MEMBERS: THE RELATIONSHIP WITH PERSONALITY
AND PARTICIPATIVE LEADERSHIP OF THE FORMAL
LEADER
BIBICHE BOOI Student number: 1479113
University of Groningen
ABSTRACT
This study examined how personality is related to individual leadership behaviors of team members. We hypothesized that extraversion and agreeableness predict transformational and transactional leadership behavior of team members. We also assumed that participative leadership of the formal leader moderates this relationship. To test our predictions, 237 team members from 36 different teams filled in a questionnaire. Using multiple regressions, we did not find support for the idea that both personality traits are related to transformational and transactional leadership behaviors of team members. Results further indicated that participative leadership of the formal leader did not moderate the relationships. These outcomes suggested the importance of future research to focus on other personality traits and situational variables.
Keywords: Individual leadership behaviors; Personality; Participative leadership
INTRODUCTION
In today’s fast-changing and complex world where technology and customer’s requirements are frequently changing and where globalization is a hot item, it becomes difficult for teams to reach outstanding performance. The way the formal leader affects team activities and team performance as well as the behavior of team members, is often described as a way to stand out (Perry, Pearce & Sims, 1999). This is called vertical leadership and it plays an important role in creating norms that help team members to deal with the complex environment (Mehra, Smith, Dixon & Robertson, 2006). However, the traditional vertical leadership models only take into account the formal leader and how he or she influences others, while it is difficult for the formal leader to cope alone with the turbulent environment (Day, Gronn & Salas, 2004). In this situation the need for shared leadership is growing, because all team members together exhibit a wider range of knowledge and skills appropriate for leading a team (Barry, 1991).
related to team effectiveness than vertical leadership (Perry et al., 1999; Pearce & Sims, 2002).
Shared leadership is considered as a team process where leadership is exhibited by each team member (Perry et al., 1999). It is, however, likely that team members differ in the extent to which they engage in leadership and in which leadership style they exhibit. One team member may have high performance expectations and frequently communicate these to his colleagues, whereas another provides personal rewards to one colleague to influence him to reach the organizational goals (Rubin, Munz & Bommer, 2005). Shared leadership thus consist of individual leadership behaviors of team members and the question is why some team members exhibit leadership behavior and others do not.
The existing literature considers personality as an important predictor of leadership behaviors of the formal leader (Taggar, Hackett & Saha, 1999; Judge, Bono, lies & Gerhardt, 2002). Personality can be classified into five key traits, called the Big Five, which are extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism, openness to experience and conscientiousness (Judge et al., 2002). Current literature suggests that extraversion and agreeableness play an important role in predicting leadership behavior of formal leaders (Rubin et al., 2005). Extraversion and agreeableness are found as the strongest traits that are consistently related to leadership behaviors of formal leaders (Judge et al., 2002; Rubin et al., 2002). Does this relation also hold for leadership behaviors of team members? The present study will examine the relationship between extraversion and agreeableness and leadership behaviors of team members.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Leadership behaviors of team members
When a team shares leadership, the team members are actively involved in leadership (Pearce, 2004). But which style of leadership behavior do team members exhibit to influence each other? Research on vertical leadership identified different leadership behaviors and two dominant leadership styles are transformational and transactional leadership (Perry et al., 1999). Transformational leaders are closely involved with their team members and motivate them to achieve high performances (Rubin et al., 2005). Transactional leaders motivate their team members by rewarding or punishing them for their performance (Rubin et al., 2005). But how are these leadership styles carried out by team members?
Transformational team members strongly identify themselves with the organizational goals and they want to reach high levels of commitment and effort (Mayo, Meindl & Pastor, 2003). They formulate the goals to other team members and have high expectations of them (Mayo et al., 2003). Transformational team members motivate others to perform on a high level by delegating difficult tasks, encourage them to work independently and ask them to think about different business problems (Yukl, 1999; Dvir, Eden, Avolio & Shamir, 2002; Kark, Shamir & Chen, 2003). They also influence other team members through individualized consideration by showing concern for the satisfaction and well-being of others (Mayo et al., 2003). These behaviors of team members correspond with the behaviors of transformational leadership of formal leaders.
