1  

What makes a good leader? Personality, behaviour and leadership effectiveness: towards an integrative model.

Maastricht University

Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience

Master in Work and Organizational Psychology

Maastricht, 21-07-2012

Eke Jelluma

i605581

Words – 10151

First supervisor – Regina Eckert, Senior Research Associate at the Centre for Creative Leadership.

Second supervisor – Fred Zijlstra, Professor and Head of Work & Organizational Psychology at

Maastricht University.

  2

Table of Contents

1. ABSTRACT 3

2. INTRODUCTION 4

2.1. Theoretical review 5

2.2. Leader effectiveness 8

2.3. Personality and leader effectiveness 10

2.4. Transformational leadership 11

2.5. Towards an integrative and mediation model 12

3. METHODS 17

3.1. Participants and Procedure 17

3.2. Materials and Measures 18

3.3. Methods of Analysis 21

4. RESULTS 21

4.1. Research Questions 24

4.2. Mediation Hypotheses 26

5. DISCUSSION 31

5.1. Implications 32

5.2. Limitations 35

5.3. Conclusions 36

6. REFERENCES 37

7. APPENDICES 41

  3

1. Abstract

The present research points to a need in integrating the trait and behaviour approach to determine

leader effectiveness. A mediation model is proposed, integrating both approaches and examining

to which extent change- and relational-oriented behaviours mediate the relationship between

personality and leader effectiveness. Two specific personality traits, argued to be consistent

predictors of leader effectiveness, are used: extraversion and expressed control. Archival data

from 438 managers were gathered from the Centre for Creative Leadership. Results provide

evidence for a mediation effect. The behaviours influence and results orientation fully mediated

the effect of expressed control on leader effectiveness. The effect of extraversion was mediated

through the behaviours innovation and approachability. Moreover, behaviour was a better

predictor for leader effectiveness than personality. The latter showed a shortage in significant

correlation with effective leadership. These findings point to important issues in the assessment

of leadership and in interpreting results of personality measurements to predict leader

effectiveness.

  4

2. Introduction

Leadership research has primarily been concerned with two major questions: which personality

traits make an individual a leader? And, which behaviour competencies make an effective leader?

Each question referring to the trait and behaviour approach, respectively. The current study

addresses an insufficiency in present leadership research in integrating these two approaches.

When relying on previous findings (Ahmetoglu, Chamorro-Premuzic, & Furnham, 2010;

Furnham, Crump, & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2007; Judge, Bono, Gerhardt, & Ilies, 2002; Roush &

Atwater, 1992), it is argued that personality and behaviour can both independently influence

leader effectiveness, respectively, through the trait and behaviour approach. Only one study was

located, examining a possible integration of the trait and behaviour approach (Derue, Nahrgang,

Wellman, & Humphrey, 2011). Acknowledging the importance and significance of their research,

the leadership literature still shows a gap in appraising the indirect relationship between specific

traits and specific behaviour competencies. The present study addresses this gap by developing a

powerful model in which both the trait and behaviour approach is integrated, each including

specific leader traits and behaviours. This theoretical trait-behaviour model of leader

effectiveness suggests the mediation role of behaviour on the relationship between personality

and leader effectiveness. Personality will manifest in specific behaviour styles, which

consequently impact the leader effectiveness, depending on the behaviour this effect will be

positive or negative. More specifically, the present research considers transformational

leadership, and its associated change- and relational-oriented behaviour. As for the personality

traits, extraversion and expressed control will be focused on.

To conclude, establishing and understanding the relationship between the trait and behaviour

approach and leader effectiveness will further enrich the research on leadership. Also,

recommendations will be given for both practice and science. The implications will involve

leadership development, assessment and training, and from a scientific point of view,

recommendations for the measurement used in trainings will be provided concerning which

constructs they assess and how they relate to another. The present study uses archival data from

The Centre for Creative Leadership, that concentrate on three leadership assessment

measurements, FIRO-B, MBTI, and a specific 360-degree feedback instrument, LF 360

(McCaulley & Moxley, 1996; Myers & McCaulley, 1985; Schutz, 1958).

  5

The following section will provide in-depth background information on the leadership topic,

involving the trait and behaviour approach, and their related important findings. Next, it will be

followed by an extent description of leader effectiveness, personality traits, and behaviour

competencies, including their analyzed constructs. Finally, the proposed integrative mediation

model is outlined. Throughout these sections, research questions and hypotheses are formulated.

2.1. Theoretical background

Leadership is a widely known concept. Therefore, it is surprising the word did not appear in the

English language until around the year 1800 (Gordon, 2001). It was originally known in common

vocabulary, and later on brought into scientific and technical disciplines (Pierce, 2011). Today, it

is used in organizations, businesses and daily life. Across time, a variety of definitions have been

proposed. It has been viewed as a trait, a behaviour style, a characteristic of groups and as an

interaction between a leader and a follower (Yukl, 2006). These multiple redefinitions created an

ambiguity in meaning of the concept leadership. Also different styles of leadership have been

suggested: laissez-faire, transactional, transformational and charismatic leadership, to name a

few. Each of these styles entails specific personality traits, skills and competencies, which are

explored through personality and behaviour measurements (Yukl, 2006). However, as the

scientific concept leadership appears to be an enigma, then the question emerges: How should

leadership be assessed?

One of the earliest approaches to study leadership is the trait approach. This approach is

studied through psychometric measurements, such as FIRO-B and MBTI, in which the natural

ability, intelligence, mental abilities, and interests of an individual are assessed. The trait

approach emphasizes leaders’ attributes such as personality, motives, and values. The assumption

underlying this approach is that some individuals are natural leaders, endowed with specific

personality traits. Certain personality traits would therefore predict whether or not an individual

is effective in a leadership position. Unfortunately, most prior studies of the trait theory were

descriptive with few attempts to quantify the relationship of these characteristics to leader

effectiveness. Therefore, as research on leadership progressed, a behaviour approach emerged.

Here, research analyzed the relationship between behaviour and leader effectiveness and paid

closer attention to what managers actually do on their job. Through the use of competency

  6

measures (e.g. 360-degree feedback), researchers look at leaders’ activities, responsibilities and

functions, and relate it to leader effectiveness (Yukl, 2006).

As research on leadership continues, many studies have pursued both the trait and behaviour

approach to further explore the relationship between personality traits, behaviour and leadership

(Ahmetoglu et al., 2010; Furnham et al., 2007; Judge et al., 2002; Roush & Atwater, 1992).

These studies have shown that personality and leadership are related and that some particular

personality traits are desirable for effective leadership. The personality traits of the Big Five

model (extraversion, neuroticism, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness) are mainly

used in research to explore their relationship to leadership, as the model describes the most

salient aspects of personality (Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan, 1994; Judge et al., 2002). The most

prominent and consistent trait related to leadership is suggested to be extraversion (Judge et al.,

2002). Leaders high on extraversion are likely to be sociable, lively, assertive, optimistic, and

inspiringly communicate to followers. Furnham (2008) based its results on data from the measure

FIRO-B, a psychometric measure, assessing the typical behaviour of an individual towards others

and how this individual would like others to behave towards him or her (Schutz, 1958). And he

revealed that extraversion was significant for two particular FIRO-B types: expressed inclusion

and expressed control. Both types were also found to be consistently and positively correlated

with leadership, intelligence and managerial level (Ahmetoglu et al., 2010; Furnham, 2008;

House & Howell, 1997). In accordance, Furnham et al. (2007) identified a significant higher

expressed inclusion and expressed control score for senior managers than non-managers. Another

FIRO-B type, viz. wanted control, was negatively correlated with leader effectiveness.

As for the behaviour approach, Fleishman and colleagues’ (1991) research on the

behavioural requirements for effective organizational leadership, has revealed 13 distinct leader

behaviour dimensions. Subsequent research on leader behaviour has encountered difficulties to

separate attributions of specific behaviours and the related effectiveness (Judge et al., 2002).

Nevertheless, a consistent theme in the leadership literature is that behaviour can be fit into four

categories: task-oriented behaviour, change-oriented behaviour, relational-oriented behaviour,

and passive leadership (Yukl, 2006). First, task-oriented behaviour is determined by initiating

structure, in the sense that leaders define task roles to the group and set clear expectations, which

then can be rewarded if the standards for performance are met. This type of behaviour is mainly

seen in transactional leadership, in which the exchange of resources has a central position (Bass,

  7

1985). Second, change-oriented leaders are defined as facilitating and change-driven, including

actions such as developing and communicating a vision for change, encouraging innovative

thinking, challenging assumption, and risk taking. Third, relational-oriented leaders are described

as showing respect for individuals, friendly and approachable, open for input, and treat everyone

as equal. Further specific relational-oriented behaviour styles are empowering, encouraging

welfare, participative, and democratic. Both change- and relational-oriented behaviour are

suggested to fall within the scope of transformational leadership, which is commonly referred to

as most effective type of leadership (Bono & Judge, 2004; House & Howell, 1992; Judge &

Piccolo, 2004). Finally, passive leadership (or laissez-faire) is commonly referred to a leader’s

inaction, in which there is no engagement with followers (Yukl, 2006). Bass (1985) includes this

type of behaviour under the transactional leadership, since leaders take a passive approach and

only intervene when problems become serious.

