Copyright is owned by the Author of the thesis. Permission is given for a copy to be downloaded by an individual for the purpose of research and private study only. The thesis may not be reproduced elsewhere without the permission of the Author.

An Exploration of Occupational Personality Traits and Communicative

Competence in New Zealand Leaders and Non-Leaders

A thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Science

in

Psychology

Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.

Caroline E. Schischka

2015

ii

Abstract

The thesis reports New Zealand empirical research on leadership and its antecedents in

terms of occupation-relevant personality traits and communicative competence.

Objectives of the project were to: (i) explore the demographic differences in personality

traits and communicative competence; (ii) investigate the difference between leaders

and non-leaders in terms of personality and communicative competence; (iii) examine

whether patterns of relationships among personality and communicative competence

variables differ between leaders and non-leaders. These objectives govern research that

aims at alleviating the current scarceness in New Zealand organisational psychology

literature regarding personality traits and communicative competence of leaders. In a

cross-sectional, correlational design, the Business Attitudes Questionnaire was used as a

personality inventory, and the Political Skill Inventory as a measure of particular

segments of communicative competence. Findings showed that males scored higher on

Openness than females; age and work experience were both significantly positively

related with Extraversion. When comparing leaders versus non-leaders, leaders scored

higher on Emotional Stability, Extraversion, Professionalism and Networking Ability

than non-leaders. The personality traits Extraversion, Altruism and Conscientiousness

were significantly positively related to the four aspects of Ferris' "political skill" as an

aspect of communicative competence. There were systematic differences found between

leaders and non-leaders regarding the correlational pattern between personality and

communicative competence. Relationships between Altruism, Conscientiousness, and

Openness, on one hand, and all four aspects of "political skill", on the other, were

stronger for leaders than non-leaders. A few relationships – such as those between

Extraversion, Emotional Stability and Professionalism, on one hand, and some aspects

of "political skill" – were higher among non-leaders. These findings are discussed in

iii

terms of their convergence with and divergence from the existing literature. Limitations

of the present study are critically scrutinised, followed by extrapolations for future

research. Overall, the research identified a clear need for further examination into

psychological predictors and concomitants of leadership such as personality and

communicative competence in the New Zealand working environment.

iv

Acknowledgements

This thesis would not have been possible without the support and help of a number of

people. Firstly I must thank my supervisor, Dr Gus Habermann, who offered me much

guidance and reassurance during this process. Your patience and expertise were

essential for my confidence during some very trying times. I would also like to thank

Hudson, who granted me access to the BAQ for this research, and distributed my survey

around the business in an effort to gather participants. A special thank you to the 102

individuals who voluntarily took part in the research – your time and effort is very much

appreciated. Finally, exceptional thanks to my family who constantly (and patiently)

helped, encouraged and motivated me throughout this journey: to Mike for the flowers

and study snacks, to Mum and Dad for babysitting, and to Seb for the cuddles. Thank

you!

Ethical approval to conduct this research, using low-risk questionnaire, was granted by

the Massey University Human Ethics Committee.

v

Table of Contents

Title page ............................................................................................................................ i

Abstract ............................................................................................................................. ii

Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... iv

Chapter 1: Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1

Chapter 2: Literature review ............................................................................................. 6

Chapter 3: Method........................................................................................................... 82

Chapter 4: Results ........................................................................................................... 96

Chapter 5: Discussion ................................................................................................... 135

Appendices .................................................................................................................... 182 Note: A list of references can be found in Appendix A01; lists of tables/figures can be found in Appendix A02 & A03.

1

Chapter 1: Introduction

The topic of leadership attracts much attention from scholars and practitioners alike. An

abundance of literature is dedicated to exploring the concept of leadership, providing

useful overviews that link individual traits, leadership style, and evaluations of

leadership potential and performance (Bono & Judge, 2004; Ilies, Gerhardt, & Le, 2004;

Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002; Judge, Ilies, & Colbert, 2004; Lord, DeVader, &

Alliger, 1986). This interest is underpinned by the notion that leadership is thought to

have numerous impacts on organisational outcomes, and thus is of great importance to

the success or failure of organisations (Hogan & Kaiser, 2005).

Not only can leadership determine organisational performance and effectiveness, good

leadership has been connected to both job satisfaction (Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002;

Lok & Crawford, 2004) and work engagement and satisfaction (Giallonardo, Wong &

Iwasiw, 2010), whereas poor leadership has been linked to a lower turn-over, industrial

sabotage, and malingering (Hogan, Curphy & Hogan, 1994). Day and Lord (1988) state

that the results of research into the impact of changes in top-level leaders shows a

consistent effect for leadership, explaining 20% to 45% of the variance in organisational

outcomes.

Many recognise that leadership is a complex phenomenon that operates in a dynamic

and ever-changing context. While there have been great strides in the study of

leadership, there is still much that needs to be done to gain further insight into the nature

of leadership and its effects in organisations (House & Aditya, 1997). This need stems

from a salient point that is apparent amongst the leadership research community; as

Hackman and Wageman (2007, p. 43) note 'there are no generally accepted definitions

2

of what leadership is, no dominant paradigms for studying it, and little agreement about

the best strategies for developing and exercising it'.

The nominalistic fallacy points out that simply naming something does not mean that

we understand it (Lussier, 2012, Cliff, 1983). Despite the study of leadership being one

of the oldest in the science of organisations, dating back nearly a century, and that many

have attempted to understand and explain it, the notion of leadership is still unfocused.

This is reflected in the fact that there is still no agreed upon definition of leadership. In

fact, Bass & Stogdill (1990) suggests that there are as many definitions of leadership as

there are individuals who have attempted to define the concept.

Definitions of organisational leadership include the simple, for example 'leadership is

the influencing process of leaders and followers to achieve organizational objectives

through change' (Lussier & Achua, 2012), and range through to the more complex, such

as Yukl’s (1999) definition of leadership: 'influence processes affecting the

interpretation of events for followers, the choice of objectives for the group or

organization, the organization of work activities to accomplish the objectives, the

motivation of followers to achieve the objectives, the maintenance of cooperative

relationships and teamwork, and the enlistment of support and cooperation from people

outside the group or organization'.

Many have attempted to understand and explain leadership, yet despite an extended

history of debate and research, psychologists are still noncommittal about a shared

paradigm of organisational leadership. By examining the leadership literature, it

becomes clear that there have been many approaches to the field. The focus has shifted

3

over the course of study and has examined the leader (e.g. Blake & Mouton, 1964;

Terman, 1904; Zaccaro, Kemp, & Bader, 2004), the situation (e.g. Fiedler, 1967), and a

combination of both (e.g. Dansereau et al.1975; Graen & Cashman, 1975; Graen 1976).

Relationships between the leader and follower have also been investigated (Graen &

Uhl-Bien, 1995; Avolio, 2007; Bennis, 2007), as have neo-trait theories such as

transformational leadership (Bass, 1985). Each approach has its proponents and

opponents.

Recently, it has been suggested that leadership researchers need to start addressing the

style that leaders use to express their behaviours (House & Aditya, 1997), with the

argument that communication style is an important factor of leadership success, as

leaders organise collective effort (Hogan & Kaiser, 2005). As Hackman & Johnson

(2013) note, 'leaders spend much of their time shaping messages that are then presented

to a variety of follower, constituent, and stakeholder groups'. Good leadership is enacted

through these messages as a leader works to engage followers, gain commitment, and

create a bond of trust between leader and follower (Baldoni, 2004). In turn, the

organisational vision is affirmed, transformational change is driven, and an environment

is created where motivation can flourish. Thus, leadership effectiveness depends on the

leader’s willingness to interact with others and on developing effective communicative

skills. Those who engage in skilful communication are more likely to influence others.

With such ample theorising about leadership, it can be seen that studying leadership is a

practical venture; scholars in the area seek to understand it in the hope of improving

training and development, identifying alternative selection and assessment procedures

for assessing leaders’ strengths and weaknesses, and increasing the understanding of

4

how executive decisions shape the behaviour of organisations as a whole (Mumford,

Zaccaro, Connelly & Marks, 2000). Practitioners have been left unimpressed however,

as the discipline of organisational leadership has not reached the level of sophistication

necessary to create applications in the real world (Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan, 1994).

This is not to disregard the importance of leadership theory though, as leadership is an

intricate phenomenon and investigations need to be guided by theory.

This Study

The paucity in the organisational psychology literature regarding the communicative

competence (hereinafter CC) and personality of leaders, as well as a lack of specific

research in New Zealand, prompted the current study. The research presented in it seeks

to contribute to the organisational leadership literature by examining the personality

traits and CC of leaders and non-leaders in a respondent group obtained from the

general working population in New Zealand. It is this population that the results are

intended for. The insights gleaned may be valuable to practitioners wishing to use

personality and CC assessments in professional practice, for example, in training and

development exercises.

In spite of the extensive research on leadership, researchers need to expand their focus

to include the CC of leaders. Fairhurst (2008) clearly states that leadership psychology

has a secondary interest in the social and communicative arenas, relative to its interest

in individual cognitive operations. Undeniably, the literature insinuates that

communication matters only to the degree that individuals can influence one another’s

cognitive operations (Cronen, 1995). Accordingly, this study takes the view that

5

leadership is enacted through communication so that one can exercise influence in ways

that lead to success.

The personality traits of leaders are also considered in this study, through the use of the

Five-Factor Model or "Big Five" Model (hereinafter FFM). FFM trait conceptualisation

is a well-researched framework empirically. It provides operational indicators for traits

that are deemed useful for relating to leadership qualities (Digman, 1990; Goldberg,

1990). Additionally, the interest in the personality traits of leaders has increased, with a

resurgence of research linking personality to work outcomes (Bryman, 1993; Den

Hartog & Koopman, 2001). The correlations between leader personality and CC will

also be examined.

6

Chapter 2: Literature Review

This review begins by providing a summary of the leadership literature. Prominent

models and views of leadership are explored. The chapter then examines psychological

predictors of leadership, with a focus on the personality of leaders, followed by a

discussion of CC and its importance to effective leadership. Lastly, a practical view of

leadership is taken, discussing how CC and personality factors are captured in the

context of the workplace.

2.1 Psychology of leadership: models and views

As Bass & Stogdill note, 'the study of leadership rivals in age the emergence of

civilization, which shaped its leaders as much as it was shaped by them. From its

infancy, the study of history has been the study of leaders – what they did and why they

did it' (1990). However, the concept of leadership remains vague and ill-defined. In

1985, Bennis & Nanus revealed that over 350 definitions of leadership had been

proposed in the 20 years before their article was published. This has not since improved,

with 850 different classifications of leadership recently identified (Bennis, 2003).

One reason for this is that leadership can be seen in many ways: as a trait, a process, a

situational attribute, a personal construct, a multidimensional construct, a global

construct, a local construct, and a construct in the eye of the beholder. An assortment of

leadership approaches and views is summarised in this chapter, but this list is in no way

exhaustive or fully illustrative of the literature. Additionally, no single approach

provides a universal explanation of leadership behaviour, but each provides useful

insights. The approaches may overlap and sometimes even contradict one another, but a

singular approach has not yet dominated the research community.

7

2.1.1 Approaches to studying leadership

2.1.1.1 Trait approach to leadership

Leadership trait theorists believe attitudes and actions originate from within a person.

Underlying dispositions should be powerful predictors of behaviour, attitudes and

personality (Staw & Ross, 1985), so essentially leaders are born. It is theorised that

nature plays a key role in determining leadership potential, as leaders should have

particular qualities that distinguish them from non-leaders.

The first empirical study of leadership by Terman (1904) examined the differentiating

qualities of leaders and non-leaders in school children. Leaders possessed the following

attributes: verbal fluency, intelligence, low emotionality, goodness, liveliness, and

congeniality. Around this time, Thomas Carlyle stated, 'the history of the world was the

biography of great men' (Carlyle, 1907). Terman’s study and Carlyle’s view gave rise to

the traits approach to leadership.

Original trait theories of leadership began in the 1930s. It was widely believed that

leaders possessed unique physical and psychological characteristics that predisposed

them to positions of power (Bernard, 1926; Bingham, 1927; Tead, 1929; Page, 1935;

Kilbourne, 1935; Smith & Krueger, 1933; Jenkins, 1947). Leadership studies between

this time and approximately 1950 focused predominantly on factors such as height,

weight, appearance, intelligence, status, social skill, and popularity. Influential reviews

revealed traits were associated with leadership effectiveness; correlations were as high

as .50 (Gibb, 1947; Jenkins, 1947; Stogdill, 1948; Mann, 1959).

8

These findings were rarely replicated. Stogdill’s (1948) review of 124 leadership trait

studies revealed inconsistencies, interpreted as meaning traits being irrelevant to

leadership (Lord, de Vader & Alliger, 1986; Zaccaro, Kemp, & Bader, 2004). Stogdill

concluded that 'a person does not become a leader by virtue of the possession of some

combination of traits, but the pattern of personal characteristics of the leader must bear

some relevant relationship to the characteristics, activities and goals of the followers'

(Stogdill, 1948). The trait theory fell out of favour with scholars and alternative views

of leadership were adopted; some of these are discussed in this paper.

Stogdill published another review of 163 studies in 1974. Inconsistencies were again

revealed; Stogdill concluded that both traits and situational factors influenced leadership

(Stogdill, 1974). An interactional approach to leadership was advocated, and resultantly

there has been renewed interest in dispositional explanations of behaviours (Judge,

Bono, Ilies & Gerhardt, 2002; Kenny & Zaccaro, 1983) alongside context-driven

approaches. Progress in the development of personality theory has also spurred renewed

interest; early trait studies were limited by a lack of empirically substantiated

personality theory and poorly developed measurement instruments (House & Aditya,

1997; Bass & Stogdill, 1990; Zacarro et al, 2004).

Four theoretical trait perspectives with empirical support that have stemmed from the

leadership trait approach revival are mentioned here; further information regarding

these are noted in parentheses: Achievement Motivation Theory (McClelland, Atkinson,

Clark & Lowell, 1955; Spangler, 1992; House, Delbecq & Taris, 1997); Leader Motive

Profile (McClelland, 1985; Winter, 1991; McClelland & Boyatzis, 1982; McClelland &

9

Burnham, 1976); Charismatic Leadership Theory (House, 1977; Conger & Kanungo,

1987; Weber, 1947; Emrich, Brower, Feldman, & Garland, 2001; Gardner & Avolio,

1998); and Leader Flexibility (Kenny & Hallmark, 1992; Kenny & Zaccaro, 1983;

Zaccaro, Foti, & Kenny, 1991).

There are caveats to the leadership trait approach, as leadership can appear as a matter

of passive status. Critics warn that traits must be stable and able to predict behaviour

over substantial periods of time and across varying situations (Davis-Blake & Pfeffer,

1989; Schneider, 1987); further research is required to explore this. Critics also posit

that too much research is being conducted in the trait realm of leadership (Bryman,

Collinson, Grint, Jackson & Uhl-Bien, 2011), asking whether new traits are being

disentangled from established traits and if new findings are indeed making a

contribution in predicting leadership.

Despite criticisms, updated trait studies reviews have concluded that personal

characteristics do influence leadership behaviour (Hackman & Johnson, 2013).

Contemporary research offers renewed potential for trait research; this is evident in the

emergence of emotional intelligence and social intelligence approaches that lend much

to new leadership paradigms. This thesis addresses the trait approach to leadership

again, with relevance to psychological predictors of leadership and a focus on

personality.

2.1.1.2 Behavioural approach to leadership

When the trait approach fell out of favour within the research community following

Stogdill’s 1948 review, attention turned to examining leadership behaviour within

10

laboratory and field settings, the guiding assumption being there are universally

effective leadership behaviours that can be observed when the leader is in action (House

& Aditya, 1997). This paradigm offered major empirical contributions as it identified

broad categories of leadership behaviours. Researchers into management styles

particularly favoured this approach.

Behavioural theories of leadership overlap considerably (DeRue, Nahrgang, Wellman &

Humphrey, 2011) and can be classified into two main paradigms: task- and relationship-

oriented behaviours, and transformational–transactional behaviours. Transactional

leader behaviours are associated with task-oriented behaviours, while transformational

leader behaviours overlap with relationship-oriented leader behaviours (Derue et al.,

2011, Judge et al., 2004, Yukl, 2010), but task and relationship-oriented behaviours are

viewed as a more general classification. Transformational–transactional leader

behaviours will be explored at a later stage.

Task-oriented behaviour

Task-oriented behaviour is concerned with accomplishing tasks in an efficient and

reliable way to establish structure and routine (Fiedler, 1967; Derue et al., 2011). This

behaviour clarifies task-role expectations, shapes and directs follower goal-focused

behaviour, and takes corrective action, and includes planning work activities, explaining

rules, coordinating activities, and solving work-related problems (Bryman, Collinson,

Grint, Jackson & Uhl-Bien, 2011). Task-oriented leaders are likely to keep their

distance psychologically from their subordinates and can appear cold and detached

(Blau & Scott, 1962). This behaviour set may be linked to instrumental and directive

11

leadership (see Tannenbaum & Schmidt, 1958; Berlew & Heller, 1983; Sargent &

Miller, 1971).

Relationship-oriented behaviour

Relationship-oriented behaviour is concerned with increasing mutual trust, cooperation,

and organisational commitment to build and maintain relationships with followers

(Katz, Maccoby & Morse, 1950; Derue et al., 2011). This behaviour ensures followers

are respected and that smooth interpersonal dealings are carried out in the work group.

This includes showing concern for the needs of followers, providing support and

encouragement to subordinates, and providing coaching and assistance when needed

(Bryman, Collinson, Grint, Jackson & Uhl-Bien, 2011). Relationship-oriented leaders

tend to be expressive and establish social and emotional ties (Bales, 1958). This

behaviour is connected to supportive leadership and employee-oriented leadership.

Two further behavioural categorisations of leadership are described as follows.

Participative leadership

Participative leaders empower followers and involve others in decision-making for

which the leader has formal responsibility (Bryman, Collinson, Grint, Jackson & Uhl-

Bien, 2011). In contrast, leaders who seldom empower followers are termed autocratic

or directive. Directive leaders are mentioned when task-orientation behaviours are

explored; in fact, it is suggested that direction and participation are two ends of a

continuum (Tannenbaum & Schmidt, 1958; Berlew & Heller, 1983; Sargent & Miller,

1971; Bass & Stogdill, 1990). Reference can be made to the works of the

12

aforementioned scholars for more information about directive versus participative

leadership.

Contingent reward behaviour

Contingent reward behaviour is characterised by a leader’s use of formal and informal

rewards to influence follower motivation and satisfaction; for example, providing

tangible rewards for effective performance and providing recognition for effective

behaviour (Bryman, Collinson, Grint, Jackson & Uhl-Bien, 2011). These behaviours are

linked to positive reinforcement, and are included in transactional leadership. Meta-

analyses show the importance of contingent rewards in determining leadership

effectiveness (Lowe, Kroeck & Sivasubramaniam, 1996; Judge & Piccolo, 2004;

Podsakoff, Bommer, Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 2006).

A considerable body of empirical research into behavioural theories of leadership has

established that behaviours (such as initiating structure and having consideration for

followers) are linked to leader and work-group effectiveness and subordinate job

satisfaction and commitment (Bass, 2008, Judge et al., 2004, Mumford, Campion &

Morgeson, 2007 and Yukl, 2010). Task- and relationship-oriented leader behaviours

have validity with a range of leadership criteria (see Derue et al., 2011, for meta-

analytic validity coefficients). The behavioural approach is further explored in Blake

and Mouton's (1964) Managerial Grid studies – a theory based on the assumption that

leadership effectiveness is due to concern for production and people (see Blake &

Mouton, 1966; 1968). Behavioural approaches are also connected to Fiedler's

contingency model (Fiedler, 1967), and transformational and transactional leadership

behaviours (Bass, 2008), which this thesis addresses.

13

2.1.1.3 Functional approach to leadership

The functional approach to leadership looks at the way leaders behave. Leadership is

viewed as an ongoing process (Lord, 1977; Hollander & Julian 1969; Cartwright &

Zander, 1968). The underlying assumption is that leaders perform certain functions

allowing a group or organisation to operate effectively; thus leadership is viewed as

social problem solving and the leader’s job 'is to do, or get done, whatever is not being

adequately handled for group needs' (McGrath, 1962). In this sense, the leader is

effective to the degree that they ensure all functions critical to task maintenance are

completed. This approach, like the behavioural paradigm, was popular among

researchers of management styles.

Three theories are briefly presented here, but additional work looking at the functional

behaviour of leaders can be sought by consulting the work of Pigors (1936), Cattell &

Stice (1954), Bales (1955), Hemphill (1949), Roby (1961), Schutz (1961), Levine

(1949), Getzels & Guba (1957), Selznick (1957), and Mahoney, Jerdee & Carroll

(1965).

Chester Barnard’s theory

The earliest contribution to the functional approach was Chester Barnard’s The

Functions of the Executive (1938). Barnard noted that leadership is the key factor in

cooperation and that it must go beyond deciding the right thing to do, to the job of

getting it done. This involves guiding others, so leaders must effectively convey

meanings and intentions and create meaning for followers in a manner that facilitates

their commitment. Barnard’s work isolated communication as the central function of

14

organisational leadership, emphasising that common organisational purpose can only be

achieved if it is known, and therefore it must be communicated effectively in language –

oral and written (Hackman & Johnson, 2013). The impact of Barnard’s work can be

explored further by referring to Scott (1987) and Williamson (1995).

Benne & Sheats’ theory

Benne and Sheats (1948) were pioneers in the classification of functional roles within

groups. According to these authors, the leadership role should be viewed in terms of

functions performed within a group that enable the group to work productively (Benne

& Sheats, 1948). Three types of group roles are identified:

a) group task roles – contribute to the completion of group tasks;

b) group building/group maintenance roles – contribute to the functioning of the

group as a group, and;

c) individual roles – not related to the group task or group functioning, are possibly

disruptive through minimising group effectiveness (Benne & Sheats, 1948; Bass

& Stogdill, 1990).

Roles associated with successful task completion and the development and maintenance

of group member interaction to enable goal achievement and the satisfaction of group

needs can be considered as serving a leadership function (Hackman & Johnson, 2013).

Some researchers believe this work is worthy of re-reading today due to the flattening

of organisational structures and the growing importance of effective communication

(Manley, 2008).

15

Transactional leadership

First described by Max Weber and further explored by Bass (1985), transactional

leadership is an exchange system of rewards and punishments. It may be seen as a

management theory as it focuses on the role of supervision, organisation and group

performance. It has been categorised under functional approaches in this thesis, as it is

concerned with leaders performing certain functions that allow a group or organisation

to operate effectively; specifically, by rewarding employees when they are successful,

and by reprimanding employees when they fail (Burns, 1978).

Transactional leadership is leadership through reciprocal exchange, leading to the

achievement of goals for both leader and followers. Bass (1985) identified higher-order

factors of transactional leadership:

contingent reward behaviour (leader recognises good performance and provides

rewards for effort);

passive management-by-exception (leader maintains the status quo and

intervenes when followers do not meet acceptable performance levels), and;

active management-by-exception (similar to passive management, but the

leader’s monitoring pattern is continual to ensure agreed upon standards of

performance are met) (Bass & Avolio, 1993; Bass & Bass, 2009; Antonakis,

Avolio & Sivsubramaniam, 2003).

Research has found that transactional leadership tends to be most effective in situations

where problems are simple and clearly defined (Bass & Avolio, 1993; Vera & Crossan,

2004). While transactional leadership can be effective in some situations, it is generally

considered inadequate and may prevent both leaders and followers from achieving their

16

full potential (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996). It

demonstrates a non-significant relationship with leader effectiveness (Lowe, Kroeck, &

Sivasubramaniam, 1996).

Group performance for most tasks requires problem solving processes, the maintenance

of the group and the avoidance of interpersonal friction (Lord, 1977). Hence, leadership

behaviours under the functional approach can be further classified into two categories:

those dealing with task accomplishment (task-focused), and those that facilitate team

interaction and development (relationship-focused). The functional perspective is

important to communication scholars, as it attempts to identify the specific

communication behaviours associated with leadership (Hackman & Johnson, 2013).

Whilst frequently cited, questions remain unexplored with regards to functional

leadership, including: whether relationships exist between roles; whether individual

differences can predict the emergence of role behaviours, and; if there are consequences

for particular roles that individuals adopt (Mudrack & Farrell, 1995). Critics have noted

that functional theories of leadership face the same issue as trait approaches, as both

lack a theoretical orientation and well-developed measurement tools. Context, which is

discussed in the next set of theories, has also been largely too.

2.1.1.4 Contingency approach to leadership

According to the contingency approach, the traits, skills and behaviours necessary for

effective leadership vary from situation to situation. This approach is referred to as a

contingency approach, as leadership behaviour is contingent on variations of the

situation. As mentioned previously, the trait approach to leadership fell out of favour

17

due to inconsistent results (Stogdill, 1948), and eventually, 'situation-specific analyses

took over, in fact, dominating the field' (Bass & Stogdill, 1990). As a result, researchers

began to incorporate situational factors into their leadership behaviour studies.

Well-known contingency theories of leadership include path-goal theory (House, 1971;

House & Mitchell, 1975); situational leadership theory (Hersey, Blanchard &

Natemeyer, 1979); the least preferred co-workers (LPC) contingency model (Fiedler,

1967, 1971); leader substitutes theory (Kerr & Jermier, 1978); the normative decision

model (Vroom & Jago, 1988; Vroom & Yetton, 1973); cognitive resources theory

(Fiedler & Garcia, 1987), and the multiple linkage model (Yukl, 1981; 1989). This

section addresses the first three of these contingency models, as they have received

significant empirical attention; references are provided for those theories that cannot be

covered in this thesis.

Situational leadership model

Hersey and Blanchard’s situational leadership model came to prominence in the1960s,

when it was termed the life-cycle theory of leadership. According to this theory,

different situations call for different styles of leadership behaviour, defined by the terms

directive and supportive leadership (Hersey & Blanchard, 1982; Hersey & Blanchard,

1988). Directive leadership behaviour is task-oriented; supportive leadership behaviour

is relationship-oriented. The theory recognises that a leader needs to be flexible in terms

of their behaviour (Yukl, 1981).

The primary situational determinant of leader behaviour is the task-relevant maturity of

the subordinate, made up of job maturity (skills, knowledge, experience) and

18

psychological maturity (confidence, motivation) (Hersey & Blanchard, 1982). Follower

maturity can fluctuate across tasks and situations, and so the follower is the most

important situational determinant of appropriate leader behaviour (Campbell &

Pritchard, 1976; Lawler, 1966; Porter & Lawler, 1968; Viteles, 1953; Vroom, 1966).

Path-goal theory

Path-goal theory (House, 1971; House & Dessler, 1974) looks at how leader behaviour

influences follower satisfaction and performance, and in turn follower motivation and

abilities. Leader behaviour is acceptable and satisfying to the extent that followers see

this behaviour as either an immediate source of satisfaction or integral to future

satisfaction (House & Mitchell, 1975). This theory concerns the work group rather than

the entire organisation. A detailed review is provided by Podsakoff, MacKenzie,

Ahearne, & Bommer, (1995).

Path-goal theory emerged from a theory of organisational motivation called expectancy

theory (Vroom, 1964; Van Eerde and Thierry, 1996), where followers are more

motivated to be productive when they believe they can achieve things they want from

their position, and that successful task completion will provide a path to a valuable goal

(Bryman, Collinson, Grint, Jackson & Uhl-Bien, 2011). Leaders play an important role

in influencing follower perceptions of task paths and goal desirability, by making

rewards to the follower more dependent on their performance, and by guiding this

reward attainment by providing support and coaching (Bass & Stogdill, 1990). In this

sense, path-goal theory is an exchange theory of leadership.

19

Least preferred co-workers model

Fiedler’s contingency model of leadership has emerged as one of the most commonly

studied approaches to leadership (Fiedler, 1967; Fiedler & Garcia, 1987). It describes

how the situation moderates effects on group performance of a leader trait called the

least preferred co-worker (LPC) score. Fiedler claimed that an individual’s rating of

others whom they do not like to work with provides valuable information about that

individual’s leadership behaviour, and that a leader’s style should be matched to the

right situation (Armandi, Oppedisano & Sherman, 2003).

Fiedler’s theory is empirically supported (Northouse, 1997), and has interesting

implications for leader management in organisations as favourable situations can be

identified for leaders (Dunham, 1984). However, criticism exists, especially as the

interpretation of LPC scores has changed several times over the years. What the

measure actually means is still being debated also (Bryman, Collinson, Grint, Jackson

& Uhl-Bien, 2011). Additionally, individual leadership styles may change over time,

which the LPC approach does not account for. For a review of relevant research, see

Peters, Hartke, & Pohlmann, (1985).

Weaknesses in contingency theories of leadership exist. For instance, models tend to

overemphasise behaviour meta-categories such as participative leadership, which can

limit their value in understanding how aspects of the situation moderate the effects of

leader behaviour on outcomes. Moreover, there are inadequate explanations of the

underlying reasons for the relationships that the theories note, a lack of attention to

behaviour patterns, and complex interactions are ignored. Other limitations include a

20

lack of attention to joint effects of situational variables, and a failure to distinguish

moderators from mediators.

2.1.1.5 Relational approach to leadership

Following the trait, behavioural, and contingency models of leadership, more recent

researchers have contested these approaches, regarding them as greatly influenced by

assumptions of individuality and advocating a top-down influence where followers and

processes are ancillary (Fairhurst, 2009; Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2002; Osborn, Hunt, &

Jauch, 2002). It is acknowledged that leaders and subordinates are “relational beings”

who establish a dynamic relation context with each other, and that “relationality” needs

to be closely considered in leadership research (Bradbury & Lichtenstein, 2000).

Initially explored by Hosking (1988) and Hosking and Morley (1988), the relational

approach focuses on the relationships between leader and followers. Leadership is

recognised not as a trait or behaviour, but a phenomenon constructed through social

interaction processes (Day, 2001). The unique interactions that leaders have with their

followers are critical in developing relationships, which has an impact on employee

effectiveness, and consequently leadership effectiveness (Day, 2001; Drath, 2001;

Hosking & Morley, 1988; Ospina & Foldy, 2010). Communication is recognised as a

key component of relational leadership (Shamir, 2007).

Relational leadership has evolved to become 'human social constructions that emanate

from the rich connections and interdependencies of organizations and their members'

(Uhl-Bien, 2006) meaning that a relational orientation begins with processes, not

individuals. Three relational models of leadership are explored succinctly here, but

21

further literature is available from the following authors: Graen & Uhl-Bien, (1995);

Hosking, (1988); Katz & Kahn, (1978); Rost, (1991); Yukl, (2013).

Vertical dyadic linkage model (VDL)

In its early incarnations, the relational approach focused on the vertical dyadic linkage

model developed by Graen (1976). In this model, the vertical dyad of leader and

subordinate is an interaction linkage of mutual influence, emphasising the relationship

between of the leader and each follower, rather than the relationship between the leader

and the group as a whole. Up until this point in the literature, scholars believed that

leaders used the same leadership style with every member of the organisational group.

Graen posited that leaders treat individual followers differently and that these

differences give rise to in-groups and out-groups (Dansereau, Graen & Haga, 1975;

Graen & Cashman, 1975). Some subordinates are given favoured treatment by the

leader and are chosen due to their competence and skill, the extent to which they can be

trusted, and their desire to assume greater responsibility (Liden & Graen, 1980). In-

group members perform better and are more satisfied with their job than out-group

members who perform the more mundane tasks of the group and experience a more

formal exchange with the leader (Liden & Graen, 1980).

Leader-member exchange theory (LMX)

As the focus of VDL shifted to the quality of dyadic relationships, Leader Member

Exchange Theory was shaped (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). LMX theory states that

leaders can vary their interactions across followers, and in doing so, determine the

relationship between followers and themselves. It is based on both social exchange

22

theory and role theory (Gernster & Day; 1997 Graen 1976; Graen & Scandrua 1987;

Blau, 1964). LMX is described as one of the 'most durable theories for describing

supervisory behaviour and understanding its consequences' (Hackman & Johnson,

2013).

LMX focuses on the quality of the relationships between a leader and followers, rather

than categorising followers as either a member of the in-group or out-group as described

in the VDL model. Researchers report a link between relational quality and personal

and organisational effectiveness, with followers who have a high LMX relationship

with their leader being more productive, more satisfied with their job, more committed

to the organisation, and more successful in their career (Major, Kozlowski, & Chao,

1995; Duarte, Goodson, & Klich, 1994; Wayne & Green, 1993).

LMX has been widely studied, as is evident in the number of reviews and meta-analyses

conducted over the last two decades (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Ilies, Nahrgang, Morgeson,

2007; Liden, Sparrowe & Wayne, 1997; Schriesheim, Castro & Cogliser, 1999). A

major criticism however is that the theory provides little practical advice to leaders.

Research indicates that both the leader and the follower need to be examined, not just

the quality of their relationship (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995), as does the style in which

leaders express their behaviours (House & Aditya, 1997).

Implicit leadership theory

First introduced by Eden & Leviatan (1975) and progressed by Lord and colleagues

(Lord, Binning, Rush & Thomas, 1978; Lord, DeVader, & Alliger, 1986; Lord, Foti &

DeVader, 1984; Lord & Maher, 1991), implicit leadership theory is concerned with the

23

evaluations people make about leaders and the cognitive processes that underlie these

perceptions; thus leadership is individually and socially determined (Schyns, Kiefer,

Kerschreiter & Tymon, 2011). In other words, specific leadership behaviours do not

make an individual a leader unless that individual is also perceived as leader.

Leaders and followers hold expectations about the kind of leadership behaviour that

should be exhibited in given contexts (Eden & Leviatan, 1975). Implicit theories

highlight the importance of social context, however, it is an approach that is scarcely

known within organisations. Schyns, Kiefer, Kerschreiter & Tymon (2011) state that the

implications of socially shaped perceptions of leaders should be shared widely as it can

affect how leaders and subordinates are trained, assessed and developed. For instance,

implicit leadership theories can be linked to the romanticising of leaders, where

individuals over-attribute organisational performance to leaders (Meindl, Ehrlich, &

Dukerich, 1985).

2.1.1.6 Contemporary approaches to leadership

Recent theories of leadership have focused on inspirational styles of leadership, which

appeal to emotions and values rather than reason; transformational leadership theories

fall into this category. These theories have been dominant in the leadership field since

the late 1980s, with greater attention being paid to “higher impact” theories of

leadership (Avolio, Reichard, Hannah, Walumbwa & Chan, 2009). It is as a positive

approach, as its focus is on the positive capabilities of leaders that influence followers,

make events meaningful for them, and achieve more than was initially believed possible

(Yukl, 1998) – qualities that lead to improvements in performance (Luthans & Church,

2002).

24

Transformational leadership

Burns brought transformational leadership to prominence in his 1978 book Leadership,

where he made the distinction between transactional leadership and transformational

leadership. Transactional leadership (discussed earlier in this chapter) is characterised

by reciprocal exchange, leading to satisfaction of both leader and followers’ goals. In

contrast, transformational leadership is characterised by the engagement of followers to

not only achieve goals, but to also "morally uplift” them (Bryman, Collinson, Grint,

Jackson & Uhl-Bien, 2011). The relationship between leader and follower is mutual,

where both parties influence each other so as 'to rise to higher levels of motivation and

morality' (Burns, 1978). Transformational leadership is viewed as a more complex and

potent leadership style, and is currently the most widely accepted model of leadership

(Tejeda, Scandura & Pillai, 2001).

Bass (1985) built upon Burns’ work and expanded on the transactional and

transformational leadership distinctions. Transactional leadership factors include

contingent reward behaviour, passive management-by-exception, active management-

by-exception, and laissez-faire leadership (leaders abdicates responsibility).

Transformational leadership factors include idealised influence (leader inspires,

provides vision), individualised consideration (leader coaches, advises, supports),

inspirational motivation (leader communicates high expectations), and intellectual

stimulation (leader stimulates intelligent problem solving). The non-leadership

dimension laissez-faire leadership is also included.

25

Results suggest transformational leadership is more effective than transactional

leadership (Bass & Bass, 2009; Waldman, Bass, & Yammarino, 1990), as it is a more

active and effective form of leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1993) providing followers with

a sense of purpose and a vision that inspires them towards a common goal (Lowe et al.,

1996). It has also been linked to an increase in follower task performance, innovation,

and extra-role behaviours (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996; Keller, 2006; Wang, Law,

Hackett, Wang & Chen, 2005). Additionally, Lowe and colleagues, in their meta-

analysis (1996), report that transformational leadership reliably predicts work unit

effectiveness, both for follower perceptions (.80) and for organisational measures of

effectiveness (.35).

Burns (1978) proposed transactional-transformational leadership as a continuum model;

nonetheless, scholars argue that although transactional and transformational leadership

are separate constructs, the same leader can display both styles (Bass, 1985; Waldman

et al., 1990). Bass (1985) suggests that the leader behaviour exhibited may depend on

different situations or different times; Waldman et al (1990) hypothesise that effective

leaders are those that utilise both styles. The situational distinction between

transactional and transformational leadership has been revisited (Bryman, Collinson,

Grint, Jackson & Uhl-Bien, 2011), with the conclusion that transformational leadership

is the leadership style required during times of “environmental turbulence”, while

transactional leadership is best suited for stable environments.

There is still much to learn about the antecedents of transformational and transactional

leadership (Bass, 2008). Unfortunately, much of the literature has focused on outcomes

meaning that an understanding of the underlying basis of behaviour has been neglected.

26

Some research has been conducted using the FFM of personality, but findings have

been speckled. Judge and Bono (2000) found that the factors of Extraversion,

Agreeableness and Openness to Experience were positively related to transformational

leadership, with Agreeableness being a strong and consistent predictor of

transformational leadership. Ployhart, Lim & Chan (2001) found a strong relationship

between Extraversion and transformational leadership behaviour, Agreeableness to be

positively related to transformational leadership, Neuroticism negatively related to

transformational leadership, but established no significant relationship with

Extraversion (Lim and Ployhart, 2004). A meta-analytic study by Bono & Judge (2004)

revealed that there were only small correlation effects between FFM personality traits

and transformational leadership components. However a strong relationship was

discovered between Extraversion and transformational leadership behaviour. In these

studies, and in Judge and colleagues’ work (2002), Conscientiousness has not appeared

to be predictive of transformational leadership.

These findings suggest the presence of stable trait influences on transformational

leadership behaviours, though further research into its antecedents is encouraged. The

suggestion that Extraversion and Agreeableness as traits linked to transformational

leadership was expected, given that these traits enable a leader to engage with others

and allows others to engage with them. This is salient to transformational leadership, as

its components require a leader to communicate values and ideas in social interactions

in order to motivate and inspire followers to get on board with the organisational vision.

There is a clear indication that 'transformational leadership has a significant relational

component to it' (Judge & Bono, 2000), especially as transformational leadership

27

communication means not only sharing the vision, but also restructuring

communication so the vision can be articulated in a way that inspires followers in an

organisation (Flauto, 1999). Exploring relational effectiveness concepts linked to

transformational leadership behaviour appears warranted in future studies. Emotional

intelligence could be explored further in relation to transformational, as using strong

emotional attachment is critical to a leader’s capacity to build relationships (Caruso,

Mayer & Salovey, 2002).