Beside transformational leadership behavior, team members can also exhibit transactional leadership behavior. Transactional team members influence other team members by task-focused behaviors; they explain the organizational goals, suggest how to execute their tasks and they clarify the expected performance (Mayo et al., 2003; De Hoogh, Den Hartog & Koopman, 2005). To motivate other team members to reach the expected performance, transactional team members offer incentives and rewards in exchange for their contribution to the performance (Mayo et al., 2003; De Hoogh et al., 2005). They also control the performance of other team members in order to correct possible errors (Bono & Judge, 2004).
Personality and leadership behaviors of team members
behavior. The existing literature formulated different approaches to personality but the trait factor-analytic theory is the most important theory in organizational behavior (Robertson & Callican, 1998). Personality leads to a consistent way of behaving that differs between individuals (Andersen, 2006). In other words, “personality characteristics are the root causes of behavior” (Robertson and Callinan, 1998, p. 322). Research indicated, however, that not all five personality traits are equally important in explaining leadership behavior.
It can be expected that extraversion is an important predictor of leadership behavior of team members. Extravert team members find it important to have close relationships with other team members and are characterized by agency, which means that they are active, powerful and authoritative in their expressions (Bono & Judge, 2004). They create a feeling of trust and inspiration in other team members, much easier than introvert team members who are quiet and modest in their behavior (Bono & Judge, 2004; Woods & Hampson, 2005). Extravert team members are not afraid of asking other team members to think about business matters and to give their opinion and suggestions about business problems. They motivate and persuade other team members to perform on a high level, characterizing for transformational leadership (De Hoogh et al., 2005). Recent research also found extraversion as the strongest and most consistent predictor of transformational leadership behavior of formal leaders (Ployart, Lim & Chan, 2001; Bono & Judge, 2004).
It is reasonable that extravert team members also exhibit transactional leadership. Extraverts feel pleasant at other team members, are searching for social attention and are not afraid to take initiative within groups (Judge & Bono, 2000; Bono & Judge, 2004; Woods & Hampson, 2005). Therefore, they easily tell others how to do their work and easily explain the organizational goals to them, characteristics of transactional leadership (Mayo et al., 2003; De Hoogh et al., 2005). Instead of introvert team members, extraverts are not shy around others and are therefore not afraid to address errors at other team members, what is also a characteristic of transactional leadership (Woods & Hampson, 2005; Bono & Judge, 2004). Given the above research, the following hypothesis can be formulated:
H1: A high degree of extraversion is positively related to transformational and transactional leadership behavior of team members.
others and show concern for the needs of other team members (De Hoogh et al., 2005). This individualized consideration of agreeable team members is a characteristic of transformational leadership (Mayo et al., 2003; De Hoogh et al., 2005). Their social behaviors are helpful in motivating other team members to perform on a high level, also a characteristic of transformational leadership (Mayo et al., 2003; De Hoogh et al., 2005). In line with this, past research found a positive relationship between agreeableness and transformational leadership of formal leaders (Judge & Bono, 2000).
It is reasonable that team members scoring high in agreeableness will also exhibit transactional leadership. Agreeable team members feel responsible for the growth and development of other team members (Bono & Judge, 2004). They will therefore help others with the execution of their tasks and reward them for their work, characteristics of transactional leadership (Mayo et al., 2003; De Hoogh et al., 2005). Team members are influenced rather by someone who is agreeable than by someone who is disagreeable. Disagreeable team members are critical, are searching for mistakes and have no time for fools (Woods & Hampson, 2005). Therefore, the following hypothesis can be formulated:
H2: A high degree of agreeableness is positively related to transformational and transactional leadership behavior of team members.
Influence of the vertical leader
all elements of transactional leadership (Mayo et al., 2003; Bono & Judge, 2004; De Hoogh et al., 2005). It can be hypothesized that:
H3: Highly participative leaders will strengthen the relationships between extraversion and agreeableness of team members and transformational and transactional leadership.
Our expectations are summarized in the following model:
METHOD Procedure
The data were collected by means of a questionnaire. Due to the use of individual research codes the anonymity of the respondents was guaranteed. The teams consist of a minimum of four team members and there was a maximum of thirteen including the formal leader, working both in profit and non-profit organizations. The organizations participating in this research varied from bank companies to broker and insurance companies and from accountancy and oil companies to student boards.
The questionnaire for the team members contains questions about personality and leadership behavior of team members and of the formal leader. The team members were requested to give a score to the other team members on individual leadership behavior.