To conclude, previous literature on leadership has focused on either the trait or behaviour

approach, on personality traits or on behavioural characteristics, in order to examine and explain

leader effectiveness. Up till now, only one study has examined a possible integration between the

trait and behaviour approach, and has analyzed their relative validity (Derue et al., 2011). As a

response to the call for integration, Derue and colleagues have come up with a theoretical model

in which diverse criteria of leaders’ traits, behaviours and effectiveness are captured. Results

support their model and provide evidence for an integrative model of leader effectiveness. Most

important findings: passive behaviours were negatively associated with leader effectiveness,

behaviours had a greater impact on leader effectiveness than traits, and task competence and

interpersonal attributes predicted change-oriented behaviours. These findings, as well as their

overall model are rather broad and embrace a lot of dimensions, including demographics, task

competences and different behaviour aspects. No suggestions are made considering specific

behaviour competencies and specific personality traits; these different traits and behaviours were

represented by one overall criterion (e.g. task competence included intelligence,

conscientiousness, openness to experience, emotional stability, technical knowledge, and

leadership efficacy). Therefore, the aim of the present study is to further close the gap in

leadership research, by including specific traits and behaviours into an integrated model. Figure 1

captures both the trait and behaviour approach, and displays a proposed integration (orange

lines). The current research presents a theoretical, integrative and mediation model that

  8

emphasizes the importance of specific personality traits and their influence on particular

behavioural leadership styles, which is conceptualized in Figure 1. The integration includes an

effect of personality on leader effectiveness, through the manifestation of behaviour. Behaviour

will serve as a mediator, mediating the effect of personality on leader effectiveness. This

resulting effect on leader effectiveness can be positive or negative, depending on the manifested

behaviour. In the following sections descriptions of and relations between each construct are

presented.

Figure 1. An integration of the trait and behaviour approach regarding leader effectiveness. Orange lines

indicate proposed mediational influence of behaviour on the effect of personality on leader effectiveness.

2.2. Leader effectiveness

First, the leader effectiveness criterion is defined. The concept leader effectiveness has differed in

definition from one writer to another (Yukl, 2006). However, Gordon (2001) states that after

intensive research for the last 65 years, leadership is well understood and it is possible to describe

precisely what it takes to be a good leader. Today’s organizations and the role of leaders have

gone through a transformation, from the quest for authoritative leaders to participative leadership.

Therefore, the key to effective leadership, today, is to influence people without using power, to

build a competent team and work together with other managers and departments. This means; be

  9

empathic, listen actively, resolve conflicts so no one loses, and use a non-threatening

performance evaluation (Gordon, 2011).

Assessing leader effectiveness is usually done in terms of the consequences of the leader’s

actual performance, the leader-role fit, and whether the leader influences and guides its tasks

successfully in order to attain its goals, as such that it impacts an organization’s bottom line

(Hogan et al., 1994). Also, the ability to influence one’s subordinates is of great value to leader

effectiveness (Judge et al., 2002). Further, it is recommended to include a wide range of various

criteria in research of leader effectiveness, such as traits, behaviour competencies, and

performance. These criteria should be assessed by different evaluator groups, such as bosses,

supervisors, subordinates, peers, and direct reports. As for self-ratings, developing an accurate

self-awareness increases the reliability of self-assessment on leader effectiveness (Hogan et al.,

1994). Various evaluator groups should be included, since previous studies have demonstrated

that leader effectiveness is defined and evaluated differently across groups (Avolio, Sosik, Jung,

& Berson, 2003).

In this study, the following three distinct criteria are utilized: performance, relative

performance, and overall effectiveness. With these criteria, a global coverage of the concept

leader effectiveness is presented, including ratings across different evaluator groups (self, boss,

peer, and direct report), thanks to the operationalization of a 360-degree feedback measure.

Further, the relative predictive validity of both the traits and behaviours will be possible to be

examined across these criteria.

The following research questions, concerning leader effectiveness and personality and

behaviour, are put forward, in order to provide a global understanding of how the variables

influence one another and how the relationships are situated. Also the relationship between

personality traits and behaviour competencies will be explored, which is conceptualized in the

third research question.

I. Which personality traits best predict leader effectiveness?

II. Which behaviour competencies best predict leader effectiveness?

III. Which personality traits most affect behaviour competencies?

  10

2.3. Personality and leader effectiveness

As for the personality traits, two explicit traits are highlighted in the current study: extraversion

and locus of control. This focus is chosen since previous literature points out that both personality

traits are positively and consistently related with leader effectiveness and managerial success

(Ahmethoglu et al., 2010; Furnham, 2008; House & Howell, 1992; Howell & Avolio, 1993;

Judge et al., 2002). The construct extraversion is defined as an individual who is sociable, lively,

and open for input and feedback. These types of individuals will derive energy by engaging with

people, and are highly involved with people and things (Yukl, 2006). In the present study

extraversion is measured through MBTI, a psychometric measure, which characterizes a person’s

innate preferences regarding dealing with ideas, people and external world, and provides an

individual’s specific psychological type (Myers & McCaulley, 1985). Next, the locus of control

is described as someone’s belief that one’s own behaviour determines what happens to him or

her, rather than chance and external forces, and that one has control over the future. Individuals

high on locus of control are also confident of their ability to induce others to comply (House &

Howell, 1992). In the present study locus of control is translated to the FIRO-B scale expressed

control. FIRO-B is a psychometric measure and assesses the behaviour of an individual towards

others (expressed) and how this individual likes other to behave towards him/her (wanted). These

two behavioural dimensions are distinct and may contradict each other. The FIRO-B scale

expressed control is defined as the need of an individual to exercise control over a person and

things, in order to balance the influence and power in relationships. This item has been found to

be desirable for leader effectiveness, leadership capability, and managerial success (Furnham,

2008; Furnham et al., 2007). Its co-dimension, wanted control was negatively related to effective

leadership (Ahmetoglu et al., 2010; Furnham et al., 2007), and therefore not taken into account in

the current integrative model. All together, based on these previous findings, the following study

hypotheses are derived.

H1: Extraversion, as measured by MBTI, is related to leader effectiveness.

H2: Expressed control, as measured by FIRO-B, is related to leader effectiveness.

  11

2.4. Transformational leadership

Initially, Burns (1978) introduced transformational leadership, after which Bass (1985) identified

four specific behaviours covering this domain: idealized influence, inspirational motivation,

intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration. Transformational leadership is also

related to the change- and relational-oriented behaviour types, in which the leader seeks to

change the organization according to his/her vision, and is concerned with remaining good

understanding with its followers (Yukl, 2006). These two behaviour types are suggested to be

most effective when occurring in combination, thus when the leader focuses on changing

fundamentals in the organization, and also focuses on relationships with followers. This type of

approach positively affects leader effectiveness (Bass, 1985; Bono & Judge, 2004; Yukl, 2006).

Both change- and relational-oriented behaviours have been explained and been given definitions

earlier in the theoretical background section. The present study relies on the validity of these

definitions, in order to select seven behaviour competencies, from the 360-degree feedback

measure used in this study, to fall within the scope of the change- and relational-oriented

behaviours. 360-degree feedback is a Benchmarks ® multisource instrument, where self, boss,

peer, and direct reports, assess an individual’s behaviour, performance and effectiveness

(McCauley & Moxley, 1996). Specific for the change-oriented behaviours are: influence, vision,

innovation, results orientation. For the relational-oriented, these specific behaviours are used:

effective communication, engagement, and approachability.

Furthermore, transformational leadership can also be described in terms of personality traits.

The most commonly mentioned traits, related to transformational leadership are high level of

charisma, extraverted, sensing, feeling, self-confident, and high locus of control (Bono & Judge,

2004; House & Howell, 1992; Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Extraversion and locus of control are

considered in this study. Bono and Judge (2004) located extraversion to be the strongest and most

consistent correlate with transformational leadership. Due to their optimism, extraverts tend to

express positive emotions and a clear vision, and therefore it is likely that leaders high on

extraversion exhibit inspirational leadership, a main component of transformational leadership.

Howell and Avolio (1993) revealed that locus of control correlated significantly and positively

with transformational leadership.

Thus, due to its proved effectiveness in previous research (Bono & Judge, 2004; House &

Howell, 1992; Judge & Piccolo, 2004), transformational leadership will be studied in depth,

  12

through its associated change- and relational-oriented behaviour, and suggested to be associated

to its most important personality traits; extraversion and locus of control (expressed control).

H3: Change- and relational-oriented behaviour is related to leader effectiveness.

H4: Extraversion and expressed control are related to change- and relational-oriented

behaviour.

2.5. Towards an integrative and mediation model

Previous research has put forward several mediation factors regarding the relationship of

personality traits and leader effectiveness. Situational and environmental factors, job demands,

job autonomy, and team characteristics are suggested to mediate the effect of personality on

leader effectiveness (Grant, Gino, & Hofmann, 2011; Ng, Ang, & Chan, 2008; Piccolo &

Colquitt, 2006). Although prior research has established that leader effectiveness is influenced,

independently, by both leader traits and behaviours (Ahmetoglu et al., 2010; Furnham et al.,

2007; Judge et al., 2002; Roush & Atwater, 1992), it is not yet clear how specific behaviour

styles and specific personality traits relate to each other (Zulfigar, Naila, & Ahmad, 2011). What

are the dynamics between traits and behaviours that can lead to increased leader effectiveness?

And, could one mediate the effect of the other on leader effectiveness. Insufficient integration of

traits and behaviours calls for more research on the indirect relationship between traits and leader

effectiveness, in which behaviour competencies possibly serve as a mediator (Derue et al, 2011).

The present study seeks to develop an integrative theoretical trait-behaviour model of leader

effectiveness, where behaviour serves as a mediator between personality and leader effectiveness.

