Big-5 personality dimensions and compliance with social bases of power: moderating effect of quality of relationship

Big-5 personality dimensions and compliance with

social bases of power: moderating effect of

quality of relationship

T. KLEIN WASSINK

1869922

University of Groningen

Faculty of Economics and Business

Nettelbosje 2

9747 AE Groningen

Tel: 050-3634624

Big-5 personality dimensions and compliance with

social bases of power: moderating effect of

quality of relationship

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION

Social power, defined as “the resources one person has available such that he or she can influence another person’s beliefs, attitudes and behaviors” (Pierro, Cicero and Raven, 2008: 1921) is one of the key concepts in understanding relationships between superiors and followers in an organizational setting (Pierro, Cicero and Raven, 2008). Research has shown that managerial advancement and success are dependent on the effective use of power (Gupta and Sharma, 2008) and that organizational outcomes depend on whether or not followers comply with this use of power (Pierro, Raven, Amato and Bélanger, 2013). There is an extensive literature on the effects of leadership styles and the use of power on organizational outcomes. When and why followers comply with social power, however, has not received the same attention (Koslowsky, Schwarzwald and Ashuri, 2001).

French and Raven (1959) identified five bases of social power that a superior can utilize in order to gain compliance; coercive power (threat of punishment), reward power (promise of (non)monetary compensation), legitimate power (a right to influence), expert power (derived from superior knowledge) and referent power (target identifies with the influencing agent). Pierro, Cicero and Raven (2008) found that followers’ motivational and personal orientation influence compliance with the use of these power bases. Their results show, for example, that people with high self-esteem and desire for control are more likely to comply with soft power bases and less likely to comply with harsh power bases. In this distinction, reward, coercive and legitimacy power can be classified as harsh and expert and referent power as soft power bases.

power bases. This will hopefully provide an indication on whether it matters if there is a match between the use of a certain power bases by the supervisor and the personality characteristics of a follower. If this indeed is the case, managers may want to adapt their influence tactics to reflect the different response followers will have on the basis of their personality.

Although there is some indication that certain characteristics of followers matter, there is little to no information about the relationship between followers’ personality traits and compliance to the use of the identified power bases. Erhart and Klein (2001) found that followers prefer certain leadership styles (i.e. use of power) exhibited by supervisors over others and that this is to some extent predictable on the basis of followers’ personality characteristics. They show, for example, that followers who value extrinsic rewards may be most drawn to a relationship-oriented leadership style while followers who seek security are more attracted to task-oriented leaders. Their results indicate that followers may have different perceptions and interpretations of identical sets of leader behavior and they suggest studying the influence of the Big-5 personality characteristics.

The Big-5 personality framework introduced by McCrae and Costa (1982), comprising of agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, extraversion and openness to experience can be a strong predictor of work behavior across cultures, time, and contexts (Karkoulian, Messarra and Sidani, 2009). Evidence provided by Karkoulian, Messarra and Sidani (2009) shows that Big-5 personality traits of the supervisor and the use of certain power bases are related. They found that agreeableness is positively related to the use of referent and expert power and neuroticism to the use of referent power (negatively) and coercive power (positively). Where in their study Karkoulian, Messarra and Sidani (2009) used the Big-5 personality framework to assess its influence on the use of power, in this study it will be used to identify which personality traits relate to compliance with the use of power.

THEORY

As mentioned in the introduction, French and Raven (1959) identified five sources of social power that a supervisor can utilize to influence a follower. These five sources are coercive power (threat of punishment), reward power (promise of (non)monetary compensation), legitimate power (a right to influence), expert power (derived from superior knowledge) and referent power (target identifies with the influencing agent). Social power can be obtained by having control over resources that are valued by followers and can be used to influence another person’s beliefs, attitude and behaviors (Pierro, Cicero and Raven, 2008).

The social power literature makes a distinction between bases of power available to the power holder and influence tactics, which refer to the use of those power bases in a particular situation (Koslowsky, Schwarzwald and Ashuri, 2001). Thus, although supervisors have the power to, for example, withhold a pay raise (coercive power) or recommend promotion (reward power), they might in practice make use of their superior knowledge (expert power). This distinction is important since followers’ compliance to this influence tactic may be a function of the actual use of the influence tactic, but it is also possible that compliance is the result of another perceived power source (Koslowsky, Schwarzwald and Ashuri, 2001). The fact that the supervisor has the potential to use other power bases may then be the reason for compliance, regardless of whether those power bases were actually used as an influence tactic. Perceptions of (bases of) power may thus be more important than the actual use of specific influence tactics. This is why this study focuses on compliance as a result of perceived power bases, not on influence tactics used in a particular situation.

