismatic leadership. Second, research on leaders’ age and leadership is still limited. Some researchers addressed this topic. For example, Walter and Scheibe (2013) show that older individuals will increasingly occupy leadership positions at various hierarchical levels and that there can be age-related changes in the leaders’ behavior and outcomes. It appears that age is important in the leadership literature and influences the composition of workforce. In this context, it is theoretically interesting to research this topic in order to extend the literature.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Relationship between leaders’ age and charismatic leadership

SST argues that the perception of time plays an important role in the selection of social goals (Carstensen et al., 1999). The theory suggests that older and younger individuals have a different perception of the time left in their life. “Older individuals relative to their younger counterparts describe their futures as limited and recognize that they do not have ‘all the time in the world’ left to pursue their goals.” (Carstensen et al., 1999: 168). Therefore, it becomes important for older individuals to make the right choices, focus on social goals, and not to waste their time on distal future (rather than on more immediate) payoffs (Carstensen et al., 1999). Social goals that become increasingly relevant for older individuals include, for example, the desire to find meaning in life, gain emotional intimacy and the feeling of social embeddedness (Carstensen et al., 1999). In general, due to their limited future time perspective, older individuals focus more on the current situation, prioritize non-work activities, and think more about retirement plans (Zacher & Bal, in press). Furthermore, this limited future time perspective leads to three key psychological mechanisms.

(6)

feelings of excitement, enthusiasm, and elatedness (Scheibe et al., 2013). Display of high-arousal positive states makes it more likely that individuals will be action-driven and able to energize their followers, which are important charismatic behaviors (Damen et al., 2008). Since older individuals emphasize more low-arousal rather than high-arousal positive states, it is reasonable to expect that leaders may be perceived as acting less charismatically when they are getting older.

Second, SST theory suggest that “[…] older individuals often decide to accept their relationship as it is, to appreciate what is good, and ignore what is troubling, rather than seek new solutions to problems.” (Carstensen et al., 1999: 167). Thus, older individuals care about harmony and social relationships. Consequently, these individuals care more about the relationships than the tasks needed to be done. They avoid conflicts, making unpopular decisions, give rewards to gain approval, and show favoritism to personal friends (Yukl, 2013). For a charismatic leader, however, it is important to act in unconventional ways. As Yukl (2013: 301) phrases it, “The actions of the leader for attaining the idealized goal must differ from conventional ways of doing things in order to impress followers that the leader is extraordinary.” Charismatic leaders also communicate high performance expectations (Waldman, Ramirez, House & Puraman, 2001). Exhibiting such behaviors may be difficult for individuals who strongly care about harmony and relationships, as there is a risk of being disliked by others if individuals act in unconventional ways and (explicitly or implicitly) communicate that current performance levels are not satisfactory yet. As older individuals care more about harmony and social relationships, Ithus expect that it is less likely that older leaders will act in unconventional ways and communicate high performance expectations, thereby reducing their charismatic appeal.

Third, Kabacoff (2002) concludes that older leaders are less willing to take risks and consider new approaches. At the same time, Yukl (2013) argues that leaders are more likely to be viewed as charismatic if they take personal risks: “Most impressive is a leader who actually risks substantial loss in terms of status, money, leadership position, or membership in the organization” (Ibid.: 302). Because older individuals are less like to take risks, it is less likely that these individuals are viewed as charismatic. Thus, if older leaders are less willing to take risks, then this might negatively influence charismatic leadership.

(7)

Relationship between leaders’ extraversion and charismatic leadership

Building on a meta-analysis, Bono and Judge (2004) conclude that extraversion is the strongest personality predictor of charismatic leadership (Bono & Judge, 2004). The tendency to behave in ways that attract social attention seems to be the core of extraversion (Grant et al., 2011). Extraverted individuals seek out status and are assertive, interpersonally dominant, talkative, and outgoing (Grant et al., 2011). Some organizational scholars concluded that these qualities are essential for charismatic leadership (Grant et al., 2011).

Other characteristics of extraversion could also be linked with charismatic leadership. Extraverted individuals express positive emotions, project optimism, and enthusiasm (Bono & Judge, 2004). Extraverted individuals are also energetic, cheerful, and seek stimulation (McCrae & Costa, 1991). Being optimistic, enthusiastic, and confident are among the most important behaviors of charismatic leadership (Yukl, 2013); therefore, leaders’ extraversion can be a determinant of charismatic leadership.

