Eke jelluma thesis_ccl_maastricht_university_leadership_personality_effectiveness_behaviour

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.

1

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

2

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.

3

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).

4

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

5

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,

6

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

7

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

8

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?

9

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.

10

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,

11

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

12

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.

13

Personality traits Behaviour Leader effectiveness
FIRO-B LF 360 degree feedback LF 360

Self-awareness
Wanted inclusion Influence
Expressed inclusion Effective communication
Learning agility PERFORMANCE
Wanted control How would you rate this person’s
Expressed control Working across boundaries
Thinking/acting strategically performance in the present job?
Wanted affiliation
Expressed affiliation Vision
Results orientation RELATIVE PERFORMANCE
Engagement Where would you place this person as a
Innovation leader relative to other leaders in similar
Leading globally roles?
Understanding the enterprise
MBTI Approachability OVERALL EFFECTIVENESS
How would you rate this person’s
overall effectiveness in the
organization?

Extraversion-
Introversion
Sensing-Intuition
Thinking-Feeling
Judging-Perceiving

Transformational
leadership Transformational leadership

Extraversion CHANGE-ORIENTED RELATIONAL-ORIENTED
Locus of control Influence
Effective communication
(Expressed control) Vision
Engagement
Innovation
Approachability
Results orientation

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.
14

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.

15

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,

16

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

17

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

18

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,

19

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

20

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.

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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.

25

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

26

Table 3. Significant behaviour predictors of leader effectiveness, relatively for self, boss, peer, and direct report.
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
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
Effective communication .17 3.43 .001
Results orientation .12 2.69 .01
Innovation - .09 - 2.33 .02
Total R2 = .76
Leader effectiveness Direct Report
Direct Report
Influence .38 6.40 .000
Results orientation .13 2.98 .003
Vision .11 2.37 .02
Total R2 = .81
Note. N (self) = 414. N (boss) = 371. N (peer) = 431. N (direct report) = 404. Total R2 measured with significant variables. * p < .05. ** p < .01

27

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,

28

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

29

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.

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
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.
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
Change-oriented behaviour .02 .003 .02 .001 .03
Relational-oriented behaviour .02 .01 - .001 - .01 .01
Note. N (self) = 429. N (boss) = 404. Lower limit confidence interval. ULCI: Upper limit confidence interval. * p < .05. ** p < .01

30

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).

31

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

32

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.

33

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

34

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

35

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.

36

Eke jelluma thesis_ccl_maastricht_university_leadership_personality_effectiveness_behaviour

Eke jelluma thesis_ccl_maastricht_university_leadership_personality_effectiveness_behaviour

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Destaque

Destaque (6)

Semelhante a Eke jelluma thesis_ccl_maastricht_university_leadership_personality_effectiveness_behaviour

Semelhante a Eke jelluma thesis_ccl_maastricht_university_leadership_personality_effectiveness_behaviour (20)

Eke jelluma thesis_ccl_maastricht_university_leadership_personality_effectiveness_behaviour