Bélanger, 2013). Reward, coercive and legitimacy power can be classified as harsh, expert and referent power as soft power bases (Koslowsky, Schwarzwald and Ashuri, 2001). Compared to harsh power bases, soft power bases are typically received more favorably and are associated with more positive organizational outcomes such as organizational commitment and job satisfaction (Pierro, Raven, Amato and Bélanger, 2013).

Compliance to the various power bases is determined by multiple factors. Whether someone has an intrinsic or extrinsic motivational orientation has, for example, been found to determine compliance to either harsh or soft sources of power, respectively (Pierro, Cicero and Raven, 2008). Personality dimensions and values are also related to the preference towards certain power sources. In their study Erhart and Klein (2001) used personality dimensions to predict followers’ preference for a leadership style. They show that followers differ in their perception of leadership styles and that this variation can in part be explained by followers’ personality characteristics. They identified eight follower characteristics that were significantly correlated with a preference for one or more leadership styles. These characteristics were achievement orientation, self-esteem, need for structure, extrinsic rewards, intrinsic rewards, interpersonal relations, security and worker participation. Among their findings was a significant association between valuing extrinsic rewards and a preference towards relationship-oriented leadership. People who have strong security values on the other hand were more attracted to task-oriented leadership. Although some variance was explained by their model, Erhart and Klein (2001) indicate that a number of variables beyond the ones used in their study may determine followers’ preference towards certain leadership styles. They indicate that the Big-5 personality dimensions may influence responses to leader behaviors.

supervisor in the organization. The harsh-soft distinction of power bases is in accordance with the distinction between transactional and transformational leadership. It thus seems that transformational (charismatic) leadership is related to soft bases of power and transactional leadership is related to harsh bases of power. In the next sections the different Big-5 personality traits will be related to compliance with one or more of the power bases identified by French and Raven (1959).

Agreeableness

Karkoulian, Messarra and Sidani (2009) view agreeableness as the ability to relate to others and the extent to which someone is considerate of others' opinions and feeling. According to Barrick and Mount (1991), agreeable individuals are cooperative, considerate, generous, and trusting of others. Erhart and Klein (2001) studied personality characteristics and their influence on the preference towards certain leader behaviors. They show that characteristics from followers who have a preference towards relationship-oriented (transformational) leadership are being friendly, considerate, trusting, thoughtful and generous, traits that seem to match agreeableness characteristics very well. As has already been argued, transformational leadership seems to be related to the use of soft bases of power. Agreeable people seem to favor sources of power that are relationship-oriented (personal) over sources of power that are task-oriented (impersonal). Since personal bases of power are classified as soft (Atwater and Yammarino, 1996), I argue that followers who score high on agreeableness will react more favorably to soft bases of power, which make them feel less forced into complying (Pierro, Raven, Amato and Bélanger, 2013). This leads to the following hypotheses.

Hypothesis 1: Agreeableness is positively related to compliance with expert power Hypothesis 2: Agreeableness is positively related to compliance with referent power

agreeableness are in general more likely to comply to use of power. When confronted with the use of harsh power bases one might dig in their heels because soft bases of power are preferred or still comply because of an agreeable personality. A comparable ambiguous effect may hold for conscientiousness (next section) and that is why hypotheses on these dimensions only focus on compliance with the soft bases of power.

Conscientiousness

According to Karkoulian, Messarra and Sidani (2009) a highly conscientious person is reliable, persistent, organized, dependable, and responsible. Furthermore, the need for achievement is a dominant feature of conscientiousness, and conscientious people are often very goal-oriented and driven by success (Costa and McCrae, 1991). Erhart and Klein (2001) show that followers’ characteristics with a preference towards relationship-oriented (transformational) leadership are, in addition to the ones mentioned in the agreeableness section; reliable, accountable, supportive and conscientious. They also show that followers with a goal-orientation, success-orientation and who value achievement have a preference towards charismatic leadership. The argumentation then is very similar in this respect to the argumentation for the agreeableness dimension. Much like agreeable people, people who are conscientiousness seem to favor sources of power that are relationship-oriented, and in addition have a preference towards charismatic leadership, which are associated with more personal (soft) bases of power (Atwater and Yammarino, 1996). The hypotheses then are as follows.