In addition, Keller (1999) argues that, while extraverts are more likely to be talkative, assertive, and active, extraversion is a necessary element of charisma. The following characteristics are necessary to perform important behaviors of charismatic leadership: inspiring and involving followers, and being flexible and decisive (Keller, 1999). Therefore, extraverts are more inclined to perform charismatic leadership behaviors (Keller, 1999). This can be supported, for example, by Rubin, Munz and Bommer (2005) who have found that extraverted individuals are more likely to exhibit charismatic leadership. Based on these arguments and findings, I propose:

Hypothesis 2: Leaders’ extraversion is positively related to charismatic leadership.

Moderating role of extraversion

(8)

Judge, 2004). Thus, if older leaders are more extraverted rather than introverted, then it can be expected that they will display more high-arousal positive states, which, in turn, may enable them to exhibit more charismatic behaviors.

Second, as SST suggests that older individuals care more about harmony and social relationships, it is reasonable to expect older leaders to be less charismatic. Leaders’ extraversion, however, might make the relationship between leaders’ age and charismatic leadership less negative, by making them more self-confident, and, as a result, less sensitive to the risk of being disliked. The characteristics of extraversion, such as assertiveness, being outgoing, dominant, positive, and energetic, make a leader more self-confident (Papp, 2009). Being self-confident may help a leader to compromise less, as confident individuals are more certain of their decisions, more attracted to risk-taking, and this, in turn, will make it easier for them to be decisive and independent of others (Chuang, Cheng, Chang, Chiang, 2013). Antonioni (1998) concludes, for example, that extraverted individuals may have a propensity to use a dominating style in most conflict situations. Dominant individuals are competitive, assertive, authoritative, and use their strong social skills to exhibit power over others (Kruger & Fitzgerald, 2011). Hence, if extraverts are facing situations of conflict, they are less likely to use avoiding conflict styles (Antonioni, 1998). Assertiveness is needed when individuals need to stand up for their needs (Antonioni, 1998). These characteristics of extraverts show that extraverts are not only focused on making sure that there will be harmony, but also want to make sure that they have something to say and are not afraid of doing so. So, if older leaders are more extraverted than introverted, then it can be expected that it will make them more self-confident, dominant, and less likely to compromise and care only about social relationships, which can lead to less reduction in charismatic behavior.

Third, SST suggests that older individuals are less likely to take risks, which makes them less able to perform in a charismatic leadership style. Characteristics of extraversion can make individuals more self-confident, however, potentially ameliorating this tendency (Papp, 2009). For example, individuals who are more self-confident have been shown to be more attracted to risk-taking (Chuang et al., 2013; Li & Liu, 2008). Thus, if older leaders are more extraverted than introverted, it can be expected that they will take more risks, which, in turn, can lead to more charismatic behavior.

(9)

& Costa, 1991). These characteristics make it less likely for an older introverted leader to display high-arousal positive states, while individuals need to be enthusiastic, excited, and elated to display that state. Also, it will be difficult for older introverted leaders to be dominant, for example. Dominant individuals are competitive, assertive, authoritative, and use their strong social skills to exhibit power over others (Kruger & Fitzgerald, 2011). Introvert individuals are less likely to compromise (Antonioni, 1998). In a compromise, both parties give up something in order to maintain the established relationship (Antonioni, 1998). Introverted individuals will also take less risk than extraverted individuals (Antonioni, 1998). Introversion, therefore, cannot compensate the declining factors of charismatic leadership, when leaders get older.

In sum, when leaders are getting older, it is possible that some important factors for charismatic leadership decrease. In this case, it can be argued that older leaders would become less charismatic. However, the moderating effect of leaders’ extraversion can make the relationship less negative, as extraversion positively influences the declining factors, which, in turn, leads to a more charismatic leadership (see Figure 1).

Hypothesis 3: Leaders’ extraversion moderates the relationship between leaders’ age and

charismatic leadership. If leaders’ extraversion is higher, leaders’ age is less negatively related to charismatic leadership than if leaders’ extraversion is lower.

*** Figure 1. Conceptual Model ***

METHODOLOGY Participants

(10)

organization was 12.76 years. The average time the leaders were working in their current function was 9.6 years.

