Personality Domains and Working Experience in Management Leadership - Essay Example

? The Analysis of the Correlation between Myers-Brigss Part of studies The research problem, questions, and/or hypotheses of D’Alessio (2008) examines the impact of personality types and duration of work in the leadership styles of managers in Peru in an initial study with the hypotheses: There is exist a negative correlation amongst neuroticism, transformational and transactional management styles, while on the other hand there exist a positive correlation between neuroticism and passive-avoidant management styles. In addition, there is existence of a positive correlation between extroversion and transformational and transactional leadership styles, while on the other hand there is existence of a negative correlation between extroversion and passive-avoidant leadership styles. The five personality domains apply a joined effect on transformational, transactional, and passive-avoidant management styles. Judge et al (2002) undertake both a qualitative and quantitative analysis of character and leadership from an attribute points of view in leadership research, and subsequent to that a meta-analysis; this research estimates relations between personality and leadership. Additionally, this research estimates personality-leadership relations in accordance with the criteria of leadership materialization and the degree to which such leadership is effective, and the relative weight of predictability of broad vs specific measures of the Big Five traits. Bono and Judge (2004) provide a meta-analysis of character evaluations and transformational and transactional leadership attributes and explore the following hypotheses: There is an existence of a positive relation between extraversion and charisma, intellectual stimulation, and transformational leadership in general while generally there is an existence of a negative relation between euroticism and charisma, intellectual stimulation, and transformational leadership but positive relation between eouroticism and passive leadership exists. Moreover, there is an existence of a positive relation between openness to experience and charisma, intellectual stimulation, and transformational leadership while on the other hand, a positive correlation can be observed between agreeableness and charisma, individualized contemplation, and contingent reward. However, a positive correlation exists between passive leadership and preciseness to contingent reward, management by exception. The rationale behind D’Alessio (2008) quantitative study was to investigate the associations that may arise between the five spheres of personality, working experience, and the three different modes of leadership in a sample of 500 managerial Masters of Business Administration (MBA) students enrolled in a top Peruvian business school. Judge et al (2002) purpose is to present a quantitative analysis of the correlation between personality and leadership, especially in view of the pervasive inconsistencies in previous research owing to the fact that until recently there was no structural nomenclature for categorizing and systematizing traits. The purpose of Bono and Judge’s (2004) research was to expand the existing knowledge concerning the correlation that exists between personality and leadership by mainly focusing on the correlation between personality and the eight aspects of transactional and transformational leadership. Due to the fact that the eight major dimensions are valid forecasters of devotee job satisfaction and performance, having a sound knowledge regarding the personality traits that have a relation with transactional and transformational leadership presents implications for the recruitment, training, and development of these kinds of leaders. Type of design and elements of the design D’Alessio (2008) study took a design of a quantitative research to investigate the associations that may arise between the five spheres of personality, working experience, and the three different modes of leadership in a sample of 500 managerial Masters of Business Administration (MBA) students enrolled in a top Peruvian business school. Data analysis was carried out by studying the observations collected with NEO-I-R Forms S that is used to evaluate personality traits, and MLQ Leader Form 5x Short instruments. Judge et al (2002) research was designed as a qualitative analysis of the of the characteristic approach in leadership exploration as well as a meta-analysis of the application of the model that is based on the five factors by investigating 222 correlations from 73 samples. Conceptually, both leadership efficiency and materialization are discrete constructs but because they represent individuals’ perceptions about leadership; there is a relation between multiple criteria and neuroticism, Extraversion, and openness and these personality attributes will predictably present considerable relationships with leadership when analyzed collectively. Bono and Judge (2004) study is a meta-analysis of the correlation that exists between individuality and both the transformational and transactional leadership attributes by using the model that is based on the five factors as an outline of theory; the authors found 384 correlations among 26 unrelated studies. There was a link between personality attributes and the three dimensions of transformational leadership namely charisma, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration, in