Hypothesis 3: Conscientiousness is positively related to compliance with expert power Hypothesis 4: Conscientiousness is positively related to compliance with referent power

Neuroticism

extraversion is related to positive affect, and neuroticism traits correlate strongly with negative affect. An explanation for this finding might be found in Gray's (1981) emotion-based model of personality. This model argues the existence of two brain systems that control the sensitivity to signals of reward and punishment. These brain systems are the “Behavioral Activation System” (BAS) and “Behavioral Inhibition System” (BIS), the former facilitates behavior and produces positive affect whereas the latter inhibits behavior and produces negative affect (Elliot and Thrash, 2002). According to Larsen and Ketelaar (1991) these two systems give rise to the personality dimensions of extraversion and neuroticism.

The expectation is that, since negative affect is strongly correlated with neuroticism, neurotics will be more responsive to the use of punishment. This stems from the fact that when exposed to reward signals, someone experiences positive affect and when exposed to punishment signals, someone experiences negative affect (Larsen and Ketelaar, 1991). Larsen and Ketelaar (1991) argue that the basis of neuroticism is in a heightened sensitivity to signals of punishment (BIS) and that neurotics therefore should show heightened reactivity to negative mood-induction procedures in comparison with emotionally stable individuals. They furthermore argue that whether extraversion and neuroticism represent dimensions of different responses to positive and negative-affect stimuli, respectively, should be further examined.

Pierro, Cicero and Raven (2008) studied compliance with either harsh or soft bases of power on the basis of personal characteristics. They found, among other things, that self-esteem (confidence in dealing with others) is negatively related to the compliance with coercive power i.e. people who have low self-esteem are more likely to comply with coercive power. They argue that feelings of insecurity may explain differences in power preferences. In their view, a high degree of self-esteem would facilitate followers to be more certain about their abilities and opinions. This self-confidence, in turn, would lead them to feel more independent and more resistant to influence in response to hard coercive tactics (Pierro, Cicero and Raven, 2008). Since low self-confidence and insecurity are associated with neuroticism (Karkoulian, Messarra and Sidani, 2009) and these traits are also related to compliance with coercive power, the following hypothesis is formulated.

Extraversion

Much effort has been put in defining and conceptualizing extraversion. Psychologist are however, after almost a century of study, still unsure of the exact nature and characteristics of this particular personality dimension (Lucas, Diener, Grob, Suh and Shao, 2000). Watson and Clark (1997) argue that six common features have been included in different models of extraversion at some point. These six features are venturesome (excitement, desire for change), ascendance (feeling dominant or exhibitionistic), ambition (valuing achievement), positive affectivity (joy and excitement), affiliation (feelings of warmth) and being energetic. Karkoulian, Messarra and Sidani (2009) argue in a similar sense that introverts are more likely to be reserved, quiet, shy and distant, whereas extraverts are likely to be more sociable, confident and outgoing.

Costa and McCrae (1980) found that extraversion traits correlate strongly with positive affect. On the basis of Gray's (1981) emotion-based model of personality, Larsen and Ketelaar (1991) argue that the basis of extraversion is in a heightened sensitivity to signals of reward (BAS). This would mean that extraverts therefore should show heightened reactivity to positive mood-induction procedures compared with introverts. Lucas, Diener, Grob, Suh and Shao (2000) also argue that sensitivity to rewards is at the core of extraversion. According to them, extraverts have strong incentive motivation systems, that is they are more responsive towards incentives. The sociability of extraverts may, according to them, stem from this reward sensitivity because engaging in social behaviors is rewarding since people experience greater pleasant affect when around others than when they are alone.

Reward power depends on the ability to administer positive feelings as joy or remove negative feelings as anger and fear (French and Raven, 1959). Reward power can stem from personal sources (compliments, acceptance) or impersonal sources (promotion, pay raise). Since one of the foundations of extraversion is a sensitivity to rewards and extraverts therefore should have a heightened reactivity to positive mood-induction procedures the following hypothesis is formulated.

Openness to experience

Being attracted to and interested in new things are at the basis of openness to experience (Karkoulian, Messarra and Sidani, 2009). According to Karkoulian, Messarra and Sidani (2009), people who score high on this dimension are often sensitive, imaginative and creative as opposed to those who score low on this dimension, they tend to be more closed and conservative.

Openness to experience has been linked to the concept of Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA), which is the tendency to be hierarchical, conventional and intolerant (Butler, 2000). According to Butler (2001) People who score high on RWA can be characterized as submissive towards established and legitimate authority and aggressive towards outsiders. He found a strong negative association between RWA and openness to experience, which can be explained through the fact that obedience, intolerance and compliance to rules are in sharp contrast with being open (Butler, 2000). This makes sense since one would expect individuals who are more closed to alternative ways of viewing the world to be less inclined to reject any thoughts or experienced that are not shared by the authority. Certain features of RWA, such as intolerance of ambiguity and a lack of imagination fit very well with definitions of being closed to experience (Butler, 2000). I argue, based on the finding on RWA, that followers who are open to experience will be less submissive towards the supervisor purely based on the fact that “it is my boss and I have a commitment to perform the task that is required of me”. Furthermore, since RWA is associated with threat, intolerance and suppression (Crawford and Pilanski, 2014) it seems likely that there is also a negative association with compliance with coercive power. People who score high on openness to experience are often sensitive (Karkoulian, Messarra and Sidani, 2009) and therefore may not react well when being coerced into compliance. Therefore, I hypothesize the following.