Figure 2 captures this integrative account on personality traits, behaviours, and points to a

possible mechanism in which specific behaviours manifest from personality traits into effective

leadership. Whether personality is expressed in effective leadership depends on how it manifests

in behavioural leadership styles. The personality trait, extraversion is generally related to open,

energetic, and assertive behaviour such as seeking for contact and innovation, which is suggested

to be effective behaviour (Judge et al., 2002). However, extraversion can also be ineffective when

it is manifested through ‘dominant’ behaviour (Grant et al., 2011). The same accounts for the

personality trait expressed control. This trait is commonly associated with stable and effective

  13

behaviours of confidence, extraversion and a conscious awareness of self, others, and the

environment. Nevertheless, a leader high in expressed control may also exert too much self-

confidence, feelings of grandiosity, in which he/she becomes disagreeable and ineffective

(Furnham, 2008; Furnham et al, 2007) Thus, depending on the behaviour that results from the

personality trait, effective leadership is achieved or not. Therefore, an important aspect of the

proposed model is that behaviour is located as a possible mechanism through which personality

traits influence leader effectiveness. It is postulated that behaviour serves as a key mediator in the

relationship between traits and leader effectiveness.

As also displayed in the integrative model (see yellow boxes, Figure 2), the present research

considers transformational leadership, and its associated change- and relational-oriented

behaviour. As mentioned earlier, the trait extraversion has been positively linked to the

transformational leadership (Bono & Judge, 2004; Hogan et al., 1994; Judge et al., 2002;

Spangler, Dubinsky, Yammarino, & Jolson, 1997; Thompson, 2000). Also, the locus of control

was found to significantly predict transformational leadership (House & Howell, 1992).

In the present study, this locus of control is translated into the FIRO-B item: expressed

control. Scales for change- and relational-oriented behaviour are produced, based upon the

associated LF 360 behaviours. Altogether, the following mediation hypothesis states that the

change-oriented behaviour and relational-oriented behaviour mediate the effect of their

associated personality traits on leader effectiveness.

H5: Change- and relational-oriented leadership behaviour mediates the relationship

between extraversion and expressed control, and self-rated and boss-rated leader

effectiveness.

In the proposed model, a wide range of personality traits and behaviours are incorporated. As

the present research bases its data on leadership assessment and development programs, three

appropriate and specialized instruments are relied upon. Specifically, with respect to the

personality traits, two different psychometric measures are used: MBTI and FIRO-B. They are

two of the most widely used standardized instruments in personality assessment. Due to the

accessibility of MBTI in providing a personality preference type, it is frequently used in

leadership assessment and development programs.

14  

Figure 2. A theoretical model integrating personality traits, behaviour, and leader effectiveness. Behaviour mediates the effect of personality on leader

effectiveness. The focus of the study, transformational leadership and its related traits and behaviours, are displayed below.

ExtraversionLocus of control

(Expressed control)

Transformational leadership Transformational leadership

CHANGE-ORIENTEDInfluence

VisionInnovation

Results orientation

RELATIONAL-ORIENTEDEffective communication

EngagementApproachability

Wanted inclusionExpressed inclusion

Wanted controlExpressed controlWanted affiliation

Expressed affiliation

FIRO-B

Extraversion-Introversion

Sensing-IntuitionThinking-Feeling

Judging-Perceiving

MBTI

Personality traitsLF 360

Leader effectiveness

PERFORMANCEHow would you rate this person’s performance in the present job?

RELATIVE PERFORMANCEWhere would you place this person as a leader relative to other leaders in similar

roles?

OVERALL EFFECTIVENESSHow would you rate this person’s

overall effectiveness in the organization?

Behaviour

LF 360 degree feedback

Self-awarenessInfluenceEffective communicationLearning agilityWorking across boundariesThinking/acting strategicallyVisionResults orientationEngagementInnovationLeading globallyUnderstanding the enterpriseApproachability

15  

Likewise, FIRO-B is a simple, but dynamic model that eases interpretation and application

(Schnell et al., 1994). As for the competency measure, the 360-degree feedback is used to assess

behaviour. Over the years, it has proven to be a valuable method to assess development in

organizations (Van Velsor & Fleenor, 1997).

In order to provide a more powerful extension to the literature’s research on leadership

effectiveness, it is been investigated which specific transformational behaviours mediate the

effect of extraversion and expressed control on leader effectiveness. Particular behaviours of the

two transformational leadership scales are analyzed and hypothesized to serve as a mediator.

First, the personality trait extraversion, operationalized by MBTI, is linked to four

transformational behaviours. Extraverted leaders are suggested to have sense for charisma, have a

clear and inspiring vision with eye for innovation, and communicate this effectively (verbally or

non-verbally) with their followers (Bono & Judge, 2004; Spangler et al., 1997). The present study

suggests that extraversion manifests in comfortable expressing and communicating the vision of

the company, eye for innovation, and seeking for contact. Extraverted leaders are easy to

approach, as they do not exhibit a superiority feeling, and keep in close contact with subordinates

(Grant et al., 2011). It is hypothesized that extraversion influences leader effectiveness positively

through the manifestation in four particular behaviours: vision, effective communication,

innovation, and approachability.

H6a: The personality trait extraversion, as measured by MBTI, influences leader

effectiveness through the manifestation of the transformational behaviour: vision.

H6b: The personality trait extraversion, as measured by MBTI, influences leader

effectiveness through the manifestation of the transformational behaviour: effective

communication.

H6c: The personality trait extraversion, as measured by MBTI, influences leader

effectiveness through the manifestation of the transformational behaviour: innovation.

H6d: The personality trait extraversion, as measured by MBTI, influences leader

effectiveness through the manifestation of the transformational behaviour: approachability.

  16

The second personality trait proposed is locus of control. This is operationalized by FIRO-B.

The FIRO-B scale expressed control is defined as the need of an individual to exercise control

over a person, in order to balance the influence and power in relationships. This scale has been

found to be desirable for effective leaders, however, wanted control was negatively related to

effective leadership (Furnham et al., 2007). That is why, in the present study, the FIRO-B scale

expressed control, as such, which was suggested to be positively related to leader effectiveness

(Howell & Avolio, 1993). Up to now, the FIRO-B assessment has only recently been directly

linked to leadership outcomes (Ahmetoglu et al., 2010). Results have shown that the item

expressed control is a positive predictor for leadership capability (Furnham, 2008; Furnham et al.,

2007). In the current research, expressed control is hypothesized to be associated with the

following transformational leadership behaviours: influence, results orientation, and engagement.

These relationships are argued since transformational leaders who exert great control over others,

lead and inspirationally influence people with a main focus on results, while still keep engaged

with subordinates (Furnham, 1996; Furnham, 2008).

The three specific transformational behaviours are hypothesized to manifest when leaders

score high on expressed control item of FIRO-B, and consequently this will positively affect

leader effectiveness.

H7a: Expressed control, as measured by FIRO-B, influences leader effectiveness through the

manifestation of the transformational behaviour: results orientation.

H7b: Expressed control, as measured by FIRO-B, influences leader effectiveness through the

manifestation of the transformational behaviour: engagement.

H7c: Expressed control, as measured by FIRO-B, influences leader effectiveness through the

manifestation of the transformational behaviour: influence.

For the research questions, self-, boss-, peer-, and direct report-ratings of behaviour and

leader effectiveness are examined. These subsequent results will feed the leader research

perspective of how leaders are viewed by others, and how this may differ with their self-

perspective. The central focus of the integrative model lies on the leader, and how his behaviour,

  17

mediates the effect of his personality traits on leader effectiveness. Therefore, the specific

mediation hypothesis (H1-H5) will exclusively use self-ratings. Boss-ratings are only included

for the general hypothesis as a point of comparison. Further cross-rating differences are not

considered in the present research, since this was not the main focus of attention for the

integrative mediation model.

3. Methods

3.1. Participants and Procedure

This research is conducted in collaboration with and as a part of the Centre for Creative

Leadership (CCL), whose aim is to assess, develop and maintain leadership skills through

customized training programs. The research of this thesis was commissioned by the Centre for

Creative Leadership to give input into their research process when developing or optimizing

leadership trainings.

Archival data used for the study were obtained through a research request to CCL, and

retrieved from CCL’s customized training program, ‘Leading For Organizational Impact’ (LOI).

Participants of this program participated via self-selection or by recommendation from one’s HR

department, and indicated whether their data might be used for research purposes. The program

consisted of a five-day, face-to-face training, and mainly focused on four fundamental leadership

competencies: self-awareness, communication, learning agility and influence. Participants were

first assessed and during the training days, were individually given feedback on the test results.

The program used FIRO-B, MBTI and the Benchmarks ® assessment tool LF 360-degree

feedback to assess and consequently develop leadership. These different assessment measures

were conducted via an online survey provided in English. Participants received a short

introduction of what the measure assesses and were given additional information specific to each

measure. Before starting the FIRO-B assessment, people were attended to the fact that there are

no right or wrong answers, they shouldn’t debate too long over any item, and that each item is

different, so consistency should be avoided. The same instructions were provided for MBTI

assessment. The LF 360 instructions were explicitly shorter, only referring to the different

evaluators of the survey.

The archival data comprise a specific homogeneous group: all middle (9.1%), upper middle

(29.5%), executive (46.3%) or top (5.5%) level managers, leading an organizational function or

  18

business unit, with a tenure of eight or more years. The archival data set presents data from June

2011 till March 2012, and contains data from 438 managers. The group ethnicity comprised in

the data is largely American (70.5%).