addition to the three dimensions of transactional leadership; the authors did a computation of a sample-sized weighted average relationship for every character attribute with each of the leadership dimensions. The validity of D’Alessio (2008) research was limited to a number of threats, firstly, the study was limited to managerial MBA students who decided to take part, and the study was limited to active students of between 2003 and 2006; additionally, the study was also limited to the accuracy of the instruments used. These threats are compensated for through diversification of the sample to include individuals from different organizations and a methodology that is applicable across different cultures and in diverse types of institutions. The validity of Judge et al (2002) research is threatened by the discrepancies in linking the attributes to the criteria, and these inconsistencies were corrected based on approximations of criterion reliability in regard to internal regularity. The threats to validity in Bono and Judge (2004) study were presented in terms of correlations for measurement error in both the predictor and the criterion, and the relations were subsequently revised through the consistency of data collected from the study in addition to average consistencies for each of the personality attributes that are present in literatures or manuals. Findings of the studies The results of D’Alessio (2008) support a substantial negative relationship amongst neuroticism and transformational and a significant positive relationship between neuroticism and passive-avoidant leadership styles but no significant positive relationship between neuroticism and transactional leadership styles. Additionally, extraversion, as supported by the results, has a significant positive correlation with transformational and transactional leadership styles, and a negative relationship exists between extraversion and passive-avoidant leadership styles. The five personality domains exert a combined influence concerning transformational leadership styles while extraversion and conscientiousness and working experience exert significant influence regarding transactional leadership styles; personality domains of neuroticism, extraversion, and conscientiousness exert significant influence with respect to passive-avoidant leadership styles. Extraversion is found to be the most consistent correlate of leadership by the results presented from Judge et al (2002) meta-analysis and is therefore distinctly the most essential attribute of leaders and effective leadership, followed by Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience; there was a higher level of correlation between extraversion and leader emergence as compared to leadership effectiveness while on the other hand conscientiousness had a higher degree of relation to leader emergence than leader effectiveness. Moreover, the findings indicated a rather meager connection between agreeableness and leadership, and consequently did not come out as an important indicator of leadership in the multivariate analysis; extraversion and openness exhibited non-zero correlations to both criteria and with the exception of agreeableness and leader emergence, most personality attributes indicated non-zero average connections with the leadership criteria. Bono and Judge (2004) study establishes that both extraversion and neuroticism as personality traits were correlated to the charisma dimension of transformational leadership and the relation did not vary significantly across studies, which further suggests that both traits are correlated to charisma in all the samples and situations. Agreeableness and openness to experience, as well as intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration can be linked to charisma, either positively or negatively respectively while extraversion and neuroticism were respectively linked to all the three dimensions of transformational leadership positively and negatively. Personality-transactional leadership relationships are less strongly related to personality, with agreeableness being the strongest predictor of contingent reward and extraversion and neuroticism having non-zero associations with contingent reward. With the exclusion of neuroticism, all other personality traits that were investigated exhibited a negative correlation with management. Geniality and conscientiousness, as well as extraversion displayed negative associations with passive leadership, while neuroticism and openness to experience, on the other hand, registered being positively related to passive leadership ratings albeit negligible. According to D’Alessio (2008), life and work experience might influence the development of leadership behaviors, which are a function of transformational and transactional styles in managerial activity, and it is possible that leadership behaviors are learned. Openness to experience as a domain needs to be explored further, in addition to the study of contingent reward behaviors; overall, corporations who require strategic-minded leaders in developing countries need managers who have high scores for challenging visions and strategic objectives. Implications of Judge et al (2002) research findings is that in order to effectively examine the factors that determine leadership, the Big Five typology should be used as a basis, and the trait theory is still very significant despite skepticism in the past. It is also found that the most significant attribute