Personality Extraversion Agreeableness Individual leadership behaviors Transformational leadership Transactional leadership Participative leadership
Participative leadership of the formal leader was also measured by ratings of the team members.
Participants
237 team members from 36 different teams were requested to fill in a questionnaire called “Leadership within teams”. Nine respondents did not fill in the questionnaire, which resulted in a response rate of 96.19%. The total amount of female team members was equal to 105 (44.5%) and the amount of male team members was 122 (51.7%). The minimum age of the participants was seventeen years and the maximum 58 years (M = 35.11, SD = 10.50). The level of education varied from primary school to university of science, where vocational education was noted with 30.9% as the highest level of education.
Measures
Extraversion. Extraversion is assessed by a single item on a 9-points scale (Woods and
Hampson, 2005). The item consists of two opposites. A score of 1 implies that the respondent is extravert and is “someone who is talkative, outgoing, is comfortable around people but
could be noisy and attention seeking”. A score of 9 indicates that the respondent is introvert
and is “someone who is reserved, private person, doesn’t like to draw attention to themselves
and can be shy around strangers”. The individual team members rated themselves on this
item.
Agreeableness. Just as extraversion, agreeableness was assessed by a single item by
Woods and Hampson (2005). Agreeableness also consists of two opposites and the participants responded on a 9-points scale. A score of 1 means that the respondent recognises himself in “someone who is forthright, tends to be critical and find fault with others and
doesn’t suffer fools gladly”. A score of 9 implies a total recognition in “someone who is generally trusting and forgiving, is interested in people but can be taken for granted and finds it difficult to say no”. The individual team members rated themselves on this item.
Transformational leadership of team members. Transformational leadership was
Transactional leadership of team members. Transactional leadership was measured by
means of two items established by Mayo et al. (2003). Both items were evaluated by a 7-points scale, with a score of 1 for “Never or almost never” and a 7 for “Frequently or almost
always”. The first item was: “How often does each member of your team acknowledge and reward you for your contribution to the team?” and the second item was: “How often does each member of your team clarify for you the incentives and rewards available to you if the team achieves its goals?”. The team members rated each other on both items and the
reliability of transactional leadership is 0.53. This reliability is low but the existing literature presumes that both items measure transactional leadership.
Participative leadership of the formal leader. Participative leadership was measured
through five items (Arnold et al., 2000). The items were assessed on a 7-points scale, ranging from 1 “Never or almost never” to 7 “Frequently or almost always”. An example of an item was: “My formal leader listens to my work group's ideas and suggestions”. The team members rated their formal leader on the five items and the reliability of participative leadership is 0.90.
Analyses
RESULTS Correlations and descriptive statistics
Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations and correlations for all research variables. First of all, there are no significant correlations between extraversion and transformational leadership (r = -.06, p < n.s.) and transactional leadership (r = -.04, p < n.s.). Secondly, agreeableness is not correlated with transformational leadership (r = -.03, p < n.s.) and transactional leadership (r = -.04, p < n.s.). As table 1 indicates, participative leadership of the formal leader correlates significantly with transformational leadership (r = .15, p < .05), but it is not related to transactional leadership (r = .06, p < n.s.).
Table 1. Means, standard deviations and correlations among variables
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Gender 1.46 0.50 2. Age 35.11 10.50 0.05 3. Highest level of education 3.25 1.05 -0.16* -0.07 4. Extraversion of team members 4.04 1.79 0.03 0.22** - 0.11 5. Agreeableness of team members 5.97 1.73 0.08 0.14* -0.14* 0.19** 6. Participative leadership of vertical leader 5.33 1.05 0.09 0.02 0.02 -0.09 -0.04 7. Transformational leadership of team members 4.15 0.69 0.06 -0.08 0.04 -0.06 -0.03 0.15* 8. Transactional leadership of team members 4.11 0.65 0.05 - 0.20** -0.06 -0.04 -0.04 0.06 0.73** Note: n = 227, except for participative leadership of vertical leader n = 225 and for transformational and transactional leadership of team members n = 237.
* p < .05 ** p < .01
Hypotheses testing
The results of the regression analysis are presented in table 2. Hypothesis 1 suggests that extraversion is positively related to transformational and transactional leadership of team members. Looking at table 2, extraversion is not a significant predictor of transformational leadership (b = -.01, p = n.s.) and transactional leadership of team members (b = .01, p = n.s.). Therefore hypothesis 1 received no support.
a significant predictor of transformational leadership (b = -.01, p = n.s.) and transactional leadership (b = -.01, p = n.s.). Thus hypothesis 2 was not supported.