The transformational leadership model does come with concerns. Apprehensions have

arisen regarding whether it suffices as an explanation of leadership in a dynamic,

changing world environment, particularly as it is leader-centric in its approach and

followers and context are excluded. It may also be seen to ignore the negative side of

leadership, a relevant point as transformational leaders are considered to have a

considerable influence on organisations, regardless of whether the consequences are

beneficial or not. Moreover, a negative effect of transformational leadership for

followers could occur as increased dependency on leaders, as followers may develop a

great attachment to and trust in the leader. This raises the question of whether

transformational leaders are also ethical leaders. Another limitation of the theory is the

limited number of tools available to measure transformational leadership, the most

common tool being the MLQ. Researchers have been unable to make generalisations

and have been left with vague impressions of what a transformational leader really does.

2.1.1.7 Additional approaches to leadership

New leadership paradigms have emerged in the literature, building on the work of

previous leadership theories and stemming from a positive psychology perspective.

28

Although it is beyond the scope of this thesis to examine each theory in detail, the

prominent approaches are acknowledged and further references are provided for the

captivated reader: ethical leadership (Brown & Trevino, 2006; Mayer, Kuenzi, &

Greenbaum, 2010); moral leadership (Sergiovanni, 1992; Weick, 1976); building on

ethics and morality, the authentic leadership model (Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner,

Wernsing & Peterson, 2008); servant leadership (Linden, Wayne, Zhao & Henderson,

2008; Northouse, 2012); collective/collaborative leadership (Block, 2003; Walker &

Marr, 2001); and, challenging the traditional approach to science, spiritual leadership

(Cacioppe, 2000; Fry, 2003; Crossman, 2010).

2.1.2 Psychological predictors of good leadership

2.1.2.1 Intelligence

The study of human intelligence has an extensive history of debate and research. There

are as many definitions of intelligence as there are experts asked to define it (Miller,

Myers, Prinzi & Mittenberg, 2009; Wang & Kaufman, 1993). From an organisational

psychology view, there is controversy concerning definitions of intelligence within

psychometric testing, which include factors relevant to employed work and considered

central in intelligence models (Brebner & Stough, 1995; Cattell, 1987; Dixon, 2003;

Lowman, 1991; Stankov, 2003; Sternberg, Lautry & Lubart, 2003; Wagner &

Sternberg, 1985; Weinert & Hany, 2003); examples include social and emotional

intelligence. However definitions of intelligence in standard psychometric tests seek to

measure an individual’s capacity for information processing, problem solving, and

abstract reasoning – considered key components for most definitions of intelligence

29

(Ackerman & Rolfhus, 1999; Feist & Barron, 2003; Horn, 1968; Snyderman &

Rothman, 1987).

Researchers suggest a link between intelligence and effective leadership. Intelligence

defined as general factor of cognitive abilities is viewed as central to predicting job

performance (Schmidt & Hunter, 2004, p. 162) and is considered the single best

predictor of work success (Bryman, Collinson, Grint, Jackson & Uhl-Bien, 2011; Judge,

Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002; Judge, Colbert, & Ilies, 2004; Lord, De Vader, &

Alliger, 1986). In leadership research, the importance of intelligence has long been

acknowledged (e.g. Stogdill, 1948). In Smith & Kreuger’s literature survey (1933), it

was discovered that the 'general trend of the findings was that leadership status was

more often than not associated with superiority in intelligence'. More recently, Zaccaro

et al. (2004) provided support that leaders tend to have higher levels of intelligence than

non-leaders.

Intelligence plays an essential role in good leadership because of the high cognitive

demands of a leadership position, for example, gathering, integrating and interpreting

information (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991), planning and organising, problem solving,

and decision-making (Yukl, Wall, & Lepsinger, 1990). Leaders need sufficient levels of

cognitive ability to perform their job well. Several leadership models view intelligence

as a foundation for leadership capability (Li, Arvey, & Song, 2011, see Mintzberg,

1973; Mumford, Campion, & Morgeson, 2007; Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding, Jacobs, &

Fleishman, 2000; Zaccaro, 2001).

30

The adaptive performance required of good leaders (Pulakos, Schmitt, Dorsey, Arad,

Borman & Hedge, 2002; Sternberg, 1997) means that creative thinking is essential.

Individuals with high levels of intelligence are likely to be more able when faced with

problem identification, identification of relevant information, generation of new ideas,

and the evaluation of these ideas (Reiter-Palmon & Illies, 2004). Divergent thinking is

important for leadership as producing novel ideas, and successfully implementing

creative ideas in an organisation is necessary for it to compete and grow.

Some researchers have cautioned against the highly intelligent leader, suggesting that

when there is too great a difference between the intelligence of the leader and the

followers, this could have a counterproductive impact on the effectiveness of the

leadership (Smith & Kreuger, 1933). Leaders who possess advanced cognitive abilities

may have difficulty communicating with their followers, either because they are

engrossed in their own thinking or because their ideas are too advanced for followers to

perceive.

2.1.2.2 Social/ interpersonal skills

While it is important for leaders to develop solutions that will work in organisational

situations, they must also be able to get subordinates to work towards these solutions.

This requires social skill. Leadership involves developing and maintaining social

relations within the organisational context; social skills are necessary for a leader to

adapt to followers and assist in creating a commitment to the organisation’s mission

(Zaccaro, Gilbert, Thor & Mumford, 1992). Social skills, lato sensu, encompass the

ability of leaders to understand the feelings and behaviours of others in situations and

respond effectively based on that knowledge.

31

Thorndike’s (1920) social intelligence concept provided a foundation for research

examining social skill within organisations. The recent Multiple Intelligences Model of

Gardner re-emphasises interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligence as components.

Building on those concepts, social skill reflects the leader’s knowledge of both what to

do and when to display certain behaviours (Meichenbaum, Butler, and Gruson, 1981).

Social skill has a main as well as (statistical) interaction effect on job performance

(Ferris et al., 2001; Witt & Ferris, 2003). It has been identified as a focal personal

quality needed for success in leading (Ferris, Perrewè, & Douglas, 2002; Riggio, 1986;

Riggio, Riggio, Salinas, & Cole, 2003; Witt & Ferris, 2003).

Mirroring the personalist versus situationalist perspectives, two considerations of social

skill are evident in literature. Social skill has been theorised as: a stable personality

characteristic (Friedman & Miller-Herringer, 1991; Segrin, 1998); and as situation-

dependent (Bandura, 1999; Topping, Bremer, & Holmes, 2000). The trait approach has

been supported by links discovered between social skill and personality characteristics

such as Empathy (Nezlek, Feist, Wilson, & Plesko, 2001) and Extraversion (Lieberman

& Rosenthal, 2001). Evidence for a situational approach stems from examining

situational pressure, and is aligned with the understanding that social skill is partly

learned (Cherniss, 2000; Segrin & Givertz, 2003). Contextual factors play an important

role in manifesting the skill (Spitzberg, 2003). Burgoon and Dunbar (2000) argue that

social skill is best understood when individual and environment are concurrently

studied.

32

Social skills can be linked to House & Aditya’s (1997) mention of two sources of

motivation for effective leaders: social influence and power. The desire to influence is

suggested to be predictive of leader effectiveness, particularly as leadership relies on

social influence processes; this has been supported a number of times (see Miner &

Dachler, 1973; Spangler & House, 1991). Power motivation is defined as 'a non-

conscious concern for acquiring status and having an impact on others' (House &

Aditya, 1997). Leaders require power motivation as it spurs them to engage in social

influence behaviours that are needed for effective leadership. Individuals who are

highly motivated by power are likely to gain more satisfaction from exercising

influence over others (McClelland, 1985). In situations where leaders are motivated to

exercise social influence, social skills are required to make social judgements and to

assist in decision-making while persuading and negotiating with followers and

stakeholders. Argyle (1969) suggested that social skill is reflected in the 'effective

exercise of persuasion, explanation, and other influence mechanisms, which reveal the

ability to control others'.

Studies in the early 20th century revealed that communication and social skills were

important predictors of leadership effectiveness (Bass & Stogdill, 1990; Stogdill, 1974).

The connection between social skills and communication is clear when observing the

social process between a leader and followers, a relationship sanctioned through

communication. Communicative action can 'modify and elaborate existing connections

among colleagues, actions, meanings, and contexts, or create new ones' (Barge &

Fairhurst, 2008). CC will be addressed in detail (Section 2.1.3).

33

2.1.2.3 Emotional intelligence

Emotional intelligence (hereinafter EI) has garnered attention in I/O psychology as an

antecedent of successful leadership. A suitable theoretical grounding for EI is the

distinction between task-oriented and relationship-oriented leadership styles (Likert,

1961; Stogdill & Coons, 1957). Modelled by Salovey & Mayer (1989) EI is a

heterogeneous, aggregate construct including:

1. Identifying emotions – involves the ability to recognise emotions in oneself and

others, as well as the ability to express emotions.

2. Using emotions to facilitate thinking - involves using emotions to improve

thinking processes and harness the power of positive moods.

3. Understanding emotions - includes the complexities and subtleties of emotions

as well as their interrelationships.

4. Managing emotions - involves skills in regulating and controlling felt emotions

in a positive fashion.

As the term suggests, EI has to do with emotions (affective domain) and thinking

(cognitive domain), and the interplay between the two ((Caruso et al., 2002; Mayer,

Salovey & Caruso, 2000; Mayer, Salovey & Caruso, 2004).

Given that EI is not assessed in the current study, a full review of conceptualisation and

operationalisation is beyond the scope. Goleman, Boyatzis & McKee (2002) claim that

EI is a critical component of leadership effectiveness. Goleman (1998) states that EI is

the 'sine qua non of leadership'.

34

Describing the emotionally intelligent leader, George’s (2000) standard of abilities to

motivate team members is useful:

The ability to accurately appraise others’ emotions, and to effectively portray

personal emotion.

Having a thorough knowledge of emotions, so the leader is able to predict

emotional reactions in a range of situations.

The ability to recognise that emotions are useful in influencing the behaviour

and cognition of others.

The ability to manage emotions so as to direct one’s own and others; interaction

processes and emotional processes.

EI is a promising research target, particularly in absence of relevant models focused on

emotional skills guiding development (Day, 2001; Day & O'Connor, 2003). A critical

appraisal of claims advocating EI is also warranted, e.g. that the concept of EI is too

easily shaped to explain leadership effectiveness (Riggio & Lee, 2007). Evidence is

scarce regarding the necessity of EI for leadership performance or effectiveness

(Antonakis, 2003; Antonakis, 2004; Zeidner, Roberts & Matthews, 2002; Zaccaro &

Horn, 2003; Zeidner, Matthews, & Roberts, 2004).

2.1.2.4 Knowledge and expertise

Mumford, Marks, Connelly, Zaccaro, & Reiter-Palmon, (2000) state that leaders enter

into organisations as novices – regardless of how many years experience they may have

– but this is buffered by the skills that they have usually developed over time. This

expertise can manifest itself in information, knowledge, and/or wisdom. Leaders who

are knowledgeable and skilled tend to be more effective at intellectualising the

35

behavioural requirements of their subordinates' tasks than leaders who do not have such

skills or experience.

Leader knowledge and expertise shapes their ability to solve vague organisational

problems, affects the quality of their responses, and the kinds of information they seek

and the concepts they apply (Mumford, Whetzel, & Reiter-Palmon, 1997). Models in

the literature tend to view problem solving as relating to creativity, because the two

share many processes (Reiter-Palmon & Illies, 2004). Scholars suggest it may take up to

20 years before leaders attain all the skills they need to solve different organisational

problems (Mumford, Marks, Connelly, Zaccaro, & Reiter-Palmon, 2000).

The perception of leaders as experts is important for effective leadership, as they are

more likely to gain follower compliance and less likely to provoke opposition (Bass &

Stogdill, 1990). Several early studies posit that expertise is positively related to

subordinate performance (Bachman, 1968; Bachman, Bowers, & Marcus, 1968;

Bachman, Smith, & Slesinger, 1966; Ivancevich & Donnelly, 1970; Student, 1968).

Followers often defer to and take the advice of those who seem to possess superior

power and skills. In this sense, leaders transform their special knowledge into expert

power but a leader also needs to be perceived by others as an expert. Research has

demonstrated the impact of this perceived expertise on influence; individuals who

thought their partners were experts accepted their recommendations 68% of the time

(Foschi, Warriner & Hart, 1985).

The research on leadership expertise and knowledge is sparse. However, there is a

caveat in this area of leadership; because of the technological revolution and the

36

dissemination of knowledge and information, identifying who the expert is can be

influenced as knowledge and expertise can be more easily acquired.

2.1.2.5 Personality

The study of the personality traits and characteristics of leaders has endured a

controversial history. Recently though, there has been revived interest in the personality

traits of leaders, likely linked to the progress made in transformational leadership

theories, and to the emerging consensus around a framework of personality that

integrates empirical findings (De Hoogh, Den Hartog & Koopman, 2005). It appears

personality trait views are once again achieving status in the leadership literature as a

means for predicting leadership effectiveness (Antonakis, Day & Schyns, 2012;

Zaccaro, 2012).

The concept of personality in psychology has been largely based on individual, unique,

personal attributes (McAdams, 2006; Pervin, Cervone, & John, 2005) and behavioural

consistency, iterated by such definitions of personality as, '…represents those

characteristics of the person or of people generally that account for consistent patterns

of response to situations' (Pervin, 1980); 'a system of relatively enduring dispositions'

(Bronfenbrenner, 1951); 'the total sum of all of the relatively enduring dimensions of

individual differences' (Byrne & Kelly, 1981). This consistency in individual thoughts

and behaviours is across both time and situations (Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000). Thus,

at the core of personality research is the study of the person as a whole (Funder, 1999;

Mischel, Shoda & Ayduk, 2008; Murray, 1938).

37

Personality traits influence how we habitually think, feel, and act (Saucier, 2003).

Personality is partially heritable and relatively stable during adulthood (Roberts &

DelVecchio, 2000). Therefore, work in this realm has appeared fruitful for showing that

leaders’ traits are an important element in explaining their behaviours and outcomes

(Eagly, 2007; Judge et al., 2002). Moreover, leadership represents complex patterns of

behaviour that can likely be explained by several leader attributes; therefore, trait

approaches to studying leadership are required to reflect this veracity (Yukl, 2006;

Zaccaro et al., 2004).

The role of personality in organisational behaviours has received renewed interest over

the past three decades (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Salgado, 1997; Tett, Jackson,

Rothstein, & Reddon, 1994; Judge, Klinger, Simon, and Yang, 2008). The trait

approach to personality is the most widely recognised approach in organisational

psychology, attributed to the fact that it is the best researched empirically, and traits can

be operationalised and provide predictive indicators for behaviours that are useful for

relating to leadership qualities (Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002; Peterson, Smith,

Martorana, & Owens, 2003; Zaccaro et al, 2004).

The rise of transformational leadership theories has created interest in the exploration of

traits, as they point to the stable, personal qualities of individuals as determinants of

their effectiveness (House, 1977; 1988). The trait approach renewal has also been

spurred on by progress in the development of personality theory; early trait studies were

limited by a lack of empirically demonstrated personality theory, and poorly developed

measurement instruments (House & Aditya, 1997; Bass & Stogdill, 1990; Zacarro et al,

2004). Hence, these advancements have supported a resurfaced interest in leadership

38

traits. For personality trait theorists, this represents a dramatic turnaround following a

widespread and long-lasting rejection from the industrial and organisational psychology

literature.

The roots of the personality trait model can be traced back to Gordon Allport (1937).

According to Allport, individuals develop traits that are unique to them because of

differential experience; thus, even if a common trait is shared amongst people, they may

differ in the degree to which that trait is expressed in behaviour. The trait model, also

referred to as the dispositional model, focuses on empirical, quantitative, and

nomothetic approaches in observations that validate the existence of its hypothetical

entities (Piekkola, 2011). Here, traits are described as concrete aspects of personality in

descriptive terms (e.g. 'assertive', 'sociable', 'aggressive'). So a trait can be defined as

any distinguishable, relatively lasting way in which an individual differs from others

(Guilford, 1959).

Allport (1937) notes that there are an almost unlimited number of possible traits that

could be used to describe an individual’s personality. As this was deemed by others to

not be of practical value for distinguishing individual differences in people’s behaviours

(John, 1989), subsequent trait theorists considered personality differences sufficiently

consistent to enable an identification of a relatively small number of broadly applicable

descriptive traits (Cattell, 1943; 1945). From this analysis stemmed Raymond Cattell’s

16 Personality Factors (16PF), where more than 99% of the terms Allport identified

were eliminated. This stimulated other researchers to examine the dimensional structure

of personality traits, and led to the development of personality trait models such as the

FFM which is the most commonly engaged contemporary model of personality.

39

Personality in organisational psychology

Since the 1980s, consensus has emerged that a five-factor conception of personality can

be used to describe the most salient aspects of personality. The Costa/McCrae FFM is

currently the most widely used framework for studying human personality. The authors

credited with founding the Big Five model are Tupes & Christal (1961), who developed

the contemporary foundation for the FFM (the researchers born the model from a

reanalysis of Cattell’s early data collection). Under this model, it is assumed that the

structure of human personality is reflected in five overall personality factors, often

labelled Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and

Openness to Experience (Costa & McCrae, 1992, Digman, 1990, Goldberg, 1990).

FFM personality dimensions are detailed below:

Neuroticism represents poor emotional adjustment and negative affects such as

anxiety, stress, and insecurity. Can also be represented by its opposite,

Emotional Stability.

Extraversion represents sociability, gregariousness, assertiveness and positive

affects such as energy and zeal.

Openness to Experience represents a disposition to be imaginative,

unconventional, and creative.

Agreeableness represents the tendency to be kind, trusting, caring, and

altruistic.

Conscientiousness represents achievement (reflected in the capacity to work

hard and meet challenges) and dependability (reflected in being thorough,

responsible, and organised).

40

The emergence of FFM is often linked to the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI) –

which is comprised of Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Openness-to-Experience – with

the addition of the Conscientiousness and Agreeableness factor by McCrae & Costa

(1985). FFM factors are found consistently in different research methods (Costa,

Herbst, & McCrae, 2002; Digman, 1990; Hough & Schneider, 1996; McCrae & Costa,

1985; 1987; 1997; McCrae & John, 1992) and appear to be cross-culturally valid,

demonstrated across genders, and relatively stable across adulthood (Costa & McCrae,

1988; Digman & Shmelyov, 1996; McCrae & Costa, 1997; Costa, Terracciano, &

McCrae, 2001; McCrae & Costa, 1999; McCrae, Costa & Del Pilar, 1998; McCrae,

Costa, Terracciano, Parker, Mills, De Fruyt & Mervielde, 2002; Ones & Anderson,

2002; Vassend & Skrondal, 2011).

McCrae & Costa (1997) comment that many psychologists now accept FFM as the best

representation of human personality. Consequently, it has provided a valuable

taxonomy for the study of job performance, as it provides a comprehensive framework

for the organisation of occupationally relevant personality traits. Utilising the well-

known Five-Factor model as a framework for examining personality and organisational

behaviour, such as leadership, has assisted in reducing inconsistent findings (Hughes,

Ginnet, & Curphy, 1996; House & Aditya, 1997) and there exists an extensive body of

literature that links the FFM to job performance (Hurtz & Donovan, 2000; Kroeck &

Brown, 2004; Tett, Jackson & Rothstein, 1991; Ones, Dilchert, Viswesvaran, & Judge,

2007).

41

Meta-analyses further support FFM dimensions and its relationship to job performance,

including thousands of research studies, the most popular being Barrick & Mount’s

(1991) which examined 117 studies that showed correlations between personality

dimension assessments and measures of job performance. Conscientiousness emerged

as being consistently correlated with measures of job performance, with the authors

demonstrating this validity across different job types and performance measures.

Subsequent studies have supported the robustness of Conscientiousness as a predictor of

performance (Warr, Bartram, & Martin, 2005; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998; Barrick, Mount

& Judge, 2001).

Reviews also show that Neuroticism is a valid predictor of job performance (Barrick et

al, 2001; Moscoso & Salgado, 2004; Salgado, 1997; Ones et al., 2007), buttressed by

suggestions that Neuroticism can account for as much as 10-25% of variance in job

satisfaction (Connolly & Viswesvaran, 2000). Extraversion has also been shown to be a

valid predictor of performance, with validities presented from Mount & Barrick’s

(1995) analysis ranging between .13 and .51,while more recent yields reveal validity

coefficients of .12 (Salgado, 1997) and .09 (Hurtz & Donovan, 2000) respectively.

Nonetheless, there are inconsistencies in these results so the predictive validity of

Extraversion remains unclear. With regards to Agreeableness and Openness to

Experience, these dimensions have usually been found to be weak predictors of job

performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991).

As can be seen, evidence suggests that the five-factor taxonomy of personality is highly

robust (Murphy & Davidshofer, 2005). Agreeably, there is a now a 'universal consensus

that the most parsimonious model of basic personality structure includes five

42

fundamental dimensions' (Schinka, Kinder & Kremer, 1997). Nonetheless, criticisms of

the Five-Factor personality model do exist. It has been argued that the FFM provides

too coarse of a description of personality with personality theorists argue that there are

too few traits to adequately measure personality (Boyle, Stankov & Cattell, 1995; Warr,

Bartram, & Martin, 2005). Research suggests that the sub-facets of FFM traits are better

predictors of human behaviour than the higher-level global dimensions (Ashton,

Jackson, Paunonen, Helmes & Rothstein, 1995). Block (1995) notes that 'For an

adequate understanding of personality, it is necessary to think and measure more

specifically than at this global level if behaviours and their mediating variables are to be

sufficiently, incisively represented'.

Some organisational psychologists, therefore, support alternative models of personality

that have either fewer or more dimensions than the FFM. Only a few of these will be

covered here briefly, given the constraints of this thesis; the interested reader is advised

to consult the authors in parentheses for further reading. For example, personality

attributes have been proposed in terms of Type A/Type B behaviour patterns. These

personality types supposedly define how people will react when confronted with

stressful threats and challenges in daily life; for instance, an individual with a Type A

behaviour pattern will react in an aggressive and impatient manner, while an individual

with Type B behaviour pattern will react in an easy-going and leisurely manner

(Ivancevich & Matteson, 1984; Spector & O’Connell, 1994; Friedman & Rosenman,

1974). Organisational personality has also been arranged into “types” according to

Jung’s (1971) psychoanalytical conceptualisation of personality, which provides the

basis for the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). Based on classic theory, the Jungian

personality type concept suggests that individuals differ in how they acquire

43

information from the world around them and therefore how they make judgements

using this information (Jung, 1923; Lyons, 1985; Henderson & Nutt, 1980).

Authors have also created models based on FFM personality traits. Hogan and

colleagues focus on a reworked version of FFM, which has seven factors: adjustment

(linked to Neuroticism), ambition and sociability (both linked to Extraversion),

likeability (linked to Agreeableness), prudence (linked to Conscientiousness),

intellectance (linked to Openness to Experience), and school success (linked to

intelligence) (Hogan & Holland, 2003). Hogan posits that these explanations of

individual differences in job performance stem from socioanalytic theory, which

specifies that people are generally motivated to get along and get ahead (Hogan &

Holland, 2003; Hogan & Shelton, 1998).

The HEXACO model of personality has also recently surfaced, which was developed

using the same research strategies that led to the discovery of FFM . The HEXACO

personality model is posited as consisting of six dimensions: Honesty-Humility (H),

Emotionality (E), Extraversion (X), Agreeableness (A), Conscientiousness (C), and

Openness to Experience (O) (Ashton & Lee, 2001; 2007; 2008; Lee & Ashton, 2005;

2006). The HEXACO model is based on that of the FFM, with the Honesty-Humility

dimension being its additional, defining trait that encompasses sincerity, fairness, greed,

and modesty facets.

Some researchers have argued for more traits that offer more specific descriptions than

the FFM, reiterated by Ones & Viswesvaran (1996) who state, 'broader and richer

personality traits will have higher predictive validity than narrower traits'. This

44

potentially poses issues in current leadership research, as FFM traits may be too broad

to predict leadership criteria. Nonetheless, in Judge et al’s (2002) review of the

leadership personality literature, relatively strong multiple correlations (r=.39-.53) were

discovered between FFM traits and the leadership criteria, suggesting that FFM of

personality is a 'fruitful basis for examining the dispositional predictors of leadership',

substantiating optimism in the trait theory of leadership.

Despite contesting taxonomies of personality, the FFM is acknowledged by many

researchers as the best illustration of the human personality trait structure (McCrae &

Costa, 1997; Mount & Barrick, 1995). As there has been a resurgence of research

linking personality to work outcomes, with personality trait studies normally focused on

the relationships between leadership and assorted models of personality, the FFM has

provided a solid structure for leadership personality studies; prior to this, descriptions of

personality were somewhat fragmented. Due to the popularity of the FFM, sorting

personality traits into these five broad categories has advantages in that it allows results

to be easily compared across different studies. For this reason, the current study

explores personality at the FFM level.

Personality traits as predictors of leadership

Bass (2008) note that early conceptualisations of leadership viewed leaders as those

who held 'the greatest number of desirable traits of personality', but a rich history of

research now shows that particular individual differences predict leadership (Antonakis

et al., 2012; Bono & Judge, 2004, Judge et al., 2002; Zaccaro, 2012). Furnham &

Stringfield (1993) note that two early reviews by Ghiselli and Barthol (1953) and

Ghiselli (1966) found that across a variety of occupational groups, mean predictive

45

validities of personality measures ranged from r=0.14 to 0.36 and r=0.21 to 0.46,

respectively, when the measured traits were judged to be relevant for the job in

question. In an important early study, Barrick & Mount (1991) examined the

relationship between personality and job criteria across five occupational groups and

discovered that measures of conscientiousness reliably predicted supervisors’ ratings of

job proficiency and training proficiency (.23).

Following this, Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein (1991) unveiled larger validity coefficients,

with the validities for dimensions of intellect and agreeableness equalling those for

cognitive ability measures in predicting job performance. Furthermore, 'in the largest

meta-analysis of personality measures ever conducted', Ones, Viswesvaran, and

Schmidt (1993) found that integrity tests – composed of facets of the FFM dimensions

of Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability – significantly predict supervisors' ratings

of job performance in a variety of settings (.41). Other researchers who have also

classified personality measures by using the FFM have found corrected mean validities

for at least two dimensions that were large enough to suggest they are significant

predictors of overall job performance. These include Conscientiousness (p=.22) and

Extraversion (p=.13), (Hogan & Holland, 2003).

Judge et al (2002) revealed that personality, as measured by the FFM, had a multiple

correlation of 0.39 with leader effectiveness, prompting Judge and colleagues to state

that (FFM) 'typology is a fruitful basis for examining the dispositional predictors of

leadership'.

46

Bass & Stogdill (1990) stated that almost all studies on the relationship of low

Neuroticism (indicated by self confidence) to leadership were 'uniform in the positive

direction of their findings'. Evidence from Hogan, Curphy & Hogan (1994) indicates

that neurotic individuals are less likely to be perceived as leaders. In Judge &

colleagues’ (2002) meta-analysis, neuroticism is revealed to be negatively related to

leadership emergence. They state that neurotic leaders are less likely to be seen as role

models by their followers, as they appear anxious, stressed and moody (McCrae &

Costa, 1987; Bono & Judge, 2004). Furthermore, individuals who are highly neurotic

are likely to have low self-esteem and self-efficacy, and thus will have low confidence

in their abilities, which will impact on their appearance as a leader (Judge et al., 2002).

Hogan, Curphy & Hogan (1994) state that Extraversion is related to one being

perceived as a leader. Extraverts are characterised as active, assertive, and energetic,

and as Kirkpatrick & Locke (1991) point out, such individuals are likely to be viewed as

leaders: 'Leaders are more likely than non-leaders to have a high level of energy and

stamina and be generally active, lively, and often restless'. Extraversion should then be

positively related to leadership. Judge et al (2002) state that Extraversion is the most

important trait of leaders, essential to effective leadership. The Extraversion trait has

been repeatedly correlated with leadership behaviour (Judge & Bono, 2000; Judge et al.,

2002; Lim & Ployhart, 2004), and is strongly related to social leadership (Costa &

McCrae, 1988).

Openness, (listed as originality), was viewed by Bass & Stogdill (1990) as the top

correlate with leadership. Openness is linked to creativity and divergent thinking

(McCrae & Costa, 1997; Feist, 1998), necessary for novel problem solving within

47

organisations – an important skill for leaders. The assumption is that Openness will be

positively correlated with leadership (Yukl, 1998). Openness remains one of the least

understood personality traits, but despite this, Judge et al (2002) found that in a business

setting it was one of the strongest dispositional correlates of leadership.

Agreeableness (framed as cooperativeness) tends to be related to leadership, however

this link remains ambiguous (Bass & Stogdill, 1990). Some studies vouch for the

altruistic and sensitive (in other words, agreeable) leader, but others argue that

agreeable individuals tend to be modest, and leaders have been shown to not be overly

modest (Bass & Stogdill, 1990; Goldberg, 1990). Others see Agreeableness as a

necessary trait for leaders as they deal with maintaining social relations and being

sensitive to the needs of others (Jensen-Campbell & Graziano, 2001). Agreeable leaders

are most likely to treat followers in a fair and respectful manner. However, Judge et al

(2002) found that Agreeableness was the least relevant of the traits to leadership.

Kirkpatrick & Locke (1991) suggest that, 'leaders must be tirelessly persistent in their

activities and follow through with their programs', indicating that we can expect

conscientiousness to be positively related to leadership. Conscientiousness is related to

job performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991) and as Bass & Stogdill (1990) state 'task

competence results in attempts to lead that are more likely to result in success for the

leader, effectiveness for the group'. Highly conscientious leaders are likely to think

carefully before acting, to adhere to their responsibilities (Costa & McCrae, 1992),

behave consistently and to set their followers clear guidelines for expected behaviour

(Brown, Trevino & Harrison, 2005; De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2008), while following

the rules and working transparently (Costa, McCrae & Dye, 1991). Moreover, these

48

individuals will take personal responsibility (Witt & Ferris, 2003). Judge et al (2002)

discovered that Conscientiousness had the second strongest correlation to leadership,

following Extraversion. Additionally, the authors found that Conscientiousness was the

strongest predictor of leadership in two out of three of the regressions in the

multivariate analysis.

While findings appear positive, studies that relate personality traits to leadership have

been criticised, largely for appearing inconsistent and often disappointing. This is

because little is known about how personality affects leadership (De Hoogh, Den

Hartog & Koopman, 2005) despite several studies linking the two together, as they have

returned results that differ. This can be linked back to Stogdill’s (1948) review where,

'the findings suggest that leadership is not a matter of passive status or of the mere

possession of some combination of states', despite Stogdill uncovering some consistent

relations. Some scholars agree 'trait explanations of leader emergence are generally

regarded with little esteem by leadership theorists' (Zaccaro, Foti & Kenny, 1991). A

further criticism from theorists is that traits must be stable and predict behaviour over

substantial periods of time and across varying situations. Schneider (1983) found that

traits are predictive of an individual’s behaviour only in select situations, versus across

all situations. Additionally, House, Shane & Herold (1996) noted that individual

dispositions might be stable for extended periods of time, but not across the lifespan.

Though it appears easy to criticise leadership personality trait research, limitations

associated with early investigation of the concepts are linked to problems with early

trait research where there was little empirically substantiated personality theory to guide

the search for leadership traits. Constraints on meta-analysing personality and job

49

performance stem from the data as firstly, none were based on an explicit model of

personality as few personality theories designed early in the research could understand

organisational performance; and secondly, it is difficult to classify scales of various

inventories into FFM categories as many of the inventories were not developed with

FFM in mind. A further criticism, already touched on, is that the FFM approach is “too

simplistic” (Conger & Kanungo, 1998). Thus some theorists (e.g. House & Aditya,

1997), claim that since few traits associated with leadership have been found, the quest

for universal traits is futile.

2.1.3 Communication: The key to effective leadership

Hackman & Johnson (2013) view leadership primarily as a communication-based

activity: 'Leaders spend much of their time shaping messages that are then presented to

a variety of follower, constituent, and stakeholder groups'. Verbal communication skills

– including oral, written, and electronically mediated – are key to organisational

leadership (Hackman, 2003; Topping, 2002; Kotter, 2003). Although the genesis of

performance, effectiveness, and career success are multidimensional, partly determined

by intelligence, aptitudes, and hard work, communication is a robust predictor,

particularly as most present-day leadership roles rely on social interaction – to varying

extents. The more leadership responsibility one has, the more one’s job focuses on

communication.

Leadership is enacted through communicating with others (Barge, 1994).

Communication is the principal means leaders use to achieve goals; ways of

communicating – and therefore, leadership – depend on the CC of the leader. As

Hattersley and McJannet (2005) express, 'the best idea in the world can fail if it’s not

50

communicated effectively' (p.3). Communication abilities and skills are important to

leaders in every arena in which they perform, as they can aid in conveying the

organisational vision and strategy, support workplace morale, improve job satisfaction,

resolve or prevent conflict.

2.1.3.1 Organisational psychology on the ways leaders communicate

Within organisational psychology proper, there is a marked shortage of communication

studies in the realm of leadership communication. Although psychology has dominated

the study of leadership for decades (Fairhurst & Connaughton, 2014), its focus has been

predominantly on the inner "motor" of leader traits, styles, approaches (Collinson and

Hearn, 1996; Fairhurst, 2007; Grint, 2000). Despite a lack of psychological theories

about the role of communication in leaders, earlier empirical research reaching back to

1900 pointed to communication and social skills being predictors of leadership

emergence and effectiveness (Bass & Stogdill, 1990; Stogdill, 1974).

Organisational psychology is ready to acknowledge that communication is central to

leadership (Awamleh and Gardner 1999; de Vries, Bakker-Pieper, & Oostenveld, 2010;

Den Hartog and Verburg 1998; Kirkpatrick and Locke 1996; Riggio et al. 2003;

Shamir, Arthur & House, 1994; Spangler and House 1991; Towler 2003). However, few

studies attained an acceptably precise operationalisation of communication styles

leaders use in their daily transactions; and most studies disregard CC as modelled in

applied linguistics (cf. Section 2.1.3.4 below). Even less authors have attempted to find

out how leadership communication styles are linked to general leadership styles and

outcome variables.

51

A possible theoretical grounding for CC of leaders may be found in well-known

distinction between task-oriented and relationship-oriented leadership styles and

associated behaviours (Likert, 1961; Stogdill & Coons, 1957). Fleishman (1953) led a

focus on enhancing the relationship-oriented aspects of leader behaviour, which in turn

led to programmes aimed at developing the interpersonal and relationship skills of

leaders. Boyatzis (1982) also emphasised the importance of communication skills in

developing competent leaders.

One psychological model where a few links between leadership and communication are

traced is transformational leadership. Using this framework, Eden (1993) suggests that

the communication of positive leader expectancies may be but a special case of

transformational leadership. A leader cannot be truly transformational without being

able to create self-fulfilling prophecies in their followers, as the communication of

expectancies is inherent in transformational leadership (Avolio et al, 2009).

On this point, Flauto (1999) notes that transformational leadership as a style requires

leaders to use communication skills to establish a common vision, reiterating that the

three factors that constitute transformational leadership - charisma, individual

consideration, and intellectual stimulation - are communication-based. Hence,

transformational leadership is of a high quality when the leader exhibits high

communicative competency, in contrast to transactional leadership that requires a level

of communication competence that allows the leader to negotiate the leader-member

explicit or implicit contract and to monitor the resulting transactions; a level of CC is

lower than that of transformational leadership. Nonetheless, there has been no cohesive

theoretical framework in organisational psychology to guide the leadership

52

communication agenda in practice. In a recent literature review of leadership, House

and Aditya (1997) suggest that scholars working on leadership need to address the

style(s) with which leaders express and communicate behaviours.

2.1.3.2 Social skills and communication

Leadership is a social process. It involves creating and maintaining a relationship

between individuals. A social skills approach to leadership is comprised of the ability of

leaders to recognise the feelings and behaviours of others in social situations and to

respond effectively based on that knowledge. This trait has been thought of as essential

to effective leadership (Zaccaro, 1999, 2001, 2002; Zaccaro, Gilbert, Thor, & Mumford,

1992), especially given that the vast majority of jobs rely on social interactions. Social

skills have been identified by researchers as one of the most important personal qualities

needed for success (Ferris, Perrewè´, & Douglas, 2002; Riggio, 1986; Riggio, Riggio,

Salinas, & Cole, 2003; Witt & Ferris, 2003), as well as being essential for managerial

effectiveness (Wayne, Liden, Graf, & Ferris, 1997).

The social process between a leader and followers - and their relationship - is

"sanctioned" through communication. Thus, leaders require social skills and CC in

order to effectively send and receive information within the organisation. This is

pertinent for building and maintaining effective social networks – particularly as

leadership is concerned with constructing cohesive and goal-oriented teams - as

communicative action can modify and elaborate on existing connections among

colleagues, actions, meanings, and contexts, or create new ones (Barge & Fairhurst,

2008).

53

Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan (1994) state that the key to a leader’s effectiveness is his/her

ability to build a team, through possessing task-related and team maintenance factors

that are linked to social skills and communication. Successful leaders communicate a

clear mission or sense of purpose; minimise and resolve conflicts among group

members, and ensure that team members understand the team’s goals, resources,

constraints, and problems. The importance of communication in terms of social

interaction is reflected in the 'effective exercise of persuasion, explanation, and other

influence mechanisms, which reveal the ability to control others' (Argyle, 1969).

2.1.3.3 Leadership models in organisational communication research

Until recently, the field of organisational and business communication has remained

isolated from the mainstream I/O community. While alluding to psychological notions,

organisational communication retains a disciplinary identity. Organisational psychology

has dominated leadership research (Bass, 1981; House & Aditya, 1997), occasionally

prompting writers in the communication sciences to study leadership language and

interaction (Fairhurst, 2008; for linguistic pragmatics and applied linguistics, cf. Section

2.1.3.4). Organisational communication tends to view leadership within a relational

context; leaders and followers live in a relational world, 'a world in which leadership is

co-created in systems of interconnected relationships and richly interactive contexts'

(IBM Global CEO Study, 2010, in Fairhurst & Uhl-Bien, 2012).

Communication researchers acknowledge that leaders and followers are “relational

beings” who represent each other as such in a dynamic interpersonal context (Ospina &

Uhl-Bien, 2012). Leadership is depicted as a phenomenon generated via interactions

among people acting in context, as opposed to a mere individual trait or pattern of

54

behaviour. From the 1990s, some communication approaches benefited from social

constructionism. Central to such a model is assuming that leadership is “co-constructed”

in social interaction processes (Fairhurst & Uhl-Bien, 2012), with interactants co-

constructing meaning of action. Groups of people are then supported to work together in

meaningful ways to produce leadership outcomes (Day, 2001; Drath, 2001; Hosking &

Morley, 1988; Ospina & Foldy, 2010).

Communication science helps viewing leadership as genuinely interactional; essentially,

instead of a property of any one person, it is viewed as distributed with collective

challenges (Clifton, 2012). It can be a Wittgensteinian “language game”, where

individuals have the right to evaluate and to define the organisational landscape by

negotiation. The person who has the most influence in this process emerges as the

leader (Clifton 2012). From this perspective, “leaders” are persons with access to more

influential discursive resources with which they sway the negotiation. Since 2000,

organisational communication paid growing attention to some facets of leadership

discourse and relational stances (Alvesson & Sveningsson, 2003; Barge, 2004;

Collinson, 2005; Cunliffe, 2001; Fairhurst, 2008; Gronn, 2002; Hosking, 1988; Kelly,

White, Martin, & Rouncefield, 2006; Taylor & Robichaud, 2007; Tourish & Vatcha,

2005; Uhl-Bien, 2006).

