Team Members: The role of Task and Personality
Characteristics
ESTHER PRINS Student number: 1328484
University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business Msc Human Resource Management
Korreweg 2-23 9715 AA Groningen
Telephone number: +316 21501191 E-mail address: e.prins.6@student.rug.nl
First supervisor/university: Prof. dr. G.S. van der Vegt Second supervisor/university:
Predicting Individual Leadership Behaviours of
Team Members: The role of Task and Personality
Characteristics
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to learn more about individual leadership behaviours of team members. The research had to point out whether these can be predicted by task characteristics and what the influence of personality is on this relation. The hypotheses were that team
members would engage in more directive and transformational leadership behaviours when other team members depend on them for information and advice to reach their goals, which is found. This task dependence leads to interaction between team members, resulting in
individual leadership behaviours of team members. I predicted that this relation would be stronger for sociable dominant team members, because they are more willing to interact and are more open to social contact with other team members, which is not found. 39 Dutch working teams with in total 251 participants filled in questionnaires for this research. From the research can be concluded that task characteristics are important determinants of
leadership behaviours of team members. In contrast, the researched personality trait does not have a reinforcing effect on the interaction.
INTRODUCTION
The working environment is rapidly changing. Business markets are becoming
unstable and customer needs are altering (Bass & Avolio, 1990). Furthermore, the information flow is more complex and diverse then previously (Bass & Avolio, 1990). These changes require organizations to respond to the constant changes in human resources, technologies and marketing (Bass & Avolio, 1990). The pace of change has resulted in calls for new kinds of leadership behaviours (Bass, Avolio, Jung & Berson, 2003). Instead of one formal leader who is leading the whole organization, today’s organizations need more adaptive, flexible
leadership styles (Bass et al., 2003). Adaptive leaders teach their followers to create solutions for problems, while also helping them to handle leadership responsibilities (Bass et al., 2003). Shared leadership is a form of this flexible leadership.
Shared leadership is leadership that is distributed among multiple team members rather than centralized in one appointed leader (Carson, Tesluk & Marrone, 2007; Pearce & Conger, 2003). Shared leadership exists when team members influence peers in order to facilitate goal attainment (Carson et al., 2007). They offer their influence spontaneously, voluntary, and actively without having the formal obligation to do this (Carson et al., 2007). This can be in addition or instead of leadership of the designated leader (Carson et al., 2007). Because not only the formal leader shows leadership in the team but also the team members, the organization can take decisions more easily and faster and organizational knowledge is shared (Pearce, 2004). Therefore the organization is more flexible in reacting to the
environment and is more efficient (Pearce, 2004). Indeed, research shows that those teams, in which leadership is shared, are most effective (Pearce & Sims, 2002; Perry, Pearce & Sims, 1999). Because shared leadership leads to increases in commitment and in the sharing of information, it provides organizations with a competitive advantage (Carson et al., 2007).
by the team members (Carson et al., 2007). Moreover, the relation between task dependence and individual leadership behaviours will be stronger when team members are sociable dominant. Sociable dominance is often seen as part of the personality (Kalma, 1989). Team members with the trait sociable dominance are more open to social contact and are more willing to interact with other team members (Kalma, 1989). When others depend on them for performing their jobs, team members who are sociable dominant will be more likely to engage in leadership behaviours. The model below describes these relations graphically.
FIGURE 1
Research model ‘shared leadership, task dependence and sociable dominance’
Shared leadership and individual leadership of team members
Leadership is a process of influencing others (Yukl, 1989). This influence process aimes at the attainment of the team objectives and strategies, but also influences the culture of the team and organization (Yukl, 1989). Shared leadership is defined as a dynamic and
interactive influence process among team members with the goal of leading each other to the achievement of team or organizational goals (Pearce & Conger, 2003). Vertical leadership is leadership performed by the formally appointed leader (Pearce & Conger, 2003). An
important difference between shared and vertical leadership is that in shared leadership team members also show leadership behaviours besides the formal, vertical leader (Bligh et al., 2006; Pearce & Conger, 2003). Shared leadership is also seen as an excessive form of participative leadership (Pearce, 2004).