Beside the simple main effects, hypothesis 3 asserts that participative leadership of the formal leader moderates the relationship between on the one hand extraversion and agreeableness of team members and on the other hand their transformational and transactional leadership behavior. The results show that the interaction between extraversion and participative leadership is not significant for transformational leadership (b = -.03, p = n.s.) and transactional leadership (b = -.03, p = n.s). Furthermore, the interaction between agreeableness and participative leadership is also not significant for transformational leadership (b = .05, p = n.s.) and transactional leadership (b = .02, p = n.s.), thus no support for hypothesis 3.
Table 2. Results of moderated regression analysis for extraversion and agreeableness explaining transformational and transactional leadership
Transformational leadership of team members Transactional leadership of team members 1 2 3 1 2 3 Step Variable 1 Gender .05 .04 .05 .04 .04 .04 Age -.06 -.05 -.06 -.14 -.14 -.14
Highest level of education .03 .03 .03 -.05 -.05 -.05
2 Extraversion -.01 -.01 .01 .02
Agreeableness -.01 -.01 -.01 -.01
Participative leadership .10 .10 .04 .04
3 Extraversion * Participative leadership -.03 -.03 Agreeableness * Participative
leadership .05 .02
R² .01 .03 .04 .05 .05 .05
R² .01 .02 .01 .05 .00 .00
Note: Unstandardized regression coefficients. n = 227, except for participative leadership of vertical leader n = 225 and for transformational and transactional leadership of team members n = 237.
* p < .05 ** p < .01
DISCUSSION
examined whether participative leadership of the formal leader moderates the relationship between personality and leadership behavior of team members.
Looking at the results, a relationship between personality and leadership behavior of team members is not found. First of all, there was no relationship between extraversion and transformational and transactional leadership behaviors of team members. This is in contrast to results about personality and leadership behavior of formal leaders. Extravert formal leaders exhibit more leadership behavior than introvert formal leaders (Judge et al., 2002). It was even an important trait in predicting and understanding transformational and transactional leadership (Bono & Judge, 2004). A reason for these contradictory outcomes can be that even if extravert team members tell others how to execute their tasks or reward them, this does not mean that other team members are automatically influenced by them. Their dominant and influential behaviors can also be experienced by other team members as prevailing and irritating.
The results also indicate that leadership behavior of team members is independent of agreeableness. This does not correspond with past research that found a positive relationship between agreeableness of formal leaders and transformational and transactional leadership behavior (De Hoogh et al., 2005). A possible explanation may be that, beside their social characteristics, they are also characterized by inactive and compliant behavior (Judge et al., 2002). It can be expected that they therefore do not tell others how to do their work or not praise others for their contribution. Inactive and compliant team members do not easily influence others, but are rather influenced by others.
Finally, the present study examined the moderating role of participative leadership behavior of the formal leader. The results showed that participative leadership does not influence extravert and agreeable team members to exhibit transformational and transactional leadership. Asking team members to formulate ideas and suggestions or to give their opinion about different matters creates a feeling of involvement at team members. But a feeling of involvement is not enough to stimulate team members to share and participate in leadership tasks. It can be expected that there are other situational variables which have more influence on the relationship between personality and leadership behavior of team members.
Limitations and future research
only two items. Transactional leadership is measured Round Robin and it was therefore not possible to include more items for transactional leadership. Apparently, both items do not measure the same construct. The existing literature uses both items to measure transactional leadership, but for future research it can be recommended to use more than two items.
Another limitation is the fact that extraversion and agreeableness of team members are measured through one item. Both items are proven to be reliable, but one item cannot measure all aspects of a personality trait. In case of agreeable team members, their social behaviors are seen as having a positive relationship with leadership behavior and their inactive and compliant behaviors as having a negative relationship. To create a clear picture of the relationship between agreeableness and leadership behavior of team members, several items should be used to measure all aspects of agreeableness.