Fifty-five percent of the 31 followers in the sample were male and 45 % were female. The average age of the followers was 30.07 years, with the range from 18 to 58 years. 3.1% of the respondents did not report their age. The educational level of the followers ranged from high school to university graduates. The most frequently reported educational level was higher vocational education (38.7%). The average time followers worked in the organization was 7.5 years. The leader-follow tenure was on average 5.5 years.

Procedure

The first step in collecting data was contacting 40 leaders of 40 different Dutch organizations and asking if they and their followers were willing to participate in a study on the effects of leadership in teams. Thereafter, the surveys were sent by email or by regular mail to the 32 leaders and 32 followers who volunteered to participate in the study. In order to give a proper evaluation of the leaders, they and their followers needed to work at least one month with each other. It was important that the leaders and followers did not see the surveys of each other. Therefore, the leaders’ survey was only sent to the different leaders and the followers’ survey was only sent to the followers. On completion of the survey, the respondents were asked to return the survey by email or by post, without others being able to see or receive the survey.

Measures

Leaders’ extraversion. Leaders’ extraversion was measured by using leaders’ ratings on 10 items from the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) developed by Goldberg in 1999. This instrument was chosen because it is a common measure that has been frequently used (Mlacic & Goldberg, 2007). Two examples IPIP items are: ‘I feel comfortable around people’ and ‘I start conversations’. The items were answered on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (very inaccurate) to 5 (very accurate). All the items were translated into Dutch, because only Dutch individuals participated in the study. Cronbach’s Alpha of the item ratings was.73.

(11)

appropriate model, fostering the acceptance of group goals, and high performance expectations (Podsakoff et al., 1996). Fifteen items had to be answered on a five-point scale ranging from 1(totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree). Two examples are: ‘My leader is able to get others committed his/her dream of the future’ and ‘My leader shows us that he/she expects a lot from us’. The questions were translated into Dutch. Cronbach’s Alpha was.89.

Leaders’ age. In order to measure leaders’ age, every leader was asked to report his or her (in years) in the end of the survey.

Control variables. I considered other Big-Five Personality traits as control variables. The leaders needed to answer other forty items of the IPIP instrument to capture these traits. The items were answered on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (very inaccurate) to 5 (very accurate). Conbrach’s Alphas were .73 (Intellect), .76 (Agreeableness), .65 (Conscientiousness), and .85 (Emotional Stability). Leaders’ gender was also used as a control variable. Leaders reported their gender (1= male, 2= female). Gender was controlled for because previous research has shown that gender can influence the degree of charismatic leadership. Women tend to perform in the charismatic leadership style more than men (Koenig, Eagly, Mitchell & Ristikari, 2011). Leaders were further asked to report their job tenure in years. I controlled for job tenure because working longer as a leader in an organization can affect the leader’s experience and knowledge (Shamir, 2009). Leaders who are longer in the organization may understand the business more, may be more committed to the organization, and may get more trust from their followers (Hambrick & Fukutomi, 1991). It seems that tenure influences the leadership behavior and, therefore, we need to control this variable. Leader-follower tenure was the last control variable considered in this study. The leader as well as the follower reported how long they have been working together.

Data analyses

(12)

RESULTS

Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations for all study variables. Leaders’ age is not significantly related to the followers’ evaluations of charismatic leadership (r = -.17; p>.05). Also, leaders’ extraversion is not significant correlated with followers’ evaluations of charismatic leadership (r = .15; p>.05).

Based on bivariate correlations, the control variables are not significantly related to charismatic leadership. Control variables do need not to be included in regression analysis if they do not correlate with the dependent variables, unless there is a good reason to do so (Becker, 2005). Therefore, I will exclude gender, job tenure, and leader-follower tenure from the moderated hierarchical regression analysis. The other Big-Five personality traits are also not significantly correlated with charismatic leadership, but there is a good theoretical explanation to include these control variables. Specifically, Bono & Judge (2004) conclude that all Big-Five personality traits can influence charismatic leadership. Extraversion has been found to be the strongest predictor of charismatic leadership, but this does not mean that other personality traits cannot influence charismatic leadership (Bono & Judge, 2004). In order to see if there is a difference between including and excluding the other Big-Five personality traits, I conducted the hypotheses tests with and without other Big-Five personality traits. The results of these alternative analyses were virtually identical with the previous ones.

*** Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations ***

Table 2 presents the results of the moderated hierarchical regression analysis. The second step of the regression analysis showed an insignificant relationship between leaders’ age and charismatic leadership after taking into account the effects of the control variables (β= .10; p>.05). There was also an insignificant relationship if the control variables were not taken into account (β= -.17; p> .05). Thus, Hypothesis 1 is not supported by the data analyses. Similarly, step two of the regression analysis provided no support for Hypothesis 2. Leaders’ extraversion was insignificantly related to charismatic leadership after taking into account the effects of the control variables (β= .04; p>.05). Even if the control variables were not taken into account, there was an insignificant relationship between leaders’ extraversion and charismatic leadership (β= .15; p>.05).

(13)

control variables (β= .03; p>.05). The relationship did not change when the control variables were excluded from the regression analysis (β= .03; p>.05). Therefore, Hypothesis 3 has to be rejected.

*** Table 2. Moderated Hierarchical Regression Analysis ***

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this research was to examine the role of leaders’ age and leaders’ extraversion for charismatic leadership. The following was expected: a negative relationship between leaders’ age and charismatic leadership (Hypothesis 1); a positive relationship between leaders’ extraversion and charismatic leadership (Hypothesis 2); and a moderating effect of leaders’ extraversion on the relationship between leaders’ age and charismatic leadership (Hypothesis 3). The results suggest, however, that neither leaders’ age, nor leaders’ extraversion, nor the interaction between these factors are significantly related to charismatic leadership. In this section, different possible interpretations will be provided in order to better understand the results.

First, in the introduction I mentioned that there might be a negative relationship between leaders’ age and charismatic leadership due to a limited future time perspective of older individuals that leads to three key psychological mechanisms. On the other hand, there are also reasons to suggest that charismatic leadership might be positively influenced when leaders grow older. Specifically, older individuals are higher in emotional intelligence (Royr & Chaturvedi, 2011). Emotional intelligence can be defined as “the ability to perceive emotion, integrate emotion to facilitate thought, understand emotions, and to regulate emotions to promote personal growth” (Salovey & Meyer, 1990: 189). Prior research has demonstrated positive relationships between such abilities and charismatic leadership (e.g., Rubin et al., 2005; see also Walter, Cole, & Humphrey, 2011 for a review). Therefore, leaders’ age may have countervailing effects on charismatic leadership (i.e., both positive and negative effects at the same time), which might explicate the null-relationship found in this study.

(14)

beliefs help maintain transformational leadership (Zacher et al., 2011). Thus, leaders’ legacy beliefs could influence the relationship between leaders’ age and leadership. Similarly, there are more variables which could have been used as control variables that influence the relationship between leaders’ age and leadership, including leaders’ generatively (Zacher et al., 2011). Also, Walter & Scheibe (2013) suggest that cognitive demands might influence the relationship between leaders’ age and leadership. Cognitive demands can be defined as the degree to which a situation requires high cognitive control and/or quick processing of new and complex information (Walter & Scheibe, 2013: 12). In situations of low cognitive demands, as compared to those of high cognitive demands, there might be a positive relationship between leaders’ age and leadership. Based on these considerations, it can be argued that the results might have been influenced by these variables, and future research would certainly benefit from re-examining the present relations by taking a more comprehensive set of control variables into account.

Third, the sample size in this study was relatively small. I obtained data from 31 leaders and followers, which might be too small to draw confident conclusions. Therefore, the results might be insignificant because of the sample size, and it is necessary to treat the results with caution. To compensate for the negative effect of the small sample size, each leader-follower pair came from a different organization. All leaders had thus different contexts, cultures, employees, and procedures which might have influenced them in a different way. Future research on leaders’ age and charismatic leadership might include more respondents in order to enhance generalizability.

Limitations

(15)

might have been different if the data had additionally been obtained in Belgium. In the future, research has to be done with a sample of people from more and different regions in other countries so that to overcome the problem of generalizability and account for potential cultural differences.