Research points out that leadership behaviours can be divided into two different categories, namely behaviours that are dealing with task accomplishment (i.e. task focused) and behaviours that facilitate team interaction and development (i.e. person focused) (Burke, Stagl, Klein, Goodwin, Salas & Halpin, 2006). This thesis will use directive leadership as an example of task-focused leadership behaviours, and transformational leadership as an
example of person-focused leadership behaviours.
leadership • directive
• transformational
Directive leadership of team members
Directive leadership is defined as ‘providing and seeking compliance with directions for accomplishing a problem-solving task’ (Kahai, Sosik and Avolio, 2004: 71). It guides the input provided by team members (Kahai et al., 2004). Team members acting as directive leaders specify how other team members should do their work (Muczyk & Reimann, 1987; Pearce, 2004; Pearce & Sims, 2002; Perry et al., 1999). Furthermore, they follow up closely the actual execution and end results (Muczyk & Reimann, 1987; Kahai et al., 2004). Finally, team members showing directive individual leadership behaviours give team members feedback about their performances (Kahai et al, 2004).
Transformational leadership of team members
Transformational leadership is the process by which team members ‘raise one another to higher levels of morality and motivation’ (Masood, Dani, Burns & Backhouse, 2006: 942). According to Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman and Fetter (1990) six kinds of key behaviours can be distinguished for transformational leadership behaviours of team members:
• Identifying and articulating a vision – behaviour aimed at inspiring team members with a vision of the future.
• Providing an appropriate model – behaviour aimed at setting an example for team members that is consistent with the values of the team member showing
transformational leadership behaviours.
• Fostering the acceptance of group goals – behaviour aimed at promoting cooperation among team members and to get them to work together toward a joined goal.
• High performance expectations – behaviour of team members showing transformational leadership behaviours indicating that he or she expects high achievements of team members.
• Providing individualized support – behaviour that indicates respect for other team members and concern for their personal feelings.
• Intellectual stimulation – behaviour aimed at encouraging other team members to rethink their assumptions concerning their work and how it should be performed.
Task dependence and leadership behaviours of team members
every team, since teams are defined by a moderate level of task dependence (De Jong et al., 2007). Team members differ from each other in the degree of which other team members depend on them. When team members depend on another team member for high performance levels, shared leadership is proposed to be especially important (Bligh et al., 2006; Pearce, 2004).
Researchers have argued that increases in interactions between team members facilitate leadership behaviours of team members (Carson et al., 2007). More specifically, when team members depend on other team members for reaching their goals, there will be interaction between them (De Jong et al., 2007). Therefore, there is more chance for leadership behaviours of team members to appear (Carson et al., 2007). Because team members depend on other team members for reaching their goals, they will go to them for advice and help (De Jong et al., 2007). Since these team members want to reach the common goals, they will give advice to the other team members. When the team member gives advice, he or she is guiding the team members and gives directions for doing their work, which is what directive leadership is aimed at (Kahai et al., 2004). Therefore, a team member will show directive leadership behaviours when team members are dependent on him or her.
I also expect that when team members depend on others for information and advice, they will show transformational leadership behaviours. Task dependence increases
interactions among team members because they have to work with each other (De Jong et al., 2007). Increased proximity and frequent interactions between team members will foster empathy among team members (Pearce & Gregersen, 1991). When a team member feels empathy, he or she is likely to show respect for the feelings of other team members. Showing respect for the feelings of team members is part of transformational leadership behaviours (Podsakoff et al., 1990). For this reason, I expect that the team members others depend on will show transformational leadership behaviours.
Hypothesis 1a: There will be a positive relation between task dependence and directive leadership behaviours of team members.
Sociable dominance
There are two types of dominance distinguished, namely aggressive and sociable dominance (Kalma, 1989). This thesis solely deals with sociable dominance, because this type is associated with social orientations and enthusiasm about taking responsibility (Kalma, 1989). Sociable dominance is part of the personality (Kalma, 1989). This means that sociable dominance influences the interactions of team members with their environment and also their behaviours (Larsen & Buss, 2002; Cascio & Aguinis, 2005). Sociable dominant team
members are more active in discussions (Kalma, 1989). They are also more assertive, task-oriented and have more ambition than team members without the trait sociable dominance (Operario & Fiske, 2001).