of leaders and effective leadership is extraversion, though it has a closer relation to emergence of leaders than it is to leadership efficiency; evidently, individuals who are more friendly and popular have a higher likelihood of being assertive in group situations. Conscientious individuals may emerge as leaders quickly, especially because of their organizing activities, while conversely people who are more are less likely to emerge as leaders because they are often passive and agreeable. Bono and Judge (2004) findings imply that a consistent application of the Big Five traits in investigating leadership emergence and leadership effectiveness may be limited in success in making known the dispositional foundations of transformational and transactional leadership, but examining the connection of the aspects of the Big Five traits and transformational and transactional leadership might be worthwhile. Additionally, the person-logical basis of transformational-transactional leadership is not as strong in comparison to that of leadership effectiveness and emergence; nevertheless, extraversion may be a vital attribute in predicting and comprehending transformational and transactional leadership. Due to the fact that there are significant links shown between extraversion and leadership outcomes and rated leadership behaviors, subsequent studies on leadership should concentrate on extraversion and its dimensions including dominance and positive emotionality. In view of the fact that the transformational leadership behaviors are learnable, it is vital that research focuses on fully understanding the development of these leadership behaviors. Critical evaluation of studies D’Alessio (2008) makes a compelling argument for the connections; that of the five personality domains, working experience, and the three leadership styles; conscientiousness indicates the highest degree of relation between this particular trait and transformational, transactional, and passive-avoidant leadership styles; the second highest degree of relation with transformational leadership styles is registered by extraversion, which however has a lesser degree of correlation with transactional and passive-avoidant leadership styles. Judge et al (2002) equally makes such a substantially convincing argument concerning the personality attribute point of view in leadership research by showing that the extraversion domain is the most consistent variable that has a relation with leadership emergence and leadership effectiveness; other traits that were regarded as useful in explaining leadership include neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, and conscientiousness were. Bono and Judge (2004), due to weak results, fails to establish a compelling case for the correlation that exists between personality and evaluations of transformational and transactional leadership attributes; however, the findings indicate that extraversion domain showed a higher degree and most consistent correlation with transformational leadership styles; the other four personality trait correlations with transformational leadership styles were somewhat diffident. Part 2: Literature Review Andersen (2006) supports the studies that there are indeed positive linkages in regard to individuality attributes and leadership emergence and how people perceive leadership; additionally, there is existence of a link between individuality attributes and leader behavior, as well as a general linkage between individuality and behavior for all individuals and all occupations. Nevertheless, Andersen (2006) argues that the correlation between the behavior of a leader and the implications of such behavior on the competence, performance and success of organizations is thus far the key and challenging task that is the focus of most researchers. Clifford and Cohn (1964) argue that leadership correlates with personal attributes of the leader as perceived by the followers, thereby contributing to the case that leadership is partly a function of the personal attributes of the leaders; in that case, personality variables may still contribute to understanding leadership. Marshall, Kiffin-Petersen and Soutar (2012) indicate that personality traits such as locus of control, extraversion, neuroticism, and conscientiousness may influence the extent to which teachers practice self-leadership and the success of training interventions. Transformational leadership behavior positively affects employees’ satisfaction, attitudes, organizational performance, and perceptions of leader effectiveness, unlike transactional leadership, which is founded on the premise that leadership involves exchanges of value between leaders and followers. Ensaria Riggiob and Christianc (2010) suggests that despite the earlier findings that revealed weak associations between personality and leadership emergence and effectiveness, more recent research findings make a considerable argument for personality traits as a cause of variance in leadership. In that case, traditional personality traits can predict leader emergence as in the case of a recent study that established that both extraversion as well as neuroticism predict emerging transformational leadership. However, despite the large literature that focuses on personality and leadership emergence, there is very little information about the personal attributes outside the well-known personality factors that contribute to leadership emergence. Essentially, apart from the Big Five