3.2. Materials and Measures

In the present study, the personality traits are examined through psychometric measurements,

which assess the natural ability of an individual. In a structured manner, these measures can

determine the intelligence, mental abilities, interests and personality aspects of an individual.

Behaviour is assessed through competency measures, which look at the behaviour styles leaders

display and how they relate to leader effectiveness. A brief introduction on each measurement,

used in this research, is presented below.

The first psychometric measurement to assess personality is the Fundamental Interpersonal

Relations Orientation (FIRO-B), introduced by Schutz (1958). This measure assesses personality

by looking at the typical behaviour of an individual towards others and how this individual would

like others to behave towards him or her. According to Furnham (1996), individuals strive to

establish compatible relations in their interactions with others. These interpersonal relations are

measured on three levels: inclusion, control and affiliation. Inclusion is concerned with wanting

the desired contact with people; include others in their activities and also being included by them.

Control focuses on achieving the desired amount of power or influence over people. The third

level, affiliation, is concerned with having close personal relationships with people. The three

levels are divided into two dimensions: expressed and wanted, referring to individuals own

(expressed) behaviour and the behaviour they like to receive from others (wanted). This

expressed and wanted behaviour can contradict each other. An individual may want to exert

control over people, while also remaining independent from them (Thompson, 2000). In order to

give a profound understanding of what each item entails, example questions are provided in

Appendix A.

Further, FIRO-B consists of three scales, all made up from two other dimensions. The

questionnaire contains 54 items, from which 23 items have a range of scores: (1 = nobody to 6 =

most people), the other items are scored by (1 = never to 6 = usually). The reliability of FIRO-B

shows overall consistency, ranging from .62 to .93 for split-half reliability and ranging from .71

to .82 for test-retest reliability. Research results support both the content and construct validity of

  19

the instrument, showing it to be related to measures of leadership and the MBTI instrument, r = -

.56 to .29 (Kendall & McHenry, 2007).

The second psychometric measurement used in this study is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

(MBTI). The MBTI was originally developed by Myers and McCaulley (1985). MBTI

characterizes a person’s innate preferences regarding dealing with ideas, people and external

world. Its results provide the psychological type of a person, based on four indices, each of which

comprises two exclusive preferences: introversion (I) and extraversion (E), sensing (S) and

intuition (N), thinking (T) and feeling (F), judging (J) and perception (P). The I/E index

differentiates between extravert individuals who focus on people and things, and introvert

individuals who rather focus on concepts and ideas. The S/N index categorizes individuals in

terms of how they take in information. Sensing individuals will rely on information gathered by

their senses, intuitive individuals, on the other hand, will follow their intuition among events. The

T/F index is related to the decision making pattern of individuals. Thinking individuals are

concerned with principles, whereas feeling individuals rely on the subjectivity of an event.

Finally, in the J/P index, a judging individual is described as having a preference for structure and

order. A perceiving individual is marked by his or her spontaneity and flexibility (Roush &

Atwater, 1992). For example questions of each item see Appendix B.

The MBTI instrument assesses personality through a 166-item questionnaire. The instrument

consists of four scales, which can be combined to form 16 preference types. Revision of the test

has let to technical improvements and the constitution of the most recent form, Form M. Form M

is a standard form for identifying the preference type. Each of its five scales has internal

consistency reliability of .90 or greater. Validity on Form M has been examined through

observations, exploratory factor analyses and correlations with other measurements. Evidence for

validity on both the four preference scales and the whole types has been provided (Briggs Myers,

McCaulley, Quenk, & Hammer, 2003). In the results section, correlations are positive or

negative, depending on which of the two exclusive preferences it reflects. When positive, it refers

to the second exclusive preference (e.g. introversion-extraversion, the given variable correlates

with extraversion), when negative, it implies the first preference type (e.g. introversion).

Finally, the competency measure is the 360-degree feedback. This is a Benchmarks ®

multisource instrument, where ratings from self, boss, peer, and direct reports, regarding an

individual’s behaviour, performance and effectiveness, are collected (McCauley & Moxley,

  20

1996). It is used to assess behaviour and is widely used in organizations, especially in HR

practices. The main goal of this measurement is to allow managers to see how their boss, peers

and subordinates view them and to compare these views with their own view. This feedback can

motivate managers to change their behaviour and improve performance (McCauley & Moxley,

1996). It was even suggested that a positive change of leader behaviour, due to 360-degree

feedback, could create a positive change in subordinate’s attitudes, engagement and satisfaction

(Atwater & Brett, 2006). Because of various evaluating groups in 360-degree feedback, a

disagreement between the views of those groups regarding a manager may occur (Carless, Mann,

& Wearing, 1998).

In the current study, a customized 360-degree feedback survey is conducted, called ‘Leading

the Function 360’. This LF 360 survey consists of executive dimensions, addressing top level

leadership issues. The survey includes 13 specific competencies important for effective leaders:

self awareness, influence, effective communication, learning agility, working across boundaries,

thinking/acting strategically, vision, results orientation, engagement, innovation, leading globally,

understanding the enterprise, and approachability. These competencies are argued to be

fundamentals for effective leadership. Here, the focus shifts from team execution to viewing

opportunities. The ability to envision a future (vision), effectively communicate an idea, and the

strategy for execution (thinking/acting strategically) become critical talents for the individual and

the success of the organization. The LF 360 instrument includes the following four evaluator

groups: Self, Boss, Peer, and Direct Reports (CCL, 2009). The LF 360 survey includes 13 scales,

on which each evaluator must complete 50% or more of the item in the competency. A minimum

of two completed surveys should be submitted for Peers and Direct Reports. There is no

minimum threshold of submitted surveys for the Boss evaluator. Further, 74 items are rated on a

range score (1 = to a little extent to 5 = to a very great extent). The reliability of the LF 360 is at

or above .70 for all competencies and observers. For self-reported data however, this is generally

lower.

To assess leader effectiveness, the following three performance evaluation items from the LF

360 are used: (1) “How would you rate this person's performance in his/her present job?” (1 =

among the worst to 5 = among the best); (2) “Where would you place this person as a leader

relative to other leaders in similar roles?” (1 = among the worst to 5 = among the best), and (3)

“How would you rate this person’s overall effectiveness in the organization?” (1 = among the

  21

worst 5 = among the best). A scale of leader effectiveness rating is obtained by using these three

items, providing a separate scale for each evaluator.

3.3. Methods of data analysis

The methods for analysis are divided into two types: preliminary analysis and analysis to test the

hypotheses. The preliminary analysis will be conducted through confirmatory factor analysis and

Cronbach’s Alpha. The hypotheses will be tested, using quantitative methods: correlation, partial

correlation, regression analysis, and in particular for the mediation hypotheses, the bootstrapping

methodology will be used. This alternative Bootstrapping method is a nonparametric approach

that makes no assumptions about the shape of the distributions of the variables. The method is

based upon resample methods, in which 1000 to 100000 times new samples are taken from the

original one, using sampling with replacement. From these bootstrapping sampling distributions,

a confidence interval and indirect effect is derived (Preacher & Hayes, 2004; Wood, 2005). In

this study, the Bootstrapping method is performed due to its numerous advantages: the use of a

95% confidence interval instead of significance levels (p values), the fact that it is a non-

parametric test, that it does not violate the normality assumption, and the ability to apply the

method to small sample sizes. In the results section, confidence intervals and coefficients for the

indirect effect size are presented. Indirect effects are reported with their corresponding β and

confidence interval, direct and total effects are provided with a β and p value. Statistical

significance is argued when zero is not included in the interval. Throughout the study, statistical

significance will be considered when p < .05.

4. Results

Table 1 displays the means, standard deviations, correlations and alpha coefficients of all

variables and scales measured in the present study. Inspection of the results reveals that from the

independent variable personality traits, expressed inclusion correlated most with all the other

variables and scales. Further, the majority of the behaviour competencies, the mediator in this

study, showed significant correlation with the other variables, personality and leader

effectiveness. The latter was considered as the dependent variable.

22

Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of variables

Note. N = 438. Change-oriented and Relational-oriented behaviours are scales, reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha) of scales appears on diagonal between brackets. * p < .05. ** p < .01.