Organisational communication is also developing interest in the study of followers as

key components of the leadership process, with acknowledgement of followership

largely missing in earlier leadership literature (Uhl-Bien, Riggio, Lowe, Carsten, 2014).

This is especially so in the organisational psychology literature, where studies are

leader-focused and individualistic. Followers are an important part of the leadership

55

process that is “co-created” in social and relational interactions between people

(Fairhurst & Uhl-Bien, 2012). Follower behaviours are a vital constituent of the

leadership process. For further material about relatively more discourse-oriented

approaches, see Grant, Hardy, Oswick, & Putnam, 2004; Grant, Putnam, & Hardy,

2011; Phillips & Oswick, 2012; Putnam & Fairhurst, 2001.

2.1.3.4 Communicative competence

As shown in Sections 2.1.3.1, 2.1.3.3, communicative practices of leaders enjoyed

intermittent attention in organisational psychology proper, as well as areas like

business/ organisational communication (Hackman & Johnson, 2009). Communicative

behaviours and underlying potentialities of communication are distinct research targets.

In this thesis research, 'potentiality' will be used as an umbrella term to include generic

constructs such as ability, skill, aptitude, and intelligence. Each of these generic

constructs is instantiated, or made concrete, in measurable constructs such as 'spoken

ability in a second language'. Potentialities fit the theoretical framework of differential

psychology (Anastasi, 1958).

So far, there is little sign that I/O psychology would embark on defining and modelling

constructs that describe and explain inter-individual difference in communication

process and the success of communication. Regarding leadership, a differential

psychology (cf. Tyler, 1965, 1978) of such dimensions does not yet exist. Specifically,

communicative ability or competence is not modelled in organisational psychology in

ways that can be used to explain individual differences in leadership communication.

56

In order to find full-fledged models of person characteristics that correspond to

traditional, measureable hypothetical constructs (MacCorquodale & Meehl, 1948), one

needs to search literature in disciplines currently considered remote to organisational

psychology, such as theoretical/ applied linguistics, in particular linguistic pragmatics.

A salient construct is communicative competence (CC). A mentalistic view seeks to

introduce explanatory entities residing in the mind -- mostly, hypothetical constructs --

to explain why observable manifestations in leaders differ. CC is one of the widely

investigated potentialities of communicating by linguistic means (Paulston, 1992;

Leung, 2005).

An acceptable working definition of CC is 'the ability to use language appropriately in

social situations' (Trask, 1999). Another is possession of knowledge of language

together with an ability to use that knowledge for purposes of communication.

It is sound to describe CC (Hymes, 1967a/1970) as one of the remarkably useful notions

of recent decades in applied linguistics as well as the psychology of language. CC has

played a visible role characterising inter-individual differences in communicating

agents; specifically, differences in underlying, covert potentialities enabling

communicative use of a natural language in a real-life context such as leading in

organisations.

CC has served well to guide applications in sub-fields such as

language acquisition;

language teaching;

57

disorders of language use; language disability and assistance for the disabled;

communication studies, including predominantly 'applied' areas such as

professional communication.

While many research projects on CC targeted second language learning (e.g. Brighton,

2013; Walcott, 2007; Young, 2011), the concept and associated models proved useful in

advancing our understanding of how first language users acquire patterns of language

use.

The proliferation of CC research between Hymes' proposals in the late 1960s, and the

present day also led to heterogeneity (Wiemann & Backlund, 1980; Gumperz, 1981,

1982, 1984; Palmer, Groot, & Trosper, 1981; McCroskey, 1982; Savignon, 1983;

Brown, 1984; Krasnick, 1984; North, 1997; Leung, 2005; Walcott, 2007). The

overabundance of models prompted various critical perspectives.

The recent fashion wave of competency modelling in human resources led to frequent

use of 'Communication' as a named competency, without paying any attention to

detailed, empirically verified models of CC in applied-linguistic research.

Competency modelling is used to predict superior performance within organisations

(Lucia & Lepsinger, 1999; Schippmann, 1999) despite relatively scarce evidence to

either validate the approach (Pearlman, 1997; Lievens, Sanchez & De Corte, 2004;

Markus, Cooper-Thomas, & Allpress, 2005), or show its advantages over preceding

techniques of job analysis and derivation of predictors. The use of the term competency

in organisations is attributed to Boyatzis (1982) and his book 'The Competent Manager'.

58

Boyatzis defines competency as ‘an underlying characteristic of a person which results

in effective and/or superior performance in a job’ (1982, p. 21). With a focus on

management, competencies have been outlined by Page and Wilson as ‘the skills,

abilities, and personal characteristics required by an 'effective' or 'good' manager’ (1994,

p.12).

Including competencies related to interpersonal "skill", social "skill", and

communication per se, appear widespread in today's competency modelling. Local

research indicates that 'Communication' is a preferred competency when looking at

customised competency models for New Zealand organisations (Markus, Cooper-

Thomas & Allpress, 2005). The same report refers to models that include managerial

performance indicators like communication and interpersonal behaviour, with several

levels of mastery acknowledged. However, without digesting the applied-linguistic

theorising on CC, 'Communication' as a title in HR competency modelling tends to

remain atheoretical, ill-defined, with serious issues in operationalising and mapping to

psychological constructs to be used in assessment.

Sub-sections 2.1.3.4.1/2.1.3.4.5 offer a summary of a few notions in CC research

proper. Given the focus of thesis, a grand tour of such models would be unviable and

unnecessary. After a review of inspiring thoughts from applied linguistics, section

2.3.1.5 will specify the element of leaders' CC that is captured by Ferris' model, guiding

assessments done in the current project.

59

2.1.3.4.1 Theoretical antecedents

Linguistic potentialities

Language is a shared medium of a community, but situated language use varies from

person to person (Fillmore, Kempler, & Wang, 1979). Findings in applied linguistics

and the psychology of language demonstrate theoretically and practically weighty

individual differences in the use of natural language. Variation is systematic rather than

random, and not entirely idiolect-based (Oksaar, 1987). Inter-individual differences are

manifested in using one's native language(s) in areas such as language comprehension,

production, and acquisition.

A differential-psychological view seeks to introduce covert explanatory entities to

explain why manifestations differ. The evolution of the concept of CC is difficult to

understand without preceding models of linguistic competence/grammatical competence

against which the CC proposal argued. Appendix A04 briefly summarises publications

providing a background for the linguistic competence/communicative competence

distinction.

2.1.3.4.3 Hymes' theory of communicative competence: The four sectors

Hymes (1970) presents a view of CC as 'competence for use' by suggesting that a

language user needs to be able to manage four areas. Originally termed 'parameters' of

CC, they came to be discussed as 'the four sectors':

1. to what degree something is formally possible in a language;

2. to what degree something is feasible to implement in a cognitive system;

3. to what degree something is appropriate in a context;

60

4. to what degree something is observed being performed, and what the performing

of that behaviour entails (p. 281).

The first sector corresponds to grammatical competence (Appendix A04). Hymes' view

differs from Chomsky's regarding the rules that allow us to represent what is permitted.

For Hymes, the rules in this sector of CC include grammatical rules such as in a formal

grammar (e.g. generative grammar) as well as rules of meaningful linguistic behaviour

in social contexts.

The second sector provides a new look at some of the factors mentioned above, under

Chomskyan 'performance'. Users are seen as possessing knowledge relevant to whether

cognitive resources and mechanisms permit realisation of an aspect of language use. An

example is the ceiling on the number of centre-embedded clauses a user can

comprehend without error.

The third sector of CC theory builds a bridge between language as a system, on one

hand, and situations, settings, contexts, of use on the other. It can also be seen as a sub-

theory linking a formal model of a language to real-time interaction among persons.

Users have knowledge about relative levels of appropriateness for any element of

language use in an interpersonal, social situation, or in a situated interaction. Obviously,

elements that are formally possible as well as cognitively feasible may still be

contextually inappropriate.

Hymes' fourth sector is based on the observation that many of us have an idea what

options are used, or frequently used, in a speech community. Some possible, feasible,

61

and appropriate utterances are frequent while others rarely occur. Corpus linguistics is

capable of providing evidence for Hymes' claim. Knowing about probabilities of

occurrence, communicators select options from a repertoire depending on these

probabilities (Hymes, 1984, 1987).

2.1.3.4.4 Canale/Swain model

Years after Hymes' original proposal, Canale and Swain revisited competence theory,

reviewing linkages between communication studies and competence. They considered

implications of modelling for fields of praxis such as language teaching and assessment

(Canale & Swain, 1979, 1980, 1981). They outlined what is hailed as the empirically

most influential model of CC (Canale, 1981).

A concise statement on the concept of CC according to these authors describes CC as

'a synthesis of knowledge of basic grammatical principles, knowledge of how language

is used in social contexts to perform communicative functions, and knowledge of how

utterances and communicative functions can be combined according to the principles of

discourse' (Canale & Swain, 1980).

The Canale/Swain model draws on Hymes' proposals, specifically the four sectors of

CC. It re-formulates knowledge of formal possibility but continues to see CC as

including a module of grammatical competence. The model marginalises cognitive

feasibility. The strength of the Canale/Swain model is a more precise conception of

what may constitute knowledge of appropriateness, using ideas from linguistic

pragmatics and social psychology. Knowledge of 'what is actually done', the fourth

sector of Hymes' theory, is seen as weighty but not as a separate constituent.

62

A point where the Canale/Swain model diverges from Hymes', offering improvement, is

related to strategies. While Canale and Swain (1979) claims that 'very little' work was

known on strategies in communication by that time, postulating a Strategic Competence

may have been inspired by growing research regarding learning strategies as well as

cognitive strategies (McCormick, Miller, & Pressley, 1989).

Reflecting these modifications, the Canale/Swain model can be represented as a three-

component model. The three main components are Grammatical, Socio-linguistic, and

Strategic Competence.

Socio-linguistic competence is broken down to the sub-components labelled Socio-

cultural and Discourse Competence. Each of the components and sub-components is

assumed to include knowledge of probabilities for the use of linguistic means in a

community.

Canale and Swain's CC, if interpreted as a construct explaining inter-individual

variance, covers a wider range of potentialities than either Chomsky's grammatical

competence or Hymes' CC. A valuable contribution is the elaboration of competence

elements including pragmatic patterns. Specifically, socio-cultural competence (cf.

Brighton, 2013; Byram, 2013; Byram & Feng, 2005) is portrayed as the user's

knowledge of patterns of language use as a function of the extralinguistic (non-

linguistic) context. This can be translated to linkages between linguistic options (e.g.

registers, politeness routines, syntactic patterns, or even lexical choices such as

63

lexicalised honorifics) on one hand, and particular context parameters (Goodwin &

Duranti, 1992), on the other.

Discourse competence is a module that reflects developments of the relevant historical

era in text-level syntax and text semantics as much as of discourse- analytic inquiry.

The theme of cohesion as well as coherence is central to modelling discourse

competence. It appears that the authors' focus in Discourse Competence was originally

on micro-level devices of coherence (such as anaphoric reference connecting two

utterances).

Canale and Swain (1980) postulate Strategic Competence as a self-contained aspect of

CC. It consists of 'verbal and non-verbal communication strategies that may be called

into action to compensate for the breakdowns in communication due to performance

variables or to insufficient competence' (p. 30). Strategic competence includes two

types of strategies. One relates to grammar. An example is the L2 learner's strategy to

avoid grammatical forms that the learner realises she/he has not yet mastered (Canale &

Swain, 1980, p.42). Another type is interaction strategies.

Canale (1983) proposed an improved version of the model. He revises the subordination

of components, making Discourse Competence one of the first-order units of the

taxonomy. This leads to a CC model with four, rather than three, components. A more

important revision concerns conceptualising Strategic Competence. The new

characterisation relies on the notion of effective communication.

64

2.1.3.4.5 Verhoeven/Vermeer model

With more fine-grained components, Verhoeven and Vermeer's CC model is admittedly

a generalisation from findings backed by psychometric evidence (Verhoeven &

Vermeer, 1992; cf. Verhoeven & Vermeer, 1985, 1986). They agree with Canale (1981)

claiming that beyond postulating components of CC, any independence, or the

relationships among components, is an issue to be decided via empirical study. They

tend to use a battery of psychometric instruments relying on previous models (including

Canale/Swain model, or Bachman, 1990). Analysing correlations of composite scores

representing sets of test items, they arrive at empirical conclusions to refine the CC

model.

The resultant model resembles Canale and Swain in that:

it includes a Grammatical Competence component;

Socio-cultural Competence, with a slightly modified view, is a central

component;

Strategic Competence plays a major role.

However, Verhoeven and Vermeer's taxonomy differs in that there are five primary

components: Grammatical Competence, Discourse Fluency, Socio-linguistic

Competence, Illocutionary Force, and Strategic Competence. Three of those are broken

down to sub-components (see Figure 2-01).

65

Figure 2-01. Verhoeven and Vermeer's communicative competence model

A striking feature is the elevation of managing Illocutionary Force as a top-level

component of the taxonomy. It reflects the influence of classic Speech Act Theory

(Austin, 1962; Searle, 1969; Searle, Kiefer, & Bierwisch, 1980) in explaining how

conversers perform acts of interpersonal significance by using linguistic forms (e.g.

performative verbs). The ability of language users to identify the illocutionary force

(Bach & Harnish, 1979; Geis, 1995) of an utterance is a major facet of utterance

interpretation and a sine qua non of successful spoken interaction in naturalistic settings.

In contrast to the Canale/Swain model, Socio-linguistic competence is divided to

Cultural Rules and Expressiveness sub-components. Cultural Rules relate to the

interface between linguistic and non-linguistic communication (kinesics/ proxemics) as

well as conversation management. Expressiveness is a sub-component described as the

speaker's ability to express personal emotions, feelings and communicative needs, and

use options such as invented stories and jokes (Verhoeven & Vermeer, 2002).

Verhoeven and Vermeer (1992) document factor-analytic findings showing that

Discourse Fluency is relatively closely related to Grammatical Competence. The

authors invoke commitment of finite cognitive resources to explain why a composite

66

measure of Grammatical Competence (as a context- reduced notion) correlates with

Fluency that is context-embedded. Illocutionary competence and Strategic Competence

have moderate but statistically significant relationship with Grammatical Competence.

New Zealand applied linguistics and sociolinguistics achieved an international break-

through when studies of linguistic microstructure of leaders' communicative patterns

were published (Holmes, Marra, & Vine, 2011). The Victoria University 'Language of

the Workplace' programme is a globally visible, pioneering attempt to inform the

analysis of organisational communication (including leadership) by relevant linguistic

concepts, via scrutiny of authentic transcripts. More information can be sought by

referring to Holmes (2005), Holmes (2008), Holmes (2010) and Holmes (2012).

However, much research needs to be done until full-fledged conceptual models of CC

will dovetail with psychological theories of leadership.

2.1.3.5 Gerald Ferris’s “political skill”

The present project does not intend to cover the entire gamut of a CC model. It focuses

on a sub-set of CC components relevant to leadership in New Zealand, adopting Ferris'

model of "political skill". This segment relates to a leader's competence in managing

social interaction within the organisation, including verbal interaction, and shaping

value orientations that govern action. When leaders communicate, they need to

convince followers, motivate them for action, influence their decisions, and create

relative consensus in groups.

House and Aditya (1997) assert that, while extensive research has been done on power

and influence in social psychology, application of that work to leadership is not yet

67

mature. It is claimed that organisations are arenas of "political" behaviour; influence

and persuasion are necessary in order to achieve tangible objectives (Ammeter,

Douglas, Gardner, Hochwarter, & Ferris, 2002). Additionally, success within the

workplace is not the result of task performance alone.

Leaders need to be effective in the way they influence followers via communicating.

Zaccaro (2002) suggests that '(…) successful social influence by the leader requires the

mastery of a range of skills and the ability to select and apply them to the appropriate

situation' (p. 45).

This is aligned with definitions of CC offered earlier in this thesis (cf. 'the ability to use

language appropriately in social situations'). Once Ferrisian definitions of "political

skill" are revisited (cf. 'the ability to effectively understand others at work, and to use

such knowledge to influence others to act in ways that enhance one’s personal and/or

organizational objectives'; Ferris, Treadway et al., 2005), the conceptual resemblance of

"political skill" and CC becomes evident. Through greater "political skill", effective

leaders can communicate and thereby construct shared meaning amongst employees.

Even within CC elements clearly enabling leadership practice, the concept of "political

skill" delimits a narrower zone, manageable in our research.

The project adopts Ferris' notion of 'political skill' (Ammeter et al., 2002; Ferris, Blickle

et al., 2008; Ferris & Judge, 1991), with its model and operationalisation. Use of the

model has become prevalent, primarily in North America (Ferris, Russ, & Fandt, 1989;

Ferris, Davidson, & Perrewé, 2005; Ferris & Treadway, 2012). Its utility has been

68

proven in describing and explaining CC in leaders (Ferris, Treadway, Perrewé et al.,

2007). Examples of work-relevant "political" skills conceptualised in alternative ways

also exist, mostly outside psychology (Byrd, Costello et al., 2012; Skytt, Carlsson et al.,

2008).

In the present thesis, the label 'political' is printed with skepticism; the usefulness of a

terminology of 'political skill' is questioned. The noun 'politics' and adjective 'political'

are multiply ambiguous and vague. While studies on so-called 'organisational politics'

were published (Ferris & Treadway, 2012; Sederberg, 1984; Vigoda-Gadot & Drory,

2008) these terms have lost practically all meaning due to unqualified, indiscriminate,

blatantly unserious usage throughout several disciplines, as well as media discourse. It

seems that the attribute 'political', by its own semantic features, fails to demarcate any

skill. 'Political' cannot serve as the differentia specifica in delimiting a skill.

It is helpful to add that the aims of the thesis project bear no relationship with influential

paradigms in political science or government studies.

Terminology aside, the construct of "political skill" as promoted by Ferris has brought

positive dividends in 200+ studies worldwide. As long as a concept is operationalised,

and a validated psychometric tool exists to quantify, pasting any label will carry less

risk. In this thesis, Ferris' notion will be explicated in the framework of CC. It is

considered as a notion describing differences in the ways leaders are able to

communicate and thereby exert influence in a social setting. The vignettes of sub-

constructs (Ferris & Treadway, 2012) fit this interpretation, also reflected in the

working definition proposed in Ferris, Treadway et al. (2005; quoted above).

69

A form of "political skill" was proposed by Mintzberg (1983, 1985) and Pfeffer (1981)

but serious empirical study waited until Ferris' re-conceptualisation. In Ferris'

perspective, "political skill" is viewed as neither fundamentally good nor bad. Instead of

a stigma of individual behaviour that is unendorsed by the organisation (e.g.

troublesome, self-serving), research came to consider "political skill" as the sum total of

processes by which people exercise influence through the – sometimes informal --

management of shared meaning (Ammeter et al., 2002; Sederberg, 1984).

"Political skill" has been described as a meta-theoretical framework, connected to

cognition, affect and behaviour (Ferris et al, 2007). Those high in "political skill" are

likely to read situations and people well and effectively adjust their behaviour to suit.

They combine social astuteness and a capacity to adapt their behaviour to situational

demands in ways perceived as sincere -- without ulterior motive -- by others. As a

result, these interactants inspire trust (Ferris et al, 2007).

"Politically" skilled individuals are likely to have extensive networks they can leverage

for social capital and resources (Blickle, Ferris, Munyon, Momm, Zettler, Schneider, &

Buckley, 2011).

The Ferris model identifies and psychometrically operationalises four dimensions of

"political skill":

Social Astuteness - attuned to diverse social situations, astute observers of

others, self-awareness

70

Interpersonal Influence - subtle and convincing personal style that exerts

powerful influence on others

Networking Ability - adept at developing and using diverse networks of people

Apparent Sincerity - possess high levels of integrity, authenticity, sincerity.

For leaders to be effective, they must engage in the social influence processes

(McClelland, 1975). A constant in many modern definitions of leadership is influence.

Ferris posits that leaders need "political will" (motivation) and "political skill" (style,

savvy) (Ferris et al, 2007). "Political skill" allows an individual to vary their leadership

style by defining and interpreting events for followers through communication. Aspects

of communicating that help a leader to exert influence are: verbal rhetoric, to influence

others; symbolic behaviour, to express shared understandings; and nonverbal

communication, to assist with impression management (Pandey, 1978). Thus "political

skill" is firmly anchored in CC; leadership can be modelled as a language game

(Pandey, 1978).

So-called "political behaviours" can be used for the self-interest of the leader. However,

many leaders with a high power motive and a high concern for morality will use

influence in ways to increase organisational objectives, inspiring commitment of their

followers (McClelland, 1975). Communicative leaders also execute behaviours to clear

away the uncertainty of organisational phenomena (Ammeter et al., 2002), to interpret

organisational events in order to create and maintain a shared reality for their followers

(Fairhurst & Sarr, 1996; Ferris, Fedor, & King, 1994).

71

Given than "political skill" is conceptualised as the combination of the ability to exert

influence in social situations and the capacity to cultivate one’s social network, some

authors assume that performance is determined less by intelligence and more by

"political skill" (DeLuca, 1999; Luthans, 2002). "Political skill" is conceptualised as

independent from general mental ability (GMA). Schmidt and Hunter (1998)

established that GMA tends to be a highly valid predictor of job performance across

numerous roles. Scholars initially implied that "political skill" would reflect a large

correlation with GMA, or "political skill" be subsumed under GMA (Gottfredson,

1997). However, Ferris' team reported a non-significant or near-zero relationship

between "political skill" and GMA (Ferris et al., 1999, 2005).

Personality traits received much research attention in leadership (see Section 2.1.2.5)

but little of this focuses on social effectiveness measures. Ferris et al. (2005)

conceptualise "political skill" as overlapping to a certain degree with selected

personality traits (Ferris, Perrewé, & Douglas, 2002). Findings suggest "political skill"

is related to Conscientiousness and Self-monitoring. The authors suggest that this

linkage is not too high to indicate construct redundancy. EI can be seen to partly overlap

with "political skill" in terms of conceptual features. However, discussions of EI are –

in spite of the robust Mayer/ Salovey/Caruso model – broad, and more work is required

to establish construct validity (Hedlund & Sternberg, 2000). Ferris et al (2005)

acknowledge that emotional intelligence and "political skill" are correlated, but the

authors see "political skill" as incorporating skills that go beyond emotion recognition

and regulation (with a correlation between the two constructs r= .53; Ferris et al., 2005).

72

Ferris and colleagues (2005) reported evidence of criterion-related validity of "political

skill", predicting job performance and effectiveness ratings in two samples made up of

school administrators and financial managers. Semadar et al. (2006) found that

"political skill" was a stronger predictor of a manager’s job performance than self-

monitoring, leadership self-efficacy, or emotional intelligence. Another study of leader

"political skill" suggested that it relates positively to team performance and

organisational commitment (Ahearn, 2004; Douglas & Ammeter, 2004; Treadway,

Hochwarter, Kacmar & Ferris, 2005). Research demonstrates negative correlations

between "political skill" and cognitive anxiety and somatic anxiety (Perrewè, Zellars,

Rossi, Ferris, Kacmar, Liu, & Hochwarter, 2005). Research also has found that

"political skill" moderates the relationships between role conflict and psychological

anxiety, somatic complaints, and blood pressure (Perrewè et al., 2005), and that it

moderates the relationships between role overload and job tension, job satisfaction, and

anxiety (Perrewè et al., 2005).

2.2 Measurement of personality and communicative competence

2.2.1 Assessing personality in occupational settings

Personality tools are used to assess suitability to a role and predict job performance,

often combined with other selection tools (Farr & Tippins, 2010; Schmidt, Ones, &

Hunter, 1992). With regards to leadership, Kenny & Zaccaro (1983) revealed that 48-

82% of the variance in leadership emergence rankings could be accounted for by

personality variables.

73

Personality scores and profiles are used to predict a range of other variables, such as job

satisfaction (Furnham, Crump & Whelan, 1997), counterproductive behaviour (Cullen

& Sackett, 2003), and staff turn-over (Jenkins, 1993). The usefulness of such tools is

amplified by a possibility to do proper norm-referencing of scores, and develop specific

local norms for interpretation.

Standardised measures of cognitive ability and personality, structured interviews,

assessment centres are all exploited to forecast leadership success (Bass, 1990).

Interviews, personal history, and references are ubiquitous selection tools for

organisations, despite low validity estimates (Gill, 1980; Robertson & Makin, 1986;

Patrickson & Haydon, 1988; Vaughan & McLean, 1989). In this armamentarium,

"objective" personality inventories have played an increasingly prominent role

worldwide (Murphy, 1996; Salgado, 1999), with an increase in New Zealand use.

Practitioners using personality tests for leadership should focus on job-relevant

personality traits, guided by job analysis and/or competency modelling. A synopsis of

the history of personality measures in organisational psychology is found in Kanfer,

Ackerman, Murtha, & Goff (1995), Hogan & Roberts (2001).

This section lists the purpose and properties of personality tests used in organisational

psychology, all featuring in leadership studies.

Tools fall into two categories:

(i) For decades, well-validated personality inventories were used in the human

resources arena as adaptable tools. The tests had not been originally developed for

selection or person development. They often were of semi-clinical nature, with

74

items appearing irrelevant to job applicants and resultant poor face validity.

However, quantitative studies proved their utility; several of them remain in use in

New Zealand today.

(ii) Starting with SHL's innovations (1984) personality tools purposefully designed

for the world of work were introduced, spreading rapidly.

2.2.1.1 Personality tools adapted to the “world of work”

Regardless of their development history and original purpose, several personality

inventories have been commonly used in organisational contexts since the 1950s. The

utility of these tools in selection and development often rests on their multi-dimensional

nature and the capacity to build holistic profiles. A full review of tests is beyond the

scope of the thesis.

Several major tools follow a mainstream continuum assumption, namely, score

variables quantifying dispositions are assumed to be infinitely divisible (e.g. Sixteen

Personality-Factor questionnaire (16PF; Raymond Cattell); California Psychological

Inventory (CPI; Harrison Gough); the NEO test family, including NEO-PI, NEO-PI-R,

NEO-PI-3, NEO-4, NEO-FFI (Paul Costa). Others are based on a typology assumption,

such as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI; Isabel Briggs Myers & Katharine

Briggs). Appendix A05 offers summaries of the measurement properties of these tests,

together with brief evaluation in the context of leadership study.

2.2.1.2 Occupational personality tests

Criticism against personality tools that are not purposefully built for areas such as

personnel selection and leadership development eventually led to the opening of a new

75

front in personality testing. The advent of specialised occupational personality tools is

marked by introducing the Occupational Personality Questionnaire by SHL. Further

examples are the Hogan Personality Inventory and the Fifteen-Factor Questionnaire

Plus. Appendix A06 summarises properties of these tests, together with evaluation.

2.2.2 Assessing interpersonal communication and communicative competence in

occupational settings

In response to the flattening of organisational structures, companies now are working to

recruit, develop, and train leaders who connect with employees and have excellent

verbal communication skills (Bass, 1999). Still, there is a paucity of assessment tools

available to measure CC in the organisational context, with few thorough studies of CC

in leaders (Payne, 2005).

The assessment of CC is inherently difficult; multi-componential models have been

operationalised mostly in language teaching. Skills of communicating in an authentic

organisational context are hard to assess through disembodied means such as a regular

standardised test. Organisation-specific CC should involve, among others, knowledge of

the organisation, the ability to carry out skilled behaviours, and the motivation to

perform competently (Payne, 2005).

Apart from Ferris' work (2.2.3 below), there is a lack of adequate measurement tools

operationalising the CC construct in the world of work. Monge, Bachman, Dillard, and

Eisenberg (1982) proposed an instrument titled the Communication Competence

Questionnaire (CCQ) probing two "macro-level skills": encoding and decoding. The

CCQ focuses primarily on the skills necessary to accomplish work tasks. It neglects

76

relational forms of communication. It foregrounds content rather than process. There

have been calls for greater reliance on the relational communication model proposed by

Spitzberg & Cupach (1984), encompassing the criteria of appropriateness and

effectiveness.

Specifically, psychometric research that focuses on the assessment of the CC of leaders

could not be found by comprehensive database searches of literature. Bambacas &

Patrickson (2009) revealed that though communication skills played an important role

in leader selection, these skills were not accurately measured. Analyses of

organisational communication are often embedded in skills development as opposed to

producing tools to assess the construct (Jablin & Putman, 2001).

2.2.3 Assessing Ferris’ “political skill”

A laudable exception from those trends of psychometric test design is the Political Skill

Inventory (PSI) authored by Ferris and colleagues (2005). The PSI is an 18-item

standardised questionnaire intended to yield a full-test score indicating level of

"political skill". In Ferris' model, "political skill" is the combination of four dimensions:

Social Astuteness, Interpersonal Influence, Networking Ability, and Apparent Sincerity.

PSI features scales and sub-scores for each sub-construct.

The psychometric properties of the PSI toll will be described in Chapter 3.

The social astuteness and interpersonal influence variables from PSI quantify

individuals' ability to understand social situations, and select the most appropriate and

influential behavioural strategies to suit those situations. The networking ability and

77

apparent sincerity dimensions assess how the abilities described are utilised to achieve

positive outcomes for the individual and/or the organisation. Politically skilled

individuals are accomplished in the arts of negotiation, coalition building, and conflict

resolution (Ferris et al., 2005). Such individuals will be able to develop powerful allies,

strategically position themselves within the communication network, and build rapport

with individuals who have access to resources (Pfeffer, 1992).

The four-factor composition of "political skill" has been substantiated by empirical

projects and replicated (Ferris et al., 2005). The developers of PSI also assessed

convergent and discriminant validity for construct validation. "Political skill" was

linked to other social effectiveness measures (convergent validity). It was found that

"political skill" was moderately related to emotional intelligence, conscientiousness,

political savvy, and self-monitoring. To date, most research has framed "political skill"

work at the composite level (Semadar et al., 2006) rather than utilising sub-dimensions

of "political skill".

The use of the PSI is impressively wide, but these studies have all been conducted

outside New Zealand. PSI was developed for and validated on U.S. American samples

(Ferris et al., 2005); with adaptations in several other countries and language

communities. There are not yet any "political skill" investigations in a New Zealand

context. There is a need for the examination of possible cross-cultural differences in the

dimensions, predictors, and outcomes of "political skill".

78

2.3 Aims and hypotheses

The previous sections have examined the available literature with regards to leadership,

personality, and CC theory, particularly within the occupational setting. As noted, the

paucity in the organisational psychology literature regarding the CC and personality of

leaders, as well as the lack of specific research in New Zealand, prompted the current

study. The present study seeks to contribute to the organisational leadership literature by

examining the personality traits and CC of leaders and non-leaders in a respondent

group obtained from the general working population in New Zealand. The results are

intended for this population.

The aims of this research are a) to explore the demographic differences in work-related

personality traits and CC in New Zealand; b) to explore the patterns of difference

between leaders and non-leaders in terms of work-related personality traits and CC; c)

to explore patterns of relationships among work-related personality traits and CC in

employees in general, and d) to explore whether these patterns of relationships are

different between leaders and non-leaders.

Specifically, the following hypotheses have been proposed and tested in this study of

leadership:

Hypothesis 1: Gender, age, and ethnicity have no systematic relationship with

occupation-relevant personality traits.

Hypothesis 2: Educational status is unrelated to occupation-relevant personality traits.

79

Hypothesis 3: Work experience and tenure on current job are unrelated to occupation-

relevant personality traits.

Hypothesis 4: Gender, age, and ethnicity have no effect on aspects of communicative

competence in a workplace setting.

Hypothesis 5: Higher educational status co-occurs with higher levels of communicative

competence in a workplace setting.

Hypothesis 6: More work experience and longer tenure on current job co-occur with

higher levels of communicative competence in a workplace setting.

Hypothesis 7: Leaders differ systematically from non-leaders regarding their

occupation-relevant personality traits.

7a. Leaders will show higher levels of Emotional Stability than non-leaders.

7b. Leaders will show higher levels of Extraversion than non-leaders.

7c. Leaders will show higher levels of Openness to Experience than non-leaders.

7d. Leaders will show higher levels of Altruism than non-leaders.

7e. Leaders will show higher levels of Conscientiousness than non-leaders.

7f. Leaders will show higher levels of Professionalism than non-leaders.

Hypothesis 8: Leaders differ systematically from non-leaders regarding factors of

communicative competence in a workplace setting.

8a. Leaders will show higher levels of Apparent Sincerity than non-leaders.

8b. Leaders will show higher levels of Interpersonal Influence than non-leaders.

80

8c. Leaders will show higher levels of Networking Ability than non-leaders.

8d. Leaders will show higher levels of Social Astuteness than non-leaders.

Hypothesis 9: There will be a systematic and interpretable pattern of relationship

between occupational personality traits and aspects of communicative competence in a

workplace setting.

9a. Extraversion will be correlated with all four aspects of communicative competence.

9b. Altruism will be correlated with all four aspects of communicative competence.

9c. Conscientiousness will be correlated with Interpersonal Influence, Networking

Ability and Social Astuteness.

Hypothesis 10: Relationships between/among occupational personality traits and

aspects of communicative competence will show dissimilar patterns among leaders

versus non-leaders.

10a. Correlations between Extraversion and the four aspects of communicative

competence will be consequently higher in leaders than non-leaders.

10b. Correlations between Altruism and the four aspects of communicative competence

will be consequently higher in leaders than non-leaders.

10c. Correlations between Conscientiousness and the four aspects of communicative

competence will be consequently higher in leaders than non-leaders.

10d. There will be significant correlations between Openness of Experience and the four

aspects of communicative competence in the leader group that are not detected in non-

leader group.

81

10e. There will be significant correlations between Emotional Stability and the four

aspects of communicative competence in the leader group that are not detected in non-

leader group.

10f. There will be significant correlations between Professionalism and the four aspects

of communicative competence in the leader group that are not detected in the non-leader

group.

Hypothesis 11: Relationships between level of leadership experience and tenure on

current job, on the one hand, and occupation-relevant personality traits on the other, will

be moderated by aspects of communicative competence.

11a. The relationship between Extraversion and leadership experience (also tenure as

leader) will be higher among persons with higher communicative competence.

11b. The relationship between Altruism and leadership experience (also tenure as

leader) will be higher among persons with higher communicative competence.

11c. The relationship between Conscientiousness and leadership experience (also tenure

as leader) will be higher among persons with higher communicative competence.

These hypotheses have been formulated on the basis of expectations gained from prior

research. The hypotheses above cannot cover all of the relationships that may be

expected in the actual empirical findings on New Zealand working adults. Instead, they

are in line with the goals and logistics of the present investigation.

82

Chapter 3: Method

3.1 Study design

This study utilises a cross-sectional, correlational design. Correlational research

involves no attempt to experimentally manipulate variables (Bordens & Abbott, 2011).

It is not possible, nor ethically admissible, to manipulate participants’ personality traits

to determine effects on leadership. The aim in testing hypotheses, as well as associated

quantitative analyses, was to describe patterns in data structures, and verify any

relationships that exist between or among specified variables.

Correlational designs are commonplace in organisational psychology when persons in

organisations are studied out in the field. Further, the use of a correlational design is

appropriate and consistent with the objectives of this study. The statistical techniques

themselves included bivariate correlation but also inter-group comparisons and multiple

regression.

A cross-sectional design does not require random assignment of participants to groups

(Frankfort-Nachmias & Nachmias, 1996), which was unviable in this masterate.

Building a longitudinal project with several waves of measurement was also unfeasible,

and hypotheses regarding change over time were not formulated.

The appropriateness of correlational designs to the study becomes apparent when

considering the growth of knowledge on leadership practices – it allows testing

hypothetical relationships in a real-world setting (Bordens & Abbott, 2011). A simple

correlational research can be performed in a natural, authentic organisational setting,

increasing environmental relevance and "external validity". A correlational approach

83

often avoids the major drawbacks of 'context stripping' that met criticism in more

precise, yet less ecologically valid approaches with controlled experimental designs

(Guba & Lincoln, 1994). It is viewed as maximising the “realism of context” (Scandura

& Williams, 2000).

The project permitted analyses over a multivariate data set although true multivariate

designs were only occasionally used. Causes of human behaviour are complex and

multifarious; explaining or predicting behaviour is best done with information in

multivariate data systems (Meyers, Gamst & Guarino, 2013). Use of multivariate rather

than bivariate approaches to examining personality and/or CC variables and leadership

is widespread (de Vries, Bakker-Pieper, & Oostenveld, 2010; Blickle, Meurs, Zettler,

Solga, Noethen, Kramer & Ferris, 2008; Penley & Hawkins, 1985; Madlock, 2008;

Benson & Campbell, 2007; Hautala, 2005; McCormack & Mellor, 2002; Brouer, Duke,

Treadway & Ferris, 2009; Ng, Ang & Chan, 2008).

The correlational approach obviously serves to detect co-occurrence rather than

potential causality in a relationship (Bordens & Abbott, 2011). The outcomes of

hypothesis testing in the current project will signal opportunities for future researchers

to disentangle deeper causes of the relations confirmed.

3.2 Participants

Data were collected from persons in New Zealand organisations serving in leader and

non-leader roles. There were two formal inclusion criteria for individuals to participate.

Aims of the project required participants to be currently employed in an occupation,

either in a leadership or non-leadership position. Second, participants had to be living

84

and working in New Zealand. 128 individuals expressed interest. 102 individuals

completed the surveys in this study and provided usable data. The response rate for the

present study was 79.7%.

The participant group used in this study – in strict methodological sense – does not

constitute a sample. It may be viewed as a 'convenience sample'. Selection of

participants occurred through intention to participate and screening by criteria, rather

than through a formal definition of a population and/or probabilistic sampling from that

population (Hansen, Hurwitz & Madow, 1953). There is no direct way of estimating the

representativeness of such a participant group (Frankfort-Nachmias & Nachmias, 1996).

The reason for not delimiting a target population was the logistic difficulty – indeed,

near-impossibility – of drawing up a master list of all New Zealanders employed in

leadership roles, or non-leader roles. Sampling was desirable but unviable because of

time-line and budget constraints. Similar considerations prevent sampling in much I/O

research both at master's level and academic research teams.

Due to lack of proper sampling, relationship of our participant group and any relevant

population remains technically unclear, and generalisation is prevented (cf. more

thorough discussion in Section 5.2.1). There is no assurance that every unit of a relevant

population (e.g. New Zealand leaders) had some chance of being included (Frankfort-

Nachmias & Nachmias, 1996).

Borden & Abbott (2011) concede that non-probabilistic samples may be acceptable for

some research interests in psychology. For the purposes of explorative research, the

author considers the set of participants reasonably diverse.

85

Demographic attributes considered useful were covered by data collection. Distributions

are characterised in Table 3-01 (found in Appendix A07). The group of 102 respondents

included 31 males (30.4%) and 71 females (69.6%). Ages ranged from 22 to 59, with

the mean age of the participant group being 34.23 years, SD=9.70. The most prominent

ethnic group endorsed was 'New Zealand European/Pakeha' (n=70, 68.6%), followed by

'New Zealand European/Pakeha and Pacific Island/Māori' (n=12, 11.8%), and 'Other

European' (n=11, 10.8%). For education level, 10 respondents indicated that they held a

Master’s degree or higher (9.8%). The most common level was a Bachelor's degree

(n=50, 49.0%), the second most common was a lower tertiary qualification (n=20,

19.6%).