personality factors, some of the individual difference variables such as authoritarianism and intelligence can be used to predict leadership emergence while others cannot. Overall, there is considerably overwhelming support, consistent with previous research findings, in support of the assertion that individuals having extraversion traits have a higher likelihood of emerging as leaders in leaderless group discussions. Reinout, (2012) argues that whereas it has been established as common knowledge that individual traits have a significant role in leader emergence and effectiveness, there are very little linkages between personality and leadership styles. In consistency with preceding findings, three of the five factor model dimensions namely extraversion, conscientiousness, and openness to experience have strong direct impacts on leadership emergence and effectiveness, thereby contributing a lot to the tentative suggestion based on personality in leadership studies. Attempts to substantiate the various claims of the negligible linkages between personality and leadership styles have yielded three plausible explanations including that transformational and transactional leadership styles are most likely not trait-like. Moreover, other attributes may have a higher likelihood of emerging leaders, and in contrast to experimental studies, field studies have the possibility of being entirely biased against ascertaining the personality-leadership style linkages. The negligible linkages between personality and leadership styles may be credited to the low-level self-other agreement among juniors and leaders when evaluating a leaders’ personality and the particular leadership styles; previous research has in the past emphasized on leaders’ self-evaluations of personality and their juniors’ assessment of leadership styles. Unlike previous thinking, the use of an instrumental variable procedure that allows one to make causal inferences shows that personality is in fact substantially relates to leadership styles. According to Colberta et al (2012), various attributes distinguish leaders from other individuals on the basis of the trait theory of leadership, and the various inconsistencies in findings that resulted to skepticisms that saw the trait theory fall out of favor in scholarly discourses was due to the examination of different traits in the previous studies. Self-ratings of four among Big Five personality traits that is neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, and conscientiousness are considerably linked to leadership, and the five factor model evaluated by both self and observer ratings is a valuable tool for the forecasting of leadership. In accordance with the negligible linkages between personality traits and leadership as put forth by previous studies, the relationship between the two may have been underestimated thoroughly, and it is imperative that this relationship is evaluated on the basis of both self and observer ratings. The application of the five-factor model in identifying leadership emergence and leadership effectiveness is supported by Silverthorne (2001), especially because the presence of the five traits is indicative of the potential for leadership. The personality factors as a precondition rather than just a predictor of leadership has gained some renewed interest, and effective leaders generally describe themselves as possessing a higher degree of extraversion, more agreeableness, more conscientiousness, and less neuroticism as personality traits, in addition to being more open to experience; nevertheless, the usefulness and practicality of the five-factor model in non-western cultural contexts is largely uncertain. References 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. Clifford, C., & Cohn, T. S. (1964). The relationship between leadership and personality attributes perceived by followers. Journal of Social Psychology, 64(1), 57-64. Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality and Transformational and Transactional Leadership: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 901-910. Marshall, G., Kiffin-Petersen S., and Soutar G. (2012). The Influence Personality and Leader Behaviors have on Teacher Self-leadership in Vocational Colleges. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 40(6) 707–723. D'Alessio, F.A. (2008). The influence of personality domains and working experience in peruvian managers' leadership styles: an initial study. Journal of Centrum Cathedra. 1.1: p13. Ensaria N., Riggiob, R. E., and Christianc J. (2011). Who emerges as a leader? Meta-analyses of individual differences as predictors of leadership emergence. Personality and Individual Differences Volume 51, Issue 4, Pages 532–536. Andersen, Jon A., (2006). Leadership, personality, and effectiveness. The Journal of Socio- Economics Volume 35, Issue 6, Pages 1078–1091. Reinout E. de Vries. (2012). Personality predictors of leadership styles and the self–other agreement problem. The Leadership Quarterly Volume 23, Issue 5, Pages 809–821. Silverthorne C., (2001). Leadership effectiveness and personality: A cross-cultural evaluation. Personality and Individual Differences Volume 30, Issue 2, Pages 303–309. Colberta, A. E., Judgeb, T. A., Choia, D., and Wang Gang. (2012). Assessing the trait theory of leadership using self and observer ratings of personality: The mediating role of contributions to group success. The Leadership Quarterly Volume 23, Issue 4, Pages 670–685. Read More