Figure 1: Conceptual model

Leader-member exchange and organizational commitment

METHOD

Scale constructions Big-5 personality traits

In order to measure the Big-5 personality dimensions, a translated version of the questionnaire of John and Srivastava (1999) was used which consists of a list of in total 25 questions. Participants are asked to answer to which extent they agree with a statement on a 5-point Likert-scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree.

Agreeableness was measured with a 5-item scale, sample items are (1) “I see myself as

someone who is sympethetic” and (2) “I see myself as someone who is understanding”. The Cronbach’s alpha of this scale was .75.

Conscientiousness was measured with a 5-item scale, sample items are (1) “I see myself

as someone who is organized” and (2) “I see myself as someone who is responsible”. The Cronbach’s alpha of this scale was .76.

Neuroticism was measured with a 5-item scale, sample items are (1) “I see myself as

someone who is tense” and (2) “I see myself as someone who worries a lot”. The Cronbach’s alpha of this scale was .78.

Extraversion was measured with a 5-item scale, sample items are (1) “I see myself as

someone who is talkative” and (2) “I see myself as someone who is assertive”. The Cronbach’s alpha of this scale was .68.

Openness to experience was measured with a 5-item scale, sample items are (1) “I see

myself as someone who is original” and (2) “I see myself as someone who has wide interests”. The Cronbach’s alpha of this scale was .70.

Compliance with power bases

“Often supervisors ask subordinates to do their job somewhat differently. Sometimes subordinates resist doing so or do not follow the supervisor’s directions exactly. Other times, they will do exactly as their supervisor requests. I am interested in those situations which lead subordinates to follow the requests of their supervisor.

Imagine a situation in which you are being supervised in doing some task. Suppose your supervisor asked you to do your job somewhat differently and, though you were initially reluctant, you did exactly as you were asked. Below are a number of reasons why you might do so. Read each descriptive statement carefully, thinking of the situation in which you were supervised. Decide how likely it would be that this would be the reason you would comply”

Participants were asked to indicate how likely it is for items of each power base to make them comply to the demand of the supervisor. Again a 5-point Likert-scale, ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree, was used.

Compliance with reward power was measured with a 4-item scale, sample items are (1)

“My supervisor can increase my pay level” and (2) “My supervisor can provide me with special benefits”. The Cronbach’s alpha of this scale was .81.

Compliance with coercive power was measured with a 4-item scale, sample items are (1)

“My supervisor can make my work difficult for me” and (2) “My supervisor can make things unpleasant here”. The Cronbach’s alpha of this scale was .76.

Compliance with legitimate power was measured with a 4-item scale, sample items are (1)

“My supervisor can make me feel that I have a commitment to meet” and (2) “My supervisor can make me recognize that I have a task to accomplish”. The Cronbach’s alpha of this scale was .79.

Compliance with expert power was measured with a 4-item scale, sample items are (1)

“My supervisor can give me good technical suggestions” and (2) “My supervisor can provide me with sound job-related advice”. The Cronbach’s alpha of this scale was .77.

Compliance with referent power was measured with a 4-item scale, sample items are (1)

Leader-member exchange

Leader-member exchange was measured using the scale of Liden and Maslyn (1998). It

consists of 11 items and respondents were asked to indicate to what extent they agree to the statements on a 5-point Likert scale. Sample items are (1) I like my supervisor very much as a person and (2) My supervisor is a lot of fun to work with. The Cronbach’s alpha of this variable was .88.

Organizational commitment

Organizational commitment was measured using the scale of Porter, Steers, Mowday and

Boultian (1974). It consists of 7 items and respondents were asked to indicate to what extent they agree to the statements on a 5-point Likert scale. Sample items are (1) I feel excellent in this organization and (2) I really care about the fate of this organization. The Cronbach’s alpha of this scale was .91.

Control variables

The control variables were as follows. Age was measured with a continuous scale in which respondents were asked to fill in their age in terms of years. Gender was dummy coded; 0 = male and 1 = female. Employment status was also dummy coded; 0 = unemployed, 1 = employed.