Second, this study was a cross-sectional study and I thus obtained data from only one period in time. Therefore, I was not able to determine the direction of causation from the observed relations and to separate age and cohort effects (Walter & Scheibe, 2013). “Cohort effects are the result of successive cohorts (i.e., persons born at the same time) bearing the stamp of their childhood environment. Cohort effects are present in cross-sectional data and thus serve as a threat to internal validity when the focus is on isolating aging effects” (Walter & Scheibe, 2013: 15). Therefore, it is important that future researchers should collect longitudinal data in order to overcome these problems. Moreover, longitudinal studies may help researchers achieve a greater confidence in the stability of the relationships (Rindfleish, Malter, Ganesan & Moorman, 2008).

Third, following Zacher and co-authors (2011), the data from only one leader and one of his or her followers have been obtained. Usually, researchers collect data from one leader and more followers per leader (De Vries, 2012; Grant et al., 2011).

Future Research Directions

Beyond addressing the limitations, it would be interesting to relate leaders’ age to different leadership behaviors. My research focused on the relationship between leaders’ age and charismatic leadership. However, other leadership behaviors might be relevant as well. For example, Barburo et al., (2007) found a positive relationship between leaders’ age and relational-oriented behaviors, and Zacher and associates (2011) found a positive relationship between leaders’ age and passive leadership behaviors. By comparing different leadership behaviors, scholars might be able to more fully understand the relationship between leaders’ age and leadership. In current studies, only a few leadership behaviors are mentioned; therefore, including more leadership behaviors might make it possible to come up with a general conclusion about the relationship between leaders’ age and leadership behaviors.

(16)

regulation (Joseph & Newman, 2010). These three are related to effective leadership (Walter et al., 2011). Researchers conclude that emotion recognition, in contrast to emotional understanding and regulation, will diminish as individuals grow older. Therefore, emotional abilities may have a mediating role in the relationship between leaders’ age and leadership. It seems worthwhile to further examine these and other potential mediators.

Third, it would be interesting to examine other variables as potential moderators that influence the relationship between leaders’ age and charismatic leadership. I argued that leaders’ extraversion could increase high-arousal positive states, which could make leaders more charismatic. Hence, the role of age-related positivity maintenance, which is caused by high-arousal positive states, is likely to be influenced by critical moderators such as functional and psychosocial age (Walter & Scheibe, 2013). Therefore, using functional age and psychological age as moderators might give a significant relationship.

Practical Implications

The present research suggests that leaders’ age and leaders’ extraversion were not related to charismatic leadership. This has important practical implications for organizations in terms of training and selecting leaders. Training and selection should not take into account leaders’ age and leaders’ extraversion if charismatic leadership is the preferred leadership style in the organization. Importantly, however, previous research has shown that there might be a relationship between leaders’ age and charismatic leadership (Oshagbemi, 2004; Barburo, Fritz, Matkin & Marx, 2007; Walter & Scheibe, 2013; Zacher et al., 2011). Also, meta-analytic evidence has shown extraversion to be strongly related with charismatic leadership (Bono & Judge, 2004). Hence, I would caution practitioners to not over-interpret the findings of this study so that to draw strong conclusions on this basis – particularly given the small sample used in this study. The present results may contribute to a more nuanced perspective on the effects of age and extraversion on charismatic leadership. Clearly, however, more research is needed to enable strong practical recommendations in this regard.

Conclusion

(17)
(18)

REFERENCES

Antonioni, D. 1998. Relationship between the big five personality factors and conflict management styles. International Journal of Conflict Management, 9(4): 336-355. Barbuto, J. E. J., Fritz, S. M., Matkin, G. S., & Marx, D. B. 2007. Effects of gender, education, and age upon leaders' use of influence tactics and full range leadership behaviors. Sex Roles, 56(1–2): 71–83.

Becker, T.E. 2005. Potential problems in the statistic control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analyses with recommendations. Organizational Research

Methods, 8(3): 274-289.

Bono, J., & Judge, T.A. 2004. Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5): 901-910.

Burger, O., Baudisch, A., & Vaupel, J.W. 2012. Human mortality improvement in evolutionary context. National Academy of Science, 109(44): 18210-18214.

Carstensen, L., & Isaacowitz, D.M., & Charles, S.T. 1999. Taking time seriously. American Psychologist, 54(3): 165-182.

Chuang, S., Cheng, Y., Chang, C., & Chiang, Y. 2013. The impact of self-confidence on the compromise effect. International Journal of Psychology, 48(4): 660-675.

Damen, F., van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B. 2008. Leader affective displays and attributions of charisma: The role of arousal. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(10): 2594-2614.