Team members possessing the trait sociable dominance are more willing to social interaction and are more open to social contact with team members (Kalma, 1989). Because of this, sociable dominant team members are more inclined to give advice and information when team members ask for it. As a consequence, they will show leadership behaviours more easily.
When team members are dependent on another team member, they go to this team member for information and advice (De Jong et al., 2007). When this team member is sociable dominant, he or she prefers being in control of the situation (Operario & Fiske, 2001). Because of this, he or she will give instructions to the other team members how to do their work and verify whether the work is done correctly. These are characteristics of directive leadership behaviours. So sociable dominant team members are more likely to engage in directive leadership behaviours when others depend on them than team members who are not sociable dominant.
Team members go for information and advice to team members they depend on for reaching their goals (De Jong et al., 2007). When these team members are sociable dominant, they are socially directed and therefore also show more social leadership behaviours. Team members who are sociable dominant like taking responsibility in the group (Kalma, 1989). Furthermore, they are good in representing own ideas in groups and speak easily and longer in front of groups (Kalma, 1989). Because of this, they are not afraid to be a role model for other team members. Furthermore, because they want to take responsibility and are good in groups, they will lobby for their own ideas and vision in the interest of the team. Providing an
Hypothesis 2a: The positive relation between task dependence and directive
leadership behaviours of team members will be stronger for sociable dominant team members.
Hypothesis 2b: The positive relation between task dependence and transformational leadership behaviours of team members will be stronger for sociable dominant team members.
METHOD
Procedure
The study described in this paper is done among Dutch working teams, varying from non-profit government offices to profit banking organizations. There were 39 teams, each consisting of multiple team members and their formal leader. The function of the team members varied from sales personnel to administration employees. They filled in questionnaires about task interdependence, leadership, and sociable dominance.
Participants
The 39 teams consisted of 251 participants. The response rate was 97.21% (244 out of 251). Of these 244 participants 126 participants were male (51.6%) and 118 were female (48.4%). The age of the participants varied from 17 to 58 (M = 35.06, SD = 10.24). The participants varied in their level of education: primary school: 1.2%; secondary school: 27.0%; secondary vocational education: 34.0%; higher vocational education: 23.8%; university: 13.9%. The mean years of services of the participants was 10.77 (SD = 10.62).
Measurement instruments
Directive leadership was measured with three items of Kahai, Sosik, and Avolio
Transformational leadership was measured with six items developed by Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter (1990). I used one item for every dimension of transformational leadership. These items were also measured on the individual level by making use of the Round Robin method. Examples of questions are ‘to what degree do the team members named below develop a sense of team “spirit” in you?’ and ‘to what degree do the team members named below function as an example for you?’. The participants had to give a score for every team member. I made one transformational leadership score for every participant based on the scores provided by peers. The scores were given on a scale from one to seven (1 = not al all, 7 = to a very high degree). The cronbach’s alpha was .91 for these items.
Task dependence was measured with one item, developed by De Jong, Van der Vegt,
and Molleman (2007). This item was measured on the dyadic level by making use of the Round Robin method. The question was ‘how dependent are you on each team member named below for executing your job adequately?’. Participants had to answer this question for every colleague separately on a scale of one to seven (1 = not at all, 7 = to a very high
degree). I made a score for every participant based on the scores of their colleagues, which indicates to what degree colleagues are dependent on one team member.
Sociable dominance was measured with twelve items of Kalma (1989). Eight of these
twelve items measure sociable dominance. After performing a factor analysis, all eight items of sociable dominance proved to be useful for this research (see attachment 1 for the results of the factor analysis). The items were formulated on the individual level and rated by team members. Examples of questions are the following: ‘I do not have problems talking in front of groups’, ‘No doubt I have leadership skills’ and ‘I am never shy when facing unfamiliar people’. The answers were given on a scale from one to seven (1 = I totally disagree, 7 = I totally agree). Cronbach’s alpha for these items was .83.