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

1. Introversion - Extraversion -3.93 15.62 --- 2. Sensing - Intuition -1.72 14.63 .10* --- 3. Thinking - Feeling -10.40 11.82 .18** .28** --- 4. Judging - Perceiving -6.32 15.22 .19** .49** .20** --- 5. Expressed Inclusion 3.97 2.14 .51** .07 .11* .07 --- 6. Expressed Control 4.76 2.71 .20** .06 -.22** .03 .18** --- 7. Expressed Affiliation 4.29 2.31 .40** .01 .21** .01 .57** .05 --- 8. Wanted Inclusion 3.34 3.30 .26** .04 .07 .08 .53** .14** .36** --- 9. Wanted Control 2.93 1.94 .14** .07 .15** .02 .22** -.05 .16** .10 ---

10. Wanted Affiliation 5.28 2.15 .19** .05 .23** .03 .33** -.03 .48** .52** -.00 --- 11. Self awareness 3.73 0.50 .10* -.08 -.05 -.11* .25** .06 .19** .17** .03 .12* --- 12. Influence 3.71 0.50 .24** .02 -.01 -.04 .26** .18** .17** .14** -.05 .10* .55** --- 13. Effective communication 3.80 0.49 .03 .09 -.11* -.05 .16** .16** .12* .11* -.08 .05 .54** .56** --- 14. Learning agility 3.75 0.48 .01 .04 -.05 -.09 .24** -.01 .18** .19** .09 .11* .71** .47** .51** --- 15. Working across boundaries 3.62 0.50 .10* -.05 .02 -.10* .26** .02 .21** .15** -.05 .09 .68** .65** .56** .69** --- 16. Thinking strategically 3.70 0.51 -.04 .05 -.14** -.06 .19** .10* .09 .15** -.05 .03 .55** .57** .57** .52** .58** 17. Vision 3.78 0.60 .08 .04 -.13** -.01 .21** .16** .12* .17** -.03 .04 .40** .57** .46** .32** .47** 18. Result orientation 3.91 0.53 .00 -.14** -.12* -.19** .16** .12* .05 .08 -.07 .01 .50** .55** .54** .42** .51** 19. Engagement 3.64 0.52 .11* -.10* -.02 - .09 .24** .08 .19** .14** -.04 .09 .62** .73** .53** .58** .76** 20. Innovation 3.66 0.57 .09 .24** -.14** .16** .20** .19** .08 .14** -.06 .03 .39** .58** .42** .38** .47** 21. Leading globally 3.49 0.59 .09 .03 -.06 .04 .27** .14** .12* .17** -.00 .01 .39** .50** .43** .41** .52** 22. Understanding the enterprise 3.60 0.56 .04 -.03 -.08 -.00 .26** .12** .11* .19** -.01 .03 .47** .49** .42** .45** .54** 23. Approachability 3.72 0.58 .33** .01 .10* .03 .33** .08 .29** .23** .06 .17** .63** .60** .46** .59** .64** 24. Change-oriented behaviour 3.77 0.45 .13* .04 -.12* -.03 .26** .21** .13** .17** -.06 .05 .55** .81** .59** .47** .63** 25. Relational-oriented behaviour 3.72 0.44 .19** -.01 .00 -.05 .29** .12* .24** .19** -.03 .12** .71** .76** .76** .67** .78** 26. Leader effectiveness Self 3.83 0.60 .06 -.09 -.10* -.10* .16** .12* .10* .06 -.07 .01 .34** .49** .40** .26** .44** 27. Leader effectiveness Boss 3.78 0.81 -.07 -.07 -.02 -.07 -.01 .09 -.00 -.04 - 04 -.02 .14** .17** .16** .13** .15** 28. Leader effectiveness Peer 3.77 0.63 -.02 -.10* .03 -.12* -.01 -.04 .06 -.07 -.04 -.02 .07 .02 .06 .05 .15** 29. Leader effectiveness Direct Report 3.95 0.65 .08 -.06 -.04 -.08 .03 .06 .08 -.02 -.07 .03 .07 .20** .17** .06 .19**

  23

Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of variables - Continued

Note. N = 438. Change-oriented and Relational-oriented behaviours are scales, reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha) of scales appears on diagonal between brackets. * p < .05. ** p < .01.    

Variable Mean SD 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

1. Extraversion - Introversion -3.93 15.62 2. Sensing - Intuition -1.72 14.63 3. Thinking - Feeling -10.40 11.82 4. Judging - Perceiving -6.32 15.22 5. Expressed Inclusion 3.97 2.14 6. Expressed Control 4.76 2.71 7. Expressed Affiliation 4.29 2.31 8. Wanted Inclusion 3.34 3.30 9. Wanted Control 2.93 1.94

10. Wanted Affiliation 5.28 2.15 11. Self awareness 3.73 0.50 12. Influence 3.71 0.50 13. Effective communication 3.80 0.49 14. Learning agility 3.75 0.48 15. Working across boundaries 3.62 0.50 16. Thinking strategically 3.70 0.51 --- 17. Vision 3.78 0.60 .63** --- 18. Result orientation 3.91 0.53 .72** .54** --- 19. Engagement 3.64 0.52 .58** .49** .57** --- 20. Innovation 3.66 0.57 .63** .53** .46** .50** --- 21. Leading globally 3.49 0.59 .52** .45** .41** .51** .54** --- 22. Understanding the enterprise 3.60 0.56 .61** .57** .53** .54** .48** .62** --- 23. Approachability 3.72 0.58 .37** .36** .32** .63** .32** .42** .44** --- 24. Change-oriented behaviour 3.77 0.45 .79** .82** .79** .69** .79** .58** .63** .47** (.83) 25. Relational-oriented behaviour 3.72 0.44 .59** .51** .56** .86** .48** .53** .54** .85** .69** (.79) 26. Leader effectiveness Self 3.83 0.60 .50** .38** .47** .50** .33** .27** .36** .36** .50** .50** (.85) 27. Leader effectiveness Boss 3.78 0.81 .15** .08 .22** .18** .05 .00 .02 .09 .15** .18** .39** (.91) 28. Leader effectiveness Peer 3.77 0.63 .04 -.07 .03 .08 -.04 -.01 -.05 .09 -.02 .10* .23** .46** (.95) 29. Leader effectiveness Direct Report 3.95 0.65 .13** .09 .15** .23** .09 .06 .07 .14** .16** .22** .35** .33** .38** (.96)

24

4.1. Research Questions

The first research question considered which personality traits best predicted leader

effectiveness. Altogether, personality traits explained 7% of the variance in the self-rated leader

effectiveness criteria, F(10, 419) = 3.01, p = .001. In a stepwise linear regression model, first the

variables with highest partial correlations and then lowest, were entered. Table 2 displays the

results. Here, three significant predictors: the judging MBTI type, expressed inclusion, and

wanted control, are displayed, which were found to significantly predict self-rated leader

effectiveness. Wanted control negatively influenced leader effectiveness, β = -.10, t(427) = -2.05,

p = .04. Within the boss-rated leader effectiveness, 2.5% of the variance was explained by

personality traits, F(10, 394) = 1.00, p = .44. No traits were considered as significant predictors

in the stepwise linear regression model. Also for direct report-rated leader effectiveness, no

predictors were identified (R2 = .34, F(10, 395) = 1.38, p = .19). However, for the peer-rated

leader effectiveness, 3.1%, F(10, 427) = 1.36, p = .20, of the variance was explained, and here

the judging MBTI type showed to significantly predict leader effectiveness. These findings

indicate that when rating leader effectiveness, different personality traits best predict this

criterion depending on who rates this leader effectiveness criterion; self, bosses, peers, or direct

reports.

The second research question was concerned to which extent behaviour competencies

predicted leader effectiveness. The explained variance of behaviour ranged from 39% on self-

rated leader effectiveness to 81% on direct report-rated leader effectiveness. A stepwise linear

regression model was performed. Inspection of the results reveals that there were eight significant

predictors for self-rated leader effectiveness, six in the boss-ratings, six in the peer- ratings, and

five in the direct-report-ratings, all displayed in Table 3. The most significant predictor within

the boss-, peer-, and direct report-rated leader effectiveness was the same (influence), however,

this predictor differed from the predictor in self-ratings (thinking strategically). This dispersion

in ratings indicates a difference in expectations of the manager’s effective leadership behaviour.

Further, more surprisingly, some behaviour competencies were found to negatively relate to

leader effectiveness, which also differed between evaluator groups. Innovation related negatively

within the self- and peer-ratings (see Table 3). Further, self evaluated the behaviours learning

agility and leading globally as negative predictors for leader effectiveness, and boss-ratings

showed negative relations with approachability and understanding the enterprise. These results

  25

are rather surprising since the behaviour competencies of the LF 360 are suggested to all

positively correlate with leader effectiveness and are fundamental for leadership (CCL, 2009).

The corresponding beta coefficients, t values, significant levels of all the significant predictors

and total explained variance are presented in Table 3.

Finally, a linear regression was conducted in order to examine the third research question,

raising the question which behaviour competencies were most affected by personality traits. Here

all behaviour competencies of LF 360 degree feedback and all personality traits of FIRO-B and

MBTI were entered into the regression. When considering the self-rated competencies, results

showed that all the personality traits of FIRO-B and MBTI overall predicted 12.7% of the

variance in behaviour, F(10, 411) = 5.97 p = .001. The behaviour competency innovation was

most affected by personality, as traits explained 17.4% of the variance in innovation. In specific,

the intuition type (β = .27, t(427) = 5.16, p < .001), thinking type (β = -.23, t(427) = -4.61, p <

.001), expressed inclusion (β = .19, t(427) = 2.93, p = .004), and wanted control (β = -.09, t(427)

= -2.03, p = .043), were significant predictors of the behaviour innovation. For the boss-rated

behaviours, results showed that only 3.5% was explained through personality traits, F(10, 364) =

1.33, p = .21. Again, innovation was most explained by personality traits, R2 = .07, F(10, 393) =

3.02, p = .001. Specifically, by the intuition MBTI type (β = .17, t(393) = 2.89, p = .004), and

expressed control (β = .11, t(393) = 2.31, p = .03). In peer-ratings, personality explained 2.7% of

the variance in behaviour, F(10, 421) = 1.17, p = .31. Approachability was most predicted by

traits (R2 = .05), the extraversion type explained a significant proportion of this behaviour, β =

.14, t(427) = 2.30, p = .02. Within direct report-rated behaviours, the explained variance by

personality was 3.8%, F(10, 394) = 1.60, p = .11. Again, the behaviour approachability was most

explained (R2 = .07) by the extraversion type, β = .21, t(395) = 3.48, p = .001. Thus, from these

findings, it becomes clear that from all evaluator groups, personality predicts most variance in

self-rated leader effectiveness. Also, the same behaviour, innovation, in self- and boss-ratings is

most explained by personality traits. However, the respective predictive personality traits were

not the same. Almost the same was found for peer- and direct report-ratings, where

approachability was most explained, but here, by the same personality trait: extraversion.