Ergeneli, A., Gohar, R., & Temirbekova, Z. 2007. Transformational leadership: Its relationship to culture value dimensions. International Journal of Intercultural

Relations, 31(6): 703-724.

Ersner-Hershfield, H., Mikels, J.A., Sullivan, S.J., & Carstensen, L.L. 2008. Poignancy: Mixed emotional experience in the face of meaningful endings. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 94(1): 158-167.

Felfe, J., & Schyns, B. 2006. Personality and the perception of transformational leadership: The impact of extraversion, neuroticism, personal need for structure and occupational self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 36(3): 708-739.

Fraser, L., McKenna, K., Turpin, M., Allen, S., & Liddle, J. 2009. Older workers: An explanation of the benefits, barriers and adaptions for older people in the workforce. IOS Press, 33(3): 261-272.

Hambrick, D.C., & Fukutomi, G.D.S., 1991. The seasons of a CEO’s tenure. Academy of

(19)

Geert Hofstede, 2014. http://geert-hofstede.com/. February 27.

Goldberg, L.R. 1999. A broad-bandwith public-domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. Personality psychology in Europe, 7 (1): 7-28.

Grant, A.M., Gino, F., & Hofmann, D.A. 2011. Reversing the extraverted leadership advantage: The role of employee proactivity. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3): 528-550.

Hofstede, G.H. 1980. Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related

values, Beverly Hills/London/New Delhi, Sage.

Jamieson, B., & Rogers, W. 2000. Age-related effects of blocked and random practice schedules on learning new technology. Journal of Gerontology, 55(6): 343-353. Joseph, D. L., & Newman, D. A. 2010. Emotional intelligence: An integrative meta-analysis and cascading model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1): 54–78.

Kabacoff, R.I. 2002. Leadership: what has age got to do with it? New York: Management Research Group.

Kakabadse, A., Kakabadse, N. and Myers, A. 1998. “Demographics and leadership philosophy: exploring gender differences”. Journal of Management Development, 17(5): 351-88.

Keller, T. 1999. Images of the familiar: Individual differences and implicit leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10(4): 589-608.

Koenig, A.M., Eagly, A.H., Mitchell, A.A., & Ristikari, T. 2011. Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological Bulletin,

137(4): 616-642.

Kruger, D.J., & Fitzgerald, C.J. 2011. Reproductive strategies and relationship preferences associated with prestigious and dominant men. Personality and Individual

Differences, 50(3): 365-369.

McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T. 1991 The NEO personality inventory: using the five-factor model in counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development, 69(4): 367-373.

Mlacic, B., & Goldberg, L.R. 2007. An analysis of a cross-cultural personality inventory: The IPIP big-five factor markers in Croatia. Journal of personality assessment, 88(2): 168-177.

Oshagbemi, T. 2004. Age influences on the leadership styles and behaviour of managers. Employee Relations, 26(1): 14–29.

(20)

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H., & Fetter, R. 1990. Transformational leader behaviors and their efforts on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviour. Leadership Quarterly, 1(2):107-142.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., & Bommer, W.H. 1996. Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 22(2): 259-299.

Rindfleisch, A., Malter, A.J., Ganesan, S., & Moorman, C. 2008. Cross-sectional versus longitudinal survey research: concepts, findings, and guidelines. Journal of

Marketing Research, 45(3): 261-279.

Rooij, van, W.S. 2012. Training older workers: Lessons learned unlearned and relearned form the field of instructional design. Human Resource Management, 51 (2): 281 298.

Royr, R., & Chaturvedi, S. 2011. Job experience and age as determinants of emotional intelligence: An explanatory study of print media employees. BVIMR Management

Edge, 4(2): 68-76.

Rubin, R.S., Muns, D.C., Bommer, W.H. 2005. Leading from within: The effects of emotion recognition and personality on transformational leadership behaviour. Academy of

Management Journal, 48(5): 845-858.

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. (1990). Emotional Intelligence. New York: Dude Publishing.

Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. 1988. Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk

and Uncertainty, 1(1): 7-59.

Scheibe, S., Englisch, T., Tsai, J.L., & Carstensen, L.L. 2013. Striving to feel good: Ideal affect, actual affect, and their correspondence across adulthood. Psychology and

Aging, 28(1): 160-171.