Data analysis
participants will show leadership behaviours. Concerning gender, women are often still troubled by a glass ceiling, which is an invisible barrier blocking women to reach their career potential (Swanton, 2007). Older team members place more emphasize on influence and autonomy instead of material success (Oshagbemi, 2004). For this reason, older team members will more often show leadership behaviours to exert their influence in the team. Furthermore, according to Larsen and Buss (2002) leadership motivation increases over time. So, the longer one is active in the team and/or organization, the more chance there is that individual team members are motivated to show leadership behaviours in their team. In the second step I included the independent variable task dependence and the moderator sociable dominance. In the third step of the analysis, the interaction term of task dependence and sociable dominance was included. Thus the two-way interaction was tested. I conducted the multiple regression analysis twice, once with directive leadership as dependent variable and a second time with transformational leadership as dependent variable.
RESULTS
Correlations and descriptive statistics
The means, standard deviations, and Pearson-correlations of the variables are represented in table 1. As expected, task dependence correlates significantly with directive leadership (r = .55, p < .01) and transformational leadership (r = .50, p < .01). Sociable dominance does not have a significant correlation with directive leadership (r = .00), but is related to transformational leadership (r = .14, p < .05).
Tests of the hypotheses
TABLE 1
Means, standard deviations, and Pearson-correlations
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Gender 1.48 .50
2. Age 35.06 10.24 .07
3. Years active in the organization
10.77 10.62 .14* .80**
4. Years active in the current team 2.78 3.90 .05 .37** .40** 5. Directive leadership 2.98 .84 -.03 -.22** -.09 -.05 6. Transformational leadership 4.15 .70 .05 -.09 -.05 .00 .62** 7. Task dependence 3.60 .86 .11 -.06 .12 -.04 .55** .50** 8. Sociable dominance 4.75 1.01 -.21** .06 -.06 -.06 .00 .14* .02
n = 251, except for gender, age and years active in the organization (n=244), years active in the current team and sociable dominance (n=243).
* p < .05 ** p < .01
TABLE 2
Results of the hierarchical regression analysis for the relationships between task dependence, directive and transformational leadership behaviours of team members, and sociable dominance
Directive leadership Transformational leadership
Step Variable 1 2 3 1 2 3
1 Gender -.03 -.07 -.07 .05 .03 .03
Age -.44** -.22* -.21* -.15 .02 .03
Years active in the organization
.25* -.01 -.01 .05 -.16 -.18
Years active in the current team .01 .06 .06 .03 .08 .08 2 Task dependence .58** .58** .54** .54** Sociable dominance -.01 -.01 .13* .13* 3 Task dependence x sociable dominance .01 .04 R² .08** .38** .38 .01 .31** .31 ∆ R² .08** .30** .00 .01 .29** .00
The non standardized regression coefficients are shown.
n = 251, except for gender, age and years active in the organization (n=244), years active in the current team and sociable dominance (n=243).
* p < .05 ** p < .01
dominance. There is no relation found between the interaction term and transformational leadership (b = .04, p > .05). For this reason, hypothesis 1b can be supported, but hypothesis 2b cannot. A surprising result and not hypothesized in this thesis was a significant relation between sociable dominance and transformational leadership behaviours of team members (b = .13, p < .05). However, the same does not hold good for sociable dominance and directive leadership (b = -.01, p > .05).
DISCUSSION
The subject of this study was shared leadership, which is leadership shared by several team members instead of exhibited by one formal leader (Carson et al., 2007, Pearce & Conger, 2003). This study contributes to our understanding of how individual leadership behaviours of team members develop. I expected that team members would engage in more directive and transformational leadership behaviours when other team members depend on them for information and advice to reach their goals. This relationship would be stronger for team members who are sociable dominant because they are more open to social contact and are more willing to social interaction with other team members (Kalma, 1989).