  26

Table 2. Significant personality predictors for self-rated leader effectiveness.

Note. N (self) = 429. N (peer) = 437. * p < .05. ** p < .01. 4.2. Mediation Hypotheses  

The first three hypotheses, stating the relationship between personality, behaviour and leader

effectiveness, considering self- and boss-ratings, were not fully supported. As presented in Table

1, extraversion did not correlate significantly with self- and boss-rated leader effectiveness

(Hypothesis 1), and expressed control only showed significant correlation with self-ratings, r =

.12, p = .03 (Hypothesis 2). All the change- and relational-oriented behaviours correlated

significantly with self-ratings on leader effectiveness, but for the boss-ratings, only two change-

and two relational-oriented behaviours showed significant correlations (Hypothesis 3). Finally, as

for the relationship between expressed control, extraversion, and change- and relational-oriented

behaviour, extraversion correlated with two relational-oriented behaviours, engagement and

approachability, and with one change-oriented behaviour, influence. Expressed control showed

more significant correlations: with all change-oriented behaviours: influence, vision, result

orientation and innovation, and with one relational-oriented behaviour, effective communication

(Hypothesis 4). From this, it can be concluded that not all the required relationships between the

variables exists, and that the hypotheses 1, 2, 3, and 4 are only partially supported. Full support

for these four hypotheses was required in order to examine a possible mediation effect according

to the approach of Baron & Kenny (1986). Therefore, the bootstrapping methodology, which

does not require these significant relationships, was used as an alternative test to examine the

mediation effect. The bootstrapping method is based upon resample methods, in which 1000 to

100000 times new samples are taken from the original one, using sampling with replacement.

The present study used 20000 new samples. Results from bootstrapping show the total, direct and

indirect (mediation) effect. Only for the indirect effect a corresponding confidence interval is

Leader effectiveness Self Personality Indirect effect (β) t value p value

Expressed Inclusion .19 3.80 .000 Judging - Perceiving - .13 - 2.84 .005 Wanted Control - .10 - 2.05 .04 Total R2 = .07 Leader effectiveness Peer Judging - Perceiving - .10 - 2.10 .04 Total R2 = .01

27

Table 3. Significant behaviour predictors of leader effectiveness, relatively for self, boss, peer, and direct report.

Note. N (self) = 414. N (boss) = 371. N (peer) = 431. N (direct report) = 404. Total R2 measured with significant variables. * p < .05. ** p < .01  

Leader effectiveness Self Behaviour Indirect effect (β) t value p value

Self Thinking strategically .36 5.6 .000 Engagement .24 3.31 .001 Influence .19 2.74 .01 Learning agility - .24 - 4.06 .000 Innovation - .12 - 2.02 .05 Effective communication .13 2.27 .02 Leading globally - .13 - 2.40 .02 Working across boundaries .16 2.18 .03 Total R2 = .39 Leader effectiveness Boss Boss Influence .37 6.24 .000 Thinking strategically .32 6.12 .000 Working across boundaries .27 4.52 .000 Approachability - .16 - 3.36 .001 Understanding the enterprise - .12 - 2.57 .01 Self awareness .13 2.53 .01 Total R2 = .61 Leader effectiveness Peer Peer Influence .41 6.73 .000 Thinking strategically .20 3.76 .000 Effective communication .17 3.43 .001 Results orientation .12 2.69 .01 Engagement .14 2.69 .01 Innovation - .09 - 2.33 .02 Total R2 = .76 Leader effectiveness Direct Report Direct Report Influence .38 6.40 .000 Thinking strategically .16 2.77 .01 Engagement .18 3.46 .001 Results orientation .13 2.98 .003 Vision .11 2.37 .02 Total R2 = .81

28

provided (significance when zero is not included in the interval) (Preacher & Hayes, 2004;

Wood, 2005).

The present study suggested four mediation hypotheses, which are all analyzed through the

bootstrapping methodology. The first mediation hypothesis is the general suggestion in which

change- and relational-oriented behaviour mediate the relationship between extraversion and

expressed control, and leader effectiveness. Two scales were composed and treated in separate

bootstrapping analyses. All total, direct, indirect effects, effect sizes, and confidence intervals

between behaviours and extraversion are displayed in Table 4. Results showed nonsignificant

total (β = .002, t(427) = 1.04, p = .30) and direct effects (β = -.001, t(427) = -.30, p = .77) of

change-oriented behaviour, and also for relational-oriented behaviour nonsignificant total (β =

.002, t(427) = 1.02, p = .31) and direct effects (β = -.002, t(427) = -1.48, p = .14). However,

significant indirect effects were only found for self-rated leader effectiveness with the two

change- and relational-oriented behaviour scales, providing evidence for a full mediation between

extraversion and self-rated leader effectiveness. Results for the trait expressed control are

displayed in Table 5. Full mediation effects through the change- and relational-oriented

behaviour occurred between expressed control and self-rated leader effectiveness. As for the

boss-ratings, only change-oriented behaviour served as a mediator on expressed control. Overall,

expressed control displayed larger effect sizes than the MBTI personality trait extraversion.

These findings imply that leader effectiveness is increased when extraversion is accompanied

with change- and relational-oriented behaviour, for self-ratings. Bosses only indicate a higher

level of leader effectiveness when change-oriented behaviour is performed. All results for

Hypotheses 6a, 6b, 6c, and 6d are provided in Table 4. These hypotheses predicted the mediation

effect of four self-rated transformational behaviours on the relationship between extraversion and

self-rated leader effectiveness. Hypothesis 6a specified on the behaviour vision. No correlation

was found between extraversion and leader effectiveness, or a significant relationship between

extraversion and vision. However, vision showed significant correlation, r = .38, p < .001, with

leader effectiveness rated by self. Results of the bootstrapping method indicated that both the

total and direct effect were not significant. Also, no indirect effect was found. Thus, Hypothesis,

6a is not supported. Hypothesis 6b predicted the mediation effect of the behaviour effective

communication on the effect of extraversion on leader effectiveness. Extraversion and effective

communication did not correlate significantly, but the latter did with leader effectiveness, r = .40,

  29

p < .001. No significant total effect between extraversion and leader effectiveness was perceived,

and no significant results were found on the test of direct and indirect effect. Therefore,

Hypothesis 6b is not supported. Hypothesis 6c was concerned with the behaviour innovation. No

significant relation was identified between extraversion and innovation, however, between

innovation and self-rated leader effectiveness there was, r = .33, p < .001. Results of the

bootstrapping method showed that both the total and direct effect were nonsignificant. The

significant indirect effect supported the mediation suggestion between extraversion and leader

effectiveness, showing a full mediation effect by the behaviour innovation. Thus, Hypothesis 6c

is supported. Hypothesis 6d predicted that the behaviour approachability was a key mediator

between extraversion and self-rated leader effectiveness. Approachability and leader

effectiveness correlated, r = .39, p < .001, as well as extraversion and approachability, r = .33, p

< .001. Results of the bootstrapping method support the hypothesis, showing a significant indirect

effect between extraversion and self-rated leader effectiveness. The direct effect and total effect

were both nonsignificant, indicating a full mediation effect of approachability on the relationship

between extraversion and leader effectiveness.

Hypotheses 7a, 7b, and 7c were concerned with the personality trait expressed control. All

results are displayed in Table 5. Hypothesis 7a predicted that the trait expressed control

influenced leader effectiveness through the specific behaviour results orientation. Results showed

only significant correlation between expressed control and self-rated leader effectiveness, r = .12,

p = .02, and a significant total effect between both variables, β = .03, t(428) = 2.30, p = .02.

Further, the direct effect was not significant. The indirect effect was significantly present,

showing a full mediation effect of results orientation on expressed inclusion, and therefore

supporting the Hypothesis. Hypothesis 7b considered engagement as a key mediator between

expressed control and leader effectiveness. There was no significant correlation between

engagement and expressed control. The total effect between expressed control and leader

effectiveness appeared to be significant, being the same as in Hypothesis 7a. Both the direct and

indirect effects, however, were nonsignificant. Therefore, Hypothesis 7b is not supported.

Hypothesis 7c suggested the mediation of the behaviour influence on the relationship between

expressed control and leader effectiveness. The total effect was again significant, same as in

Hypothesis 7a and 7b, but the direct effect was not. Finally, the test for indirect effect showed to

be significant. The total effect was larger than the direct effect, suggesting full mediation between

  30

expressed control and leader effectiveness, through the behaviour influence. Thus, Hypothesis 7c

is supported.

Table 4. The indirect effects of behaviour on the relationship between extraversion and leader effectiveness rated by self and boss.

  Leader effectiveness Self

Extraversion Transformational leadership Total effect c Direct effect c’ Indirect effect (β) LLCI ULCI Change-oriented behaviour .002 - .001 .002 .0004 .005 Innovation .002 .001 .002 .0003 .003 Vision .002 .001 .001 - .001 .003 Relational-oriented behaviour .002 - .002 .004 .002 .007 Effective communication .002 .001 .001 - .001 .002 Approachability .002 - .003 .01 .004 .007 Leader effectiveness Boss Change-oriented behaviour - .004 - .004 .000 - .004 .004 Relational-oriented behaviour - .004 - .004 - .0001 - .003 .003

Note. N (self) = 429. N (boss) = 404. LLCI: Lower limit confidence interval. ULCI: Upper limit confidence interval. * p < .05. ** p < .01

Table 5. The indirect effects of behaviour on the relationship between expressed control and leader effectiveness rated

by self and boss.