The work experience of the respondents ranged from one year to 38 years (M=14.28,

SD=8.80). For leadership experience, categories ranged from no experience (n=42,

41.2%) to 30 years, with the mean number of years of leadership experience being 3.46

(SD=5.07).

Of the participants, 47 reported being currently in a position of leadership (46.1%) and

55 reported being currently in a non-leadership position (53.9%). Participants worked

for a variety of organisations, including human resources and recruitment (17.6%),

marketing (11.8%), education (8.8%), administration and support (8.8%), retail and

sales (7.8%), accounting and finance (7.8%), trade services (5.9%), public services

(3.9%), IT (3.9%), healthcare (3.9%), hospitality (2.9%), insurance (2.0%), and other

(2.9%). Others reported working in specialist roles (7.8%), executive roles (2.0%), and

being self-employed (2.0%).

86

Tenure in the current organisation varied from one week to 16 years (M=4.04,

SD=3.76).

Data collection and analysis are authorised by a permission granted by the Massey

University Human Ethics Committee (2013). A procedure via low-risk notification was

followed.

3.3 Materials

An integrated data collection tool including two standardised tests was constructed.

Tests used in this research were the Business Attitudes Questionnaire (BAQ), assessing

respondents’ personality traits (cf. Section 2.2.1.1) and the Political Skill Inventory

(PSI; cf. Section 2.2.3). The survey also contained standard demographic questions

compiled by researcher.

3.3.1 Business Attitudes Questionnaire (BAQ)

Designed for use within a professional context, the BAQ is a 300-item standardised

psychometric tests intended to differentiate people according to occupation-relevant

personality traits (Bogaert, Trbovic, & Van Keer, 2006; Hudson, 2015). Conveniently

titled for worldwide distribution, it is not an attitude survey. The constructs assessed

have nothing to do with attitudes as investigated in 70+ years of social psychology; they

are not attitudinal in nature, not modelled as liking/disliking toward an attitude target,

and are not theoretically based on widely accepted 3-prong model of social attitude

(Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Fazio, 1989).

87

The BAQ has been developed by Hudson Research and Development. It is used

worldwide (a claim on Hudson, 2015, indicates 60,000+ testees). The use of BAQ is

encouraged by designers for selection, assessment and development, training and

development, and coaching. The BAQ can be administered on-line, or with pencil and

paper. It is not a timed test. Most testees complete it in 30-45 minutes.

Based on Hudson's conceptual model of occupational personality dimensions, and

repeated factor-analytic work, the BAQ has a two-tier structure of constructs measured.

The levels are similar to those seen in NEO-PI-R/ NEO-PI-3, with higher-order

(domain) and lower-order (facet) constructs identified. Each construct is measured by a

scale inside BAQ and yields a separate score. 25 facets belong to 6 factors: Emotional

Stability, Extraversion, Openness, Altruism, Conscientiousness, and Professionalism.

The first five factors of the BAQ (Emotional Stability, Extraversion, Openness,

Altruism, Conscientiousness) are the same as domains in FFM of personality. The sixth

factor (Professionalism) is defined by the test developer to increase utility in a

professional context (Bogaert et al., 2006).

Table 3-02 aligns the BAQ’s top-tier personality traits with FFM. Summaries of

domain-level traits ubiquitous in FFM literature (e.g. NEO) are supplied.

88

Table 3-02

BAQ factors aligned to the Big Five Model as measured by the NEO-PI

BAQ Factor Big Five Factor Descriptive Terms

Emotional stability Neuroticism Susceptibility to experience,

symptoms of psychological

distress, vulnerability under stress

Extraversion Extraversion Tendency to enjoy people,

demonstrates assertiveness, enjoys

excitement and stimulation

Openness Openness to experience Tendency to demonstrate an active

imagination, intellectual curiosity,

attentiveness to inner feelings

Altruism Agreeableness Tendency to be sympathetic to

others, cooperative, a team player

Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Tendency to be purposeful,

dependable, determined, self-

controlled, well-organised

Professionalism Not applicable Occupational facets that do not

constitute a factor and must be

considered as isolated facets

Four facets make up each of the FFM factors; and five facets make the Professionalism

factor. (Table 3-03).

89

Table 3-03

BAQ factors and underlying facets

BAQ Factor BAQ Facets

Emotional stability Relaxed, Optimistic, Stress-resistance, Decisive

Extraversion Leading, Communicative, Persuasive, Motivating

Openness Abstract, Innovative, Change-oriented, Open-minded

Altruism People-oriented, Cooperating, Helpful, Socially Confident

Conscientiousness Organised, Meticulous, Rational, Persevering

Professionalism Ambitious, Critical, Result-oriented, Strategic, Autonomous

Note. Derived from information in the BAQ technical manual (Bogaert et al., 2006).

Characterisations of typical patterns on extreme positive and extreme negative end of

each of the 25 BAQ facets can be found in Table 3-04 (see Appendix A08).

Examples of the items associated with each facet are presented in Table 3-05 (see

Appendix A09).

The BAQ does not include administration or lie scales monitoring response distortion,

or signalling how a respondent approached answering the questionnaire.

Response to each item is marked using a five-point Likert scale (with scale points

completely disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, completely agree). The freedom

respondents have to answer as they like carries disadvantages. Distortions may occur,

and testees are more inclined to give socially desirable answers. To counteract this, an

ipsative version of BAQ was designed (not used in the current project).

90

Psychometric properties

The reliability of an instrument assesses the extent to which variation in measurement is

due to true differences in people or to measurement error (Kline, 2013). Internal

consistency is one way of estimating test reliability. Tabachnick and Fidell (2001) state

that estimates through internal consistency (mostly, Cronbach’s alpha) of α≥0.65 reflect

an acceptable tool. In Table 3-06 (see Appendix A10), Cronbach's alpha coefficients are

shown for the reliability of each domain- and facet-level score in BAQ. Internal

consistency is high, as coefficients range from 0.89 to 0.97.

The test developer also estimated BAQ’s reliability through split-half formula (Bogaert

et al., 2006). Split-half correlations are shown in Table 3-07 (see Appendix A11).

Coefficients range from 0.73 to 0.92.

Construct-related validity relates to whether the test actually measures what it purports

to measure (Kline, 2013). Convergent validation is a widely used method where a score

variable from a test is related to an external variable, from an already validated test

measuring the same construct. The BAQ developers compared the scores (on each

scale) of 170 respondents in the BAQ with their relevant scores in the NEO PI-R (Costa

& McCrae, 1992; Hoekstra, Ormel & de Fruyt, 1996). Table 3-08 (Appendix A12)

shows the correlations between the BAQ score variables and the corresponding NEO

PI-R variables.

The BAQ features six factors with associated scale scores. A distinction is drawn

between FFM factors (Emotional Stability, Extraversion, Openness, Altruism,

91

Conscientiousness) and the Professionalism factor, a group of facets relevant in a

professional context, not fitting directly with FFM. To check whether the facet-level

variables load on FFM factors as predicted by conceptual model, the test provider

performed factor analyses, excluding Professionalism. Results are given in Table 3-09

(see Appendix A13), where factor 1 can be defined as Emotional Stability, factor 2 as

Extraversion, factor 3 as Openness, factor 4 as Altruism and factor 5 as

Conscientiousness. The analysis substantiated the model in terms of facets categorised

in FFM domains.

The BAQ is Hudson’s proprietary personality instrument. As a result, no critical

reviews are currently available in the published literature. Test development and

validation research is reported in the BAQ technical manual obtainable from Hudson

Global Resources.

3.3.2 Political Skill Inventory (PSI)

The Political Skill Inventory (PSI) is a unique psychometric test operationalising Ferris'

model of "political skill" (see Section 2.1.3.5). Test development has been conducted by

Ferris' research team, and the tool is the only instrument guided by Ferris' conceptual

model.

The PSI is an 18-item questionnaire yielding a total score indicating an individual’s

general level of “political skill”. The inventory was born from the perceived need for a

multidimensional test that also assesses the four dimensions reflected in pre-existing

theorising on skill (Ferris et al., 2005). The 4 sub-scales produce separate sub-scores

(Table 3-10).

92

Table 3-10

PSI dimensions and definitions

PSI Dimension Definition

Social astuteness Individuals possessing political skill are sharp observers.

They can read and understand people’s emotions, needs and

motivations in diverse social situations.

Interpersonal influence Politically skilled individuals possess a subtle and

persuasive personal style. They are capable of appropriately

adapting it to each situation.

Networking ability

Individuals with strong political skill are exceptionally good

at establishing and using relationships with people, both key

organisational members and outsiders.

Apparent sincerity Politically skilled individuals come across as possessing

high levels of integrity, authenticity, and sincerity. They are,

or appear to be, honest, open, and genuine.

Apart from pure research, use of PSI is suggested for development, as its score can

reveal both how much “political skill” a subject has and what aspects require further

development (Ferris, Davidson, & Perrewe, 2005).

The PSI can be administered on-line or using pen and paper. It has no time limit for

completion. Most testees complete in 5 minutes.

93

The 18 items of the instrument contribute to assessing the 4 dimensions of “political

skill" (examples provided in Table 3-11; Appendix A14). The PSI does not include

administration or lie scales.

Respondents indicate the extent to which they agree with each item, using a seven-point

Likert scale. Just as with BAQ, a procedural advantage is that respondents tend not to

have aversion to answering. However, the freedom offered by Likert item format has

the disadvantage of possibly encouraging socially desirable, or otherwise distorted,

answers.

Psychometric properties

The PSI was developed and validated in North America (Ferris et al., 2005). Ferris

reports the following descriptives and alpha coefficients for each scale score variable:

Social astuteness (M=5.77, σ =.69, α =.71); Interpersonal influence (M=5.51, σ =.77, α

=.73); Networking ability (M=5.82, σ =.68, α =.76), Apparent sincerity (M =5.52, σ

=.95, α =.66). Alpha coefficients are Cronbach's alpha estimates for reliability. While

scale reliabilities are paramount, the overall test is also reliable (α =.86, M=3.89, σ

=.38).

Validation included construct validity work using multivariate analyses. Ferris and

colleagues (2005) verified sub-construct/ scale structure via factor analysis employing

oblique rotation (deemed appropriate when the a priori theory indicates dimensions may

be intercorrelated). A 4-factor solution emerged that satisfied the Kaiser-Guttman

criterion of retaining factors (eigenvalues >1.0). Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, and

Strahan (1999) also conducted analyses and produced similar factors of acceptable

94

eigenvalue, with 63% of the total item variance explained. The factor that explained

most of the variance was Networking ability, with 39% of the variance explained. So

far, the PSI is unreviewed in the Mental Measurement Yearbook series.

3.4 Procedure

Pilot testing to check viability of tools for New Zealand respondents was carried out

using a small number of participants. The researcher requested feedback regarding

instructions and tests. A few points to be changed were identified and tool adjusted,

before the final version was distributed.

A letter detailing the outline of the study and an invitation to participate (see Appendix

A15) was sent to members of Hudson Global Resources New Zealand, via electronic

mail, with permission of the Executive General Manager. The cover letter and

accompanying information emphasised that completion of surveys was completely

voluntary; any results obtained would remain anonymous. It also included a request to

individuals that the invitation be forwarded to others, e.g. colleagues.

Once a prospective testee expressed interest, a personalised letter was sent containing

detailed instructions on how to proceed. It included the website links to the two surveys

to be completed (Appendix A16). Data collection proceeded entirely through on-line

responding and automated data recording.

3.5 Quantitative analysis

Editing of data sets and all analyses were conducted using Statistical Package for Social

Sciences (SPSS) version 21.0. Proportion of missing data was extremely small due to

95

the technology in on-line administration. One case had missing datum for one variable

(case retained). Prior to analysis, distribution of each variable was checked for

assumptions of normality. BAQ and PSI scale score variables were symmetrically

distributed, displayed linearity (Cohen, Cohen, West & Aiken, 2003; Leong & Austin,

1996). A range of statistical analyses was carried out to test hypotheses. Particular

statistical techniques are identified in Chapter 4.

96

Chapter 4: Results

This chapter outlines the results of the analyses undertaken to achieve research

objectives. Key objectives were to explore:

demographically based differences in work-related personality traits and

communicative competence (CC);

patterns of relationships among personality traits and CC in employees in

general;

patterns of difference between leaders and non-leaders in terms of personality

traits and CC.

Prior to addressing these, analyses were carried out to check properties of psychometric

tests used in this study.

4.1 Examining the appropriateness of psychometric tools

The BAQ and PSI qualify as "imported" tests used in New Zealand. So far, little has

been reported on local psychometric adaptation, such as re-norming, re-estimation of

reliability, or re-validation. It was necessary to examine the appropriateness of tools in

this research. While practitioners commonly assume that measurement properties of

these tests are unchanged when used in New Zealand, this assumption is not

automatically correct in spite of common English medium.

An approach governed by basic principles of test adaptation (Hambleton & Patsula,

1998; Hambleton, 2001) is that whenever a test is brought to a new environment (e.g. a

different country, culture, or type of organisation) its properties need to be re-examined.

This may involve new item analysis, reliability estimation, or validation (Hambleton,

97

Merenda & Spielberger, 2004). Given logistic and budgetary constraints, a master's

project cannot embark on a complete adaptation, and a full adaptation of BAQ/ PSI to

New Zealand context will require many years of research effort by a larger team (cf.

Section 5.2.2).

4.1.1 BAQ

A limited task within construct validation of a multi-scale test is checking whether

factor structure over the domain/facet score correlation matrix reproduces the structure

originally claimed by developers. A Principal Axis Factor Analysis of BAQ item

variables was conducted on data (N=102). Table 4-01 (Appendix A17) lists the factors,

with eigenvalues associated with each linear component before extraction. Twenty-five

linear components were identified in total, consistent with original BAQ design. Six

factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 were found. Initial eigenvalues show that

Factor 1 explains 33.83% of total variance, Factor 2 10.99% of the variance, Factor 3

8.70% of the variance, Factor 4 7.42% of the variance, Factor 5 6.59% of the variance,

and Factor 6 4.52% of the variance.

This 6-factor solution was then examined using a Varimax (orthogonal) rotation. The

six-factor solution, explaining 72.05% of the variance, was preferred given the levelling

off of the eigenvalues on the scree plot after these factors. Rotated factor outcome is

shown in Table 4-02 (Appendix A18). Item loadings less than 0.30 were excluded.

This factor structure supplies modest but positive evidence that on a New Zealand

group, BAQ is able to measure the personality traits implied by the theoretical

foundation of the BAQ. The factor structure is highly similar to the findings from the

98

provider. With sub-sets of specific items loading on factors, the structure also reflects

the well-known factorial pattern in FFM literature (Costa & McCrae, 1992, Goldberg,

1990, Costa, Herbst, & McCrae, 2002; Hough & Schneider, 1996; McCrae & Costa,

1997; McCrae & John, 1992). However, this factor analysis can at best considered

preliminary (cf. Section 5.2.1). Recommendations for minimum N in factor analysis are

dependent on the ratio of the number of original variables to the number of factors, and

commonality among factors extracted (Thompson, 2004). A low estimate is N to be 4-5

times the number of variables in the matrix factored. N=102 cannot meet this minimum

requirement (Mundfrom, Shaw, & Tian, 2005), even if only facet and domain-level

score variables, rather than item variables, are counted.

4.1.2 PSI

Again as a partial approach to construct validation, the factor structure of PSI was

examined based on current New Zealand data. A Principal Axis Factor Analysis of

item-item space of the PSI was conducted. The outcome is summarised in Table 4-03

(Appendix A19) with eigenvalues associated with each linear component before

extraction. The analysis identified 18 linear components, consistent with the number of

PSI variables. Three factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 were located. Initial

eigenvalues show that Factor 1 explains 41.19% of total variance, Factor 2 13.41% of

the variance, and Factor 3 8.49% of the variance.

The 3-factor solution was further examined using a Varimax (orthogonal) rotation. The

factor solution is shown in Table 4-04 (Appendix A20). Item loadings less than 0.30 are

ignored.

99

This structure does not accurately match findings by Ferris and colleagues (2005), who

identified a 4-factor model of “political skill”. The new factor structure provides some

quantitative evidence for a 3-factor version of PSI when used with professional adults in

New Zealand. Again, not all circumstances met usual requirements for performing this

factor analysis (cf. Section 5.2.3), and the finding cannot be considered a

disconfirmation of a 4-factor conceptual model.

4.2 Preliminary analyses

Descriptive statistics for the BAQ and PSI scores were generated and mean levels

contrasted. A demographical profile of participants, and relationships among the

demographic variables, were also checked. These quantitative analyses are meant as a

foundation of later hypothesis testing.

4.2.1 BAQ

Table 4-05 provides the descriptive statistics for BAQ domain-level variables (scale

scores). For the purposes of this thesis, only the FFM trait means are compared. FFM

means ranged from 173.73 to 187.01, with SD between 19.73 and 27.67. The highest

average score of the participant group on the FFM traits was for Altruism, then

Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Openness; the lowest was Emotional Stability.

Extraversion showed greatest variance. The scores are raw scores without the chance to

produce norm-based derived scores.

100

Table 4-05

Descriptive statistics for BAQ domain variables

Variable Items N Minimum Maximum Mean SD

Emotional

stability 48 102 122 234 173.73 22.27

Extraversion 48 102 112 238 176.85 27.67

Openness 48 102 105 237 175.32 25.45

Altruism 48 102 110 233 187.01 21.54

Conscientiousness 48 102 134 234 182.53 19.73

Professionalism 60 102 161 291 232.75 23.91

4.2.2 PSI

Table 4-06 presents descriptive statistics for scale scores from PSI. Numbers of items

assigned to scales differ; a simple percentage score was calculated to allow

comparability. Mean scores ranged from 71.13 to 89.87, with SD between 10.20 and

14.79. The highest average score in the group was on Apparent Sincerity, followed by

Interpersonal Influence, Social Astuteness, then Networking Ability. Networking

Ability had greatest variance out of the four scales.

101

Table 4-06

Descriptive statistics for PSI domain variables

Variable Items N Minimum

(%)

Maximum

(%)

Mean

(%)

SD

Networking

ability 6 102 33.33 100 71.13 14.79

Interpersonal

influence 4 102 32.14 100 80.53 13.50

Social

astuteness 5 102 48.57 100 75.27 11.30

Apparent

sincerity 3 102 57.14 100 89.87 10.20

4.2.3 Demographics

Bivariate relationships among the "demographic" variables (in broad sense, including

employment) were examined by correlational analysis. Table 4-07 summarises results.

Coefficients reported are Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients. Descriptive

statistics of each variable were presented in Chapter 3. Where variables shared a

significant relationship, a two-tailed, independent-samples t test was conducted as a

follow-up (Table 4-08). Cohen’s d statistic was also calculated for significant main

effect, to provide an estimation of effect size on the differences.

With levels of significance, the widely accepted 'asterisk' symbols will be used after r

values (Table 4-07); the same symbolism used for t values from t tests (Tables 4-08 to

102

4-10). Statistical indicators marked _*_ were significant at p<.05; those marked _**_

were significant at p<.01.

103

Ta

ble

4-07

Rela

tions

hips

bet

wee

n re

spon

dent

dem

ogra

phic

var

iabl

es (P

ears

on’s

r)

G

ende

r A

ge

Lead

ersh

ip

stat

us

Yea

rs o

f

lead

er e

xp

Educ

atio

n

leve

l

Yea

rs o

f

wor

k ex

p

Yea

rs a

t

curr

ent o

rg

Age

-.0

8

Lead

ersh

ip st

atus

.2

0*

-.38*

*

Yea

rs o

f lea

der e

xp

-.18

.59*

* -.5

7**

Educ

atio

n le

vel

.26*

* -.1

3 -.1

4 -.0

5

Yea

rs o

f wor

k ex

p -.1

1 .9

2**

-.37*

* .6

2**

-.23*

Yea

rs a

t cur

rent

org

-.0

5 .4

1**

-.21*

.1

8 -.1

3 .4

6**

Are

a of

occ

upat

ion

-.09

-.03

-.23*

.1

4 -.1

0 -.0

1 -.0

2

104

Gender indicated significant relationships with education level (r=.26, p<.01) and

leadership status (r=.20, p<.05). No significant relationships were found between

gender and age, years of leadership, years of work experience, years at current

organisation, and area of occupation.

Table 4-08

Male/female differences in educational level and leadership status (t tests)

Males (n=31) Females (n=71) t test Effect

Size

M SD M SD t d

Educational

level

3.58 1.50 4.35 1.25 -2.69** -.56

Leadership

status

1.39 0.50 1.61 .49 -2.06* -.44

When followed up by inter-group comparison (t test), significant difference was

confirmed between males and females on reported educational levels (male, M=3.58;

female, M=4.35); t(100)=-2.69, p<.01. Cohen’s d (d=-.56) estimated a reasonably

medium effect size. This suggests that females are more likely to have a higher

educational level than males.

There was a significant difference in the leadership status between males (M=1.39) and

females (M=1.61); t(100)=-2.06, p<.05. Cohen’s d (d=-.44) estimated medium effect

size. The analysis suggests that females are more likely to be in a leadership position

than males.

105

Predictable relationships were confirmed between age and years of work experience

(r=.92, p<.01), years of leadership (r=.59, p<.01), years at current organisation (r=.41,

p<.01), and leadership status (r=.38, p<.01). No significant relationships were

discovered between age and either education level or area of occupation.

Leadership status had significant relationships with years of leadership (r= -.57, p<.01),

years of work experience (r= -.37, p<.01), area of occupation (r=.23, p<.05), and years

at current organisation (r=.21, p<.05). No relationships were found between leadership

status and either ethnicity or education level.

Table 4-09

Leader versus non leader differences in area of occupation and years in organisation (t

tests)

Leaders (n=47) Non-leaders (n=55) t test Effect

Size

M SD M SD t d

Area of

occupation

6.72 4.50 4.84 3.63 2.34* .46

Years at

current

organisation

4.89 4.14 3.31 3.27 2.15* .42

When following up analyses regarding leader versus non-leader differences, t values

from two-tailed t tests proved significant in the occupational area responses for leaders

106

(M=6.72) versus non-leaders (M=4.84); t(100)=2.34, p<.05. Cohen’s d (d=.46)

estimated medium effect size. This result indicates that leaders are more likely to work

in a different occupational area to non-leaders.

A significant difference was found in the self-reported tenure responses of leaders

(M=4.89, SD=4.14) versus non-leaders (M=3.31, SD=3.27); t(100)=2.15, p<.05.

Cohen’s d (d=.42) estimated a medium effect size. This result suggests that leaders are

more likely to have a greater tenure in their current organisation than non-leaders.

A significant relationship was found between years of leadership experience and years

of work experience (r=.62, p<.01). No significant relationships were revealed between

years of leadership experience and ethnicity, education level, years at current

organisation and area of occupation.

Independent-samples t tests were not conducted to compare years of leadership

experience between years of work experience; these relationships were as expected.

A significant relationship was discovered between ethnicity and area of occupation (r= -

.21, p<.05). No significant relationships were found between ethnicity and education

level, years of work experience, and years at current organisation.

An independent-samples t test was conducted to compare areas of occupation between

ethnicity-groups. No statistically significant differences existed between these sub-

groups, suggesting that the differences in means was likely due to chance and not likely

due to ethnic grouping.

107

A significant relationship was found between education level and years of work

experience (r= -.23, p<.05). No significant relationships were discovered between

education level and either years at current organisation, or area of occupation.

Table 4-10

Differences in years of work experience according to education level (t test)

Lower tertiary

qualification or

lower (n=38)

Bachelor’s degree or

higher (n=64)

t test Effect

Size

M SD M SD t d

Years of work

experience

17.28 8.34 12.52 8.65 -2.72** .56

As a follow-up, inter-group comparisons were checked by t test, after dichotomising

education level. There was a significant difference in the years of work experience for

respondents with a lower tertiary qualification, secondary only, or no secondary

education (M=17.28) and respondents with a Bachelor’s degree or higher (M=12.52).

Cohen’s d (d=.56) estimated a reasonably large effect size. Education level did have an

effect on years of work experience; specifically, the predictable result suggests that

individuals with a Bachelor’s degree or higher tend to have fewer years of work

experience.

108

Years of work experience shared a significant relationship with years at current

organisation (r=.46, p<.01). There was no relationship between years of work

experience and area of occupation.

Years at current organisation and years of work experience are also related; this

relationship is self-evident. No significant relationship was discovered between years at

current organisation and area of occupation.

4.3 Hypothesis Testing

This section details findings from quantitative analysis to test the study’s hypotheses

(listing in Chapter 2). H-1, H-2, …, designate hypotheses. First, analyses explored the

demographic antecedents of work-related personality factors and CC in an occupational

setting. Secondly, analyses were conducted to determine the differences between

leaders and non-leaders in terms of work-related personality factors and CC. Thirdly,

the relationships among work-related personality factors and CC were examined across

all respondents. The pattern of relationships between personality and CC was then

revisited to locate differences between leaders and non-leaders. The possible

moderating effect of CC on the relationship between personality traits and leadership

experience was checked.

Serialised statistical analyses targeted personality (e.g. in terms of a series of

demographics). When interpreting the findings, the level for statistical significance was

adjusted according to standard Bonferroni correction (in order to control for the

likelihood of obtaining statistically significant results by chance, as multiple hypothesis

tests were run). Under conditions of non-independent hypothesis testing, a Bonferroni

109

significance level was computed with adjusted alpha calculated by dividing the desired

alpha (.05) by the number of significance tests in a series of tests (Bonferroni, 1935,

1936; Miller, 1991; Abdi, 2007; Dunn, 1961; Perneger, 1998; Shaffer, 1995;

Strassberger & Bretz, 2008). Thus, rejection of the null hypothesis was reserved to

p<.008 when testing personality traits, and a p-value of <.0125 when testing PSI

components.

4.3.1 Personality

When looking for possible demographic precursors, six occupation-relevant personality

traits are assessed as dependent variables: Emotional Stability, Extraversion, Openness,

Altruism, Conscientiousness, and Professionalism. Preliminary assumptions regarding

data structure and distributions were checked. The data set was deemed suitable for

analysis.

Hypothesis 1: Gender, age, and ethnicity have no systematic relationship with

occupation-relevant personality traits.

Gender

First, a one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to

explore the possible “effect” of gender on occupation-relevant personality traits. It was

established that the effect of gender on the combined dependent variables was

statistically significant, F(6, 95)=2.93, p<.01; Wilks’ λ=.84; partial η2=.16.

Gender differences in the BAQ variables were assessed via two-way analysis of

variance (ANOVA). Males scored higher than females on Emotional Stability

(M=180.13, SD=20.21), Extraversion (M=182.71, SD=28.46), Openness (M=185.45,

110

SD=25.93) and Professionalism (M=237.65, SD=25.82). Female means were 170.93,

174.30, 170.90, and 230.61, respectively. Males scored lower than females on Altruism

(M=185.45, SD=25.67) and Conscientiousness (M=179.32, SD=19.58). Female means

were M=187.69, and M=183.93. However, only the effect on Openness produces a

significant F (Table 4-11) (F(1, 100)=7.51, p<.01; partial η2=.07.).

Table 4-11

Analysis of variance for personality; gender as independent variable

Variable SS df MS F

Emotional Stability 1826.18 1 1826.18 3.78

Extraversion 1527.62 1 1527.62 2.02

Openness 4568.34 1 4568.34 7.51**

Altruism 108.13 1 108.13 .23

Conscientiousness 457.99 1 457.99 1.18

Professionalism 1069.32 1 1069.32 1.89

This result suggests that males are more likely to have higher levels of Openness than

females; this provides some evidence to suggest H-1 is incorrect, as gender has an

“effect” on some FFM traits.

Age

Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were calculated to assess the

relationship between age and occupation-related personality traits. When testing

Hypotheses H-3 to H-11, the terms 'correlation' or 'correlation coefficient' will be used

to denote a Pearson correlation coefficient (r).

111

To denote levels of significance, the common 'asterisk' symbols will be used throughout

Tables 4-12 to 4-28, as introduced before.

Table 4-12

Relationship between age and BAQ variables

Emotional

Stability

Extra-

version

Openness Altruism Conscien-

tiousness

Profess-

ionalism

Age .11 .21* .15 -.00 -.08 -.11

There was a small, positive, statistically significant correlation between Age and

Extraversion (r=.21, p<.05), with age explaining 4.41% of the variance in this particular

FFM trait. Some evidence is supplied to suggest H-1 is incorrect, as age is associated

with some work-related personality traits.

Ethnicity

A one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to explore the

possible “effect” of ethnicity on occupation- relevant personality traits. The nominal

variable Ethnicity was the independent variable. The MANOVA established that the

differences between ethnicities on the combined dependent variables were not

statistically significant, F(24, 322)=.73, p=.82; Wilks’ λ=.83; partial η2=15.32.

This suggests that ethnicity does not have an impact on FFM traits. It serves as modest

evidence to suggest H-1 is true, with reported ethnic belongingness showing no “effect”

on work-related personality traits.

112

Hypothesis 2: Educational status is unrelated to occupation-relevant personality

traits.

A MANOVA was conducted to determine whether and how educational status relates to

occupational personality traits. The MANOVA established that the differences between

educational status on the combined dependent variables were not statistically

significant, F(30, 366)=.81, p=.75; Wilks’ λ=.77; partial η2=.50. Educational status

does not seem to relate to FFM traits, providing evidence to suggest H-2 is true.

Hypothesis 3: Work experience and tenure on current job are unrelated to

occupation-relevant personality traits.

Correlation coefficients were calculated to detect relationships between work

experience and tenure, on one hand, and occupational personality traits.

Table 4-13

Relationships between work experience and tenure on current job and BAQ variables

Emotional

Stability

Extra-

version

Openness Altruism Conscien-

tiousness

Profess-

ionalism

Years of

work

experience

.14

.26** .17 .03 -.03 -.03

Tenure on

current

job

.16

.05 -.00 .08 -.02 -.09

113

There was a positive statistically significant correlation between years of work

experience and Extraversion (r=.26, p<.01), with work experience explaining 6.76% of

the variance in the FFM trait. This provides some evidence to suggest H-3 is incorrect,

as years of work experience is associated with at least one work-related trait. The

direction of this link will be discussed later (Chapter 5).

No significant associations were ascertained between tenure on current job and work-

related personality traits, suggesting that H-3 is true.

4.3.2 Communicative competence

Where a multivariate analysis of variance is conducted to test hypotheses in section

4.3.2, CC is confined to "political skill", with 4 components assessed as scale score

variables ex PSI. These variables were managed as dependent variables: Networking

Ability, Interpersonal Influence, Social Astuteness, and Apparent Sincerity. Preliminary

assumptions regarding data structure and distributions were checked; the data set was

deemed suitable for analysis.

Hypothesis 4: Gender, age, and ethnicity have no effect on aspects of CC in a

workplace setting.

Gender

A one-way MANOVA was conducted to determine the effect of gender on CC. The

MANOVA established that the impact of gender on the combined dependent variables

was not statistically significant, F(4, 97)=1.40, p=.24; Wilks’ λ=.95; partial η2=.05.

This result suggests that gender has no effect on PSI components. Evidence has been

produced to suggest H-4 is true.

114

Age

Correlational analysis was used to assess the relationship between age and facets of CC.

Table 4-14

Relationship between age and “political skill” variables

Networking

Ability

Interpersonal

Influence

Social

Astuteness

Apparent

Sincerity

Age .09 .03 -.07 -.07

No significant associations were found, suggesting that H-4 is true, as age is unrelated

to CC.

Ethnicity

A one-way MANOVA was conducted to determine the effect of ethnicity on CC

components. The MANOVA established that the effect of any difference between

ethnicities on the combined dependent variables was not statistically significant, F(16,

288)=.59, p=.89; Wilks’ λ=.91; partial η2=.02. This result suggests that ethnicity has no

effect on CC. Thereby, evidence is presented to suggest H-4 is true.

Hypothesis 5: Higher educational status co-occurs with higher levels of CC in a

workplace setting

A MANOVA was conducted to determine the effect of educational status on facets of

CC. The MANOVA established that the effect of any differences between educational

status on the combined dependent variables was not statistically significant, F(20,

115

309)=1.07, p=.38; Wilks’ λ=.80; partial η2=.05. This result suggests the counter-

intuitive situation that educational status has no impact on CC components. This

supplies evidence to suggest H-5 is incorrect.

Hypothesis 6: More work experience and longer tenure on current job co-occur

with higher levels of CC in a workplace setting.

Correlation coefficients were obtained to assess the relationships between work

experience and tenure on current job, respectively, and facets of CC.

Table 4-15

Relationships between work experience and job tenure, and "political skill" variables

Networking

Ability

Interpersonal

Influence

Social

Astuteness

Apparent

Sincerity

Years of work

experience

.10 -.01 -.02 .06

Tenure on

current job

.09 .03 -.07 -.07

No significant associations were identified, suggesting that H-6 is incorrect, as neither

the number of years of work experience, nor tenure on current job, are related to CC

components.

4.3.3 Differences between leaders and non-leaders among personality and CC

factors

116

Hypothesis 7: Leaders differ systematically from non-leaders regarding their

occupation-relevant personality traits.

Two-tailed, independent-samples t tests were run to determine if there were differences

in the occupation-relevant personality traits between leaders and non-leaders. Criterion

variables are the FFM traits Emotional Stability, Extraversion, Openness, Altruism,

Conscientiousness, as well as Professionalism, ex BAQ. Cohen’s d was calculated for

significant main effects to provide an estimation of effect size on the differences (Table

4-16). To control for the likelihood of obtaining statistically significant results by

chance in serialised tests, the level for statistical significance was adjusted by

Bonferroni correction (see explanation and references above). Rejection of the null

hypothesis was reserved to p<.008.

Table 4-16

Occupation-relevant personality traits: Differences between leaders and non-leaders (t

tests)

Leaders (n=47) Non-leaders (n=55) t value Effect

Size

M SD M SD t d

Emotional

Stability

179.38 22.13 168.89 21.42 2.43* .48

Extraversion 191.02 22.42 164.75 26.08 5.41** 1.08

Openness 180.53 26.99 170.87 23.39 1.94

Altruism 190.45 21.58 184.07 21.25 1.50

Conscientiousness 182.77 22.05 182.33 17.71 .11

Professionalism 238.19 24.84 228.09 22.26 2.17* 0.43

117

7a. Leaders will show higher levels of Emotional Stability than non-leaders.

There was a significant difference in Emotional Stability between the sub-groups of

leaders (M=179.38, SD=22.13) and non-leaders (M=168.89, SD=21.42); t(100)=2.43,

p<.05. Cohen’s d (d=.48) estimated medium effect size. This result suggests that

leadership status did relate to Emotional Stability; specifically, leaders are more likely

to have higher levels of Emotional Stability than non-leaders. Evidence is supplied that

H-7a is true.

7b. Leaders will show higher levels of Extraversion than non-leaders.

There was a significant difference in Extraversion between the sub-groups of leaders

(M=191.02, SD=22.42) and non-leaders (M=164.75, SD=26.08); t(100)=5.41, p<.01.

Cohen’s d (d=1.08) estimated a reasonably large effect size. This result indicates that

leadership status did relate to Extraversion; leaders are more likely to have higher levels

of Extraversion than non-leaders. This suggests that H-7b is true.

7c. Leaders will show higher levels of Openness than non-leaders.

No significant difference between the sub-groups of leaders and non-leaders was

discovered, indicating H-7c is incorrect.

7d. Leaders will show higher levels of Altruism than non-leaders.

No significant difference between leaders and non-leaders was detected. This suggests

that H-7d is incorrect.

7e. Leaders will show higher levels of Conscientiousness than non-leaders.

118

No significant difference between leaders and non-leaders was noted, suggesting H-7e

is incorrect.

7f. Leaders will show higher levels of Professionalism than non-leaders.

There was a significant difference in Professionalism between leaders (M=238.19,

SD=24.84) and non-leaders (M=228.09, SD=22.26); t(100)=2.17, p<.05. Cohen’s d

(d=.43) estimated a medium effect size. This result suggests that leadership status

relates to Professionalism. Specifically, it suggests that leaders are more likely to have

higher levels of Professionalism than non-leaders, supplying proof for H-7f being

correct.

Hypothesis 8: Leaders differ systematically from non-leaders regarding factors of

CC in a workplace setting.

Independent-samples t tests were run to determine if there were differences in the

"political skill" factors Apparent Sincerity, Interpersonal Influence, Networking Ability

and Social Astuteness, between leaders and non-leaders. Cohen’s d statistic was

calculated for significant main effects, to give estimates of effect size on differences

(Table 4-17). With some likelihood of obtaining statistically significant results by

chance in serialised tests, significance criterion was adjusted according to Bonferroni

correction. Rejection of null hypothesis was reserved to p<.0125.

119

Table 4-17

"Political skill" components: Differences between leaders and non-leaders (t tests)

Leaders (n=47) Non-leaders (n=55) t test Effect

Size

M SD M SD t d

Apparent

Sincerity

18.64 2.29 19.07 2.01 -1.02

Interpersonal

Influence

23.11 4.01 22.07 3.54 1.38

Networking

Ability

32.19 5.72 27.89 5.97 3.70** .74

Social

Astuteness

26.26 4.44 26.42 3.53 -.21

8a. Leaders will show higher levels of Apparent Sincerity than non-leaders.

No significant difference in Apparent Sincerity between leaders and non-leaders was

discovered. This suggests H-8a is incorrect.

8b. Leaders will show higher levels of Interpersonal Influence than non-leaders.

No significant difference in Interpersonal Influence between leaders and non-leaders

was detected, suggesting H-8b is incorrect.

8c. Leaders will show higher levels of Networking Ability than non-leaders.

There was a significant difference in Networking Ability between leaders (M=32.19,

SD=5.72) and non-leaders (M=27.89, SD=5.97); t(100)=3.70, p<.01. Cohen’s d (d=.74)

120

estimated a reasonably large effect size. This result suggests that leadership status did

relate to Networking Ability; that leaders are more likely to have higher levels of

Networking Ability than non-leaders, or they may have become leaders because they

have Networking Ability. The finding signals that H-8c is true.

8d. Leaders will show higher levels of Social Astuteness than non-leaders.

No significant difference in Social Astuteness was found between leaders and non-

leaders, suggesting H-8d is incorrect.

4.3.4 Relationships between/among personality and CC factors over all

respondents

The following analyses relate to patterns of relationships that connect factors of

occupational personality traits with "political skill" components. The analyses

temporarily disregard leadership (N=102).

As a preliminary step, correlation matrices "internal" to the two types of constructs were

generated. Correlation coefficients were computed to assess the relationships among the

six work-relevant personality traits: Emotional Stability, Extraversion, Openness,

Altruism, Conscientiousness, and Professionalism. A summary of results is shown in

Table 4-18 (Appendix A21).

Correlation was further used to assess the relationships among the four components of

CC: Apparent Sincerity, Interpersonal Influence, Networking Ability, and Social

Astuteness (results in Table 4-19; Appendix A22).

121

Hypothesis 9: There will be a systematic and interpretable pattern of relationship

between occupational personality traits and aspects of CC in a workplace setting.

Correlational analysis served to assess the relationships between the FFM traits, on one

hand, and the four dimensions of "political skill", on the other.