Correlations

positive correlation between gender and legitimate power (p < .05). Employment status only correlated positively with conscientiousness (p < .05) and negatively with neuroticism (p < .10).

Table 1: Correlation matrix Mean Std. Dev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1.Age 26.63 10.86 2.Gender .50 .50 -.24** 3.Employment status .73 .45 .23** .024 4.Agreeableness 4.04 .52 -.12 .19* .13 5.Conscientiousness 3.77 .65 .19* .16 .23** .16 6.Neuroticism 2.50 .70 -.12 .21** -.18* -.04 -.06 7.Extraversion 3.69 .57 -.03 .18* .17 .07 .14 .23** 8.Openness to experience 3.80 .56 -.03 .20* .16 .24** .08 -.03 .35*** 9.Reward power 3.70 .75 -.45*** .07 -.06 .01 -.14 .14 .08 .06 10.Coercive power 2.64 .82 -.08 .16 -.06 .13 -.00 .05 -.15 -.12 -.02 11.Legitimate power 3.71 .64 -.39*** .26** -.11 .29*** 0.10 .12 .10 .03 -.01 .34*** 12.Expert power 3.87 .58 -.15 .15 -.14 .29*** -.09 .01 .17 .22** .19* -.14 .02 13.Referent power 4.02 .62 -.21** .02 -.16 .14 -.18* .20* .01 .11 .38*** -.02 .13 .37*** 14.Leader-member exchange 3.60 .65 .07 -.20 -- .19 .09 -.16 .10 -.02 .28** -.07 -.12 .22* .15 15.Organizational commitment 3.64 .71 .07 -.07 -- .13 .15 -.04 .31** .19 .24** -.17 -.06 .14 .07 .55*** Note: *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1

RESULTS

I performed a separate multivariate OLS regression for each distinctive power base. First I performed regressions on all respondents, after that I performed the same regressions for only the respondents who indicated that they are currently employed. This strategy was chosen because it might be relevant in some cases whether someone is currently employed or not. In the case of compliance to expert or referent power, for example, it might be easier to identify with a supervisor if the respondent actually has one at the moment. Table 2 shows the results of the five separate multivariate OLS regressions on all respondents (panel A) and on only currently employed respondents (panel B).

Table 2: Multivariate analysis on compliance with power bases

Panel A: All respondents included

Reward power Coercive power Legitimate power Expert power Referent power Age -.03 (-4.22)*** .00 (-.06) -.02 (-2.78)*** .00 (.32) -.01 (-1.00) Gender -.11 (-.68) .30 (1.57) .13 (.92) .07 (.52) -.11 (-.76) Employment status -.12 (-.66) .07 (.36) .12 (.84) .25 (1.79)* .15 (.98) Agreeableness -.07 (-.44) .22 (1.23) .30 (2.36)** .32 (2.74)*** .19 (1.46) Conscientiousness -.06 (-.54) -.02 (-.12) .12 (1.15) -.12 (-1.30) -.14 (-.14) Neuroticism .15 (1.32) -.04 (-.30) .07 (.70) -.02 (-.18) .17 (1.75)* Extraversion .14 (.99) -.22 (-1.26) .10 (.86) .14 (1.19) .06 (.47) Openness to experience .03 (.18) .18 (-1.04) -.09 (-.74) .16 (1.41) .11 (.87) R₂ .22 .08 .23 .19 .14 N 92 92 92 92 92

Panel B: Only currently employed respondents included

Reward power Coercive power Legitimate power Expert power Referent power Age -.03 (-4.44)*** .00 (.07) -.02 (-2.43)** .00 (.31) -.00 (-.62) Gender -.44 (-2.406)** .41 (1.74)* .18 (1.16) -.03 (-.19) -.05 (-.29) Employment status Agreeableness -- .20 (1.09) -- .26 (1.11) -- .39 (2.53)** -- .44 (2.94)*** -- .26 (1.50) Conscientiousness .02 (.14) -.08 (-.40) .16 (1.22) -.10 (-.73) -.13 (-.84) Neuroticism .15 (1.23) -.09 (-.57) -.03 (-.28) .00 (.01) .08 (.66) Extraversion .10 (.59) -.06 (-.27) .19 (1.27) .04 (.25) .13 (.76) Openness to experience .09 (.52) -.45 (-2.04)** -.13 (-.89) .24 (1.65) .17 (1.03) R₂ .33 .13 .30 .21 .12 N 67 67 67 67 67

Note: t-values are reported in parentheses *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1

Agreeableness was hypothesized to have a positive relationship with compliance with expert (H1) and referent power (H2). The outcomes from both regressions show similar results. With the exception of reward power in panel A, agreeableness was positively related to compliance with all power bases. This relationship, however, was only significant for compliance with legitimate (p < .05) and expert power (p < .01). These findings imply that H1 (agreeableness is positively related to compliance with expert power) is accepted and H2 (agreeableness is positively related to compliance with referent power) is rejected.