Schneier, C.E., Russel, C.J., Beatty, R.W., & Baird, L.S. (1994). The training and

development source book. USA: Human Resource Development Press, Inc.

Shakir, R. 2009. Examining the effect of leadership structure and CEO tenure on Malaysian property firm performance. Journal of Real Estate Literature, 17(1): 47-62.

Shamir, B., House, R.T., & Arthur, M.B. 1993. The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4(4): 577-594.

(21)

the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(22): 9985

9990.

Van Knippenberg van, D., & Sitkin, S.B. 2013. A critical assessment of charismatic transformational leadership research: back to the drawing board? Academy of

Management, 7(1): 1-60.

Vries, de, R.E. 2012. Personality predictors of leadership styles and the self-other agreement problem. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(5): 809-821.

Waldman, D.A., Ramirez, G.G., House, R.J., Puranam, P. 2001. Does leadership matter? CEO leadership attributes and profitability under conditions of perceived environmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1): 134-143.

Walter, F., & Bruch, H. 2009. An effective events model of charismatic leadership behaviour: A review, theoretical integration, and research agenda. Journal of Management 35(6): 1428-1452.

Walter, F., Cole, M. S., & Humphrey, R. H. 2011. Emotional intelligence: Sine qua non of leadership or folderol? Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(1): 45–59.

Walter, F., & Scheibe, S. 2013. A literature review and emotion-based model of age and leadership: new directions for the trait approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(6): 882-901.

Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th global edition). Boston: Pearson.

Zacher, H., & Bal, P.M. (in press). Professor age and research assistant ratings of passive avoidant and proactive leadership: The role of age-related work concerns and age stereotypes. Studies in Higher Education, 38(9): 1-41.

Zacher, H., Rosing, K., & Frese, M. 2011. Age and leadership: The moderating role of legacy beliefs. Leadership Quarterly, 22 (1): 43-50.

(22)

FIGURE 1

(23)

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations. M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. Gender 1,39 0,5 2. Job Tenure 9,58 9,12 -0,19 3. Leader-Follower Tenure 5,53 7,57 0,41 0,72** 4. Intellect 3,8 0,51 0,28 -0,1 0,06 5. Agreeableness 4,12 0,45 0,17 -0,06 -0,12 0,18 6. Conscientiousness 4,05 0,42 -0,18 0,09 0,15 0,22 0,11 7. Emotional Stability 3,75 0,67 -0,16 0,3 0,28 0,21 0,02 0,51** 8. Age 42,94 11,82 -0,19 0,66** 0,41* -0,07 0,13 0,2 0,44* 9. Extraversion 3,4 0,52 -0,24 0,15 0,24 0,38* -0,13 0,12 0,17 -0,04 10. Charismatic Leadership 3,59 0,58 0,33 -0,34 0,02 0,21 -0,2 0,12 0,05 -0,17 0,15

Note: N= 31 Leader-Follower Dyads

(24)

Table 2. Moderated Hierarchical Regression Analysis

Variables Entered Charismatic Leadership (without controls) Step 1 Intellect Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional Stability R2 Step 2 Intellect Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional Stability Extraversion Age ΔR2 R2 .29 -.24 -.14 -.04 .12 .25 -.21 -.14 .01 .04 .15 .10 -.17 .01 .05 .13 .05 Step 3 Intellect Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional Stability Extraversion Age Age * Extraversion ΔR2 R2 .24 -.21 -.14 .01 .04 .14 -.11 -.17 .03 .03 .00 .00 .13 .05

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of

researches on the relationship between task conflict and team performance as well as look at the effect of team hierarchy centralization (i.e. team hierarchy centralization’s

As shown in this figure,a high level of expertise of the employee shows a positive relation between performance orientation and leaders‟ attitude to employee voice, whereas a

In conclusion, this study suggests that ethical leadership does indeed have an effect on whistleblowing intentions and the important with which someone views their moral

To what extent is the role of leaders’ positive mood for their transformational leadership behavior moderated by the degree to which leaders use written computer-

In line with the growing body of literature on affective components in leadership processes, the present study extends earlier research by examining not only leader’

It may be concluded that the role congruity theory of prejudice against female managers argues that this incongruity of leader roles and female gender roles leads to

The nine differentiated test areas are: the total emotional intelligence quotient, empathy, self-knowledge, self-control, self-motivation, self-esteem, emotional