9a. Extraversion will be correlated with all four aspects of CC

Statistically significant correlations were produced between Extraversion and all four

aspects of "political skill", although the magnitude of coefficients varies widely (Table

4-20). Significant relationships were discovered between Extraversion and Apparent

Sincerity (r=.27, p<.01), Interpersonal Influence (r=.62, p<.01), Networking Ability

(r=.65, p<.01), and Social Astuteness (r=.51, p<.01), respectively. This evidence

suggests H-9a is true, as Extraversion is associated with all PSI components.

Table 4-20

Relationships between extraversion and altruism and the communicative competence

variables

Apparent

Sincerity

Interpersonal

Influence

Networking

Ability

Social

Astuteness

Extraversion .27** .62** .65** .51**

Altruism .43** .63** .59** .36**

9b. Altruism will be correlated with all four aspects of CC

Significant correlations were found between Altruism and the four dimensions of CC.

Significant relationships were discovered between Altruism and Apparent Sincerity

(r=.43, p<.01), Interpersonal Influence (r=.63, p<.01), Networking Ability (r=.59,

122

p<.01), and Social Astuteness (r=.36, p<.01), respectively. This brings evidence to

suggest H-9b is true. Altruism is associated with all PSI components.

9c. Conscientiousness will be correlated with Interpersonal Influence, Networking

Ability and Social Astuteness

A correlation coefficient was calculated to assess the relationships between the FFM

trait Conscientiousness, and three elements of "political skill": Interpersonal Influence,

Networking Ability, and Social Astuteness.

Table 4-21

Relationships between conscientiousness and interpersonal influence, networking

ability, and social astuteness variables

Interpersonal

Influence

Networking

Ability

Social

Astuteness

Conscientiousness .20* .20* .34**

Significant correlations were obtained between Conscientiousness and three elements of

CC. Significant relationships were discovered between Conscientiousness and Social

Astuteness (r=.34, p<.01), Interpersonal Influence (r=.20, p<.05) and Networking

Ability (r=.20, p<.05), respectively This provides evidence to suggest H-9c is true, as

Conscientiousness is associated with these three facets of "political skill".

4.3.5 Does the pattern of relationships between personality and CC differ when

leaders are compared to non-leaders?

123

Table 4-22 (Appendix A23) offers descriptive statistics for domain-level FFM variables

ex BAQ, over the respondents now split into leader and non-leader groups.

Table 4-23 (Appendix A24) provides the descriptive statistics for the domain-level

variables of "political skill" ex PSI, for leader and non-leader groups separately.

Tables 4-22/4-23 include mean and standard deviation for each variable.

Hypothesis 10: Relationships between/among occupational personality traits and

aspects of CC will show dissimilar patterns among leaders versus non-leaders.

Correlational analysis was used to assess relationships between the six work-related

personality traits, on one hand, and the four "political skill" components, on the other.

The analysis in Table 4-24 reflects leader sub-group only.

Table 4-24

Relationships between the dimensions of work-related personality and the dimensions of

communicative competence for leaders

Apparent

Sincerity

Interpersonal

Influence

Networking

Ability

Social

Astuteness

Extraversion .50** .60** .67** .74**

Altruism .60** .76** .73** .56**

Conscientiousness .31* .24 .27 .38**

Openness .40** .53** .34* .42**

Emotional

Stability

.27 .42** .41** .50**

124

Professionalism .35* .37** .49** .58**

Again, correlations were computed to assess the relationships between the six work-

related personality traits, and the four dimensions of "political skill", for the non-leader

sub-group. Findings in Table 4-25 only include the non-leader sub-group.

Table 4-25

Relationships between the dimensions of work-related personality and the dimensions of

communicative competence for non-leaders

Apparent

Sincerity

Interpersonal

Influence

Networking

Ability

Social

Astuteness

Extraversion .26 .69** .52** .48**

Altruism .32* .49** .46** .16

Conscientiousness .28* .15 .15 .27*

Openness .10 .16 -.01 .33*

Emotional

Stability

.30* .31* .24 .30*

Professionalism .40** .34* .18 .53**

10a. Correlations between Extraversion and the four aspects of CC will be

consequently higher in leaders than non-leaders.

Statistically significant correlations were discovered between Extraversion and all four

CC dimensions, viz. Apparent Sincerity (r=.50, p<.01), Interpersonal Influence (r=.60,

125

p<.01), Networking Ability (r=.67, p<.01), and Social Astuteness (r=.74, p<.01),

respectively, among leaders.

Significant correlations were discovered between Extraversion and Interpersonal

Influence (r=.69, p<.01), Networking Ability (r=.52, p<.01), and Social Astuteness

(r=.48 p<.01), respectively, for non-leaders.

Correlations between Extraversion and Apparent Sincerity, Networking Ability, and

Social Astuteness were higher for leaders than non-leaders. The correlation between

Extraversion and Interpersonal Influence was higher for non-leaders than leaders. This

only supplies partial evidence to corroborate H-10a.

10b. Correlations between Altruism and the four aspects of CC will be

consequently higher in leaders than non-leaders.

Statistically significant correlations were discovered between Altruism, and all four

dimensions measured by the PSI, viz. Apparent Sincerity (r=.60, p<.01), Interpersonal

Influence (r=.76, p<.01), Networking Ability (r=.73, p<.01), and Social Astuteness

(r=.56 p<.01), respectively, for leaders.

Significant correlations were noted between Altruism, on one hand, and Apparent

Sincerity (r=.32, p<.05), Interpersonal Influence (r=.49, p<.01), and Networking Ability

(r=.46 p<.01), respectively, for non-leaders.

126

Correlations between Altruism and Apparent Sincerity, Interpersonal Influence,

Networking Ability and Social Astuteness were higher for leaders than non-leaders.

This evidence suggests H-10b is correct.

10c. Correlations between Conscientiousness and the four aspects of CC will be

consequently higher in leaders than non-leaders.

Statistically significant correlations were found between Conscientiousness, on the one

hand, and Apparent Sincerity (r=.31, p<.05) and Social Astuteness (r=.38, p<.01),

respectively, for leaders.

Significant correlations were discovered between Conscientiousness, on the one hand,

and Apparent Sincerity (r=.28, p<.05) and Social Astuteness (r=.27 p<.05),

respectively, for non-leaders.

Correlations between Conscientiousness and Apparent Sincerity, Interpersonal

Influence, Networking Ability and Social Astuteness were higher for leaders than non-

leaders. Findings corroborate H-10c.

10d. There will be significant correlations between Openness of Experience and the

four aspects of CC in the leader group that are not detected in non-leader group.

Significant correlations were discovered between Openness, on the one hand, and

Apparent Sincerity (r=.40, p<.01), Interpersonal Influence (r=.53, p<.01), Networking

Ability (r=.34, p<.05), and Social Astuteness (r=.42 p<.01), respectively, for leaders.

127

A significant correlation was found between Openness and Social Astuteness (r=.33

p<.05) for non-leaders.

Correlations between Openness, on the one hand, and Apparent Sincerity, Interpersonal

Influence, Networking Ability and Social Astuteness were significant for leaders, with

three of these relationships significant at p<.01 and one relationship significant at p<.05.

One statistically significant correlation was detected between Openness and the four

dimensions of CC in the non-leader sub-group (Social Astuteness, respectively); this

was at p<.05 compared to the same relationship found in the leader group which was

significant at p<.01. Although a significant relationship between Openness and Social

Astuteness was detected in both groups, the findings provide tentative, incomplete

evidence to suggest H-10d is mostly correct.

10e. There will be significant correlations between Emotional Stability and the

four aspects of CC in the leader group that are not detected in non-leader group.

Statistically significant correlations were ascertained between Emotional Stability and

Interpersonal Influence (r=.42, p<.01), Networking Ability (r=.41, p<.01), and Social

Astuteness (r=.50 p<.01), respectively, among leaders.

Significant correlations were discovered between Emotional Stability and Apparent

Sincerity (r=.30, p<.05), Interpersonal Influence (r=.31, p<.05), and Social Astuteness

(r=.30 p<.05), respectively, among non-leaders.

Correlations between Emotional Stability, on one hand, and Interpersonal Influence,

Networking Ability, and Social Astuteness were significant for leaders, with all of these

128

relationships reaching p<.01. Correlations between Emotional Stability and Apparent

Sincerity, Interpersonal Influence, and Social Astuteness were statistically significant

for non-leaders, all significant at p<.01. Significant relationships between Emotional

Stability and Interpersonal Influence and Social Astuteness were noted in both groups,

and a significant relationship was found in the non-leader group between Emotional

Stability and Apparent Sincerity that was not detected in the leader group. Collectively,

these findings indicate that H-10e is false.

10f. There will be significant correlations between Professionalism and the four

aspects of CC in the leader group that are not detected in non-leader group.

Statistically significant correlations were found between Professionalism, on the one

hand, and Apparent Sincerity (r=.35, p<.05), Interpersonal Influence (r=.37, p<.01),

Networking Ability (r=.49, p<.01), and Social Astuteness (r=.58, p<.01), respectively,

for leaders.

Significant correlations were produced between Professionalism, on one hand, and

Apparent Sincerity (r=.40, p<.01), Interpersonal Influence (r=.34, p<.05), and Social

Astuteness (r=.53, p<.01), respectively, for non-leaders.

Correlations between Professionalism and Apparent Sincerity, Interpersonal Influence,

Networking Ability and Social Astuteness were significant among leaders, with three of

these relationships significant at p<.01 and one relationship significant at p<.05. Three

significant correlations were found between Professionalism and three of the PSI

components in the non-leader group, with two of these relationships significant at p<.01

and one relationship significant at p<.05. Significant relationships between

129

Professionalism and Apparent Sincerity, Interpersonal Influence and Social Astuteness

were detected in both the leader and non-leader groups. A significant relationship was

found in the leader group between Professionalism and Networking Ability that was not

detected in the non-leader group. Collectively, these findings point to H-10f being

incorrect.

Hypothesis 11: Relationships between level of leadership experience and tenure on

current job, on one hand, and occupation-relevant personality traits, on the other,

will be moderated by aspects of CC.

As an attempt to investigate the pattern of interrelationships among work-related

personality traits and CC in the current respondent group in a more integrated model,

multiple regression was estimated.

Multiple regressions allow a calculation of the percentage of variance in a factor

explainable by a single predictor or a collection of predictors (Brace, Kemp, & Snelgar,

2006). Leadership tenure was used as the criterion variable, and Extraversion, Altruism

and Conscientiousness as well as the CC total scores were used as predictor variables.

Predictor combinations that were regressed included Extraversion and CC, Altruism and

CC, and Conscientiousness and CC. Before testing for interaction effects, the scores on

the independent and moderator variables were centred by subtracting their respective

sample means from all individuals’ scores, thus producing revised sample means of

zero. This procedure suggested by Aiken was invoked to reduce the possible effect of

multicollinearity between main independent variables and the interaction term (Aiken &

West, 1991).

130

The rationale for regression analysis lies in the additional information such analyses can

provide about interrelationships among predictors and leadership. Of particular interest

were differences in how much combination(s) of work-related personality traits and CC

contributed to predicting someone assuming a leadership role, in form of tenure.

Multiple regressions were performed because the information provided concerned the

combined variance explained by a group of predictors rather than the mostly bivariate

relationships previously scrutinised.

11a. The relationship between Extraversion and leadership experience (also tenure

as leader) will be higher among persons with higher CC.

Table 4-26

β values, multiple regression coefficients of extraversion and communicative

competence predicting leadership tenure

Variable Leadership tenure β

Extraversion .38**

Communicative competence -.08

Extraversion x communicative competence .01

Regression model 1 F(3, 97) = 5.80

R .39

R2 .15

Adj. R2 .13

A multiple regression model was tested to investigate whether the association between

Extraversion and leadership tenure is affected by level of CC. After centering

131

Extraversion and CC and computing the Extraversion-by-CC term (Aiken & West,

1991), the two predictors and the interaction were entered into a simultaneous

regression model. This combination was able to account for 12% of the variance in

leadership tenure scores.

Results indicated that a significant predictor of greater tenure in a leadership role was

Extraversion (b=.07, SEb=.02, β=.38, p<.01). There is 95% confidence that the squared

multiple correlation is between .03 and .10. No statistically significant association was

discovered between CC and greater tenure in a leadership role. The interaction between

Extraversion and CC was also non-significant, suggesting that the effect of Extraversion

on leadership tenure does not depend on one’s level of CC. As this interaction was non-

significant, simple slopes for the association between Extraversion and leadership

tenure were not tested for different levels of CC. This analysis provides evidence to

suggest that H-11a is incorrect.

132

11b. The relationship between Altruism and leadership experience (also tenure as

leader) will be higher among persons with higher CC.

Table 4-27

β values, multiple regression coefficients of altruism and communicative competence

predicting leadership tenure

Variable Leadership tenure β

Altruism -.13

Communicative competence .09

Altruism x communicative competence .05

Regression model 2 F(3, 97) = .69

R .14

R2 .02

Adj. R2 -.01

A multiple regression model was tested to investigate whether the association between

Altruism and leadership tenure is affected by the level of CC. After centering Altruism

and CC and computing the Altruism-by-CC term (Aiken & West, 1991), the two

predictors and the interaction were entered into a simultaneous regression model. This

combination did not contribute to any of the variance in leadership tenure scores.

Results indicated no evidence of significant predictors of tenure in a leadership role,

including the interaction between Altruism and CC, suggesting that the effect of

Altruism on leadership tenure does not depend on one’s level of CC. As this interaction

was non-significant, simple slopes for the association between Altruism and leadership

133

tenure were not tested for different levels of CC. This analysis seems to supply evidence

to suggest that H-11b is incorrect.

11c. The relationship between Conscientiousness and leadership experience (also

tenure as leader) will be higher among persons with higher CC.

Table 4-28

β values, multiple regression coefficients of conscientiousness and communicative

competence predicting leadership tenure

Variable Leadership tenure β

Conscientiousness -.13

Communicative competence .08

Conscientiousness x communicative competence .02

Regression model 3 F(3, 97) = .69

R .14

R2 .02

Adj. R2 -.01

A multiple regression model was tested to investigate whether the association between

Conscientiousness and leadership tenure is affected by the level of CC. After centering

Conscientiousness and CC and computing the Conscientiousness-by-CC term (Aiken &

West, 1991), the two predictors and the interaction were entered into a simultaneous

regression model. This combination did not contribute to any of the variance in

leadership tenure scores.

134

Findings indicated no evidence of significant predictors of leadership tenure in a

leadership role, including the interaction between Conscientiousness and CC,

suggesting that the effect of Conscientiousness on leadership does not depend on one’s

level of CC. As this interaction was non-significant, simple slopes for the association

between Conscientiousness and leadership tenure were left unexamined for different

levels of CC. Thus, evidence is conferred to suggest that H-11c is also incorrect.

135

Chapter 5: Discussion

The key aims were to explore:

a) demographic differences in work-related personality traits and communicative

competence (CC) among New Zealanders;

b) patterns of relationships among work-related personality traits and CC in

employees in general;

c) patterns of difference between leaders and non-leaders in terms of personality

traits and CC.

Occupational personality constructs examined in this study included: Emotional

Stability, Extraversion, Openness, Altruism, Conscientiousness, and Professionalism.

CC constructs examined were confined to factors of Ferris' "political skill": Apparent

Sincerity, Interpersonal Influence, Networking Ability, and Social Astuteness.

Demographic information was also collected (on-line survey).

This chapter situates the results of the present project vis-à-vis the aims and hypotheses

detailed in Chapters 1/2.

Interpreting numerical findings from the project, Section 5.1.1 examines patterns of

demographic statistics of the respondent group. Section 5.1.2 revisits outcomes of

hypothesis testing. The findings from hypotheses are scrutinised in terms of

convergence with, or divergence from, results known from technical literature.

Conjectures are presented regarding the reasons why these local findings may have

occurred.

136

Section 5.2 adopts a critical vantage point on the present research, opening a broader

perspective. Section 5.2.1 explores limitations caused by lack of sampling, and

implications for generalising findings. Section 5.2.2 examines constraints associated

with psychometric tools. Section 5.2.3 re-assesses operationalisation. Finally, Section

5.2.4 outlines avenues of extended research in the future.

5.1 Interpreting the findings

5.1.1 Relationships among demographic variables

Before testing hypotheses, relationships among demographic indicators were examined.

The term 'demographic' is used in an extended sense, including education, tenure,

gender, and leadership status.

A finding revealed in the present study was a significant difference between males and

females in terms of educational level, with female respondents having a higher level of

education than males. Research suggests that, reversing the past trend, more women

today have invested in upgrading their careers by undertaking higher education. The

proportion of women in university is now equal to or greater than that of men

(Davidson & Burke, 2011). The proportion of women entering higher education

continues to rise in most countries. Figures in both the US and New Zealand remain

stable, with women still comprising a higher percentage of university students than

men.

A significant difference between males in females in terms of leadership status was

evidenced. Female respondents emerge as more likely to be in a leadership position than

137

male respondents. This is in contrast to what is commonly assumed (males

predominantly occupying leadership positions). It has been proposed (Javidan,

Dorfman, de Luque & House, 2006; Yukl, 2002) that there is a social expectation for

men to become leaders in task-oriented work, as opposed to women.

Gender Role Theory argues there is a difference in socially expected roles for men and

women. Men are expected to demonstrate task-oriented and managing behaviours

whereas women are expected to show collective and social qualities (Eagly, 1987;

Eagly & Wood, 1982). Males are encouraged to become task leaders and women to

become social organisers (Kent & Moss, 1994), with individuals who emerge with a

greater task contribution in the group, posited as more likely to emerge as a leader in a

task-focused, leaderless group (Sapp, Harrod & Zhao, 1996). These assertions suggest

men are more likely to emerge as leaders and be viewed as effective in this role.

Nevertheless, female leaders are more common in organisations in culturally

“individualist” countries compared to “collectivist” countries (Wright, Baxter, and

Birkelund, 1995). In “collectivist” cultures, both men and women have a similar

possibility of being a leader. In “individualist” cultures, such as that found in North

America or New Zealand, the gender role expectation about leadership appears to be

similar for both males and females (Javidan et al., 2006). Moreover, gender

egalitarianism in the workplace is emphasised more strongly in individualistic than

"collectivist" cultures (Chang, 1999). In such a setting, both genders are expected to be

financially independent, career-focused, and driven to obtain recognition from their

colleagues (Fiorentine, 1988). This is in contrast to a "collectivist" culture, where there

138

is a social expectation that a man should be a leader rather than a woman. Therefore

men are more likely to emerge as the leaders of work teams.

Significant demographic findings regarding leadership emerged that, while fairly

obvious, require comment. Firstly, it was discovered that respondents who are in

leadership positions are likely to have a greater tenure at their current organisation.

Holding a more senior, leadership position has been linked to having more work

experience. As Gordon & Johnson (1982) and Mills (1985) report, seniority has a

positive relationship to promotion and leadership. Work experience is essential in

acquiring and developing one’s knowledge or skills necessary for effective performance

and in turn, promotion into a leadership role. Secondly, the project revealed that

respondents who hold a Bachelor's degree or higher are likely to have fewer years of

work experience. This is unsurprising, given that tertiary study of this calibre requires at

least 3 years' commitment, entailing less years of work experience, compared to others

who stopped studying after finishing high school.

5.1.2 Outcomes of hypothesis testing

Hypothesis 1: Gender, age, and ethnicity have no systematic relationship with

occupation-relevant personality traits.

The hypothesis was not fully supported. The study found a significant difference

between genders for the trait Openness, with male participants being higher than female

participants.

139

Today, little is known about the demographically based differences in work-relevant

personality dispositions in the New Zealand working population. Overseas studies also

mostly relied on student samples. McCrae & Terracciano (2005) compared the FFM

personality scores of undergraduate students from 51 cultures. They report that New

Zealand undergraduates were among the most extraverted. In general, the personality

pattern of New Zealand undergraduates was similar to Australian, North American,

English and Irish counterparts. Studying personality differences in the New Zealand

general population (Guenole & Chernyshenko, 2005; Packman, Brown, Englert,

Sisarich & Bauer, 2005; Roberts, Caspi & Moffitt, 2001; Wilson & Sibley, 2011),

findings remain fragmented. Minimal data are available against which to compare the

current pattern of findings.

Local findings are also comparable to a study reliant on self-report responses to the

NEO-PI-R across 36 cultures (Costa et al., 2001; McCrae, 2002). It was revealed that

men scored higher on Openness to ideas, whereas women scored higher in other traits,

like Neuroticism, Agreeableness, and Openness to feelings (Costa et al., 2001; McCrae,

2002).

In another cross-cultural project, high school students from 50 cultures were asked to

identify an adult or a university-aged man or woman whom they knew well, then rate

that person’s personality traits on NEO-PI-R (McCrae & Terracciano, 2005). Men were

rated by observers as being higher than women in Openness to ideas. Women were

rated as being higher in other traits like Anxiety, Feelings, Tender-Mindedness (McCrae

& Terracciano, 2005). This suggests that gender differences in at least some FFM traits

are somewhat robust. Gender differences in personality traits do appear wider and more

140

robust than such differences in other domains such as cognitive ability (Else-Quest,

Hyde, Goldsmith & Van Hulle, 2006; Hyde, 2005).

The present study also found that older participants scored higher on the trait

Extraversion. This result conflicts with recent studies that have suggested older

individuals are less extraverted than younger individuals, with sizes of such differences

varying across studies. For instance, some reported noteworthy cross-age differences in

Extraversion (Donnellan & Lucas, 2008; Lucas & Donnellan, 2009; Terracciano,

Abdel-Khalek, Adam, Adamovovoa, Ahn, Ahn, & Mescheriakiv, 2005), whereas others

noted slight differences (Allemand, Zimprich, & Hendriks, 2008; Srivastava, John,

Gosling, & Potter, 2003). Soto, John, Gosling & Potter (2011) reported that

Extraversion showed one of the smallest age differences through adulthood. Other

studies have found either lower levels of Extraversion at older ages (McCrae, 1999;

McCrae, Costa, Ostendorf, Angleitner, Hřebíčková, Avia & Smith, 2000), or "flat" age

trends (Roberts, Walton, & Viechtbauer, 2006; Srivastava et al., 2003).

Considering these points, the available empirical work detects only modest age

differences in domain-level Extraversion during early adulthood and middle age. Costa

and McCrae (1988) have argued, agreeing with classic personality theorists, that most

personality changes occur before the age of 30, and that personality remains fairly

stable afterwards (Srivastava, et al., 2003). In contrast to this statement, Scollon and

Diener (2006) have reported similar-sized changes before and after age 30 in both

Extraversion and Neuroticism.

141

Hypothesis 2: Educational status is unrelated to occupation-relevant personality

traits.

The present study produced results that suggest this hypothesis is true in this local

environment.

There is a wide-ranging quantitative literature on indices of socio-educational status

(including levels and qualifications in formal schooling). The current study used a

simple self-report item of educational status rather than a refined composite index. It is

reasonable to assume that certain personality dispositions enable holders to achieve

better in formal education, or at least make it easier to invest effort into succeeding with

studies, e.g. Edwards identified Perseverance, Empathy, Dependability, and

Consistency/ Inconsistency as personality traits that predicted educational attainment in

high school (Edwards, 1977). DeFruyt and Mervielde (1996) reported a study based on

FFM of personality. Conscientiousness emerged as a significant predictor of school

grades and longer-term academic career.

Such associations are unconfirmed by the New Zealand data collected here. However,

comparing findings such as those of Edwards or DeFruyt to those in the thesis requires

the assumption that personality of the respondents remained stable from early years of

schooling to the time of data collection (as employees), and a more general assumption

about the directionality of the potential effect. The literature has less trace of studies

asking whether education, including formal schooling at earlier stages of life

measurable as educational status, shapes the personality dispositions that were assessed

in the present study.

142

Hypothesis 3: Work experience and tenure on current job are unrelated to

occupation-relevant personality traits.

It was found that work experience in general was significantly related to higher levels of

Extraversion in the participant group. This finding was not expected. Consistent

empirical findings in worldwide literature have not yet been located.

Indirectly paralleling the finding is Barrick & Mount’s (1991) research of managers and

sales staff, where Extraversion was a valid predictor for both occupations. In both jobs,

interaction with others is a significant portion of the role, therefore possessing traits

such as sociable, gregarious, talkative, and assertive leads to effective performance in

such jobs. It is unclear however if these traits are enhanced by experience in these roles,

or if originally more extraverted individuals are drawn to these roles. Further, job

experience and job performance are conceptually distinct.

Hypothesis 4: Gender, age, and ethnicity have no effect on aspects of CC in a

workplace setting.

The present study yielded results that corroborate this hypothesis, keeping in mind that

Ferris' "political skill" was the only segment of CC empirically covered. It seems that

dimensions of such skill are not sensitive to gender or age differences, and that various

ethnic groups are non-contrasted.

Research has hardly begun to target the CC of leaders in the New Zealand professional

environment. There is a paucity of data against which to compare the pattern of findings

gained using Ferris’ instrument.

143

It has been argued that cultural beliefs and value orientations can shape constructs that

are related to "political skill" such as emotional intelligence (Sharma, Deller, Biswal, &

Mandal, 2009). As apparent, Ferris’ conceptualisation of "political skill" is grounded in

Western culture. Not only did American scholars develop the concept, but also much of

the "political skill" research has been conducted in the United States. It reflects values

such as performance orientation and achievement drive. This is in contrast to some

Eastern cultures where more value is placed on relational or interdependent processes,

and social interaction with others (Baranik, Meade, Lakey, Lance, Hu, Hua, &

Michalos, 2008). This brings into question the functionality, or even existence, of

"political skill" in Ferris’ sense in cultures that do not share Western values.

The idea is relevant in New Zealand with constitutive Māori presence as well as many

employees of Asian descent. In the present study, 4.9% of the respondent group

identified as 'NZ European/Pakeha and Asian/Indian', and 11.8% of the respondent

group identified as 'New Zealand European/Pakeha and Pacific Island/Māori' – cultural

affiliations linked to a "collectivist" orientation. On this basis, one could expect

ethnically based differences in skill components, which were not found in the project.

Further research is required to examine Ferris’ model of "political skill” and its

applicability in a non-Western, or Western-Eastern mixed, cultures.

Lvina, Johns, Treadway, Blickle, Liu, Liu, & Ferris (2012) examined the salience of PSI

dimensions in cultural groups. German respondents scored as least "politically skilled"

on the four dimensions. Respondents from China and Russia scored higher than those

from Germany but lower than Americans. Latent means for the Turkey sample showed

respondents evaluating their Networking Ability higher than Americans, and their

144

Interpersonal Influence to be equivalent to respondents from Russia. American

respondents scored higher overall on the 4 dimensions.

Lvina et al (2012) posit that from a culture-specific view, the higher scores discovered

might be due to the higher individualism (characterised by ‘self-sufficiency’, ‘personal

fate’, ‘I orientation’; Riordan and Vandenberg, 1994) of Americans. The model

governing the design of the PSI itself represents a rather individualistic take on this

construct, stressing personal achievements. The construct of a “political skill” differs in

its interpretation and importance across cultures, such as New Zealand. Methodological

issues (Lvina et al, 2012) include that findings are affected by a self-report method, and

a tendency for Americans to overemphasise their advantages during self-presentation.

Hypothesis 5: Higher educational status co-occurs with higher levels of CC in a

workplace setting.

Hypothesis 6: More work experience and longer tenure on current job co-occur

with higher levels of CC in a workplace setting.

The present study yielded results confirming these assumptions, under the constraint

that "political skill" was the only segment of CC investigated.

Hypothesis 7: Leaders differ systematically from non-leaders regarding their

occupation-relevant personality traits.

7a. Leaders will show higher levels of Emotional Stability than non-leaders.

145

Results suggest the hypothesis is true. Trait theories of leadership often presuppose that

Emotional Stability is a focal trait, but it usually failed to predict leadership in empirical

studies (Hiller & Hambrick, 2005; Judge & Bono, 2000). Nonetheless, the present

study’s finding is consistent with extant findings demonstrating that the trait of

Emotional Stability can be an important predictor of leader emergence (Emotional

Stability: ρ =.24) and leader effectiveness (Emotional Stability: ρ =.22; Judge, et al.,

2002). Specifically, leaders who are more emotionally stable are more likely to be

transformational leaders.

Emotionally stable leaders are confident, resilient. They tend to view the world through

a positive lens (cf. Hypothesis 10e, below), permitting them to form a compelling vision

of the future, and to offer behavioural "models" to followers to act and substantiate the

vision.

Emotionally stable persons who are neither prone to insecurity nor overly anxious or

distracted from work are better performers in leadership roles. The breadth of task-

related behaviours that Emotional Stability reflects explains why this trait was

considered a “universal predictor” of performance (Barrick et al., 2001) pertinent to

overall organisational effectiveness. Teams composed of more emotionally stable

members are able to deal with conflict more effectively. They remain focused on the

task (Barrick, Stewart, Neubert & Mount, 1998). Higher mean levels of Emotional

Stability in teams have also been found to permit higher team performance at work.

Emotional Stability is a robust predictor of success in executive-level jobs. Because the

job of leaders includes both enhancing organisational financial performance and

146

developing a committed workforce, higher Emotional Stability among leaders help them

to achieve both of these goals. Effects on organisational performance and collective

organisational commitment have been shown. Therefore, leader Emotional Stability is

indirectly related to l effectiveness through its effect on success of leadership (Colbert,

Barrick, Bradley, 2014). Findings such as these regarding the centrality of Emotional

Stability for leadership performance suggest that a leader's Stability might be more

relevant for achieving goals in such a context than historically accepted (Cavazotte,

Moreno, Hickmann, 2012).

7b. Leaders will show higher levels of Extraversion than non-leaders.

The present study yielded results to suggest this hypothesis is true. Overseas findings on

leaders show that Extraversion is the single best predictor of leadership among FFM

traits (Judge, et al., 2002). Accordingly, leaders who exercise more social influence and

have greater energy are expected to be more influential, which should lead to higher

levels of both organisational performance and organisational commitment.

In a meta-analysis (Bono & Judge, 2004), it was revealed that the highest relationship

between occupational personality traits and leadership at the individual level was with

Extraversion. Leaders who are sociable and highly engaging with their followers are

more likely to communicate a compelling vision and motivate others to work toward

that vision. However, whilst Extraversion may help a leader to be perceived as

appealing and charismatic by others in short-lived encounters, it may not be enough to

inspire, motivate and care for skilled followers, especially given that work relations

evolve over time – even more so when complex organisational goals are involved.

147

Because leaders are responsible for communicating a strategic direction for the

organisation, and influencing their followers to coordinate their efforts in support of that

direction, the communication and influence skills in teams with high levels of leader

Extraversion may be linked to higher levels of effectiveness. Findings suggest that

being predisposed to engaging in influencing others, being sociable, and being

ambitious – in other words, being Extraverted – should increase a individual’s success

as a leader.

Leaders who are higher on Extraversion are more outgoing, sociable, and talkative; in

other words, they prefer to work with others in a team rather than work alone. Higher

levels of Extraversion have also been linked to attraction to the team (Kristof-Brown,

Barrick & Stevens, 2005), to backing up behaviours when others need it (Porter,

Hollenbeck, Ilgen, Ellis, West, & Moon, 2003), and to the desire to engage with

members of the team (Barrick et al., 1998). In line with this, meta-analyses by Bell

(2007) and Mount, Barrick, & Stewart (1998) found that higher levels of leader

Extraversion were associated with higher team performance.

7c. Leaders will show higher levels of Openness to Experience than non-leaders.

The results of this study showed that the hypothesis was false. This finding appears to

diverge from what several leadership theories assume. Openness is linked to creativity

and divergent thinking (McCrae & Costa, 1997; Feist, 1998), posited as necessary for

novel problem solving within organisations; an important attribute of leaders and

assumed to be positively correlated with leadership (Bass & Stogdill, 1990; Yukl,

1998). Judge & Bono (2000) discovered Openness was a significant correlate of

transformational leadership.

148

Conceptually, the Openness domain of FFM has been variously interpreted as a form of

intellect (Goldberg 1981; Hogan 1983; Digman & Inouye 1986), even intelligence

(Borgatta 1964), in addition to Openness proper (Costa & McCrae 1985). This has led

to claims that Openness was the least understood personality trait. In the context of this

project, it is important to note that studies have revealed Openness as a weak predictor

of performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991), despite leadership theories advocating its

importance. Conflicting views on the concept of Openness relativise any empirical

finding to which to compare local findings. Additionally, the current finding is non-

decisive, given the small gap between means of the leader and non-leader group.

Constraints on involving participants may have produced a local, non-representative

hypothesis test (the idea will be discussed further in 5.2.2).

7d. Leaders will show higher levels of Altruism than non-leaders.

Results showed this hypothesis was false.

Altruism has prominent value connotations. It comprises the 'more human aspects of

humanity' (Digman, 1990). Characteristics of Altruism include nurturance, caring, and

emotional support. The primary dimension of Altruism has been debated however, with

Guilford, Zimmerman, & Guilford (1949) positing Friendliness, and Fiske (1949)

positing Conformity (to social norms). In the context of the present research, it is also

important to note that studies have revealed Altruism to be a weak predictor of job

performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991), despite leadership theories advocating its

importance.

149

This local finding contradicts theories of leadership, such as transformational

leadership. Judge and Bono (2000) found that the factor of Agreeableness (overlap with

Altruism) was a strong and consistent predictor of transformational leadership. Ployhart,

Lim & Chan (2001) also found Agreeableness to be positively related to

transformational leadership. Altruism as a trait linked to transformational leadership is

certainly intuitive; given that Altruism enables a leader to engage with others and allow

others to engage with them (for further discussion, cf. Hypotheses 9b, 10b).

Numerous research groups link Altruism to leadership, but the connection has remained

ambiguous (Bass & Stogdill, 1990). Studies indicate a vague preference for an altruistic

leader, seeing this disposition as necessary as leaders maintain social relations,

remaining sensitive to the needs of others (Jensen-Campbell & Graziano, 2001).

However, Judge et al (2002) reported Altruism was the least relevant among FFM traits

to leadership. Conflicting ideas on the precise nature of Altruism in personality thus

relativise overseas findings and make comparisons difficult. The current finding is

further questioned given the small gap between means of the leader and non-leader

group (local, non-representative hypothesis test).

7e. Leaders will show higher levels of Conscientiousness than non-leaders.

Our findings disconfirm this hypothesis in the local environment. The result is viewed

as inconsistent with research has identified Conscientiousness as the strongest predictor

of overall job performance (Behling, 1998; Dunn, Mount, Barrick & Ones, 1995;

Hogan, Rybicki, & Borman, 1998).

150

Higher Conscientiousness is associated with characteristics like dependability and

thoroughness, in contrast to carelessness and negligence. Conscientiousness describes

socially prescribed impulse control that facilitates task- and goal-directed behaviour,

such as thinking before acting, delaying gratification, following norms and rules, and

planning, organising and prioritising tasks (John & Srivastava, 1999, p. 121). This has

led personality researchers to portray Conscientiousness 'will to achieve' (Digman &

Takemoto-Chock, 1981). It is surprising that this trait has not emerged as a significant

leadership differentiator in the present study.

7f. Leaders will show higher levels of Professionalism than non-leaders.

The findings corroborate the hypothesis. Exploring alignment with this result to

psychology of leadership literature turned out to be problematical, given that

Professionalism is a less recognised occupational personality trait than standard FFM

traits. For the purposes of discussion, Professionalism was viewed as overlapping with

'work values' (Meglino, Ravlin & Adkins, 1989) with underlying facets of ambition,

being results-oriented, critical, strategic, and autonomous.

Work-relevant personal value orientations (often termed 'work values'; Super, 1970,

1973; Super & Sverko, 1995) are characteristics that explain individual differences in

behaviour in the workplace context. Work values can be considered as lasting

tendencies to prefer job characteristics or outcomes, and thus directing/ explaining

vocational behaviour (Berings, De Fruyt & Bouwen, 2004). Professionalism is in line

with the “work values as preferences” paradigm (Macnab & Fitzsimmons, 1987; Pryor,

1982). Appendix A25 includes discussion of five value orientations pertinent to

Professionalism as a personality trait in leaders, with links to Hypothesis 7f.

151

Hypothesis 8: Leaders differ systematically from non-leaders regarding factors of

CC in a workplace setting.

Using PSI scores, the study permitted testing these sub-hypotheses only regarding the

sub-area of "political skill", rather than the breadth of CC factors.

8a. Leaders will show higher levels of Apparent Sincerity than non-leaders.

Results have showed this hypothesis is false. This local result diverges from what

follows from Ferris’ interpretation in the “political skill” model. Apparent Sincerity

encompasses integrity, authenticity, and sincerity. As individuals work to achieve

positive outcomes for themselves and the organisation, leaders endeavour to appear

sincere and genuine in their intentions. Apparent Sincerity is an avenue for leaders who

need to develop a committed followership as it allows leaders to disguise ulterior

motives.

Several publications in the current literature contradict the local finding. Kotter (1982)

found that effective managers use a variety of influence tactics, and they do so with

greater skill. Wrightsman (1964) noted that the effectiveness of leaders depended on

followers trusting that the leader is acting in the followers’ best interests. Jones (1990)

reported that influence attempts were successful only if "targets" perceived them as not

grounded in ulterior motives. It is likely that Apparent Sincerity increases the level of

trust colleagues have in their leader, seeing him/her as more genuine (Ferris et al.,

2005). The current hypothesis test may be less decisive given the small gap between

means of the leader and non-leader group (local, non-representative hypothesis test; cf.

Section 5.2.2).

152

8b. Leaders will show higher levels of Interpersonal Influence than non-leaders.

Findings failed to corroborate the assumption. Given that proactive individuals like

leaders utilise interpersonal influence when they seek to act in ways to enhance social

capital behaviours, this result is counter-intuitive. Individuals with high levels of

interpersonal influence are able to accomplish their goals and like to exercise influence

to prompt specific responses (Ferris et al., 2005).

8c. Leaders will show higher levels of Networking Ability than non-leaders.

Local results suggest the hypothesis is true. Networking is a social process. "Political

skill”, as postulated by Ferris, involves the ability to interpret -- and act on -- social cues

(Ferris, Hochwarter & Douglas, 2002; Ferris, et al., 2005). Networking, while a critical

skill for leaders, received limited attention in the New Zealand leadership literature yet.

The local findings re-confirm a range of overseas results.

Potential leaders become more effective by working with and through others, using

techniques such as networking (Brass, 2001; Luthans, Welsh, & Taylor, 1988). Forging

friendships, building coalitions and useful alliances, creating new relationships, vest

such individuals with a great deal of contacts, information, and social support. These

can then be shared with followers (Ferris, et al., 2007).

Persons with higher Networking Ability thrive in social situations and increase the

quality of interpersonal relationships (Perrewé, Ferris, Frink, & Anthony, 2000). This

finding is aligned to ground-breaking research contrasting success and effectiveness,

identifying precursors of each. It has been shown that the primary predictor of

153

leadership success is Networking Ability, described as 'a purposeful focus on how one

is perceived through his or her relationships' (Luthans, et al, 1988). The authors defined

success as the rate and frequency at which a leader gets promoted, and effectiveness in

terms of quality and quantity of performance, subordinate satisfaction, and subordinate

organisational commitment (Luthans, et al, 1988). The strongest indicator of leadership

success was Networking Ability.

Individuals high on what Ferris described as “ political skill” have the ability to develop

vast networks. By working with and through others, leaders become more effective, by

coalition building and creating social capital (Brass, 2001; House, 1988; Luthans,

Hodgetts & Rosenkrantz, 1988). Social capital – with resources available through social

or interpersonal ties – is then used to one’s benefit within an organisational setting

(Coleman, 1988). Individuals with good social skills can build up extensive “stores” of

social capital through their proficiency at "using" diverse networks of people (Baron &

Markman, 2000).