Conscientiousness was also hypothesized to have a positive relationship with compliance with expert (H3) and referent power (H4). In both regressions, however, I found no evidence for these relationships or an effect of conscientiousness on any of the five bases of power. This implies that both H3 (conscientiousness is positively related to compliance with expert power) and H4 (conscientiousness is positively related to compliance with referent power) are rejected.

Neuroticism was hypothesized to have a positive relationship with compliance with coercive power (H5). In both regressions, however, this relationship was negative but non-significant. This implies that H5 is rejected. Panel A does show a significant negative effect of neuroticism on compliance with referent power, this relationship is however not very strong (p < .10) and disappeared when I only included currently employed respondents.

Extraversion was hypothesized to have a positive relationship with compliance with reward power (H6). No significant effects of extraversion on any of the five bases of power in any of the regressions was found however implying that H6 is rejected.

Taking a look at the control variables, it can be observed that age had a significant negative effect on both compliance with reward power (p < .01 in both regressions) and legitimate power (p < .01 in panel A, p < .05 in panel B). This implies that when people grow older, they may become less sensitive to the use of rewards and legitimacy when trying to be persuaded. Gender showed no effect on any of the bases of power in panel A. In panel B however, gender was significantly negatively related to compliance with reward power (p < .05) and positively to compliance with coercive power (p < .10). These findings imply that (when only the currently employed respondents were included) male respondents were more sensitive to rewards and less sensitive to coercion in comparison with female respondents. Employment status only showed a weakly significant positive effect on compliance with expert power (p < .10), in panel B of course employment status was a constant since only currently employed respondents were included.

As mentioned in the introduction, existing literature has shown that people in general are more compliant with soft than harsh bases of power, is this also the case in this study? Looking again at the correlation table (table 1), it can be observed that indeed this is the case. Out of the 5 power bases, compliance with the soft power bases expert and referent power score the highest with mean values of 3.87 and 4.02 respectively. Compliance with reward and legitimate power did not score much lower (3.70 and 3.71 respectively), compliance with coercive power however had only a mean value of 2.64.

Moderating effects

power (H1). The interaction effect (b) was -.12 with p < .10 and implies that the relationship becomes stronger when organizational commitment is low (minus one standard deviation from mean) and non-significant when organizational commitment is high (plus one standard deviation from mean).

The findings on the moderating effects of LMX, which are illustrated in figure 2, are stronger. The relationship between agreeableness and compliance with expert power (H1) was significantly negatively moderated by LMX (b = -.16, p < .05). Similar to the moderating effect of organizational commitment, the relationship became stronger when LMX was low (b = .37, p < .01) and non-significant when LMX was high (b = .04, p = .70) indicating that H1 is only accepted at the low or mean value of LMX.

The relationship between conscientiousness and compliance with expert power (H3) was significantly positively moderated by LMX (b = .30, p < .01). At the mean value of LMX, the hypothesized relationship was non-significant. At either low or high values of LMX however, this relationship did became significant. When LMX was low, the relationship between conscientiousness and compliance with expert power was negative with b = -.35 and p < .01. When LMX was high the relationship was actually positive with b = .25 and p < .05 indicating that H3 is only accepted at either the low or high value of LMX.

There was also a moderating effect of LMX on the relationship between neuroticism and compliance with coercive power (H5), the interaction effect (b) was -.25 with p < .10. This effect implies that although still not significant, the relationship becomes stronger at both low and high values of LMX. When LMX was low, the relationship between neuroticism and compliance with coercive power was positive with b = .19 and p =.20. When LMX was high the relationship was negative with b = -.32 and p = .11. For comparison; at the mean value of LMX the relationship between neuroticism and compliance with coercive power had a b of -.06 with p = .58. Even after including LMX as a moderator, however, H5 is rejected at the low, mean and high value of LMX.

standard deviation from mean). The relationship was non-significant for a low value of LMX (b = -.15 with p = .29) and at the mean value of LMX (b = .06 with p = .58) indicating that H6 is only accepted at the high value of LMX.

DISCUSSION

The aim of this study was to examine effects of the big-5 personality traits (McCrae and Costa, 1982) on compliance with the five power bases as identified by French and Raven (1959). The big-5 personality traits are agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, extraversion and openness to experience. The five bases of power are reward, coercive, legitimate, expert and referent power. In addition to the personality-compliance with power bases relationships I also wanted to study whether organizational commitment and/or leader-member exchange has a moderating effect on these relationships.