The results support my expectation that team members which others are dependent on for information and advice will show directive and transformational leadership behaviours. It appears that task characteristics lead to leadership behaviours. Furthermore, it is
acknowledged by researchers that task characteristics are important determinants of
leadership behaviours (Lord, 1976; Pawar & Eastman, 1997; Yukl, 1989). However, previous researchers studied the role of task characteristics for the behaviours of formal leaders. In my thesis I studied the predicting role of task characteristics for the emergence of
transformational and directive leadership behaviours of team members. The results imply that this emergence can be forecasted by task characteristics. This study corresponds with previous research in finding the influence of contextual factors, in this case task characteristics, in predicting transformational (Pawar & Eastman, 1997; Yukl, 1999) and directive leadership behaviours (Bass, Valenzi, Farrow & Solomon, 1975). This is true for formal leaders, but also for team members as showed by this research.
team members who show directive leadership behaviours are not doing this because of a personality trait they possess or an internal need they are feeling to be in control, which is indicative of sociable dominance. Instead, team members’ directive leadership behaviours are triggered by external cues, as is indicated by the positive relationship between task
dependence and leadership behaviours. Team members go to this particularly team member and ask him or her for advice when needed, eliciting leadership behaviours in that team member.
Sociable dominance has also no influence on the relation between task dependence and transformational leadership behaviours of team members. However, this research shows that sociable dominant team members do show more transformational leadership behaviours, subsequently unattached whether team members are dependent on the leading team member. Sociable dominant team members are social team members. That is, they have a strong communicative intention and are direct and active in their social contacts with other team members instead of being reserved (Kalma, 1989). Directness in social contacts includes making more eye contact when speaking with other team members and using more hand movements to reinforce what they are saying. All of this is indicative of positive social relations (Kalma, 1989). This inclination toward positive social relations brings on more chance for person-focused leadership behaviours to be present, because they are aimed at facilitating interaction between team members (Burke et al., 2006). Furthermore, sociable dominant team members are in the centre of attention and are frequently imitated by other team members (Kalma, 1989). Because of this, they are an example for the other team members. In other words, they will provide an appropriate role model for team members which is part of transformational leadership behaviours. Existing research already showed that sociable dominance is related to transformational leadership behaviours of formal leaders (Judge & Bono, 2000). This research gives indications that sociable dominance is also related to transformational leadership behaviours of team members.
Practical implications
members. Furthermore, organizations can screen on sociable dominance when they want team members to show transformational leadership behaviours.
Limitations
A weakness of this study is that only two different leadership styles of team members have been measured. Conclusions can be drawn for these two styles but not for other ones. More research will be needed to learn more about the influence of task dependence on other leadership styles like transactional, charismatic, and participative leadership. Another limitation is that the data is cross-sectional. Therefore any definitive conclusions about the causality cannot be drawn. Task dependence can lead to leadership behaviours of team members, but these leadership behaviours can also lead to task dependence. Carefully designed longitudinal studies are needed to discover the real relation between task dependence and shared leadership.
A strength of this study is the diversity of teams and organizations that participated in this research. This increases the generalizability of the findings. The participating
organizations varied from non-profit government offices to profit banking organizations. The functions of team members varied from sales personnel working a lot with customers to administration employees who never see customers. Another strength is the method of measuring the leadership styles. Both styles are measured by making use of a Round Robin method. Team members gave a score for every other team member. The leadership styles are more objectively measured this way through the use of multiple assessments.
Future research
Whether or not team members show leadership behaviours depends on task
characteristics, as proved in this research. However, it may also depend on vertical leadership. The formal leader can accept that some team members behave as leaders or even encourage their leadership behaviours, as would be expected from transformational leaders who stimulate team members and inspire them to reach their highest level of achievement (Podsakoff et al., 1990; Ensley, Hmieleski & Pearce, 2006). However, the formal leader showing directive leadership behaviours would be expected to discourage the emergence of leadership behaviours of team members and eventually punish team members when showing this kind of behaviours, as directive leaders tell team members how to do their work and do not want them to take own initiatives (Kahai et al., 2004). More research is needed to say more about the influence of vertical leadership on team members’ leadership behaviours.
REFERENCES
Anderson, S.E., & Williams, L.J. (1996). Interpersonal, job, and individual factors related to helping processes at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(3): 282-296.
Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1990). Developing transformational leadership: 1992 and beyond.
Journal of European Industrial Training, 14(5): 21-27.
Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J., Jung D.I., & Berson, Y., (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88(2): 207-218.
Bass, B.M., Valenzi, E.R., Farrow, D.L., & Solomon, R.J. (1975). Management styles associated with organizational, task, personal, and interpersonal contingencies.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(6): 720-729.
Bligh, M. C., Pearce, C. L., & Kohles, J. C. (2006). The importance of self- and shared
Burke, C.S., Stagl, K.C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G.F., Salas, E., & Halpin, S.M. (2006). What type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis. The
Leadership Quarterly, 17: 288-307.
Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared leadership in teams: an investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 50(5): 1217-1234.
Cascio, W.F., & Aguinis, H. (2005). Applied psychology in human resource management. (6th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson education.
Ensley, M. D., Hmielski, K. M., & Pearce, C. L. (2006). The importance of vertical and shared leadership within new venture top management teams: implications for the performance of startups. The Leadership Quarterly, 17: 217-231.
Jong, S.B. de, Vegt, G.S. van der, & Molleman, E. (2007). The relationships among asymmetry in task dependence, perceived helping behavior, and trust. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92(6): 1625-1637.
Judge, T.A., & Bono, J.E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5): 751-765.
Judge, T.A., Bono, J.E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M.W. (2002). Personality and leadership: a qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4): 765-780.
Kahai, S.S., Sosik, J.J., & Avolio, B.J. (2004). Effects of participative and directive leadership in electronic groups. Group & Organization Management, 29(1): 67-105.
Kalma, A. (1989). Dominantie en onzekerheidsreductie. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen, The Netherlands.
Larsen, R.J., & Buss, D.M. (2002). Personality psychology: domains of knowledge about
Lord, R.G. (1976). Group performance as a function of leadership behavior and task structure: toward an explanatory theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 17(1): 76-96.
Masood, S.A., Dani, S.S., Burns, N.D., & Backhouse, C.J. (2006). Transformational
leadership and organizational culture: the situational strength perspective. Proceedings
of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Engineering Manufacture,
220(6): 941-949.
Muczyk, J.P., & Reimann, B.C. (1987). The case for directive leadership. The Academy of
Management Executive, 1(4): 301-311.
Operario, D., & Fiske, S.T. (2001). Effects of trait dominance on powerholders’ judgements of subordinates. Social Cognition, 19(2): 161-180.
Oshagbemi, T. (2004). Age influences on the leadership styles and behaviour of managers.
Employee Relations, 26(1): 14-29.
Pawar, B. S., & Eastman, K. K. (1997). The nature and implications of contextual influences on transformational leadership: a conceptual examination. Academy of Management
Review, 22(1): 80-109.
Pearce, C. L. (2004). The future of leadership: combining vertical and shared leadership to transform knowledge work. Academy of Management Executive, 18(1): 47-57.
Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). All those years ago. In: C. L. Pearce and J. A. Conger (Eds.). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P. (2002). Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: an examination of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors. Group Dynamics:
Theory, Research, and Practice, 6: 172-197.
Perry, M. L., Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P. (1999). Empowered selling teams: how shared leadership can contribute to selling team outcomes. Journal of Personal Selling &
Sales Management, 19(3): 35-51.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1(2): 107-142.
Swanton, M. (2007). Career stoppers: frustrated women take employers to court over glass-ceiling issues. InsideCounsel, 17(189): 28-30
Yukl, G. (1989). Managerial leadership: a review of theory and research. Journal of
Management, 15(2), 251-289.
APPENDIX A
Table A1 Results of factor analysis for sociable dominance
Factor 1 Factor 2
Research value item Sociable dominance Aggressive dominance
Talking in front of groups .76*
Starting to conversate .75
Leadership qualities .74 .24
Talking in front of class .74
Shyness .69
Taking responsibility .68 .11
Degree of confidence .62
Taking decisions .61 .21
Lie .87
Watching while telling a lie .10 .84
Smart sacarstic remarks .10 .74
Not being liking .57