A study of successful managers by Luthans, et al (1988) found that networking was a

main activity on which managers spent time. It included interacting with outsiders and

socialising, or the use of communication skill to “get ahead”.

House (1995) argued that networked, well-positioned leaders are able to acquire more

resources for their units. Seibert, Kraimer, and Liden (2001) examined whether

coalitions and alliances had a positive impact of resource acquisition, revealing that

networks were positively related to resources. Having such resources may lead to more

promotions and benefits that individuals perceive as a reward (Ferris, et al, 2005).

154

The accumulation of alliances allows individuals to leverage their social capital to

facilitate change efforts, for increased leadership effectiveness. Additionally, social

capital increases reputational "resources" which are believed to favourably influence co-

worker reactions (Hall, Blass, Ferris & Massengale, 2004). Making a positive

impression on others is one of the primary competencies of effective leadership (Zenger

& Folkman, 2002).

From a social network perspective, the network to which an individual belongs can be a

factor in an individual’s reputation as a “good performer” (Kilduff & Krackhardt,

1994). Others’ perceptions of an individual’s human capital, social capital, and past

behaviour serve to form a collective expectation of future behaviour (Ferris, Blass,

Douglas, Kolodinsky, & Treadway, 2003). This reputation then influences the

expectations, choices, and actions of the individuals within a given social network.

Through their reputation, leaders inspire commitment and personal obligation from

those around them.

8d. Leaders will show higher levels of Social Astuteness than non-leaders.

The results disconfirmed the assumption. Social Astuteness as a construct first surfaces

in Ferris and colleagues’ proposal of the componentiality of what he calls 'political skill'

(2001). In his model, social skills, particularly Social Astuteness, are at the core of

interpersonal skills relevant to seizing and maintaining leadership. A working definition

of Astuteness appears in Ferris' later work:

155

'Individuals possessing political skill are astute observers of others. They understand

social interactions well and accurately interpret their behavior and the behavior of

others. They are keenly attuned to diverse social settings and have high self- awareness'

(Ferris, et al., 2007; p. 292)

Ferris alludes to Pfeffer's hint to approach this attribute as being sensitive to others,

possessing an ability to identify with others, often in the context of seeking to obtain

benefits for oneself. Socially astute individuals are viewed as ingenious in dealing with

others (Pfeffer, 1992). Ferris explains: 'people high in political skill not only know

precisely what to do in different social situations at work, but exactly how to do it in a

sincere, engaging manner that disguises any ulterior, self-serving motives'

(Ferris, et al., 2002).

Ferris, Kolodinsky, Hochwarter, and Frink (2001) also position social perceptiveness

and/or astuteness as core ingredients of so-called "political skill", enabling the agent to

adjust her/his behaviour changing situational demands in an organisation, and do this in

a manner that inspires trust in others. Behavioural flexibility is a key facet of being

astute.

In view of these conceptual features of Astuteness, the original hypothesis is intuitive;

the local finding counter-intuitive. One would expect that leaders, at least leaders

successful on the longer term, manifest higher levels of Astuteness than non-leaders do.

It is possible that the leadership sub-group in this study managed to compensate for less

Astuteness by using other elements of CC. It is also possible that a psychometric

artefact (tied to nature of the tool PSI) contributed to the finding.

156

Hypothesis 9: There will be a systematic pattern of relationship between/among

occupational personality traits and aspects of CC in a workplace setting.

9a. Extraversion will be correlated with all 4 aspects of CC.

Local results suggest the hypothesis is correct. The finding is consistent with Ferris, et

al. (2007), who found positive relationships between PSI components and the

Extraversion score from NEO-FFI (McCrae & Costa, 1989). Both scales rely on items

describing positive, outgoing interpersonal orientation. Individuals high on Extraversion

can be described as sociable, gregarious, assertive, and energetic (Costa & McCrae,

1992b), and as someone generally in a good mood (Goldberg, 1992). Those with

“political skill” have the astuteness to influence co-workers in ways that appear to

others as pleasant, sincere, and trustworthy.

The concept of Extraversion reflects an affability/ sociability theme. It is an antecedent

to dimensions of social communication in an organisation. Ferris’ definition of

“political skill” adds to this action-oriented dispositional theme. Affability reflects

outgoing, interpersonally pleasant orientation, and is pertinent to constructs like

Extraversion. Indeed, significant positive correlations between Extraversion and Ferris’

“political skill” composite have been reported (r=.58; Liu, et al., 2007). Extraversion

related most strongly with the interpersonal influence and Networking Ability aspects.

The relationships of Extraversion and "political skill” can also be explained through

Hogan and Shelton’s (1998) “socioanalytic view” of reputation and job performance.

The proposal suggests that people are motivated to 'get along' and 'get ahead'. In order

157

to get along, people need to cooperate with others in a friendly and positive way (Hogan

& Holland, 2003). To get ahead, individuals are competitive and try to be recognised

(Hogan & Holland, 2003).

The desire and ability of individuals to engage in these endeavours vary from person to

person. Socioanalytic theory states that the motives to get ahead and get along are

closely linked with occupation-relevant personality traits (Hogan, 1996). The motive to

get ahead is "expressed" in Extraversion (Hogan & Holland, 2003). It could also be

expressed through Ferris’ “political skill”, characterised as 'the ability to effectively

understand others at work, and to use such knowledge to influence others to act in ways

that enhance one’s personal and/or organizational objectives' (Ahearn, et al., 2004).

Empirical findings support the interpretation of Extraversion explaining individuals’

desire to get ahead (Hogan & Holland, 2003), in accordance with the socioanalytic

argument.

The interaction of “political skill” and Extraversion has been demonstrated when

predicting sales performance. Mount, Barrick, & Stewart (1998) state that the

interactive combination of Extraversion and “political skill” yields greater sales

performance by providing the complementary motivation and skill. However, too much

Extraversion accompanying low CC (“political skill”) can be detrimental to sales

performance. Salespersons low in CC will not be as socially astute, and thus less able to

read, assess, and adjust their behaviour in situations. They may behave too assertively,

viewed as domineering, which is likely to provoke rejection by customers (Blickle,

2003). Additionally, salespersons with low “political skill” may seek too much

sensation, interfering with their capacity for emotion regulation and suppression (e.g.,

158

the inability of suppressing the expression of getting bored by certain customers, thus

conveying a contextually inappropriate emotion).

9b. Altruism will be correlated with all 4 aspects of CC.

Local results suggest this hypothesis is true. As mentioned previously, the affability

disposition signals interpersonally pleasant orientation, and is linked to personality

constructs like Altruism. This dispositional theme is expected to relate most strongly to

the Interpersonal Influence, Networking Ability, and Apparent Sincerity in Ferris’

“political skill”.

Hogan and Shelton’s (1998) socioanalytic view (cf. Hypothesis 9a) distinguishes

motives to get along versus get ahead. Higher Altruism motivates to get along with

others (Hogan & Holland, 2003). People with high ratings on this personality trait or

disposition appear sensitive to others and willing to cooperate with others in a friendly

and positive way (Hogan & Holland, 2003). This drive to serve the needs of others (ie.

Altruism) has been proposed as the primary factor in leadership behaviour (Avolio &

Locke, 2002; Choi & Mai-Dalton, 1998; Drach-Zahavy, 2004; Peterson & Seligman,

2003; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman & Fetter, 1990).

Empirical data show leaders tending to act more altruistically toward others because

they benefit from having a good reputation (Barclay, 2004; cf. Hypothesis 8c). Barclay

(2004) reports that Altruism has a direct impact on leadership effectiveness. Serving

others, putting their needs first and foregoing self-interest were all perceived by raters to

lead to greater effectiveness, re-confirming previous research about 'other-orientation'

boosting leadership effectiveness (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006; Bass & Steidelmeier,

159

1999; Greenleaf, 1970; Luthans & Avolio, 2003). Another finding of this study is the

significant relationship of Networking Ability with leader effectiveness.

9c. Conscientiousness will be correlated with Interpersonal Influence, Networking

Ability and Social Astuteness

Local results corroborate the hypothesis for all 3 variables of CC, albeit coefficients

were markedly lower than for Extraversion and Altruism. This is broadly consistent

with Blickle & Schnitzler (2010), where “political skill” scores were positively

associated with Conscientiousness. Ferris, et al. (2002) claim that “political skill” would

be related positively with constructs such as Conscientiousness. Ferris, et al. (2005)

report significant relationships between Conscientiousness and Social Astuteness (Study

1, r=.31, Study 2, r=.27). This was the strongest relationship Conscientiousness

demonstrated with any of the facets of Ferris’ “political skill”.

Among PSI scales, Social Astuteness should be most strongly related to

Conscientiousness, because it is reflective of the perceptiveness theme. The present

study confirms this link. Perceptiveness points to an ability of individuals to monitor

and regulate their own behaviour, and Social Astuteness seems to capture the very

essence of this self-monitoring construct. Eager “self-monitors” tend to control the

image(s) of the self they project in social interaction to a great extent (Snyder, 1987),

whereas low “self-monitors” are much less concerned about monitoring their

surroundings. Their behaviour tends to express how they genuinely feel. Similarly,

people high in Social Astuteness are keen and intuitive observers of their surroundings;

they have an accurate understanding of social situations and their own behaviour in

these settings. Ferris, et al. (2005) reported significant relationships between Self-

160

monitoring and Social Astuteness in two studies (r=.37, r=.32). In that analysis, these

were strongest correlations Self-monitoring demonstrated with any of the "political

skill" dimensions. The attention to detail and, as Pfeffer (1992) stated, the 'almost

clinical interest in the observation of behavior' (p. 173) suggests that Social Astuteness

relates well to Conscientiousness.

Because individuals at the higher end of Ferris’ “political skill” are self-confident

though not self-absorbed, they tend to maintain their focus outward toward others and

the environment rather than inward. This allows such individuals to maintain proper

balance and perspective, thus permitting them to keep a healthy gauge on their

accountability to both self and others. This accountability perspective for "politically

skilled" individuals suggests they tend to be conscientious.

Hypothesis 10: Relationships between/among occupational personality traits and

aspects of CC will show dissimilar patterns among leaders versus non-leaders.

The analyses were about holistic comparisons between the leader and non-leader sub-

group (in simple terms, between patterns in the leaders' matrix and the non-leaders'

matrix of relationships among personality dispositions and CC).

10a. Correlations between Extraversion and the 4 aspects of CC will be

consequently higher in leaders than non-leaders.

With 10a, results suggest that the hypothesis is partly true. Correlations between

Extraversion and Apparent Sincerity, Networking Ability and Social Astuteness were

higher for leaders than for non-leaders. The correlation between Extraversion and

Interpersonal Influence was higher for non-leaders.

161

Whether in the world of work or other environments, persons who are more extraverted

are supposed to communicate well with others (including persons not previously

encountered or befriended). They build networks easier, and show more Social

Astuteness (cf. additional treatment under Hypotheses 7b, 9a). These connections are

normally thought to apply to persons irrespective of leadership status. Testing

Hypothesis 7b already evidenced that in the current project, leaders were more

extraverted than non-leaders; and 8c confirmed that leaders had better Networking

Ability. Based on those analyses it is unsurprising that we find notable correlations

between Extraversion and these two aspects of CC in the "leader" sub-group, and that

these are greater than correlations for the same variables in "non-leader" sub-group.

A less intuitive result is the one regarding Extraversion and Interpersonal Influence.

While the result may be idiosyncratic, pertaining to local factors in a constrained

participant group (cf. 5.2.1 below), it is assumed that being more extraverted is a

necessary but not sufficient condition to reaching higher Interpersonal Influence in a

management setting. Blickle, et al. (2008) systematically examined correlations among

FFM traits and aspects of Ferris' "political skill"; however, only reported results for

Agreeableness and Conscientiousness (rather than Extraversion; cf. reference to Blickle

& Schnitzler findings, under Hypothesis 9c). Moreover, the study does not probe into

leadership issues, and most participants were not in leadership roles.

10b. Correlations between Altruism and the 4 aspects of CC will be consequently

higher in leaders than non-leaders.

162

10c. Correlations between Conscientiousness and the 4 aspects of CC will be

consequently higher in leaders than non-leaders.

10d. There will be significant correlations between Openness of Experience and the

4 aspects of CC in the leader group that are not detected in non-leader group.

Results from this project suggest confirmed each hypothesis. Correlations between

Altruism and the PSI dimensions were higher for leaders. Same with correlations

between Conscientiousness and PSI dimensions, or Openness and PSI dimensions.

Except for organisations of unusual nature, a successful leader does not need to be an

extreme altruist (cf. interpretation under Hypotheses 7d, 9b). Similarly, extreme high

levels of Conscientiousness or Openness are not a sine qua non. However, without

showing concern and caring it is difficult to maintain or increase influence over

followers on the long term. The same argument may be developed regarding a leader

being conscientious.

Moss & Barbuto (2010) demonstrated a direct link between Altruism and leader

effectiveness. In the same study Altruism plays the role of mediator in a model

predicting leadership effectiveness from dimensions of Ferris' "political skill". Altruism

was conceptually defined outside FFM, and assessed by a scale in an organisational

citizenship test rather than a personality inventory. One of Moss et al.'s hypotheses was

that 'Altruism will enhance the relationship between political skills and effectiveness' in

leaders (p. 163). They reported that higher Altruism boosted the relationship between

Social Astuteness and leader effectiveness. However, the study only included successful

and less successful leaders, without a control group of non-leaders. There is no room for

a direct comparison with the New Zealand results regarding leader/non-leader disparity.

163

Wei, Liu, Chen & Wu (2010) conducted another empirical study of Altruism -- as part

of organisational citizenship -- and leadership, in the context of Chinese guan-xi

(informal connection through shared experience, the exchange of favours and trust).

Organisational citizenship as a composite, showed significant (albeit numerically low)

correlation with Ferris' "political skill". Altruism contributed to this link. The authors

did not report specific figures for the 4 aspects of "political skill". In Germany, Blickle,

et al. (2008) reported low, non-significant correlation between Conscientiousness and

the composite of Ferris' "political skill" on a mostly non-leader group. Inferring from

the restricted New Zealand set of participants, it appears that persons who hold

leadership roles simultaneously show higher levels of these FFM traits and the four

aspects of Ferris' "political skill". Given this co-occurrence it makes sense that

hypothesis testing results in higher correlations between personality and "political skill".

The non-leaders are relatively lower on either some of the personality or the "political

skill" variables resulting in lower correlations overall (although, as testing Hypotheses

7d, 8a, 8b signalled, it was not necessarily the case that non-leaders were lower on the

particular variables to a significant extent).

10e. There will be significant correlations between Emotional Stability and the 4

aspects of CC in the leader group that are not detected in non-leader group.

Findings demonstrate the assumption is merely partly true. Correlations between

Emotional Stability and Interpersonal Influence, Networking Ability and Social

Astuteness were higher for leaders, but the correlation between Emotional Stability and

Apparent Sincerity was higher for non-leaders.

164

In the current results, correlations between Emotional Stability, on one hand, and

Interpersonal Influence, Networking Ability and Social Astuteness, on the other, proved

higher for leaders than non-leaders. These correlations appear not only statistically

significant among leaders but, in case of 3 out of 4 dimensions of PSI, strong. The

coefficients for the same 3 relationships are markedly lower for non-leaders.

As discussed (Section 2.1.2.5) high Emotional Stability is characterised by calm,

patient, relaxed demeanour, and even-tempered, less emotional reactions in

interpersonal settings; while low stability (neuroticism end of scale) associated with

temperamental swings, worrying, and feelings of insecurity. A common core of neurotic

behaviour is the emphasis on experiencing negative affect (see also interpretation under

Hypothesis 7a). It makes sense to interpret the findings as corroboration that calm,

balanced leaders are able to exert and maintain better influence on colleagues and

develop networks easier than neurotic leaders. It is assumed here that FFM traits of

personality solidify earlier in the life span, and remain relatively more stable over time,

than Ferris' skill dimensions.

Emotional Stability is shown by large-scale meta-analyses to impact on job performance

across a range of roles (positive relationship inferred by Salgado, 1997; cf. Judge &

Bono, 2001). Leadership roles are no exception (e.g. Bass & Stogdill, 1990). Perrewé,

et al. (2005) demonstrated that elements of Ferris' "political skill" might alleviate stress

reactions and help with stress management in conflictuous work situations. Leaders

encounter such situations daily. So leaders in this group may have had their emotional

balance reinforced by being able to mitigate stressful situations using successful

communication practices (elements like Interpersonal Influence).

165

The correlation between Emotional Stability and Apparent Sincerity was higher for non-

leaders. However, this may be a marginal result; while r does not reach level of

significance in the leader sub-group, the numerical values of the two coefficients are

only.03 apart.

Phipps & Prieto (2011) posit that emotionally stable leaders are confident in their

abilities and therefore lack the nervousness that prevents individuals from building and

managing relationships through effective negotiation, compromise, and conflict

resolution, as well as leading through engagement. Thus, they link this quality to Ferris’

“political skill”, also deemed as necessary for relationship building, negotiating, and

deal making, and hypothesise that “political skill” strengthens the relationship between

Emotional Stability and leadership. This is supported to a certain extent by findings

from McCrae & Costa (1989) where the PSI was moderately negatively associated with

the anxiety trait from the neuroticism scale of the NEO-FFI, measuring the inverse of

emotional stability. The results of the present study diverge slightly, due to the

Apparent Sincerity correlation with leader Emotional Stability.

10f. There will be significant correlations between Professionalism and the 4

aspects of CC in the leader group that are not detected in non-leader group.

The present study produced results indicating this hypothesis is true. Correlations

between Professionalism and the four political skill dimensions were higher for leaders.

As mentioned (interpretation under Hypothesis 7f; Appendix A25), exploring the

construct of Professionalism in the available leadership literature is problematical, given

166

that Professionalism is a less recognised construct. Professionalism as operationalised in

BAQ relates to drivers such as ambition, results-orientation, being critical, strategic, and

autonomous. With this view, it makes practical sense that leaders require these qualities

as they strive to influence, persuade, and control others within the organisational

context. Testing of Hypothesis 7f corroborated that in the current project, leaders were

higher in Professionalism than non-leaders; and 8c verified that leaders had better

Networking Ability. It is then unsurprising to find notable correlations between

Professionalism and the aspects of CC in the "leader" sub-group, and that these are

greater than correlations for the same variables in "non-leader" sub-group.

Blickle, Frohlich, Ehlert, Pirner, Dietl, Hanes, & Ferris (2011) assessed the effect of

“political skill” on the interaction of work values and positive work outcomes. Their

data provided support for this investigation, revealing significant positive interactions

between work values and “political skill” when studied as determinants of supervisors’

ratings of promotability. Findings on a constrained New Zealand set of participants

show that individuals who hold leadership roles simultaneously display higher levels of

Professionalism and the four aspects of Ferris' "political skill". Given this co-occurrence

it makes sense that hypothesis testing results in higher correlations between personality

and "political skill" in the leader sub-group. Beyond that study, there is no room for a

direct comparison with the New Zealand results regarding leader disparity across the

Professionalism and “political skill” link specifically.

Hypothesis 11: Relationships between level of leadership experience and tenure on

current job, on one hand, and occupation-relevant personality traits, on the other,

will be moderated by aspects of CC.

167

The results from testing these hypotheses mostly failed to confirm expectations. The

multiple regression analyses carried out in the current study did not demonstrate the

hypothesised statistically significant interaction effects between Extraversion, Altruism,

and Conscientiousness and CC, respectively.

11a. The relationship between Extraversion and leadership experience (also tenure

as leader) will be higher among persons with higher CC.

Extraversion emerged as a significant predictor of leadership tenure (cf. earlier findings

for Hypotheses 3, 7b), but levels of CC do not seem to play into the nature of this

relationship. When testing Hypothesis 7b, leaders emerged with higher levels of

Extraversion. Overseas findings on leadership show Extraversion as a strong predictor

of leadership, among FFM traits (Judge, et al., 2002). Leaders who exercise more social

influence and have greater energy (extraverted and thus assertive, gregarious) are

expected to be more influential, which should lead to higher levels of organisational

performance.

There are few if any studies published on a possible statistical interaction effect of CC

and Extraversion regarding impact on leader performance. Though not looking at

leaders specifically, Blickle, Wendel & Ferris (2010) investigated car salesmen, testing

the interaction effect with Extraversion X “political skill” (as independent variables)

and job performance (dependent). The authors posited that combined Extraversion and

“political skill” should generate greater sales performance; the hypothesis was

supported. Extraversion without “political skill” can be detrimental to sales performance

when salespersons lack Social Astuteness to "read" and assess their behaviour as

appropriate for the situation. If perceived as assertive or domineering, they earn

168

rejection by customers. This proposition can be tentatively extrapolated to leader-

follower relationship. With Extraversion deemed necessary for leadership, CC is also

required to ensure that a leader has the ability to self-regulate, such as suppress the

expression of emotions in sensitive situations and respond in a way to influence.

More broadly, the findings from hypothesis testing were against expectations. It was

reasonable to assume that CC would strengthen the relationship between Extraversion

and leadership experience, as with both Extraversion and CC a leader will be more

successful at initiating and maintaining relationships with followers, due to their

gregariousness and Networking Ability. They will also be more likely to use these

relationships that they have built to influence and motivate their followers in order to

ensure organisational and personal gains.

11b. The relationship between Altruism and leadership experience (also tenure as

leader) will be higher among persons with higher CC.

Results indicate this hypothesis is false.

Individuals high on Altruism are kind, fair, and eager to help others. Altruism may

partly stem from anger regulation and similar control abilities, depicting effective

leaders as other-centred, caring, and well self-regulated. Testing Hypothesis 10b

revealed correlations between Altruism and CC to be higher amongst leaders. However,

the hypothesis was not corroborated.

A number of studies have found significant relationships between Altruism and various

measures of employee performance, such as research conducted by Borman, Penner,

169

Allen & Motowidlo (2001). Moreover, Mount et al. (1998) found that Altruism was the

best predictor out of the FFM traits of job performance in occupations that require team-

based interaction. It can be seen that Altruism is concerned with the motive for

maintaining positive relations with others and getting along in groups, thus, it can be

held that CC interacts with Altruism in the prediction of job performance. Blickle et al.

(2008) found support for the latter proposition. A similar result was expected in this

project, that leaders with CC would have the social capacity to effectively portray their

selflessness in a sincere way.

Though the result of this hypothesis test was not an anticipated finding, prior research

could explain the results. Graziano, Jensen-Campbell, and Hair (1996) found that

persons who were low on Altruism evaluated power assertion tactics as more effective

than those who were high on Altruism. This could suggest that for those who are low on

Altruism, possessing political skill is ineffective because of such persons’ inability to be

compliant, fair, or helpful when interacting with others, and because of their preference

for tactics involving the overt use of power.

Additionally, the notion of low CC coupled with high Altruism has been toted as

ineffective within the work context. As Mount et al (1998) argue, too much

unselfishness can be detrimental to leaders, particularly in service industries, as leaders

who are too compliant to the demands of others will find it difficult to not only meet the

goals of the organisation, but will have difficulty in gathering the necessary resources

for their role.

170

11c. The relationship between Conscientiousness and leadership experience (also

tenure as leader) will be higher among persons with higher CC.

The results of this study showed that this hypothesis was false. Considering that

Conscientiousness has been labelled as the most important trait-based motivation

variable in the field of industrial and organisational psychology (Schmidt & Hunter,

1992), it is surprising that this trait has not emerged with an interaction effect with CC

to represent leadership effectiveness.

Goldstein, Zedeck & Goldstein (2002) suggest, “some predictors referred to as

‘noncognitive’ may contain a cognitive component”. CC is one such noncognitive

predictor reflecting ability. Examining a Conscientiousness X CC interaction was

thought to be an appropriate way to test the interaction hypothesis as relevant to criteria

reflecting the interpersonal effectiveness of leadership. The notion that CC acts as a

moderator is consistent with recent theoretical arguments that social skill constructs

moderate the impact of the environment on work behaviour (Jordan, Ashkanasy &

Hartel, 2002).

Recent theoretical and empirical work hints specifically of a Conscientiousness X

Social Skill interaction. Goleman (1998) suggested that Conscientiousness without

social skill could lead to problems. In other words, when highly conscientious people

lack social skills, working with them may be particularly difficult. Conscientious

individuals without social skill can be seen as unreasonably demanding, inflexible, and

micromanaging. Thus, highly conscientious, yet socially unskilled workers likely

pursue matters well beyond the point desired by others. They might be seen as not just

171

fighting the wrong battles but rather as fighting almost every battle, perhaps in their

minds “for the good of the company” or “to do what is right”.

5.2 Limitations: A critical appraisal

It is important that limitations of the present study are noted so that the interpretation of

local results be viewed with caution and critically scrutinised. Directions for future

research are also suggested.

5.2.1 Sampling and generalisation

The goal of most empirical research in organisational psychology is to generalise from

local findings. Ideally, a Master's project using quantitative analysis should aim to draw

conclusions relevant to a larger environment, with broader, more diverse sets of

persons.

The current research produced local findings. These may have relevance well beyond

the environment in a single organisation, and possibly beyond New Zealand

organisations as a whole. However, the participant group is not, strictly speaking, a

sample. Without a sample, generalisation of findings is not possible (Lazerwitz, 1968;

Frankfort-Nachmias & Nachmias, 1996).

In today's I/O research – including numerous papers in refereed journals – the original

logic of sampling and generalisation is frequently sidelined or ignored. Sets of

participants are described as 'convenience samples' or 'ad hoc samples'; techniques like

snowball sampling are reported. These sets of respondents, strictly speaking, do not

172

constitute samples. In order to generalise, empirical work must be based on a genuine

sample – preferably a representative sample.

The term 'sample' is associated with the requirement of sampling from a population,

using a methodologically sound technique of sampling (preferably based on sampling

strategy; Hansen et al., 1953; Sampath, 2001; Singh, 2003). There needs to be a clear

distinction between population and sample. With the exception of demographic work

such as a macrocensus, all members of a population cannot be assessed. In order to

sample from a population, the population has to be tightly defined (e.g. 'female New

Zealanders aged 35 to 55, employed full-time in January 2015'). In the current project, it

was – for logistic reasons – impossible to start with a tight population definition.

Further, it was not viable to obtain a master list for population, nor derive a sample by a

systematic sampling procedure (Frankfort-Nachmias & Nachmias, 1996).

Our set of participants does not, in the strict sense, constitute a sample. A fortiori, a

probabilistic sampling procedure yielding a representative sample was not used; there is

no basis for claiming the participant group represents a pertinent population (e.g. all

employed New Zealanders; or, for the leadership sub-set, New Zealanders who hold

leadership roles).

Lack of sampling per se is fairly common in student research, and not necessarily

reprehensible. Unrepresentative 'convenience samples' are witnessed in many

psychology masterates and doctorates worldwide. It may be unfeasible, even self-

defeating, in the current climate to aim at proper sampling. Even under the unrealistic

assumption that one attempts a large-scale demographical or sociological study with

173

ample budget, a master list for sampling leaders would probably be impossible to

obtain. Beyond this, systematic sampling procedures, even if used, have major

procedural challenges for empirical researchers (Frankfort-Nachmias & Nachmias,

1996; Sampath, 2001; Singh, 2003). There are differences among a planned sample, a

designed (drawn) sample (i.e. a list of persons to be contacted as potential participants),

and an executed sample (persons supplying data).

All these considerations warn that generalising from results reported here would be

premature, non-defensible. Regarding psychological antecedents of leadership, the

diversity of leader-level jobs in New Zealand and the variance among hundreds of

organisational environments indicate that generalisation from the findings to all New

Zealand leaders is unwarranted. However, the results offer fruitful ideas for planning

statistically representative work in future.

5.2.2 A critical view on psychometric tools used

The standardised tests used in the project, BAQ and PSI, enjoy worldwide distribution,

with demonstrated psychometric properties. Both have gone through a best-practice test

development process, then repeatedly reviewed and improved. The validation and

reliability work on PSI are widely published (Ferris, et al., 2005; Semadar, et al., 2006).

Evidence regarding validity and reliability of BAQ has also been proffered (Bogaert, et

al, 2006).

These instruments, however, are imported into New Zealand. They are used with groups

of testees whose characteristics may not overlap with the testees featuring in original

test development projects. Validity, with all its aspects (content-, criterion-, and

174

construct-related) should be seen as a series of measurement development stages

supplying incremental evidence, rather than a single act of estimation. Validity "levels"

of a tool are not set in stone. Same applies to reliability. When a test is moved to a

different environment, macro (e.g. South Pacific/New Zealand) or micro (particular

sector of economy, or particular occupational group) it must be adapted.

Test adaptation is a multi-faceted, complex process involving, as a minimum,

production of new local norms (if the test is norm-referenced); translation of

instructions and items; item analysis; reliability estimation; re-validation; cultural

checks (Hambleton, 1996, 2001; Hambleton & Patsula, 1998). In Section 4.1, further

aspects of importation and adaptation of psychometric tests were outlined.

While it is unquestionable that one should examine the appropriateness of using both

BAQ and PSI in New Zealand firms, a complete adaptation and re-examination of these

tools is well beyond the logistics of a masterate. E.g. more precise item analyses, as well

as construct validation, require an N several times higher than N=102. Criterion-related

validation of either BAQ or PSI would necessitate a separate project equal in size to

what has been done, practically doubling the requirement for labour and time-line.

Instead, the current project undertook a few important, if incomplete, checks on how

soundly the tests function in New Zealand. The ideal of 'measurement equivalence' or

'invariance' depends, among others, on the way item-level responses contribute to scale-

or test-level scores, anchoring (sub-) constructs. A user should establish whether the

local data reproduce FFM structure in BAQ responses. Similarly, one must check

175

whether local responses on PSI reproduce the original structure (sub-constructs) of PSI.

Apart from these construct reviews, reliability was re-estimated for both tools.

It was expected that the FFM model would be replicated via BAQ data, given claims of

BAQ developers, and the universality of FFM structures across many cultures (Hough

& Ones, 2001). As a common procedure of construct validation, factor analysis was

used to investigate the dimensionality of the BAQ, over the item-item matrix. A 6-factor

model emerged, identifying a clear pattern. The 6-factor solution resembles the original

conceptual model underlying the BAQ. It replicates scale structure and most of the item

assignations. This outcome allows muted optimism that the theoretical foundation of the

BAQ is applicable to New Zealand, and scales and scale scores will not require radical

adaptation (Bogaert, et al., 2006). It confirms that FFM traits are probed by BAQ, and

permits psychometric links to FFM-based tests outside BAQ, as well as results

produced by them (Costa & McCrae, 1992a, Goldberg, 1990; Digman, 1990; Hough &

Schneider, 1996; McCrae & Costa, 1985; 1987; 1997; McCrae & John, 1992).

While the results offer modest support towards the usefulness of the BAQ in

occupational settings, there is further work required to validate the factor structure. The

N in the study was well under the minimum recommended for the given type of factor

analysis.

Acknowledging scientific support for the cross-cultural appropriateness of FFM-based

instruments (Costa & McCrae, 1992b), McCrae & Terracciano (2006) noted that there

was an absence of any New Zealand norms for any FFM-based personality test. These

norms do exist today (e.g. with leading consultancy agencies) but remain unpublished.

176

In New Zealand work only partly relevant to leadership, Packman, Brown, Englert,

Sisarich and Bauer (2005) suggested differences among ethnic groups. Other research

using New Zealand respondents showed great similarity with United States findings

based on FFM personality tests (Guenole & Chernyshenko, 2005). Mean levels of

personality traits from 51 cultures were compared, with some similarity between North

America and New Zealand (McCrae & Terracciano, 2005). The two nations have

comparable mean levels of the FFM domain-level scores, and some facet-level scores.

The claimed 4-factor structure of the PSI was also re-examined over New Zealand data.

Factor analysis investigated the dimensionality of the PSI measure. A 3-, rather than 4-

factor model emerged, identifying a clear pattern of responses. The factor solution

slightly diverges from the original model, as Interpersonal Influence did not emerge as a

self-sufficient component. Most of the international validation studies of PSI provide

robust evidence in support of the 4-way structure, anchoring the model of "political

skill". Here, a New Zealand replication of factorial outcome from Ferris and colleagues

(2005) was not yet reached.

It is premature to conclude that the 4 components of "political skill" fail to replicate in

professional adults in New Zealand. Alternative procedures of multivariate analysis,

including the use of confirmatory FA, or different rotation techniques, on appropriately

sized representative samples will be needed before conclusion is drawn. The 3-factor

outcome serves as a reminder that scale scores should be used in a new environment

with caution.

177

5.2.3 Constraints imposed by conceptualisation and operationalisation

Chapter 2 makes the pluralism of leadership models in organisational psychology

palpable. Similarly, there are competing models of personality, as well as CC. An

empirical project such as this needs to opt for one conceptual model out of the many;

then choose one data collection tool out of several that are built on the model adopted.

These decisions entail caveats for interpreting any result, and highlight the fragility of

generalisation just as sampling deficiencies do.

The use of the PSI as a measure of CC could be seen as a limitation. As mentioned

(Chapter 2), there is a lack of validated measures of CC aside from the CCQ focusing

on narrower content. The use of the PSI in this study served to measure what was

deemed to be a central sub-area of leadership communication. Results in this study

indicate relationships that certainly do not apply to a richer model of CC, due to the use

of PSI. Further investigation is needed to establish how measures in PSI relate to the

total communicative competence of a leader.

Adopting FFM may also be criticised as a limitation within the present study. It has

been argued that when facet-level scores are excluded, FFM scales will render

description of personality coarse, with too few traits to adequately map human

personality (Warr, Bartram & Martin, 2005). Some facet-level variables of FFM model

are better predictors of behaviour than global dimensions (Ashton, Jackson, Paunonen,

Helmes & Rothstein, 1995), with suggestions to focus on facet scores particularly when

the criterion variable for validation is narrowly defined (Murphy & Dzieweczynski,

2005).

178

Before personality and CC models, a deeper limitation affecting results is the concept of

leadership adopted. The comparisons between the leader and non-leader sub-set guiding

our statistical analysis obscure the fact that leaders assessed include diverse leadership

styles. The limited research on leadership success loosely operationalised leadership

success as promotion (Jansen & Vinkenburg, 2006) and advancement (Collins, 2002;

Vitek, 2003). Implicitly, such an operationalisation affects the study when respondents

were classified as leaders versus non-leaders. Leadership emergence versus

effectiveness are two distinct constructs, separately examined by some authors (Lord,

De Vader & Alliger, 1986). Research on leadership emergence has looked at factors that

are associated with whether an individual is perceived to have leadership qualities and is

likely to emerge as a leader. In contrast, leadership effectiveness refers to a leaders’

ability to influence their followers. The two constructs also imply different planes of

analysis, and the present study neglected this distinction. Future research would benefit

from investigating leader personality and CC in terms of both leadership emergence and

leadership effectiveness. FFM traits were found to explain 28% of variance for ratings

of leader emergence, and 15% for leadership effectiveness (Bono & Judge, 2004).

5.2.4 A panorama of extended research

The findings of the current project inspire more extended research work; the limitations

entail obvious modifications in design and execution of future investigations. The lack

of sampling and small number of cases, imposed by reliance on volunteer respondents,

should be overcome in a more appropriately conducted project. Even if systematic

sampling from a master list, using a probabilistic regime, is not feasible, the likelihood

that a respondent group is representative of the population of interest has to be increased

(Leong & Austin, 1996). Small group size implied a low degree of freedom in analyses,

179

and could have impacted on the ability to identify significant relationships. Some

multivariate analyses cannot be responsibly conducted in such a small N.

Any representation of particular sub-groups via demographic variables was not

planfully pursued. A diversity among the participants was a matter of using a process of

convenience. For example, the respondent group of the present study has too few Māori

and Pasifika persons, and comprises employees mostly belonging to the private sector.

Future studies in the current area of I/O would benefit from attempting to replicate

analyses with a random stratified sample where diversity of the New Zealand working

population, regarding pre-defined variables and values, is mapped.

In order to improve on adequacy and generalisability, the "instamatic", cross-sectional

nature of the assessment has to be reviewed. Data collection on personality and CC was

conducted within a short timeframe. In reality, traits and skill components change over

time and enter complex relationships that themselves fluctuate over time. Whilst core

personality is assumed to be relatively stable after early adulthood, narrow occupational

personality traits do shift. Even more, elements of CC, and any possible interaction

effects between these constructs, are subject to temporal change in the occupational

environment. Our data may, at best, provide a snapshot of the variables included within

this study at a particular point in time.

In an extended project, several waves of measurement of all variables would enable

statistical tests of multivariate causal models (e.g. path analysis). As an ideal design,

future research into leadership personality and CC would benefit from genuine

180

longitudinal studies to determine cause and effect. In the multi-dimensional space,

mediation and moderation effects are also an important area for future research.

Given the use of self-report tools for data collection, for both personality and "political

skill", responses then results of the study may have been influenced by simulation/

dissimulation, by socially desirable answers. Ferris et al. (2005) provide validation

evidence reporting a four-factor structure of the PSI; but admits that the exclusive use of

self-report data prompts questions concerning how robust those findings are. Self-

ratings are prone to several biases, despite the self often being in the best position to

report on one’s own behaviour and perceptions (Spector & O’Connell, 1994). This

could be problematic if the PSI is to be used for leadership selection and development

purposes in the future. Alternative research may either scrutinise response distortion for

BAQ and PSI in a separate methodological study, or conjoin these tools with tests

which have safeguards against distortion (e.g. 'administration scales' in personality

inventories).

The possibility that any associations discovered between occupation personality traits

and CC traits are a function of common-method variance (Furnham, Petrides, Tsaousis,

Pappas & Garrod, 2005) is also raised. Future studies in the area of leadership

personality and CC would benefit from utilising multi-method approach. Apart from

standardised tests, such efforts could include other- (rather than self-) ratings,

behavioural observations, and (regarding leaders) follower or peer interviews.

181

182

APPENDICES

List of Documents in Appendices

Appendix A01

List of references

Appendix A02 List of tables

Appendix A03 List of figures

Appendix A04 [Chapter 2]

Background on linguistic competence argument

Appendix A05 [Chapter 2]

Personality tests:

Tests adapted for occupational use

Appendix A06 [Chapter 2]

Personality tests:

Tests for occupational use

Appendix A07 [Chapter 3]

Table 3-01

Demographic statistics of respondent group

Appendix A08 [Chapter 3]

Table 3-04

Summaries of facet-level constructs in BAQ, with high-end and

low-end labels

Appendix A09 [Chapter 3]

Table 3-05

Examples of items from item groups assigned to each facet of the

183

BAQ

Appendix A10

[Chapter 3]

Table 3-06

Reliability information for each factor and facet of the normative

section of the BAQ

Appendix A11 [Chapter 3]

Table 3-07

Reliability of BAQ: Split-half correlations

Appendix A12 [Chapter 3]

Table 3-08

Construct validity of BAQ: Convergent validation findings

Appendix A13 [Chapter 3]

Table 3-09

Factor analysis of the BAQ facets (Varimax rotation)

Appendix A14 [Chapter 3]

Table 3-11

Items and scale assignations in PSI

Appendix A15 [Chapter 3]

Information sheet for participants

Appendix A16 [Chapter 3]

Letter to interested participants

Appendix A17 [Chapter 4]

Table 4-01

Factor analysis of BAQ: Component loadings

184

Appendix A18

[Chapter 4]

Table 4-02

Rotated factor structure of BAQ

Appendix A19 [Chapter 4]

Table 4-03

Factor analysis of PSI: Component loadings

Appendix A20 [Chapter 4]

Table 4-04

Rotated factor structure of PSI

Appendix A21 [Chapter 4]

Table 4-18

Correlation matrix for relationships among BAQ score variables

Appendix A22 [Chapter 4]

Table 4-19

Correlation matrix for relationships among PSI score variables

Appendix A23 [Chapter 4]

Table 4-22

Descriptive statistics for BAQ variables across leader and non-

leader groups

Appendix A24 [Chapter 4]

Table 4-23

Descriptive statistics for PSI variables across leader and non-leader

groups

Appendix A25 [Chapter 5]

Work-relevant value orientations linked to Professionalism

185

Appendix A01

List of references

Aamodt, M. G. (2004). Special issue on using MMPI-2 scale configurations in law

enforcement selection: Introduction and meta-analysis. Applied HRM Research, 9(2), 41-52.