Note. N (self) = 429. N (boss) = 404. Lower limit confidence interval. ULCI: Upper limit confidence interval. * p < .05. ** p < .01

Leader effectiveness Self

Expressed control Transformational leadership Total effect c Direct effect c’ Indirect effect (β) LLCI ULCI Change-oriented behaviour .03 .003 .01 .01 .02 Influence .03 .01 .02 .01 .03 Results orientation .03 .01 .01 .004 .02 Relational-oriented behaviour .03 .01 .01 .002 .02 Engagement .03 .01 .01 - .001 .02 Leader effectiveness Boss Change-oriented behaviour .02 .003 .02 .001 .03 Relational-oriented behaviour .02 .01 - .001 - .01 .01

  31

Altogether, four mediation hypotheses were supported, and three were not. The general

hypotheses, considering overall change- and relational-oriented behaviour, were fully supported

for the self-ratings, and only partially for the boss-ratings. On the whole, these findings partially

support the proposed integrative model. These findings imply that full mediation occurs when

extraversion is accompanied with the behaviour innovation and approachability, positively

influencing leader effectiveness. And, that the trait expressed control influences leader

effectiveness through the manifestation of the behaviours results orientation and influence.

After concluding that the mediation effect of behaviour occurred, a post-hoc analysis was

conducted to examine whether behaviours would also predict more variance in leader

effectiveness than personality traits. Results from research question 1 showed that the personality

traits explained 7% of the variance in the leader effectiveness criterion. New analyses provided

results, displaying higher explained variances by the behaviour competencies, 15.3% (boss-rated)

to 33.4% (self-rated). Thus, behaviour explains more variance in leader effectiveness than

personality traits.

5. Discussion

In the present study, a need for integrative research was addressed, concerning the leadership

literature on the trait and behaviour approach. An integrative trait-behaviour model was

suggested, modelling behaviour as a key mediator between personality traits and leader

effectiveness. As for the research questions, the following results are found. Within the

personality, the traits predicted a low percentage of leader effectiveness. Of the examined

personality variables, expressed inclusion was found to correlate most highly with leader

effectiveness. Further, of the two specific analyzed traits, only expressed control was significant

for self rated effectiveness. Within the behaviour competencies, influence was the best predictor

in self-ratings, whereas in boss-, peer-, and direct report-ratings, the behaviour thinking

strategically was the most consistent predictor. This indicates a cross-rating difference in

evaluating leader effectiveness through behaviour and supports prior findings (Carless et al.,

1998; Van Velsor & Fleenor, 1997). It appears that the expectation and evaluation of

performance (behaviour) and leader effectiveness differ among self and others. Also, it was found

that behaviours had a significant greater impact on leader effectiveness than personality,

supporting previous results from the integrative model of Derue and colleagues (2011).

  32

As for the integrative trait-behaviour model of leader effectiveness, the following results were

observed. First, on a general note, change- and relational-oriented behaviours served as mediators

on the relationship between extraversion/expressed control and self-rated leader effectiveness.

More change-oriented behaviours were found to mediate between extraversion/expressed control

and leader effectiveness, than relational-oriented behaviours. And among boss-ratings, only

change-oriented behaviour mediated between expressed control and leader effectiveness. Second,

the specific mediation hypotheses revealed four full mediation effects. Here, the direct

correlation between the independent variable, personality, and the dependent variable, leader

effectiveness is absent, but when controlling for the mediator, behaviour, an indirect effect

shows. This type of mediation is rather infrequent and unique. Full mediation occurred with the

trait extraversion when it was accompanied with innovation or approachability. This implies that

extraverted leaders were effective when they were approachable and innovative in their ideas and

actions. Also, the behaviours results orientation and influence mediated the effect of expressed

control, indicating that leaders high in expressed control resulted in effective leadership, only

when accompanied by one of these two behaviours.

Altogether, the results do not all support the hypotheses, but together they provide strong

evidence for the general idea of the proposed integrated model, in which several transformational

leadership competencies serve as a mediator through which two specific personality traits

(extraversion and expressed control) influence leader effectiveness. These results point to the

possibility of integrating the trait and behaviour approach as such that they complement each

other when only one is insufficient to predict the desired outcome. Also, the findings demonstrate

the importance of three change-oriented behaviours (innovation, results orientation, and

influence) and one relational-oriented behaviour (approachability) in the assessment of

leadership, and its added value in explaining leader effectiveness, in addition to personality.

5.1. Implications

In regard to the findings, implications for both leadership research and leadership development

assessment and training programs can be put forward.

First, it was expected, based upon previous literature, that personality was a key predictor in

effective leadership (Ahmetoglu et al., 2010; Furnham, 2008; Furnham et al., 2007: Judge et al.,

2002). However, a lack in correlation between personality and leader effectiveness has been

  33

found, and therefore, the present study questions the importance and contribution of

psychometric measures, in specific FIRO-B and MBTI, in assessing leader effectiveness. This

finding is also critical for leadership assessment and development, as such that when analyzing

personality traits of individuals, predictions regarding effective leadership should be made with

caution. Therefore, the findings ask for future research in order to structure and possibly reframe

the relationship between these particular psychometric measures and leader effectiveness. Also,

the small number of the specific significant personality trait predictors for leader effectiveness is

rather surprising. In specific, extraversion was pointed out in several studies to be a consistent

predictor for leader effectiveness (Bono & Judge, 2004; Judge et al., 2002). Nevertheless,

extraversion did not correlate significantly with leader effectiveness. This contradicts with

previous findings, and asks for future research where new traits are considered to predict leader

effectiveness. Grant and colleagues’ (2011) research inspires, since they stated that proactive

groups perform better under introverted leadership. Thus, extraverted leadership should not

always lead to effective performance of followers, as most previous findings suggest (Ahmetoglu

et al., 2010; Furnham, 2008; Furnham et al., 2007: Judge et al., 2002), but can depend on group

factors.

Second, it can be concluded that more FIRO-B items, rather than MBTI items significantly

correlate with self-rated leader effectiveness. The same is argued with regard to the behaviour

competencies: more FIRO-B personality traits show significance for behaviours, whereas only

few behaviours correlate with only a limited number of MBTI traits. This implies that FIRO-B

traits, rather than MBTI traits, are better predictors of effective leadership and corresponding

effective behaviour. As for research, these results should be considered when examining the

interrelationship of FIRO-B and MBTI (Schnell et al., 1994), in order to relate it to leader

effectiveness. Since Brown and Reilly (2008) did not find any significant relation between MBTI

traits and transformational leadership, but Roush and Atwater (1992) did, more research on the

validity of MBTI and overall effective leadership behaviour should be conducted, in order to

provide a better understanding of the validity of MBTI and FIRO-B, in respect to leader

effectiveness and corresponding behaviours. Also, for practice, the findings can guide leadership

development programs, and be of help in interpreting results of personality measures. However,

interpreting personality results in respect to leader effectiveness should be done with caution.

  34

Third, the finding that behaviours tend to predict more variance across the leader

effectiveness criterion than do personality traits, provides guidance for future research and

supports the behaviour approach (Derue, 2011). Specifically, the results suggest that although

certain traits dispose individuals to certain behaviours, behaviours are the more important

predictor for leader effectiveness. Given that behaviours can be learned and developed, this

finding highlights the need for more research on which specific behaviours individuals should

exhibit and how these should be developed (e.g. Gordon, 2001). Also, the results reveal the

dominant role of behaviour and suggest the emphasis of behaviours in leadership development

programs. Behaviours are changeable aspects of an individual and, through coaching and

training, able to modulate in order to obtain effective leadership. On the other hand, personality is

a stable trait, and therefore can be difficult to improve or change to achieve effective leadership.

Hence, there should be primarily focused on these modulating behaviours in learning, training

and development.

Finally, results of the present study provide support for the integrative trait-behaviour

mediation model. This has several theoretical and practical implications. As for research,

behavioural theories should include trait theories, and search for appropriate traits to combine

with specific leader behaviours. Also, the mediation model further complicates leadership

research, as the dynamics between traits and behaviours require more insight via a mix of

different measures. The results respond to the request for more integration of the trait and

behaviour approach (Avolio, 2007; Derue et al., 2011), and provide the motivation for future

attention in research, considering other types of organizational settings and high-quality samples.

Future research should explore more personality traits and a variety of leader behaviours, in order

to capture more dimensions of effective ways in which leader traits and behaviours together

create effective leadership. Moreover, the mediation effects have some important implications for

practice. As not all the change- and relational-oriented behaviours showed mediation effects, and

some specific behaviours in combination with a specific trait, did and others did not contribute to

additional explained variance in leader effectiveness, indicates the importance of a precise

combination of traits and behaviours in order to achieve increased leader effectiveness. This

suggests that only well-defined situations of specific trait-behaviour combinations will provoke

full mediation effects, and it captures an exclusive path in which personality positively affects

leadership through the manifestation of specific behaviour. In this combination, personality

  35

serves as an indicator for the ideal match with a behaviour competency. Subsequently, this

behaviour can be assessed, developed, and trained throughout leadership development programs

(e.g. Day, 2000). This way, even individuals with a rather non-effective personality can achieve

high leader effectiveness by developing certain behaviours, which particularly in combination

with this trait, lead to effective leadership. Therefore, leadership development programs should

be guided by the traits individuals posses, but focus on assessing, developing and training the

effective behaviours.