Regarding agreeableness, hypothesis 1 was confirmed; agreeableness indeed showed to be positively related to compliance with expert power. Hypothesis 2 , agreeableness is positively related to compliance with referent power, however, was not confirmed. When LMX and organizational commitment were introduced as potential moderators, the relationship between agreeableness and compliance with expert power (H1) became stronger at the low value (minus one standard deviation from mean) indicating that H1 is only accepted at the low or mean value of LMX and organizational commitment. For hypothesis 2 I did not find any significant moderating effect.

In addition to the hypothesized relationships, agreeableness also showed to have a significant positive relationship with compliance with legitimate power. Apart from a negative (but non-significant) effect on compliance with reward power in the first multivariate analysis, agreeableness shows a positive effect (although not always significant) on compliance with all bases of power. The best explanation would probably be that people who score high on agreeableness have less urge to resists requests (relative to people who score low on agreeableness) and therefore are more likely to comply whatever the base of power is.

compliance with expert and referent power. Neuroticism was hypothesized to be positively related to coercive power (H5). This relationship was however also negative in both analyses, although also non-significant. Extraversion was indeed, as hypothesized, in both analyses positively (although non-significantly) associated with reward power (H6). Openness to experience, showed a negative effect on compliance with legitimate power (H8) which was as hypothesized, but this relationship was also non-significant.

When including the potential moderators into hypotheses 3 to 8, I found a significant moderating effect of LMX on hypotheses 3, 5 and 6. The relationship between conscientiousness and compliance with expert power (H3), being non-significant at the mean value of LMX, becomes significantly negative at the low value of LMX and significantly positive at the high value of LMX. The relationship between neuroticism and compliance with coercive power (H5) was also moderated by LMX. Although still not significant, the relationship becomes stronger at both low and high values of LMX. Hypothesis 6, the relationship between extraversion and reward power, was also significantly moderated by LMX. This effect showed that this relationship is only present at the high value of LMX.

There does not seem to be a clear, unambiguous pattern in the moderating effects of LMX. For hypothesis 1, agreeableness seems to function as a substitute for LMX. When LMX is high, it does not seem to matter whether someone scores high on agreeableness. When LMX is low however, people who score higher on agreeableness are significantly more compliant with expert power. For hypotheses 3 and 6, the relationship between personality and compliance with the power base only becomes important at either the high (H6) or both the high and low (H3) value and not at the mean value of LMX. For these relationships, in high-LMX situations scoring higher on the personality dimension implies more compliance with the hypothesized power base. For hypothesis 5 on the other hand, LMX shows an opposite effect. Although still not significant, it implies that in high-LMX situations people who score high on neuroticism actually are less compliant with coercive power.

rewards have less value as you grow older since you have already been rewarded more often (i.e. the marginal value decreases). Compliance with legitimate power may decline with age because you become more familiar with hierarchical differences and therefore perhaps less sensitive to power deriving from those differences. In the second regression (when only currently employed respondents were included) gender was significantly negatively related to compliance with reward power and positively to compliance with coercive power. This implies that male respondents were more sensitive to rewards and less sensitive to coercion in comparison with female respondents. One possible explanation for the first finding could be derived from the study of Gibson and Swan (1982). They found that men have higher aspirations regarding their work and whereas men place high value on long-term career rewards, women value social aspects of work more.

Implications

The link between personality and compliance with different bases of power had not received much attention in past studies. This study thus contributes to existing literature in providing an indication that followers’ personality traits seem to matter in their reaction to the use of a certain power base by their supervisor. Achieving a “fit” between the personality characteristics of a follower and the power base utilized by the supervisor may be important in getting compliance. This fit becomes increasingly important when considering LMX as a moderator. Although there is an ambiguous moderating effect of LMX, it has become clear that a high quality relationship between follower and supervisor does not directly imply more compliance. When introducing LMX as a moderator in the personality-compliance with power base relationships, several effects may occur. For some of the hypothesized relationship the relationship between personality and compliance with the power base only became significant at either the low or high value of LMX. In another case it was observed that the personality of a follower acted as a substitute for LMX; a high level of agreeableness “compensated” for a low level of LMX.

general people comply more with soft than harsh bases of power is confirmed. It especially stands out that compliance with coercive power is a lot lower than the compliance with the other power bases. For practice, this study may provide managers with information as to account for personality differences when trying to persuade a follower and what power bases lead to most compliance. When making a requests and trying to persuade a follower, managers may adjust their influence tactics to the personality of the employee to be more likely to achieve compliance.