Aamodt, M. G., & Weiss, P. (2010). Predicting law enforcement officer performance

with personality inventories. In P. Weiss (Ed.), Personality assessment in police psychology: A 21st century perspective (229-259). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Abdi, H. (2007). Bonferroni and Sedik corrections for multiple comparisons In N. J.

Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Measurement and Statistics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ackerman, P. L., & Rolfhus, E. L. (1999). The locus of adult intelligence: knowledge,

abilities, and nonability traits. Psychology and Aging, 14(2), 314. Ahearn, K. K., Ferris, G. R., Hochwarter, W. A., Douglas, C., & Ammeter, A. P.

(2004). Leader political skill and team performance. Journal of Management, 30(3), 309-327.

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression. Beverly Hills: Sage Publishing. Allemand, M., Zimprich, D., & Hendriks, A. A. (2008). Age differences in five

personality domains across the life span. Developmental Psychology, 44(3), 758. Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Henry

Holt and Company. Alvesson, M., & Sveningsson, S. (2003). Good visions, bad micro-management and

ugly ambiguity: contradictions of (non-) leadership in a knowledge-intensive organization. Organization Studies, 24(6), 961-988.

Ammeter, A. P., Douglas, C., Gardner, W. L., Hochwarter, W. A., & Ferris, G. R.

(2002). Toward a political theory of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(6), 751-796.

Anastasi, A. (1958). Differential psychology: Individual and group differences in

behavior, (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan. Anastasi, A. (1958). Heredity, environment, and the question "how?". Psychological

Review, 65(4), 197.

186

Antonakis, J. (2003). Why “emotional intelligence” does not predict leadership effectiveness: A comment on Prati, Douglas, Ferris, Ammeter, and Buckley (2003). The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11(4), 355-361.

Antonakis, J. (2004). On why “emotional intelligence” will not predict leadership

effectiveness beyond IQ or the “big five”: An extension and rejoinder. Organizational Analysis, 12(2), 171-182.

Antonakis, J., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Dasborough, M. T. (2009). Does leadership need

emotional intelligence? The Leadership Quarterly, 20(2), 247-261. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.01.006

Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: An

examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(3), 261-295.

Antonakis, J., Day, D. V., & Schyns, B. (2012). Leadership and individual differences:

At the cusp of a renaissance. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(4), 643-650. Argyle, M. (1969). Social interaction (Vol. 103). London: Methuen. Armandi, B., Oppedisano, J., & Sherman, H. (2003). Leadership theory and practice: A

“case” in point. Management Decision, 41(10), 1076-1088. Aronoff, J., & Wilson, J. P. (1985). Personality in the social process. Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum. Arvey, R. D., Rotundo, M., Johnson, W., Zhang, Z., & McGue, M. (2006). The

determinants of leadership role occupancy: Genetic and personality factors. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(1), 1-20.

Arvey, R. D., Zhang, Z., Avolio, B. J., & Krueger, R. F. (2007). Developmental and

genetic determinants of leadership role occupancy among women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 693.

Ashton, M. C., Jackson, D. N., Paunonen, S. V., Helmes, E., & Rothstein, M. G. (1995).

The criterion validity of broad factor scales versus specific facet scales. Journal of Research in Personality, 29(4), 432-442.

Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2001). A theoretical basis for the major dimensions of

personality. European Journal of Personality, 15(5), 327-353. Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the

HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(2), 150-166. doi: 10.1177/1088868306294907

Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2008). The prediction of Honesty–Humility-related criteria

by the HEXACO and Five-Factor Models of personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(5), 1216-1228.

187

Avolio, B. J., & Locke, E. E. (2002). Contrasting different philosophies of leader motivation: Altruism versus egoism. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(2), 169- 191. Avolio, B. J., Reichard, R. J., Hannah, S. T., Walumbwa, F. O., & Chan, A. (2009). A

meta-analytic review of leadership impact research: Experimental and quasi-experimental studies. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(5), 764-784. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.06.006

Awamleh, R., & Gardner, W. L. (1999). Perceptions of leader charisma and

effectiveness: The effects of vision content, delivery, and organizational performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(3), 345-373.

Bach, K., & Harnish, R. (1979). Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge,

MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.) Press. Bachman, J. G. (1968). Faculty satisfaction and the dean's influence: an organizational

study of twelve liberal arts colleges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 52, 55. Bachman, J. G., Bowers, D. G., & Marcus, P. M. (1968). Bases of supervisory power: A

comparative study in five organizational settings. In S. Tannenbaum (Ed.), Control in Organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Bachman, J. G., Smith, C. G., & Slesinger, J. A. (1966). Control, performance, and

satisfaction: an analysis of structural and individual effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4(2), 127.

Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1982). The Construct Validation of Some

Components of Communicative Proficiency. Tesol Quarterly, 16(4), 449-465. Balboni, P. E. (2006). Intercultural communicative competence: A model. Perugia

(Italy): Edizioni Guerra. Baldoni, J. (2004). Powerful leadership communication. Leader to Leader, 2004(32),

20-24. Bales, R. F. (1958). Task roles and social roles in problem-solving groups. Readings in

Social Psychology, 3, 437-447. Bambacas, M., & Patrickson, M. (2009). Assessment of communication skills in

manager selection: Some evidence from Australia. Journal of Management Development, 28(2), 109-120. doi: 10.1108/02621710910932070

Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of personality. Handbook of personality, 2,

154-196. Baranik, L. E., Meade, A. W., Lakey, C. E., Lance, C. E., Hu, C., Hua, W., & Michalos,

A. (2008). Examining the differential item functioning of the Rosenberg SelfEsteem Scale across eight countries. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(7), 1867-1904.

188

Barbuto, J. E., Jr., & Wheeler, D. W. (2006). Scale development and construct clarification of servant leadership. Group & Organization Management, 31(3), 300-326. Barclay, P. (2004). Trustworthiness and competitive altruism can also solve the “tragedy of the commons.” Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 209-220. Barge, J. K. (1994). Leadership: Communication skills for organizations and groups.

New York: St. Martin's Press. Barge, J. K. (2004). Reflexivity and managerial practice. Communication Monographs,

71(1), 70-96. Barge, J. K., & Fairhurst, G. T. (2008). Living leadership: A systemic constructionist

approach. Leadership, 4(3), 227-251. doi: 10.1177/1742715008092360 Barnard, C. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University. Baron, R. A., & Markman, G. D. (2000). Beyond social capital: How social skills can

enhance entrepreneurs' success. The Academy of Management Executive, 14(1), 106-116.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job

performance: a meta analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1-26. Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at

the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9(1 2), 9-30.

Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Strauss, J. P. (1993). Conscientiousness and

performance of sales representatives: Test of the mediating effects of goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(5), 715.

Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K. (1998). Relating

member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3), 377.

Barrow, J. C. (1977). The variables of leadership: A review and conceptual framework.

Academy of Management Review, 2(2), 231-251. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free

Press. Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational

leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 9-32.

189

Bass, B. M. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership. Theory, research and managerial applications, 4. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership and organizational

culture. Public Administration Quarterly, 112-121. Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2009). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research,

and managerial applications. New York: Free Press. Bass, B. M., & Steidelmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 181-218. Bass, B. M., & Stogdill, R. M. (1981). Stogdill's handbook of leadership: A survey of

theory and research. New York: Free Press. Bass, B. M., & Stogdill, R. M. (1990). Handbook of leadership: Theory, research &

managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press. Behling, O. (1998). Employee selection: will intelligence and conscientiousness do the

job? The Academy of Management Executive, 77-86. Bell, S. T. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance:

a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 595. Benne, K. D., & Sheats, P. (1948). Functional roles of group members. Journal of

Social Issues, 4(2), 41-49. Bennis, W. (2007). The challenges of leadership in the modern world: Introduction to

the special issue. American Psychologist, 62(1), 2. Benson, M. J., & Campbell, J. P. (2007). To be, or not to be, linear: An expanded

representation of personality and its relationship to leadership performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15(2), 232-249.

Berlew, D. E., & Heller, D. (1983). Style flexibility-tools for successful leaders. Legal

Economics, 9, 34. Berings, D., De Fruyt, F., & Bouwen, R. (2004). Work values and personality traits as

predictors of enterprising and social vocational interests. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(2), 349-364.

Blake, R., & Mouton, J. (1964). The Managerial Grid: The key to leadership

excellence. Houston, TX: Gulf. Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1966). Some effects of managerial grid seminar training

on union and management attitudes toward supervision. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 2(4), 387-400.

Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1968). Corporate excellence diagnosis. Austin, Texas: Scientific Methods, Inc.

190

Blau, H. (1964). The impossible theater: A manifesto. New York: Macmillan. Blau, P. M., & Scott, W. R. (1962). Formal organizations: A comparative approach.

San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Co. Blickle, G. (2003). Some outcomes of pressure, ingratiation, and rational persuasion used with peers in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 648–665. Blickle, G., Ferris, G. R., Munyon, T. P., Momm, T., Zettler, I., Schneider, P. B., &

Buckley, M. R. (2011). A multi-source, multi-study investigation of job performance prediction by political skill. Applied Psychology, 60(3), 449-474. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2011.00443.x

Blickle, G., Frohlich, J. K., Ehlert, S., Pirner, K., Dietl, E., Hanes, T. J., & Ferris, G. R. (2011). Socioanalytic theory and work behavior: Roles of work values and political skill in job performance and promotability assessment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 78(1), 136-148. Blickle, G., Meurs, J. A., Zettler, I., Solga, J., Noethen, D., Kramer, J., & Ferris, G. R.

(2008). Personality, political skill, and job performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72(3), 377-387. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2007.11.008

Blickle, G., Wendel, S., & Ferris, G. R. (2010). Political skill as moderator of personality–job performance relationships in socioanalytic theory: Test of the getting ahead motive in automobile sales. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76(2), 326-335. Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality

description. Psychological Bulletin, 117(2), 187. Block, L. (2003). The leadership-culture connection: an exploratory investigation.

Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(6), 318-334. Bogaert, J., Trbovic, N., & Van Keer, E. (2006). Business Attitudes Manual.

Gent: De Witte & Morel Global Resources. Bolton, B. (1992). Review of the California Psychological Inventory, Revised edition.

In J. J. Kramer & J. C. Conoley (Eds.), Eleventh mental measurements yearbook (pp. 558-562). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.

Bonferroni, C. E. (1935). Il calcolo delle assicurazioni su gruppi di teste. Roma (Italy):

Tipografia del Senato. Bonferroni, C. E. (1936). Teoria statistica delle classi e calcolo della probabilità:

Firenze (Italy): Libreria Internazionale Seeber. Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality and transformational and transactional

leadership: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 901.

191

Bordens, K. S., & Abbott, B. B. (2011). Research design and methods: A process

approach (Vol. 8). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill. Borgatta, E. F. (1964). The structure of personality characteristics. Behavioral Science,

9(1), 8-17. Borman, W. C., Penner, L. A., Allen, T. D., & Motowidlo, S. J. (2001). Personality predictors of citizenship performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9(1 & 2), 52-69. Bostrom, R. N. (1984). Competence in communication: A multidisciplinary approach:

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). The competent manager: A model for effective performance:

New York: John Wiley & Sons. Boyle, G. J., Matthews, G., & Saklofske, D. H. (2008). The SAGE handbook of

personality theory and assessment: Personality measurement and testing (Vol. 2). London: Sage.

Boyle, G. J., & Saklofske, D. H. (2004). Psychology of individual differences. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage. Boyle, G. J., Stankov, L., & Cattell, R. B. (1995). Measurement and statistical models

in the study of personality and intelligence. In D. H. Saklofske & M. Zeidner (Eds.), International handbook of personality and intelligence (pp. 417-446). New York: Plenum.

Brace, N., Kemp, R., & Snelgar, R. (2006). SPSS for psychologists. Hampshire, UK:

Palgrave Micmillan. Bradbury, H., & Lichtenstein, B. M. B. (2000). Relationality in organizational research:

Exploring the space between. Organization Science, 11(5), 551-564. Brass D. J. (2001). Social capital and organizational leadership. In Zaccaro, S. J. &

Klimoski, R. J. (Eds). The nature of organizational leadership: Understanding the performance imperatives confronting today's leaders (pp. 132-152). San Francisco: JosseyBass.

Bratt, P. C. (1992). Linguistic and communicative competence: Topics in ESL.

Clevedon (United Kingdom): Multilingual Matters. Brebner, J., & Stough, C. (1995). Theoretical and empirical relationships between

personality and intelligence. In D. Saklofske & M. Zeidner (Eds.), International handbook of personality and intelligence. Perspectives on individual differences (321-347). New York: Plenum Press.

Brighton, C. (2013). Socio-cultural values in the development of intercultural

communication competence. New York: Peter Lang.

192

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1951). Toward an integrated theory of personality. In R. R. Black

& G. V. Remsey (Eds.), Perception, an approach to personality. New York: Ronald Press.

Brouer, R. L., Duke, A., Treadway, D. C., & Ferris, G. R. (2009). The moderating effect

of political skill on the demographic dissimilarity — Leader–member exchange quality relationship. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(2), 61-69. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.01.015

Brouer, R. L., Ferris, G. R., Hochwarter, W. A., Laird, M. D., & Gilmore, D. C. (2006).

The strain-related reactions to perceptions of organizational politics as a workplace stressor: Political skill as a neutralizer. Handbook of Organizational Politics, 187, 206.

Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future

directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595-616. Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social

learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(2), 117-134.

Bryman, A., Collinson, D. L., Grint, K., Jackson, B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2011). The Sage

handbook of leadership. Los Angeles: Sage. Bums, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Burgoon, J. K., & Dunbar, N. E. (2000). An interactionist perspective on dominance

submission: Interpersonal dominance as a dynamic, situationally contingent social skill. Communications Monographs, 67(1), 96-121.

Burke, M. J., & Day, R. R. (1986). A cumulative study of the effectiveness of

managerial training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(2), 232. Byram, M. (2013). Intercultural competence. The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Byram, M. S., & Feng, A. (2005). Teaching and researching intercultural competence.

In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. I). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum (pp. 911-930).

Byrd, M. E., Costello, J. G., Schwager, K., Blanchette, J., Malloy, L., & Thomas, E. (2012). Political astuteness of baccalaureate nursing students following an active learning experience in health policy. Public Health Nursing, 29, 433-443 Byrne, D., & Kelley, K. (1981). An introduction to personality (3rd ed.). Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Cacioppe, R. (2000). Creating spirit at work: Re-visioning organization development

and leadership-Part II. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 21(2), 110-119.

193

Campbell, J. P., & Pritchard. R. D. (1976). Motivation theory in industrial and

organizational psychology. Handbook of Industrial & Organizational Psychology, 63-130.

Campbell, R., & Wales, R. (1970). The study of language acquisition. In J. Lyon (Ed.)

New horizons in linguistics (242-260). Harmondsworth: Penguin. Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language

pedagogy. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.). Language and communication. New York: Longman.

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1979). Communicative approaches to second language

teaching and testing (Vol. 1): Ministry of Education. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to

second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1981). A theoretical framework for communicative

competence. In A. Palmer, P. Groot, & G. Trosper (Eds.), The construct validation of tests of communicative competence (pp. 31-36). Washington, DC: TESOL.

Carpenter, M. A., Geletkanycz, M. A., & Sanders, W. G. (2004). Upper echelons

research revisited: Antecedents, elements, and consequences of top management team composition. Journal of Management, 30(6), 749-778.

Carpenter, P. A., & Just, M. A. (1989). The role of working memory in language

comprehension. In D. Klahr & K. Kotovsky (Eds.), Complex information processing: The impact of Herbert A. Simon (pp. 31-36). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Carpenter, P. A., Miyake, A., & Just, M. A. (1994). Working memory constraints in

comprehension: Evidence from individual differences, aphasia, and aging. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (1075-1122). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Carpenter, P. A., Miyake, A., & Just, M. A. (1995). Language comprehension: Sentence

and discourse processing. Annual Review of Psychology, 46(1), 91-120. Carroll, J. (1994). Relating complexity to practical performance in parsing with wide-

coverage unification grammars. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 287-294, Las Cruces, NM.

Carroll, J. B. (1968). Development of native language skills beyond the early years. ETS

Research Bulletin Series, 1968(1), i-98. Carroll, J. B. (1979). Psychometric approaches to the study of language abilities.

Individual Differences in Language Ability and Language Behavior, 13-31.

194

Carroll, J. B., & Freedle, R. O. (1972). Language comprehension and the acquisition of knowledge. Washington, DC: V. H. Winston.

Carson, G. L., & Parker, C. A. (1966). Leadership and profiles on the MMPI and CPI.

Journal of College Student Personnel, 7, 14-18. Cartwright, D., & Zander, A. (1968). Power and influence in groups: Introduction.

Group dynamics: Research and theory, 580. Caruso, D. R., Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (2002). Relation of an ability measure of

emotional intelligence to personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 79(2), 306-320.

Cattell, R., Cattell, A., Cattell, H., & Kelly, M. (1999). The 16PF select manual.

Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing. Cattell, R. B. (1943). The description of personality: basic traits resolved into clusters.

The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38(4), 476. Cattell, R. B. (1945). The description of personality: Principles and findings in a factor

analysis. The American Journal of Psychology, 69-90. Cattell, R. B. (1946). Description and measurement of personality. Yonkers, NY:

World. Cattell, R. B. (1987). Intelligence: Its structure, growth and action. Amsterdam: North-

Holland. Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W., & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1970). Handbook for the sixteen

personality factor questionnaire (16 PF): In clinical, educational, industrial, and research psychology, for use with all forms of the test. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.

Cattell, R. B., & Krug, S. E. (1986). The number of factors in the 16PF: A review of the

evidence with special emphasis on methodological problems. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 46(3), 509-522.

Cattell, R. B., & Stice, G. F. (1954). Four formulae for selecting leaders on the basis of

personality. Human Relations, 7, 493-507. Cavazotte, F., Moreno, V., & Hickmann, M. (2012). Effects of leader intelligence,

personality and emotional intelligence on transformational leadership and managerial performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(3), 443-455.

Chang, L. (1999). Gender role egalitarian attitudes in Beijing, Hong Kong, Florida, and

Michigan. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30(6), 722-741. Chatterjee, A., & Hambrick, D. C. (2007). It's all about me: Narcissistic chief executive

officers and their effects on company strategy and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(3), 351-386.

195

Cherniss, C. (2000). Emotional intelligence: What it is and why it matters. Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA.

Child, J. (1972). Organizational structure, environment and performance: The role of

strategic choice. Sociology, 6(1), 1-22. Choi, Y. & Mai-Dalton, R.R. (1998). On the leadership function of self-sacrifice. Leadership Quarterly, 9(4), 475-501. Chomsky, N. (1964). Current issues in linguistic theory. The Hague: Mouton. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts

Institute of Technology (M.I.T.) Press. Chomsky, N. (1975). Reflections on language. New York: Pantheon. Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and representations. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(1),

1-15. Cliff, N. (1983). Some cautions concerning the application of causal modeling methods.

Multivariate Behavioral Research, 18(1), 115-126. Clifton, J. (2012). A discursive approach to leadership: Doing assessments and

managing organizational meanings. Journal of Business Communication, 49(2), 148-168. doi: 10.1177/0021943612437762

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S., & Aiken, L. (2003). Applied multiple

regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Colbert, A. E., Barrick, M. R., & Bradley, B. H. (2014). Personality and leadership

composition in top management teams: Implications for organizational effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 67(2), 351-387.

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal

of Sociology, 95-120. Collins, D. J. (1967). Psychological selection of drill sergeants: An exploratory attempt

in a new program. Military Medicine, 132(9), 713-715. Collins, J. (2002). Good to great. New York: Harper-Collins. Collinson, D. (2005). Dialectics of leadership. Human Relations, 58(11), 1419-1442. Collinson, D. L., & Hearn, J. (1996). Breaking the silence: On men, masculinities and

managements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

196

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12(4), 637-647.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Conn, S. R., & Rieke, M. L. (1994). 16PF fifth edition technical manual. Champaign,

IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing. Connolly, J. J., & Viswesvaran, C. (2000). The role of affectivity in job satisfaction: A

meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 29(2), 265-281. Costa, Jr., P., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in

personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(2), 322.

Costa, Jr., P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO personality inventory: Manual,

form S and form R. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Costa, Jr., P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). From catalog to classification: Murray's needs

and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(2), 258.

Costa, Jr., P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Domains and facets: Hierarchical personality

assessment using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 64(1), 21-50.

Costa, Jr., P. T., Herbst, J. H., McCrae, R. R., Samuels, J., & Ozer, D. J. (2002). The

replicability and utility of three personality types. European Journal of Personality, 16(1), 73-87.

Costa, Jr., P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992a). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality

and Individual Differences, 13(6), 653-665. Costa, Jr., P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992b). NEO PI-R professional manual. Odessa, FL:

Psychological Assessment Resources. Costa, Jr., P. T., McCrae, R. R., & Dye, D. A. (1991). Facet scales for agreeableness

and conscientiousness: a revision of tshe NEO personality inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 12(9), 887-898.

Crossman, J. (2010). Conceptualising spiritual leadership in secular organizational

contexts and its relation to transformational, servant and environmental leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 31(7), 596-608.

Cullen, M. J., & Sackett, P. R. (2003). Personality and counterproductive workplace

behavior. In M. Barrick & A . M. Ryan (Eds.) Personality and work: Reconsidering the role of personality in organizations (150-182). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

197

Cunliffe, A. L. (2001). Managers as practical authors: Reconstructing our understanding

of management practice. Journal of Management Studies, 38(3), 351-371. Dakin, S., & Armstrong, J. S. (1989). Predicting job performance: A comparison of

expert opinion and research findings. International Journal of Forecasting, 5(2), 187-194.

Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory

and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19(4), 450-466. Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to

leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13(1), 46-78.

Davidson, M. J., & Burke, R. J. (2011). Women in management worldwide (Vol. 2).

London: Gower. Davis-Blake, A., & Pfeffer, J. (1989). Just a mirage: The search for dispositional effects

in organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 385-400. Day, D. V. (1988). Executive leadership and organizational performance: Suggestions

for a new theory and methodology. Journal of Management, 14(3), 453-464. doi: 10.1177/014920638801400308

Day, D. V. (2001). Leadership development: A review in context. The Leadership

Quarterly, 11(4), 581-613. Day, D. V., & O’Connor, P. M. (2003). Leadership development: Understanding the

process. The Future of Leadership Development, 11-28. De Fruyt, F., & Mervielde, I. (1996). Personality and interests as predictors of

educational streaming and achievement. European Journal of Personality, 10, 405-425.

De Hoogh, A. H., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2008). Ethical and despotic leadership,

relationships with leader's social responsibility, top management team effectiveness and subordinates' optimism: A multi-method study. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(3), 297-311.

De Hoogh, A. H. B., Den Hartog, D. N., & Koopman, P. L. (2005). Linking the Big

Five-Factors of personality to charismatic and transactional leadership; perceived dynamic work environment as a moderator. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(7), 839-865. doi: 10.1002/job.344

de Vries, R. E., Bakker-Pieper, A., & Oostenveld, W. (2010). Leadership =

communication? The relations of leaders' communication styles with leadership styles, knowledge sharing and leadership outcomes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(3), 367-380. doi: 10.1007/s10869-009-9140-2

198

DeLuca, J. R. (1999). Political savvy: Systematic approaches to leadership behind-the-

scenes. Berwyn, Pennsylvania: Evergreen Business Group Publications. Den Hartog, D. N., & Verburg, R. M. (1998). Charisma and rhetoric: Communicative

techniques of international business leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 8(4), 355-391.

DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N., & Humphrey, S. E. (2011). Trait and

behavioral theories of leadership: An integration and meta analytic test of their relative validity. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 7-52.

Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership:

A critique and further development. Academy of Management Review, 11, 618-634.

Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model.

Annual Review of Psychology, 41(1), 417-440. Digman, J. M., & Inouye, J. (1986). Further specification of the five robust factors of

personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(1), 116. Digman, J. M., & Shmelyov, A. G. (1996). The structure of temperament and

personality in Russian children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 341.

Digman, J. M., & Takemoto-Chock, N. K. (1981). Factors in the natural language of

personality: Re-analysis, comparison, and interpretation of six major studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 16(2), 149-170.

Dixon, R. A. (2003). Themes in the aging of intelligence: Robust decline with

intriguing possibilities. In R. J. Sternberg, J. Lautrey, & T. I. Lubart (Eds.). Models of intelligence: International perspectives (151-167). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Donnellan, M. B., & Lucas, R. E. (2008). Age differences in the Big Five across the life

span: Evidence from two national samples. Psychology and Aging, 23(3), 558. Douglas, C., & Ammeter, A. P. (2004). An examination of leader political skill and its

effect on ratings of leader effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(4), 537-550. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.05.006

Drach-Zahavy, A. (2004). Exploring team support: The role of team's design, values, and leader's support. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 8(4), 235-252. Drath, W. H. (2001). The deep blue sea: Rethinking the source of leadership. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

199

Duarte, N. T., Goodson, J. R., & Klich, N. R. (1994). Effects of dyadic quality and duration on performance appraisal. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 499-521.

Dunham, R. B. (1984). Organizational behavior: People and processes in management:

Homewood, Ill: Irwin. Dunn, O. J. (1961). Multiple Comparisons Among Means. Journal of the American

Statistical Association, 56, 52-64. Dunn, W. S., Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Ones, D. S. (1995). Relative importance

of personality and general mental ability in managers' judgments of applicant qualifications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(4), 500.

Dunnett, C. W. (1955). A multiple comparisons procedure for comparing several

treatments with a control. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 50, 1096-1121.

Eagly, A. H. (1987). Reporting sex differences. American Psychologist, 42, 756. Eagly, A. H. (2007). Female leadership advantage and disadvantage: Resolving the

contradictions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31(1), 1-12. Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis.

Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 233. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1982). Inferred sex differences in status as a determinant of

gender stereotypes about social influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(5), 915.

Eden, D. (1993). Leadership and expectations: Pygmalion effects and other self-

fulfilling prophecies in organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 3(4), 271-305. Eden, D., & Leviatan, U. (1975). Implicit leadership theory as a determinant of the

factor structure underlying supervisory behavior scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(6), 736.

Edwards, R. C. (1977). Personal traits and" success" in schooling and work.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 37, 125-138. Ellingson, J. E., Sackett, P. R., & Connelly, B. S. (2007). Personality assessment across

selection and development contexts: insights into response distortion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 386-395. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.386

Elliott, L. L. (1960). WAF performance on the California Psychological Inventory.

Lackland Air Force Base, Texas: Personnel Laboratory, Wright Air Development Division, Air Research and Development Command.

Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., Goldsmith, H. H., & Van Hulle, C. A. (2006). Gender

differences in temperament: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(1), 33.

200

Emrich, C. G., Brower, H. H., Feldman, J. M., & Garland, H. (2001). Images in words:

Presidential rhetoric, charisma, and greatness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(3), 527-557.

Ervin-Tripp, S. (1978). Some features of early child–adult dialogues. Language in

Society, 7(03), 357-373. Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W. (1987). Personality and individual differences: A

natural science approach. New York: Plenum Press. Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1969). Personality structure and measurement.

London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating

the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272.

Fairhurst, G. (2007). Discursive leadership: In conversation with leadership

psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Fairhurst, G. T. (2008). Discursive leadership: A communication alternative to

leadership psychology. Management Communication Quarterly, 21(4), 510-521. doi: 10.1177/0893318907313714

Fairhurst, G. T. (2009). Considering context in discursive leadership research. Human

Relations, 62(11), 1607-1633. Fairhurst, G. T., & Connaughton, S. L. (2014). Leadership: A communicative

perspective. Leadership, 10(1), 7-35. doi: 10.1177/1742715013509396 Fairhurst, G. T., & Sarr, R. A. (1996). The art of framing: Managing the language of

leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Fairhurst, G. T., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2012). Organizational discourse analysis (ODA):

Examining leadership as a relational process. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(6), 1043-1062.

Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity.

Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(4), 290-309. Feist, G. J., & Barron, F. X. (2003). Predicting creativity from early to late adulthood:

Intellect, potential, and personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(2), 62-88.

Ferris, G. R., Berkson, H., Kaplan, D., Gilmore, D., Buckley, M., Hochwarter, W., &

Witt, L. (1999). Development and initial validation of the political skill inventory. Paper presented at the Academy of Management, 59th annual national meeting, Chicago.

201

Ferris, G. R., Blass, F. R., Douglas, C., Kolodinsky, R. W., & Treadway, D. C. (2003). Personal reputation in organizations. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of the science (2nd ed.) (pp. 211–246). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ferris, G. R., Blickle, G., Schneider, P. B., Kramer, J., Zettler, I., Solga, J., Noethen, D., & Meurs, J. A. (2008). Political skill construct and criterion-related validation: A two-study investigation. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(7), 744-771. Ferris, G. R., Davidson, S. L., & Perrewe, P. L. (2005). Political skill at work: Impact

on work effectiveness. Mountain View, CA: Davies-Black Publishing. Ferris, G. R., Fedor, D. B., & King, T. R. (1994). A political conceptualization of

managerial behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 4(1), 1-34. Ferris, G. R., Frink, D. D., Galang, M. C., Zhou, J., Kacmar, K. M. & Howard, J. L.

(1996). Perceptions of organizational politics: Prediction, stress-related implications, and outcomes. Human Relations, 1996, 49, 233 266.

Ferris, G. R., Hochwarter, W. A., Douglas, C., Blass, F. R., Kolodinsky, R. W., & Treadway, D. C. (2002). Social influence processes in organizations and human resources systems. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 21, 65-128. Ferris, G. R. & Judge, T. A. (1991) Personnel/human resources management: A political influence perspective. Journal of Management, 17, 447-488. Ferris, G. R. & Kacmar, K. M. (1992). Perceptions of organizational politics. Journal of

Management, 18, 93 116. Ferris, G. R. & King, T. R. (1991). Politics in human resources decisions: A walk on

the dark side. Organizational Dynamics, 20(2), 59 71. Ferris, G. R., Kolodinsky, R. W., Hochwarter, W. A., & Frink, D. D. (2001). Conceptualization, measurement, and validation of the political skill construct. Academy of Management, 61st Annual National Meeting, Washington, DC. Ferris, G. R., Perrewé, P. L., & Douglas, C. (2002). Social effectiveness in

organizations: Construct validity and research directions. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(1), 49-63.

Ferris, G. R., Russ, G. S. & Fandt, P. M. (1989). Politics in organizations. In R.A.

Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in organizations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ferris, G. R., & Treadway, D. C. (2012). Politics in organizations: Theory and

research considerations. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.

202

Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Kolodinsky, R. W., Hochwarter, W. A., Kacmar, C. J., Douglas, C., & Frink, D. D. (2005). Development and validation of the political skill inventory. Journal of Management, 31(1), 126-152.

Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Perrewe, P. L., Brouer, R. L., Douglas, C., & Lux, S.

(2007). Political skill in organizations. Journal of Management, 33(3), 290-320. doi: 10.1177/0149206307300813

Ferris, G. L., Witt, L. A., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2001). Interaction of social skill and

general mental ability on job performance and salary. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1075-1082. doi: 10.1037//0021-9010.86.6.1075

Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leader effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill. Fiedler, F. E. (1971). Validation and extension of the contingency model of leadership

effectiveness: A review of empirical findings. Psychological Bulletin, 76(2), 128.

Fiedler, F. E., & Garcia, J. E. (1987). New approaches to effective leadership: Cognitive

resources and organizational performance. Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons.

Fillmore, C. J., Kempler, D., & Wang, W. S. (2014). Individual differences in language

ability and language behavior. New York: Academic Press. Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. C. (1996). Strategic leadership: Top executives and

their effects on organizations. St. Paul, MN: South-Western College Publishing. Finkelstein, S., Hambrick, D. C., & Cannella, A. (2009). Strategic leaderships: Theory

and research on executives, top management teams, and boards. Oxford UK: Oxford University Press.

Fiorentine, R. (1988). Sex differences in success expectancies and causal attributions: is

this why fewer women become physicians? Social Psychology Quarterly, 236-249.

Fiske, D. W. (1949). Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratings from

different sources. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44(3), 329. Flauto, F. J. (1999). Walking the talk: The relationship between leadership and

communication competence. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 6(1-2), 86-97.

Fleishman, E. A. (1953). Leadership climate, human relations training, and supervisory

behavior. Personnel Psychology, 6(2), 205-222. Foschi, M., Warriner, G. K., & Hart, S. D. (1985). Standards, expectations, and

interpersonal influence. Social Psychology Quarterly, 108-117.

203

Frankfort-Nachmias, C. F., & Nachmias, D. (1996). Research methods in the social sciences. London: Arnold.

Friedman, H. S., & Miller-Herringer, T. (1991). Nonverbal display of emotion in public

and in private: Self-monitoring, personality, and expressive cues. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(5), 766.

Friedman, M., & Rosenman, R. H. (1974). Type A behavior and your heart. Knopf,

New York: Fawcett Books. Fry, L. W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. The Leadership Quarterly,

14(6), 693-727. Funder, D.C. (1999). Personality judgment: A realistic approach to person perception.

San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Furnham, A. (1996). The big five versus the big four: The relationship between the

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and NEO-PI five factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 21(2), 303-307.

Furnham, A., Crump, J., & Whelan, J. (1997). Validating the NEO Personality

Inventory using assessor's ratings. Personality and Individual Differences, 22(5), 669-675.

Furnham, A., Petrides, K. V., Tsaousis, I., Pappas, K., & Garrod, D. (2005). A cross- cultural investigation into the relationships between personality traits and work values. The Journal of Psychology, 139(1), 5-32. Furnham, A., & Stringfield, P. (1993). Personality and occupational behavior: Myers-

Briggs type indicator correlates of managerial practices in two cultures. Human Relations, 46(7), 827-848.

Gardner, W. L., & Avolio, B. J. (1998). The charismatic relationship: A dramaturgical

perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23(1), 32-58. Gardner, W. L., & Martinko, M. J. (1996). Using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to

study managers: A literature review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 22(1), 45-83.

George, J. M. (2000). Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence.

Human Relations, 53(8), 1027-1055. doi: 10.1177/0018726700538001 Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-Analytic review of leader–member

exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 827.

Getzels, J. W., & Guba, E. G. (1957). Social behavior and the administrative process.

The School Review, 423-441.

204

Ghiselli, E. E. (1966). The validity of occupational aptitude tests (Vol. 8). New York: John Wiley.

Ghiselli, E. E., & Barthol, R. P. (1953). The validity of personality inventories in the

selection of employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 37(1), 18. Giallonardo, L. M., Wong, C. A., & Iwasiw, C. L. (2010). Authentic leadership of

preceptors: predictor of new graduate nurses' work engagement and job satisfaction. Journal of Nursing Management, 18(8), 993-1003.

Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Language and individual differences: The search for universals

in personality lexicons. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 2(1), 141-165.

Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative" description of personality": the big-five factor

structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216. Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 26-42. Goldstein, H. W., Zedeck, S., & Goldstein, I. L. (2002). g: Is this your final answer? Human Performance, 15, 123–142. Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. London:

Bloomsbury. Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books. Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2002). The new leaders. London: Little

Brown. Goodwin, C., & Duranti, A. (1992). Rethinking context: Language as an interactive

phenomenon. Cambridge (United Kingdom): Cambridge University Press. Gordon, M. E. and Johnson, W. A. (1982) Seniority: A review of its legal and scientific

standing. Personnel Psychology, 35, 255–280. Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). Why g matters: The complexity of everyday life. Intelligence,

24(1), 79-132. Gough, H. G. (1969). Manual for the CPI, California Psychological Inventory:

Supplementary bibliography. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Gough, H. G., & Weinert, A. B. (1975). CPI: California Psychological Inventory. Palo

Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Graeff, C. L. (1983). The situational leadership theory: A critical view. Academy of

Management Review, 8(2), 285-291.

205

Graen, G. (1976). Role-making processes within complex organizations. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1201, 1245.

Graen, G., & Cashman, J. F. (1975). A role-making model of leadership in formal

organizations: A developmental approach. Leadership Frontiers, 143, 165. Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In

L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 9, 175-208). Greenwich: JAI Press.

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership:

Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219-247.

Grant, D., Hardy, C., Oswick, C. and Putnam, L. (2004), Introduction – organizational

discourse: exploring the field. In D. Grant, C. Hardy, C. Oswick, & L. Putnam (Eds.), The handbook of organizational discourse, (pp. 1-36). London: Sage.

Grant, D., Putnam, L., & Hardy, C. (2011). Organizational discourse studies: History,

challenges and contributions. In D. Grant, C. Hardy & L. Putnam (Eds.), Organizational Discourse Studies (Vol. 1) (pp. xvii - xiii). London: Sage.

Graziano, W. G., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Hair, E. C. (1996). Perceiving interpersonal conflict and reacting to it: the case for agreeableness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(4), 820-835. Greenleaf, R. K. (1970). The servant as leader. Indianapolis: The Greenleaf Center. Grint, K. (2000). The arts of leadership. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. The Leadership

Quarterly, 13(4), 423-451. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research.

Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2, 163-194. Guenole, N., & Chernyshenko, O. S. (2005). The suitability of Goldberg's Big Five IPIP

personality markers in New Zealand: a dimensionality, bias, and criterion validity evaluation. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 34(2), 86.

Guilford, J. P. (1959). Three faces of intellect. American Psychologist, 14(8), 469. Guilford, J. S., Zimmerman, W. S., & Guilford, J. P. (1976). The Guilford–

ZimmermanTemperament Survey handbook: Twenty-five years of research and applications. San Diego, CA: EDITS.

Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Language and social identity. Cambridge (United Kingdom):

Cambridge University Press.

206

Gumperz, J. J. (1984). Communicative competence revisited. Berkeley, CA: University of California.

Hackman, J. R. (2003). Learning more by crossing levels: Evidence from airplanes,

hospitals, and orchestras. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(8), 905-922. Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. (2007). Asking the right questions about leadership:

Discussion and conclusions. American Psychologist, 62(1), 43-47. Hackman, M. Z., & Johnson, C. E. (2009). Leadership: A communication perspective.

Long Grove IL: Waveland Press. Hackman, M. Z., & Johnson, C. E. (2013). Leadership: A communication perspective.

Long Grove IL: Waveland Press. Hall, A. T., Blass, F. R., Ferris, G. R., & Massengale, R. (2004). Leader reputation and

accountability in organizations: Implications for dysfunctional leader behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(4), 515-536.