5.2. Limitations

In the course of conducting scientific research, some limitations are inevitably expected. First, the

psychometric measurements FIRO-B and MBTI assess the interpersonal and cognitive

preferences of respondents. These measure solely depend on self-reported data, and therefore, the

responses may reflect personality preference types that the respondent thought he/she possess,

rather than he/she actually does. On the other hand, just because a respondent has a preference

style doesn’t necessarily mean he/she will actually report this style. This could have biased the

data and subsequent results. However, it is argued that using strength of preferences measure will

reduce the risk for such biases.

Second, the validity of the study’s results can be influenced, due to the fact that the data were

archival. They were retrieved from a development program of CCL in which participants attained

for training and development purposes rather than research purposes. These participants are

predisposed to work on their leadership skills and want to develop themselves further. As a

result, these managers are likely to be more conscious of their leader competencies and points for

development, and therefore may not reflect managers who not attend these trainings.

Another limitation stems from the homogeneity of the sample. The participants form a

homogeneous group limited to managers leading a function or businesses unit. Therefore, it

remains to be seen whether the present results generalize to other managers in different settings,

organizations and businesses.

Finally, the fact that there were only three specific personality traits and seven behaviour

competencies used, limits the extent to which suggestions can be made regarding learning,

training, and development programs. More traits and behaviours should be investigated, in order

to build a more complete leadership approach. As such, more traits can be related to specific

  36

behaviours leading to effective leadership. This extension would be a guide for leadership

training and assessment, as research can enrich and improve these trainings according to new

relations found between personality traits and behaviour.

5.3. Conclusions

The present research integrates the trait and behaviour approach of leader effectiveness, and

examines to which extent change- and relational-oriented behaviour mediate the relationship

between personality and leader effectiveness. Results provide evidence for this suggestion and

support the proposed integrative model. The present findings point to important issues in the

assessment of leadership and in interpreting results of psychometric measurements to predict

leader effectiveness. Recommendations and implications of the main findings should be

considered in future leadership assessments, all with the goal of developing effective leadership

in organizations. Future research is necessary to further explore other traits and behaviours to

capture more dimensions of effective ways in which leader traits and behaviours together create

effective leadership.

  37

6. References

Ahmetoglu, G., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Furnham, A. (2010). Interpersonal relationship

orientations, Leadership, and Managerial Level: Assessing the practical usefulness of the

FIRO-B in organizations. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 18(2), 220-

225.

Atwater, L. E., Brett, J. f. (2006). 360-Degree Feedback to Leaders. Does it relate to change in

employee attitudes? Group & Organization Management, 31(5), 578-600.

Avolio, B. J. (2007). Promoting more integrative strategies for leadership theory-building.

American Psychologist, 62(1), 25-33.

Avolio B. J., Sosik, J. J., Jung, D. J., Berson, Y. (2003). Leadership Models, Methods, and

Applications. In Borman, W. C., Klimoski, R., Ilgen, D. R., Weiner, B. (Eds.), Handbook

of psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 227-307). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, A. K. (1986). The moderator-Mediator variable distinction in social

psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.

Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality and Transformational and Transactional

Leadership: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applies Psycholoygy, 89(5), 901-910.

Burns, J. M. G. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Briggs Myers, I., McCaulley, M. H., Quenk, N. L., Hammer, A. L. (2003). MBTI Manual. A

guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (3rd ed.). California:

Mountain View.

Brown, F. W., & Reilly, M. D. (2008). The Myers-Briggs type indicator and transformational

leadership. Journal of Management Development 28(10), 916-932.

Carless, S. A., Mann, L., Wearing, A. J. (1998). Leadership, Managerial Performance and 360-

Degree Feedback. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 47(4), 481-496.

CCL. (2009). Roadmap CCL LDR [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from http://www.ccl.org/

Day, D. V. (2000). Leadership development: A review in context. Leadership Quarterly, 11(4),

581-613.

  38

Derue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N., Humphrey, S. E. (2011). Trait and behavioural

theories of leadership: an integration and meta-analytic test of their relative validity.

Personnel Psychology, 64, 7-52.

Fleishman E. A., Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Levin, K. Y., Korotkin, A. L., Hein, M. B.

(1991). Taxonomic efforts in the description of leader behavior synthesis: A functional

interpretation. Leadership Quarterly, 2(4), 245-287.

Furnham, A. (1996). The FIRO-B, the Learning Style Questionnaire, and the Five-Factor Model.

Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11(2), 285-299.

Furnham, A. (2008). Psychometric Correlates of FIRO-B scores: Locating the FIRO-scores in

personality factor space. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16(1), 30-45.

Furnham, A., Crump, J., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2007). Managerial level, personality and

intelligence. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(8), 805-818.

Gordon, T. (2001). Leader effectiveness training. New York: The Berkley Publishing Group.

Grant, A. M., Gino, F., & Hofmann, D. A. (2011). Reversing the extraverted leadership

advantage: the role of employee proactivity. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3),

528-550.

Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What We Know About Leadership: Effectiveness

and Personality. American Psychologist, 49, 1-33.

House, R. J., & Howell, J. M. (1992). Personality and charismatic leadership. Leadership

Quarterly, 3(2), 81-108.

Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership,

locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-business-unit

performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(6), 891-902.

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Gerhardt, M. W., Ilies, R. (2002). Personality and Leadership: A

qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765-780.

Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and Transactional leadership: a

Meta-Analytic Test of their Relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755-

768.

Kendall, B., McHenry, R. (2007). The Firo-B instrument user’s manual. California: Mountain

View.

  39

McCauley, C. D., & Moxley, R. S. (1996). Developmental 360: how feedback can make

managers more effective. Career Development International, 1(3), 15-19.

Myers, I., & McCaulley, M. (1985). Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-

Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Ng, K-Y., Ang, S., Chan, K-Y. (2008). Personality and Leader effectiveness: A Moderated

Mediation Model of Leadership Self-efficacy, Job Demands, and Job Autonomy. Journal

of applied Psychology, 93(4), 733-743.

Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. (2006). Transformational leadership and job behaviors:

mediating role of core job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 327-

340.

Pierce, J. L., Newstrom, J. W. (2011). Leader & the leadership process: readings, self-

assessments & applications (6th ed.). NY: McGraw-Hill.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effect in

simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4),

717-731.

Roush, P. E., & Atwater, L. (1992). Using the MBTI to Understand Transformational Leadership

and Self-perception Accuracy. Military Psychology, 4(1), 17-34.

Schnell, G., Hammer, A., & Fitzgerald, C., Fleenor, J. W., Van Velsor, E. (1994). Relationships

between the MBTI and the FIRO-B: Implications for their joint use in leadership

development. Paper presented at The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and Leadership: An

International Research Conference, College Park, MD.

Schullery, N. M., Knudstrup, P., Schullery, S. E., Pfaff, L. A. (2009). The relationship between

personality type and 360-degree evaluation of management skills. Journal of

Psychological Type, 69(11), 141-153.

Schutz, W. (1958). FIRO: A three-dimensional theory of interpersonal behaviour. New York:

Holt, Rinehart-Winston.

Spangler, W. D., Dubinsky, A. J., Yammarino, F. J., & Jolson, M. A. (1997). Impact of

Personality on Sales Manager Leadership Style. Journal of Business-to-Business

Marketing, 3(4), 27-53.

Thompson, H. L. (2000). FIRO Element B and Psychological Type. Bulletin of Psychological

Type, 23(3) 18-22.

  40

Van Velsor, E., & Fleenor, J. W. (1997). The MBTI and Leadership skills: Relationships between

the MBTI and four 360-degree management feedback instruments. In Catherine

Fitzgerald & Linda K. Kirby (Eds.), Developing Leaders (pp. 139162). Palo Alto, CA:

Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.

Wood, M. (2005). Bootstrapped Confidence Intervals as an Approach to Statistical Inference.

Organizational Research Methods, 8(4), 454-470.

Yukl, G. A. (2006). Leadership in Organizations (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Zulfigar, A., Naila, N, Ahmad, R. (2011). Impact of personality traits on leadership styles of

secondary school teachers. Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 3(3), 610-617.

  41

Appendix A Example questions for each item from the FIRO-B questionnaire (Schutz, 1958). Questions

should be answered on a scale of 1 = never to 6 = usually.

   

Item Questions

Expressed inclusion I try to be included in informal social activities.

Wanted inclusion I like people to invite me to things.

Expressed control I try to influence strongly other people's actions.

Wanted control I let other people strongly influence my actions.

Expressed affiliation I try to get close and personal with people.

Wanted affiliation I like people to act close toward me.

  42

Appendix B Example questions for each item from the MBTI questionnaire (Myers & McCaulley, 1985).

Questions should be answered, choosing A or B.

     

Item Questions

Introversion/Extraversion Are you usually:

a. A ‘good mixer’, or

b. Rather quiet and reserved?

Sensing/Intuition Are you more attracted to:

a. A person with a quick and brilliant mind, or

b. A practical person with a lot of common sense?

Thinking/Feeling Do you more often let:

a. Your heart rule your head, or

b. Your head rule your heart?

Judging/Perceiving

Do you prefer to:

a. Arrange dates, parties, etc, well in advance, or

b. Be free to do whatever looks like fun when the time comes?