Limitations and future directions

This study has several limitations. First, the sample size and composition could be improved. The sample mainly consists of relatively young respondents, some are unemployed and others had not been working at their current job for long. It can be the case that the link between personality and compliance with power bases becomes more relevant or observable when an employee has been working at his/her job for a longer amount of time. A more balanced and larger sample which only consists of respondents that are currently employed would therefore be recommended. Second, in measuring compliance with the bases of power, respondents were presented with a hypothetical situation to which they answered to what extent each power base would make them comply. It would be better to relate to an actual situation that occurred in the past, since this would probably lead to more accurate responses.

Future research should take these limitations into account and improve where possible. Furthermore, one could look at different personality measures, or perhaps more specifically on aspects of certain traits, beyond the big-5 personality traits. There is no clear pattern in the moderating effects of LMX on the hypothesized relationships in this study, this might be a goal for future studies. Since there does seem to be a significant moderating effect of LMX, there might be other moderators that are relevant in the personality-compliance with power bases relationship. Following the line of reasoning that this relationship becomes more relevant or observable when an employee has been working at their job for a longer amount of time, organizational tenure might show a moderating effect.

Conclusion

LITERATURE

Antonioni, D. 1998. Relationship between the big five personality factors and conflict management styles. International Journal of Conflict Management, vol. 9 (4): p336-355 Atwater, L.E. & Yammarino, F.J. 1996. Bases of power in relation to leader behavior: A field investigation. Journal of Business and Psychology, vol. 11 (1): p3-22

Barrick, M.R. & Mount, M.L. 1991. The Big Five Personality Dimensions and Job Performance.

Personnel Psychology, vol. 41: p1-26.

Butler, J.C. 2000. Personality and emotional correlates of right-wing authoritarianism. Social

behavior and personality, vol. 28: p1-14

Costa, P.T & McCrae, R.R. 1980. Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on subjective well-being: Happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 38: p668-678

Costa, P.T. & McCrae, R.R. 1991. Facet scales for agreeableness and conscientiousness: A revision of the NEO personality inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, vol. 12 (9): p888

Crawfard, J.T. & Pilanski, J. M. 2014. The Differential Effects of Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation on Political Intolerance. Political Psychology, vol. 35 (4): p557-576

Ehrhart, M.G. & Klein, K.J. 2001. Predicting followers' preferences for charismatic leadership: the influence of follower values and personality. Leadership Quarterly. vol. 12 (2): p153-179 Elliot, A.J. & Thrash, T.M. 2002. Approach-Avoidance Motivation in Personality: Approach and Avoidance Temperaments and Goals. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, vol. 82 (5): p804-818

French, J. R. P. & Raven, B. H. 1959. The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies

Gibson, C.K. & Swan, J.E. 1982. Sex Roles and the Desirability of Job Rewards, Expectations and Aspirations of Male versus Female Salespeople. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales

Management, vol. 2 (1): p39

Gupta, B. & Sharma, N.K. 2008 Compliance with Bases of Power and Followers' Perception of Superiors: Moderating Effect of Quality of Interaction. Singapore Management Review, vol. 30 (1): p21-24

John, O. P. & Srivastava, S. 1999. The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L.A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of Personality: Theory

and Research, p102-138.

Karkoulian, S. Messarra, L. Sidani, M. 2009. Correlates of the bases of power and the big five personality traits: an empirical investigation. Journal of Organizational Culture,

Communications and Conflict

Koslowsky, M., Schwarzwald, J., & Ashuri, S. 2001. On the relationship between subordinate’s compliance to power sources and organizational attitudes. Applied Psychology, vol. 50: p455– 476.

Larsen, R.J., Ketelaar, T. 1991. Personality and susceptibility to positive and negative emotional states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 61 (1): p132–40

Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., Grob, A., Suh, E. M., & Shao, L. 2000. Cross-cultural evidence for the fundamental features of Extraversion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 79: p452-468.

McCrae, R.R. & Costa, P.T. 1982. Self-Concept and the Stability of Personality: Cross-sectional comparison of self-reports and ratings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol.43: p1282-1292.

Pierro, A., Cicero, L., Raven, B.H. 2008. Motivated Compliance With Bases of Social Power.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, vol. 38 (7): p1921-1944

Raven, B.H., Schwarzwald, J. & Koslowsky, M. 1998. Conceptualizing and measuring a

power/interaction model of interpersonal influence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, vol. 28: p307–332.

Watson, D. & Clark, L. A. 1997. Extraversion and its positive emotional core. Handbook of