There are also some recommendations for future research. This study examined the role of extraversion and agreeableness in relation to transformational and transactional leadership behavior of team members. This research did not test the influence of openness to new experiences, whereas it can be expected that team members scoring high on this personality trait may exhibit more leadership behaviors than team members who are less open to new experiences. Team members who are open to new experiences are characterized by creativity, are broad-minded and not afraid of taking risks (Judge et al., 2002; De Hoogh et al., 2005). Therefore, they are continuously looking for new ways to reach the organizational goals, behaviors that constitute transformational leadership behavior (De Hoogh et al., 2005)
Beside personality of team members, other individual characteristics may play a role in predicting leadership behavior, for example dominance. Dominant team members are frequently involved in social interactions, influence team decisions and provide direction to others, much more than team members who are less dominant (Davies & Kanaki, 2006). Therefore, it can be expected that they easily define the goals for other team members, suggest how to execute their tasks and also reward them, characteristics of transactional leadership (Mayo et al., 2003; De Hoogh et al., 2005). It can be expected that dominant team members will motivate others to reach high performances.
In a work setting there are other variables which may strengthen the relationship between personality and leadership behavior of team members. For example, the environment in which an organization is operating can also play an important role (Shamir & Howell, 1999). “A dynamic environment offers challenge and opportunities for change, require new interpretations, novel response and different levels of effort and investment” (De Hoogh et al., 2005, p. 842). In such an environment it is difficult for the formal leader to cope alone with the turbulent circumstances (Day, Gronn & Salas, 2004). The knowledge and skills of team members are also appropriate and it can be expected that a dynamic environment will stimulate them to exhibit leadership behavior.
REFERENCES
Andersen, J. A. 2006. Leadership, personality and effectiveness. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 35: 1078-1091.
Arnold, J. A., Arad, S., Rhoades, J. A. & Drasgow, F. 2000. The empowering leadership questionnaire: The construction and validation of a new scale for measuring leader behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(3): 249-269.
Barry, D. 1991. Managing the bossless team: Lessons in distributed leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 20: 31-47.
Bono, J. E. & Judge, T. A. 2004. Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5): 901-910.
Davies, M. F. & Kanaki, E. 2006. Interpersonal characteristics associated with different team roles in work groups. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7): 638-650.
Day, D. V., Gronn, P. & Salas, E. 2004. Leadership capacity in team. Leadership Quarterly, 15: 857-880.
work environment as a moderator. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(7): 839-865.
Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J. & Shamir, B. 2002. Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 735–744.
Greiner, L. E. 1973. What managers think of participative leadership. Harvard Business Review, 51(2): 111-117.
Houghton, J. D., Neck; C. P. & Manz, C. C. 2003. Self-Leadership and SuperLeadership: The heart and art of creating shared leadership in teams. In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger. Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. 123-140. Thousand Oaks, CA.
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. Kark, R., Shamir, B. & Chen, G. 2003. The two faces of transformational leadership:
Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 246–255.
Mayo, M., Meindl, J. R., & Pastor, J. C. 2003. Shared leadership in work teams: A social network approach. In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger. Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. 193-214. Thousand Oaks, CA.
Mehra, A., Smith, B. R., Dixon, A. L. & Robertson, B. 2006. Distributed leadership in teams: The network of leadership perceptions and team performance. Leadership Quarterly, 17(3): 232-245.
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. & Sims, H. P., Jr. 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(2): 172-197.
Perry, M. L., Pearce, C. L. & Sims, H. P., Jr. 1999. Empowered selling teams: How shared leadership can contribute to selling team outcomes. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 14(3): 35-51.
Ployart, R. E., Lim, B. C. & Chan, K. B. 2003. Exploring relations between typical and maximum performance ratings and the five factor model of personality. Personnel Psychology, 54: 809-843.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. B. & Fetter, R. 1990. Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1(2): 107-142.
Robertson, I. & Callinan, M. 1998. Personality and work behaviour. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 7(3): 321-340.
Rosener, J. 1990. Ways women lead. Harvard Business Review, 68(6): 199–125.
Rubin, R. S., Munz, D. C. & Bommer, W. H. 2005. Leading from within: The effects of emotion recognition and personality on transformational leadership behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5): 845-858.
Shamir, B., & Howell, J. M. 1999. Organizational and contextual influences on the emergence and effectiveness of charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 10: 257–283. Taggar, S., Hackett, R. & Saha, S. 1999. Leadership emergence in autonomous work teams:
Woods, S. A. & Hampson, S. E. 2005. Measuring the Big Five with single items using a bipolar response scale. European Journal of Personality, 19(5): 373-390.