Hambleton, R. K. (1996). Guidelines for adapting educational and psychological tests.

Paper presented at the meeting of the National Council of Measurement in Education, New York.

Hambleton, R. K. (2001). The next generation of the ITC Test Translation and

Adaptation Guidelines. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17(3), 164.

Hambleton, R. K., Merenda, P. F., & Spielberger, C. D. (2004). Adapting educational

and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Psychology Press.

Hambleton, R. K., & Patsula, L. (1998). Adapting tests for use in multiple languages

and cultures. Social Indicators Research, 45(1-3), 153-171. Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a

reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193-206. Hansen, M. H., Hurwitz, W. N., & Madow, W. G. (1953). Sampling survey methods

and theory. New York: John Wiley and Son Inc. Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship

between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268-279. doi: 10.1037//0021-9010.87.2.268

Harvey, P., Harris, R. B., Harris, K. J., & Wheeler, A. R. (2007). Attenuating the effects

of social stress: The impact of political skill. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(2), 105.

207

Hattersley, M. E., & McJannet, L. (2005). Management communication: Principles and practice. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hautala, T. (2005). The effects of subordinates' personality on appraisals of

transformational leadership. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 11(4), 84-92. doi: 10.1177/107179190501100407

Hedlund, J., & Sternberg, R. J. (2000). Too many intelligences? Integrating social,

emotional, and practical intelligence. In Bar-On, R. & Parker, J. D. (Eds.), The handbook of emotional intelligence: Theory, development, assessment, and application at home, school, and in the workplace (pp. 136-167). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hemphill, J. K. (1949). Situational factors in leadership. Columbus: Ohio State

University. Bureau of Educational Research Monograph. Henderson, J. C., & Nutt, P. C. (1980). The influence of decision style on decision

making behavior. Management Science, 26(4), 371-386. Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1982). Leadership style: Attitudes and behaviors.

Training and Development Journal, 36(5), 50-52. Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H., & Johnson, D. E. (1988). Management of organizational

behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H., & Natemeyer, W. E. (1979). Situational leadership,

perception, and the impact of power. Group & Organization Management, 4(4), 418-428.

Hiller, N. J., & Hambrick, D. C. (2005). Conceptualizing executive hubris: the role of

(hyper-) core self-evaluations in strategic decision-making. Strategic Management Journal, 26(4), 297-319.

Hoekstra, H., Ormel, J., & De Fruyt, F. (1996). Handleiding NEO-PI–R en NEO-FFI

Big Five persoonlijkheidsvragenlijsten [Dutch manual for NEO-PI–R and NEOFFI Big Five personality questionnaires]. Lisse, the Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger.

Hogan, R. (1971). Personality characteristics of highly-rated policemen. Personnel

Psychology, 24, 679-686. Hogan, R. (1983). Socioanalytic theory of personality. In M. M. Page (Ed.), 1982

Nebraska symposium on motivation: Personality—current theory and research (pp. 55-89). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Hogan , R. (1996). A socioanalytic perspective on the five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factor model of personality (pp. 163-179). New York: Guilford Press

208

Hogan, J., & Holland, B. (2003). Using theory to evaluate personality and job-performance relations: A socioanalytic perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 100-112. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.100

Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership:

Effectiveness and personality. American Psychologist, 49(6), 493. Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (1995). Manual for the Hogan Personality Inventory. Tulsa,

OK: Hogan Assessment Systems. Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (1997). Hogan Development Survey manual. Tulsa, OK: Hogan

Assessment Systems. Hogan, R. & Hogan, J. (2007). Hogan Personality Inventory Manual (3rd ed.). Tulsa,

OK: Hogan Assessment Systems. Hogan, J., & Holland, B. (2003). Using theory to evaluate personality and job- performance relations: A socioanalytic perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 100. Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2005). What we know about leadership. Review of General

Psychology, 9(2), 169-180. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.169 Hogan, J., Rybicki, S. L., & Borman, W. C. (1998). Relations between contextual

performance, personality, and occupational advancement. Human Performance, 11(2-3), 189-207.

Hogan, R., & Shelton, D. (1998). A socioanalytic perspective on job performance.

Human Performance, 11(2-3), 129-144. Hogan, R. T., & Roberts, B. W. (2001). Introduction: Personality and industrial and

organizational psychology. In Roberts, B. W & R. Hogan (Eds.), Personality psychology in the workplace: Decade of behavior (pp. 3-16). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Hollander, E. P., & Julian, J. W. (1969). Contemporary trends in the analysis of

leadership processes. Psychological Bulletin, 71(5), 387. Holmes, J. (2005). Leadership talk: How do leaders do mentoring , and is gender

relevant? Journal of Pragmatics 37, 1779-1880. Holmes, J. (2008). Gender and leadership: Some socio-pragmatic considerations.

The Journal and Proceedings of G.A.L.E., 1(1), 4 - 16. Holmes, J. (2010). Gender, leadership and discourse in New Zealand workplaces. In M.

Bieswanger, H. Motschenbacher & S. Mühleisen (Eds.), Language in its socio-cultural context (pp. 85 109). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

209

Holmes, J. (2012). Leadership and intercultural competence at work. In S. Mada & R. Sâftoiu (Eds.), Professional Communication across Languages and Cultures (pp. 21 41). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

Holmes, J., Marra, M., & Vine, B. (2011). Leadership, discourse and ethnicity.

Oxford: Oxford University Press. Horn, J. L. (1968). Organization of abilities and the development of intelligence.

Psychological Review, 75(3), 242. Hosking, D.-M., & Morley, I. E. (1988). The skills of leadership. In G. Hunt, B. R.

Baliga, H. P. Dachier, & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Emerging leadership vistas (pp. 89-106). Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books.

Hosking, D. M. (1988). Organizing, Leadership, and Skilful Process. Journal of

Management Studies, 25(2), 147-166. Hough L. M., & Ones D. S. (2001). The structure, measurement, validity, and use of personality variables in industrial, work, and organizational psychology. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. Sinangil Kepir, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work, and organizational psychology (Vol. 1: Personnel psychology, pp. 233–277). London: Sage. Hough, L. M., & Schneider, R. (1996). Personality traits, taxonomies, and applications

in organizations. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Individual differences and behavior in organizations (pp. 31-88). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

House, R., Delbecq, A., & Taris, T. (1997). Value based leadership: A theory and an

empirical test: Working paper, Reginald H. Jones Center for Strategic Management, Wharton School of Management.

House, R. J. (1971). A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 16(3), 321-339. House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 Theory of Charismatic Leadership. Paper presented at the

Southern Illinois University Fourth Biennial Leadership Symposium. House, R. J. (1988). Power and personality in complex organisations. In L. L.

Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behaviour: An annual review of critical essays and reviews (Vol. 10) (pp. 305-357). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

House, R. J. (1995). Leadership in the 21st century: A speculative enquiry. In Howard,

A. (Ed.), The changing nature of work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo

vadis? Journal of Management, 23(3), 409-473. House, R. J., & Dessler, G. (1974). The path-goal theory of leadership: Some post hoc

and a priori tests. Contingency Approaches to Leadership, 29, 55.

210

House, R. J., & Mitchell, T. R. (1975). Path-goal theory of leadership. Journal of

Contemporary Business, 3, 81-97. House, R. J., Shane, S. A., & Herold, D. M. (1996). Rumors of the death of

dispositional research are vastly exaggerated. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 203-224.

Howard, A., & Bray, D. W. (1988). Managerial lives in transition: Advancing age and

changing times. New York: Guilford Press. Hughes, R. L., Ginnett, R. C., & Curphy, G. J. (1996). Leadership. Boston: Irwin

McGraw-Hill. Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The Big Five

revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 869. Hutchinson, S., & Purcell, J. (2003). Bringing policies to life: The vital role of front line

managers in people management. London: CIPD. Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60(6), 581. Hymes, D. (1967). Models of the interaction of language and social setting. Journal of

Social Issues, 23(2), 8-28. Hymes, D. (1970). Linguistic aspects of comparative political research. In R. T. Holt &

J. E. Turner (Eds.), The methodology of comparative research (pp. 295-341). New York: Free Press.

Hymes, D. (1974). Ways of speaking. In R. Bauman & J. Sherzer (Eds.), Explorations

in the ethnography of speaking (pp. 433-451). Cambridge (United Kingdom): Cambridge University Press.

Hymes, D. (1984). Sociolinguistics: stability and consolidation. International Journal of

the Sociology of Language, (45), 39-46. Hymes, D. H. (1970). Functions of speech: An evolutionary approach. In F. Gruber

(Ed.), Anthropology and education (55-83). Philadelphia: Bobbs-Merrill. Ifantidou, E. (2014). Pragmatic competence and relevance. Amsterdam: John

Benjamins. Ilies, R., Gerhardt, M. W., & Le, H. (2004). Individual differences in leadership

emergence: integrating meta analytic findings and behavioral genetics estimates. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12(3), 207-219.

Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader-member exchange and

citizenship behaviors: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 269.

211

Ivancevich, J. M., & Donnelly, J. H. (1970). Leader influence and performance.

Personnel Psychology, 23(4), 539-549. Ivancevich, J. M., & Matteson, M. T. (1984). A type AB person-work environment

interaction model for examining occupational stress and consequences. Human Relations, 37(7), 491-513.

Jablin, F.M. & Putman, L. (2001) The new handbook of organizational communication:

Advances in theory, research and methods. New York: Sage. Jansen, P. G., & Vinkenburg, C. J. (2006). Predicting management career success from assessment center data: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(2), 253-266. Jakobovits, L. A. (1970). Foreign language learning; A psycholinguistic analysis of the

issues. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers. Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., De Luque, M. S., & House, R. J. (2006). In the eye of the

beholder: Cross cultural lessons in leadership from Project GLOBE. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(1), 67-90.

Jawahar, I. M., Meurs, J. A., Ferris, G. R., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2008). Self-efficacy

and political skill as comparative predictors of task and contextual performance: A two-study constructive replication. Human Performance, 21(2), 138-157. doi: 10.1080/08959280801917685

Jenkins, J. M. (1993). Self monitoring and turnover: The impact of personality on

intent to leave. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(1), 83-91. Jensen Campbell, L. A., & Graziano, W. G. (2001). Agreeableness as a moderator of

interpersonal conflict. Journal of Personality, 69(2), 323-362. John, O. P. (1989). Towards a taxonomy of personality descriptors. In D. M. Buss & N.

Cantor (Eds.), Personality psychology: Recent trends and emerging directions (pp. 261–271). New York: Springer-Verlag.

John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History,

measurement, and theoretical perspectives. Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, 2, 102-138.

Johnson, R. T., & Frandsen, A. N. (1962). The California Psychological Inventory

profile of student leaders. The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 41(4), 343-345. Jones, E. E. (1990). Interpersonal perception. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Jordan, P. J., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Hartel, C. E. (2002). Emotional intelligence as a moderator of emotional and behavioral reactions to job insecurity. Academy of Management Review, 27(3), 361-372.

212

Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 751.

Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self- esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability— with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 80. 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. doi: 10.1037//0021-9010.87.4.765

Judge, T. A., Colbert, A. E., & Ilies, R. (2004). Intelligence and leadership: a

quantitative review and test of theoretical propositions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 542.

Judge, T. A., Klinger, R., Simon, L. S., & Yang, I. W. F. (2008). The contributions of

personality to organizational behavior and psychology: Findings, criticisms, and future research directions. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(5), 1982-2000.

Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: a

meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755.

Jung, C. G. (1923). Psychological types; or the psychology of individuation. New York:

Harcourt, Brace and World. Jung, C. G. (1933). Modem man in search of a soul. New York: Hartcourt, Brace and

World. Jung, C. G. (1971). Psychological types: The collected works. London: Routledge and

Kegan Paul. Kanfer, R., Ackerman, P. L., Murtha, T., & Goff, M. (1995). Personality and

intelligence in industrial and organizational psychology. In D. H. Saklofske & M. Zeidner (Eds.), International handbook of personality and intelligence (pp. 577-602). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York:

John Wiley. Katz, D., Maccoby, N., & Morse, N. C. (1950). Productivity, supervision, and morale in

an office situation. Ann Arbor, MI: Survey Reseach Centre. Keller, R. T. (2006). Transformational leadership, initiating structure, and substitutes

for leadership: A longitudinal study of research and development project team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 202.

213

Kelly, S., White, M. I., Martin, D., & Rouncefield, M. (2006). Leadership refrains: Patterns of leadership. Leadership, 2(2), 181-201.

Kenny, D. A., & Hallmark, B. W. (1992). Rotation designs in leadership research. The

Leadership Quarterly, 3(1), 25-41. Kenny, D. A., & Zaccaro, S. J. (1983). An estimate of variance due to traits in

leadership. Journal of Applied Leadership, 68(4), 678-685. Kent, R. L., & Moss, S. E. (1994). Effects of sex and gender role on leader emergence.

Academy of Management Journal, 37(5), 1335-1346. Kerlinger, F. N., & Howard, B. (2000). Foundations of behavioral research. Fort

Worth, TX: Harcourt College Publishers. Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and

measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22(3), 375-403.

Kilduff, M., & Krackhardt, D. (1994). Bringing the individual back in: A structural analysis of the internal market for reputation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 37(1), 87-108. Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Leadership: do traits matter? The Executive,

5(2), 48-60. Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of three core

charismatic leadership components on performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(1), 36.

Kline, P. (2013). Handbook of Psychological Testing (2nd ed.). Abingdon (United

Kingdom): Routledge. Kotter, J. P. (1982). What effective general managers really do? Harvard Business

Review, 60(6), 156–167. Kotter, J. P. (2001). What leaders really do. Harvard Business Review, 79, 85-96. Kotter, M. (2003). Negotiation of meaning and codeswitching in online tandems.

Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 145-172. Kreitner, R., & Kinicki, A. (2007). International OB: Managing across cultures.

Boston: McGraw-Hill. Kristof-Brown, A., Barrick, M. R., & Kay Stevens, C. (2005). When opposites attract: a

multi-sample demonstration of complementary person-team fit on extraversion. Journal of Personality, 73(4), 935-958.

214

Kroeck, K. G., & Brown, K. W. (2004). Work applications of the big five model of personality. In M. Hersen (Ed.), Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment (109-130). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Lawler, E. E. (1966). Ability as a moderator of the relationship between job attitudes

and job performance. Personnel Psychology, 19(2), 153-164. Lazerwitz, B. (1968). Sampling theory and procedures in methodology social research. New York: McGraw-Hill. Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2005). Psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism in the

Five-Factor Model and the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(7), 1571-1582.

Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2006). Further assessment of the HEXACO Personality

Inventory: Two new facet scales and an observer report form. Psychological Assessment, 18(2), 182.

Leong, F. T., & Austin, J. (1996). The psychology research handbook: A guide for

graduate students and research assistants. London: Sage. Leung, C. (2005). Convivial communication: Re-contextualizing communicative

competence. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15, 119-144. Levine, S. (1949). An approach to constructive leadership. Journal of Social Issues,

5(1), 46-53. Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge (United Kingdom): Cambridge

University Press. Li, W. D., Arvey, R. D., & Song, Z. (2011). The influence of general mental ability,

self-esteem and family socioeconomic status on leadership role occupancy and leader advancement: The moderating role of gender. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(3), 520-534. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.04.009

Liddle, G. (1958). The California Psychological Inventory and certain social and

personal factors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 49(3), 144. Liden, R. C., & Graen, G. (1980). Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of

leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 23(3), 451-465. Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader-member exchange theory:

The past and potential for the future. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 15, 47-120.

Lieberman, M. D., & Rosenthal, R. (2001). Why introverts can't always tell who likes

them: multitasking and nonverbal decoding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(2), 294.

215

Lievens, F., Sanchez, J. I., & De Corte, W. (2004). Easing the inferential leap in competency modelling: The effects of task-related information and subject matter expertise. Personnel Psychology, 57(4), 881-904.

Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Lim, B.-C., & Ployhart, R. E. (2004). Transformational leadership: relations to the five-

factor model and team performance in typical and maximum contexts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), 610.

Linden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership:

Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. . The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 161–177.

Liu, Y., Ferris, G. R., Zinko, R., Perrewé, P. L., Weitz, B., & Xu, J. (2007).

Dispositional antecedents and outcomes of political skill in organizations: A four-study investigation with convergence. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71(1), 146-165. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2007.04.003

Lok, P., & Crawford, J. (2004). The effect of organisational culture and leadership style

on job satisfaction and organisational commitment: A cross-national comparison. Journal of Management Development, 23(4), 321-338.

Lord, R. G. (1977). Functional leadership behavior: Measurement and relation to social

power and leadership perceptions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 114-133. Lord, R. G., Binning, J. F., Rush, M. C., & Thomas, J. C. (1978). The effect of

performance cues and leader behavior on questionnaire ratings of leadership behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 21(1), 27-39.

Lord, R. G., De Vader, C. L., & Alliger, G. M. (1986). A meta-analysis of the relation

between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity generalization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 402.

Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J., & De Vader, C. L. (1984). A test of leadership categorization

theory: Internal structure, information processing, and leadership perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34(3), 343-378.

Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1991). Cognitive theory in industrial and organizational

psychology. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2, 1-62. Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of

transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 385-425.

Lowman, R. L. (1991). The clinical assessment of vocational interests. Washington,

DC: American Psychological Association.

216

Lucas, R. E., & Donnellan, M. B. (2009). Age differences in personality: evidence from a nationally representative Australian sample. Developmental Psychology, 45(5), 1353.

Lucia, A. D., & Lepsinger, R. (1999). Art & Science of Competency Models. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Lussier, R., & Achua, C. (2012). Leadership: Theory, application, & skill development.

Mason OH: South-Western, Cengage Learning. Luthans, F. (2002). The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(6), 695-706. Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Authentic leadership: A positive development approach. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 241-258). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. Luthans, F., & Church, A. (2002). Positive organization behaviour: Developing and

managing psychological strengths. Academy of Management Executive, 16(1), 57-75.

Luthans, F., Hodgetts, R. M., & Rosenkrantz, S. A. (1988). Real managers. Cambridge,

MA: Ballinger. Luthans, F., Welsh, D. H., & Taylor, L. A. (1988). A descriptive model of managerial

effectiveness. Group & Organization Management, 13(2), 148-162. Lvina, E., Johns, G., Treadway, D. C., Blickle, G., Liu, Y. L., Liu, J., & Ferris, G. R.

(2012). Measure invariance of the Political Skill Inventory (PSI) across five cultures. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 12(2), 171-191.

Lyons, M.L.. (1985) The DP psyche. Datamation, 31(16), 103–110. MacCorquodale, K., & Meehl, P. E. (1948). On a distinction between hypothetical

constructs and intervening variables. Psychological Review, 55(2), 95. Macnab, D., & Fitzsimmons, G. W. (1987). A multitrait-multimethod study of work-

related needs, values, and preferences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 30(1), 1-15.

Madlock, P. E. (2008). The link between leadership style, communicator competence,

and employee satisfaction. Journal of Business Communication, 45(1), 61-78. Mahoney, T. A., Jerdee, T. H., & Carroll, S. J. (1965). The job (s) of management.

Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 4(2), 97-110. Major, D. A., Kozlowski, S. W., Chao, G. T., & Gardner, P. D. (1995). A longitudinal

investigation of newcomer expectations, early socialization outcomes, and the

217

moderating effects of role development factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(3), 418.

Manley, T. (2008). Some thoughts on the evolution of work teams in organizations.

IEEE Engineering Management Review, 36(1), 3-4. doi: 10.1109/emr.2007.916356

Marion, R., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2002). Leadership in complex organizations. The

Leadership Quarterly, 12(4), 389-418. Markus, L., Thomas, H., & Allpress, K. (2005). Confounded by competencies? An

evaluation of the evolution and use of competency models. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 34(2), 117.

Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., & Greenbaum, R. L. (2010). Examining the link between

ethical leadership and employee misconduct: The mediating role of ethical climate. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(1), 7-16.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2000). Emotional intelligence as zeitgeist,

as personality, and as a mental ability. In R. Bar-On & J. D. Parker (Eds.), The handbook of emotional intelligence: Theory, development, assessement, and application at home, school and in the workplace (pp. 92-117). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2004). Emotional intelligence: Theory,

findings, and implications. Psychological Inquiry, 15(3), 197-215. McAdams, D. P. (2006). The role of narrative in personality psychology today.

Narrative Inquiry, 16(1), 11-18. McCarthy, T. A. (1973). A theory of communicative competence. Philosophy of the

Social Sciences, 3(1), 135-156. McClelland, D.C. (1975). Power: The inner experience. New York: Irvington. McClelland, D. C. (1985). How motives, skills, and values determine what people do.

American Psychologist, 40(7), 812. McClelland, D. C., & Burnham, D. H. (1976). Power is the great motivator. Harvard

Business Review, 54, 100–110. McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., & Lowell, E. L. (1955). The

achievement motive. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. McClelland, D. C., & Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). Leadership motive pattern and long-term

success in management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(6), 737. McCormack, L., & Mellor, D. (2002). The role of personality in leadership: An

application of the Five-Factor Model in the Australian military. Military Psychology, 14(3), 179.

218

McCormick, C. B., Miller, G. E., & Pressley, M. E. (1989). Cognitive strategy

research: From basic research to educational applications. New York: Springer-Verlag.

McCrae, R. R. (1996). Social consequences of experiential openness. Psychological

Bulletin, 120 (3), 323. McCrae, R. R. (2002). NEO-PI-R data from 36 cultures: Further Intercultural

comparisons. In R. R. McCrae & J. Alik (Eds.), The Five-Factor Model of personality across cultures (pp. 105–125). New York: Kluwer.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1989). The structure of interpersonal traits: Wiggins's

circumplex and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(4), 586.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, Jr., P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human

universal. American Psychologist, 52(5), 509. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, Jr., P. T. (1999). A five-factor theory of personality. In L. A.

Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd. ed.) (139-153). New York: Guildford.

McCrae, R. R., Costa, Jr., P. T., Terracciano, A., Parker, W. D., Mills, C. J., De Fruyt,

F., & Mervielde, I. (2002). Personality trait development from age 12 to age 18: Longitudinal, cross-sectional and cross-cultural analyses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1456.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, Jr., P. T. (1985). Comparison of EPI and psychoticism scales

with measures of the five-factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 6(5), 587-597.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, Jr., P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of

personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 81.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, Jr., P. T. (1989). The structure of interpersonal traits:

Wiggins's circumplex and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(4), 586.

McCrae, R. R., Costa, Jr., P. T., Del Pilar, G. H., Rolland, J.-P., & Parker, W. D.

(1998). Cross-Cultural Assessment of the Five-Factor Model The Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(1), 171-188.

McCrae, R. R., Costa, Jr., P. T., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., Hřebíčková, M., Avia,

M. D., & Smith, P. B. (2000). Nature over nurture: Temperament, personality, and life span development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(1), 173.

219

McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 175-215.

McCrae, R. R., & Terracciano, A. (2005). Universal features of personality traits from

the observer's perspective: data from 50 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(3), 547.

McCrae, R. R., & Terracciano, A. (2006). National character and personality. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(4), 156-161. McGrath, J. E. (1962). Leadership behavior: Some requirements for leadership

training. Washington, DC: US Civil Service Commission. Meglino, B. M., Ravlin, E. C., & Adkins, C. L. (1989). A work values approach to

corporate culture: A field test of the value congruence process and its relationship to individual outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(3), 424.

Meichenbaum, D. , Butler, L., & Gruson, L. (1981). Toward a conceptual model of

social competence. In J. D. Wine & M. D. Smye (Eds.), Social competence (pp. 36-60). New York: Guilford.

Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The romance of leadership.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 78-102. Mey, J. L. (1993). Pragmatics: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. Meyers, L. S., Gamst, G. C., & Guarino, A. (2013). Performing data analysis using

IBM SPSS. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Michael, J. (2003). Using the Myers-Briggs type indicator as a tool for leadership

development? Apply with caution. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10(1), 68-81.

Miller, L. J., Myers, A., Prinzi, L., & Mittenberg, W. (2009). Changes in intellectual

functioning associated with normal aging. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 24(7), 681-688.

Miller, R. G., Jr. (1991). Simultaneous statistical inference. New York: Springer-

Verlag. Mills, D. Q. (1985). Seniority versus ability in promotion decisions. Industrial & Labor

Relations Review, 38(3), 421-425. Miner, J. B., & Dachler, P. H. (1973). Personnel attitudes and motivation. Annual

Review of Psychology, 24(1), 379-402. Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York: Harper & Row. Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power in and around organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

220

Mintzberg, H. (1985). The organization as political arena. Journal of Management

Studies, 22(2), 133-154. Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of

personality. Psychological Review, 80(4), 252. Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Ayduk, O. (2008). Introduction to personality: Toward an

integrative science of the person. (8th revised edition). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Monge, P. R., Bachman, S. G., Dillard, J. P., & Eisenberg, E. M. (1982). Communicator

competence in the workplace: Model testing and scale development. Communication Yearbook, 5(505), 27.

Moscoso, S., & Salgado, J. F. (2004). “Dark side” personality styles as predictors of

task, contextual, and job performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12(4), 356-362.

Moss, J. A., & Barbuto Jr, J. E. (2010). Testing the relationship between interpersonal political skills, altruism, leadership success and effectiveness: A multilevel model. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 11(2), 155-174. Mount, M. K., & Barrick, M. R. (1995). The Big Five personality dimensions:

Implications for research and practice in human resources management. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 13(3), 153-200.

Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Stewart, G. L. (1998). Five-factor model of personality

and performance in jobs involving interpersonal interactions. Human Performance, 11(2-3), 145-165.

Moyo, S., & Theron, C. (2011). A preliminary factor analytic investigation into the

first-order factor structure of the Fifteen Factor Plus (15FQ+) on a sample of Black South African managers. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 37(1), 1-22.

Mudrack, P. E., & Farrell, G. M. (1995). An examination of functional role behavior

and its consequences for individuals in group settings. Small Group Research, 26(4), 542-571.

Mumford, M. D., Marks, M. A., Connelly, M. S., Zaccaro, S. J., & Reiter-Palmon, R.

(2000). Development of leadership skills: Experience and timing. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(1), 87-114.

Mumford, M. D., Whetzel, D. L., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (1997). Thinking creatively at

work: Organization influences on creative problem solving. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 31(1), 7-17.

Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Harding, F. D., Jacobs, T. O., & Fleishman, E. A.

(2000). Leadership skills for a changing world: Solving complex social problems. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(1), 11-35.

221

Mumford, T. V., Campion, M. A., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). The leadership skills

strataplex: Leadership skill requirements across organizational levels. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(2), 154-166.

Murphy, K. R. (1996). Individual differences and behavior in organizations: Much more

than g. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Individual differences and behavior in organizations (pp. 3–30). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Murphy, K. R., & Davidshofer, C. O. (2005). Psychological testing: Principles and

applications. (6th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall. Murphy, K., & Dzieweczynski, J. (2005). Why don’t measures of broad dimensions of personality perform better as predictors of job performance? Human Performance, 18, 343–357. Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press. Myers, I. B., & Myers, P. B. (1980). Gifts differing: Understanding personality type.

Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black Publishing. Nakuma, C. (1997). A method for measuring the attrition of communicative

competence: A pilot study with Spanish L3 subjects. Applied Psycholinguistics, 18(2), 219-236.

Neubert, M. J., & Taggar, S. (2004). Pathways to informal leadership: The moderating

role of gender on the relationship of individual differences and team member network centrality to informal leadership emergence. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(2), 175-194.

Nezlek, J. B., Feist, G. J., Wilson, F. C., & Plesko, R. M. (2001). Day-to-day variability

in empathy as a function of daily events and mood. Journal of Research in Personality, 35(4), 401-423.

Ng, K.-Y., Ang, S., & Chan, K.-Y. (2008). Personality and leader effectiveness: a

moderated mediation model of leadership self-efficacy, job demands, and job autonomy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(4), 733.

Noller, P., Law, H., & Comrey, A. L. (1987). Cattell, Comrey, and Eysenck personality

factors compared: More evidence for the five robust factors? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(4), 775.

Northouse, P. G. (1997). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: SAGE. Northouse, P. G. (2012). Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed.): Thousand Oaks:

SAGE. Ones, D. S., & Anderson, N. (2002). Gender and ethnic group differences on

personality scales in selection: Some British data. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75(3), 255-276.

222

Ones, D. S., Dilchert, S., Viswesvaran, C., & Judge, T. A. (2007). In support of

personality assessment in organizational settings. Personnel Psychology, 60(4), 995-1027.

Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Comprehensive meta-analysis

of integrity test validities: Findings and implications for personnel selection and theories of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 679.

Osborn, R. N., Hunt, J. G., & Jauch, L. R. (2002). Toward a contextual theory of

leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(6), 797-837. Osgood, C. E., May, W. H., & Miron, M. S. (1975). Cross-cultural universals of

affective meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1978). The measurement of meaning.

Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Ospina, S., & Foldy, E. (2010). Building bridges from the margins: The work of

leadership in social change organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(2), 292-307.

Ospina, S., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2012). IntroductionL Mapping the terrain: Convergence

and divergence around relational leadership. In M. Uhl-Bien & S. Ospina (Eds.), Advancing relational leadership research: A dialogue among perspectives (pp. xix-xlvii). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishers.

Packman, T., Brown, G. S., Englert, P., Sisarich, H., & Bauer, F. (2005). Differences in

personality traits across ethnic groups within New Zealand and across an international sample. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 34(2), 77-85.

Pandey, J. (1978). Ingratiation: A review of literature and relevance of its study in

organizational setting. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 381-393. Patrickson, M., & Haydon, D. (1988). Management selection practices in South

Australia. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 26(4), 96-104. Paul, R. (2005). The state of critical thinking today. New Directions for Community

Colleges, (130), 27-38. Payne, H. J. (2005). Reconceptualizing social skills in organizations: Exploring the

relationship between communication competence, job performance, and supervisory roles. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 11(2), 63-77. doi: 10.1177/107179190501100207

Pearlman, K. (1997). Competencies: Issues in their application. In R. C. Page (Chair).

Competency models: What are they and do they work? Practitioner forum conducted at the meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, St. Louis, MO.

223

Penley, L. E., Alexander, E. R., Jernigan, I. E., & Henwood, C. I. (1991). Communication abilities of managers: The relationship to performance. Journal of Management, 17(1), 57-76.

Penley, L. E., & Hawkins, B. (1985). Studying interpersonal communication in

organizations: A leadership application. Academy of Management Journal, 28(2), 309-326.

Perneger, T. V. (1998). What’s wrong with Bonferroni adjustments. British Medical

Journal, 316(7139), 1236. Perrewé, P. L., Ferris, G. R., Frink, D. D., & Anthony, W. P. (2000). Political skill: An

antidote for workplace stressors. The Academy of Management Executive, 14(3), 115-123.

Perrewe, P. L., Zellars, K. L., Rossi, A. M., Ferris, G. R., Kacmar, C. J., Liu, Y., &

Hochwarter, W. A. (2005). Political skill: an antidote in the role overload-strain relationship. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10(3), 239-250. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.10.3.239

Pervin, L. (1980). Personality theory and assessment. New York: Wiley. Pervin, L. A., Cervone, D., & John, O. P. (2005). Personality: Theory and research (9th

ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Peters, L. H., Hartke, D. D., & Pohlmann, J. T. (1985). Fiedler's contingency theory of

leadership: An application of the meta-analysis procedures of Schmidt and Hunter. Psychological Bulletin, 97(2), 274.

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2003). Character strengths before and after September 11. Psychological Science, 14(4), 381-384. Peterson, R. S., Smith, D. B., Martorana, P. V., & Owens, P. D. (2003). The impact of

chief executive officer personality on top management team dynamics: One mechanism by which leadership affects organizational performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 795.

Pfeffer, J. (1981). Management as symbolic action: The creation and maintenance of

organizational paradigms. In L. L. Cummings, & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, (Vol. 3) (pp. 1-52). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations.

Boston: Harvard Business Press. Phillips, N., & Oswick, C. (2012). Organizational discourse: Domains, debates, and

directions. The Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 435-481. Phipps, S. T., & Prieto, L. C. (2011). The influence of personality factors on transformational leadership: Exploring the moderating role of political skill. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 6(3), 430-447.

224

Piekkola, B. (2011). Traits across cultures: A neo-Allportian perspective. Journal of

Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 31(1), 2-24. doi: 10.1037/a0022478 Pigors, P. (1936). Types of leaders in group work. Sociology & Social Research, 21, 3-

17. Pinker, S. (2007). The language instinct: The new science of language and mind.

London: Folio Society. Pinker, S. (2013). Language, cognition, and human nature. Oxford: Oxford University

Press. Ployhart, R. E., Lim, B. C., & Chan, K. Y. (2001). Exploring relations between typical

and maximum performance ratings and the five factor model of personality. Personnel Psychology, 54(4), 809-843.

Podsakoff, P. M., Bommer, W. H., Podsakoff, N. P., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006).

Relationships between leader reward and punishment behavior and subordinate attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors: A meta-analytic review of existing and new research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99(2), 113-142.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Ahearne, M., & Bommer, W. H. (1995). Searching

for a needle in a haystack: Trying to identify the illusive moderators of leadership behaviors. Journal of Management, 21(3), 422-470.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107-142. Porter, C. O., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Ellis, A. P., West, B. J., & Moon, H.

(2003). Backing up behaviors in teams: the role of personality and legitimacy of need. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 391.

Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E. (1968). Managerial attitudes and performance.

Homewood, IL: Irwin. Pryor, R. (1982). Values, preferences, needs, work ethics, and orientations to work:

Toward a conceptual and empirical integration. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 20(1), 40-52.

Psychometrics International. (2002). The 15FQ+ technical manual. Pulloxhill,

Bedfordshire: Psychometrics Limited. Pugh, G. (1985). The California Psychological Inventory and police selection. Police

Science and Administration, 13, 172-176.

225

Pulakos, E. D., Schmitt, N., Dorsey, D. W., Arad, S., Borman, W. C., & Hedge, J. W. (2002). Predicting adaptive performance: Further tests of a model of adaptability. Human Performance, 15(4), 299-323.

Putnam, L. L., & Fairhurst, G. T. (2001). Discourse analysis in organizations. In F. M.

Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication (pp. 78-136). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Putnam, L. L., & Jablin, F. M. (2001). The new handbook of organizational

communication: Advances in theory, research and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Reiter-Palmon, R., & Illies, J. J. (2004). Leadership and creativity: Understanding

leadership from a creative problem-solving perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 55-77. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.12.005

Rice, R. W. (1978). Psychometric properties of the esteem for least preferred coworker

(LPC scale). Academy of Management Review, 3(1), 106-118. Riggio, R. E. (1986). Assessment of basic social skills. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 51(3), 649. Riggio, R. E., & Lee, J. (2007). Emotional and interpersonal competencies and leader

development. Human Resource Management Review, 17(4), 418-426. Riggio, R. E., & Reichard, R. J. (2008). The emotional and social intelligences of

effective leadership: An emotional and social skill approach. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(2), 169-185. doi: 10.1108/02683940810850808

Riggio, R. E., Riggio, H. R., Salinas, C., & Cole, E. J. (2003). The role of social and

emotional communication skills in leader emergence and effectiveness. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 7(2), 83.

Riggio, R. E., & Taylor, S. J. (2000). Personality and communication skills as

predictors of hospice nurse performance. Journal of Business Psychology, 15(2), 351-359.

Riordan, C. M., & Vandenberg, R. J. (1994). A central question in cross-cultural

research: Do employees of different cultures interpret work-related measures in an equivalent manner? Journal of Management, 20(3), 643-671.

Robbins, S. P. (2001). Organisational behaviour: Leading and managing in Australia

and New Zealand. Sydney: Prentice Hall. Roberts, B. W., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2001). The kids are alright: growth and

stability in personality development from adolescence to adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(4), 670.

226

Roberts, B. W., & DelVecchio, W. F. (2000). The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: a quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 126(1), 3.

Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean-level

change in personality traits across the life course: a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 132(1), 1.

Robertson, I. T., & Kinder, A. (1993). Personality and job competences: The criterion

related validity of some personality variables. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 66(3), 225-244.

Robertson, I. T., & Makin, P. J. (1986). Management selection in Britain: A survey and

critique. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 59(1), 45-57. Roby, T. B. (1961). The executive function in small groups. In L. Petrullo & B. Bass

(Eds.), Leadership and interpersonal behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Rooke, D., & Torbert, W. R. (2005). Seven transformations of leadership. Harvard

Business Review, 83(4), 66-76. Rost, J. C. (1993). Leadership development in the new millennium. Journal of

Leadership & Organizational Studies, 1(1), 91-110. Roy, D. D. (1995). Differences in personality factors of experienced teachers,

physicians, bank managers and fine artists. Psychological Studies, 40(1), 51-56. Rubin, R. S., Munz, D. C., & Bommer, W. H. (2005). Leading from within: The effects

of emotion recognition and personality on transformational leadership behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 845-858.

Russell, M., & Karol, D. (2002). 16PF Fifth Edition with updated norms:

Administrator’s Manual. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing: Inc.

Salgado, J. F. (1997). The Five Factor Model of personality and job performance in the

European Community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(1), 30. Salgado, J. F. (1999). Personnel selection methods. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson

(Eds.), International review of industrial & organizational psychology. New York: Wiley.

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1989). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and

Personality, 9(3), 185-211. Sampath, S. (2001). Sampling theory and methods. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Sapp, S. G., Harrod, W. J., & Zhao, J. L. (1996). Leadership emergence in task groups

with egalitarian gender-role expectations. Sex Roles, 34(1-2), 65-80.

227

Sargent, J. F., & Miller, G. R. (1971). Some differences in certain communication

behaviors of autocratic and democratic group leaders. Journal of Communication, 21(3), 233-252.

Saucier, G. (2003). Factor structure of English-language personality type-nouns.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(4), 695. Savignon, S. J. (1983). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice:

Texts and contexts in second language learning. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.

Saville, P., Holdsworth, R., Nyfield, G., Cramp, L., & Mabey, W. (1984). The

Occupational Personality Questionnaires (OPQ). London: Saville & Holdsworth (UK) Ltd.

Saville, P., Sik, G., Nyfield, G., Hackston, J., & Maclver, R. (1996). A demonstration of

the validity of the Occupational Personality Questionnaire (OPQ) in the measurement of job competencies across time and in separate organisations. Applied Psychology, 45(3), 243-262.

Scandura, T. A., & Williams, E. A. (2000). Research methodology in management:

Current practices, trends, and implications for future research. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1248-1264.

Schinka, J. A., Kinder, B. N., & Kremer, T. (1997). Research validity scales for the

NEO--PI--R: Development and initial validation. Journal of Personality Assessment, 68(1), 127-138.

Schippmann, J. S. (1999). Strategic job modeling: Working at the core of integrated

human resources. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1992). Development of a causal model of processes determining job performance. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 89-92. Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. (2004). General mental ability in the world of work:

Occupational attainment and job performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(1), 162.

Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in

personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 262.

Schmidt, F. L., Ones, D. S., & Hunter, J. E. (1992). Personnel selection. Annual Review

of Psychology, 43(1), 627-670. Schneider, B. (1983). An interactionist perspective on organizational effectiveness. In

K. S. Cameron & D. S. Whetten (Eds.), Organizational effectiveness: A comparison of multiple models (pp. 27-54). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

228

Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40(3), 437-

453. Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., & Cogliser, C. C. (1999). Leader-member exchange

(LMX) research: A comprehensive review of theory, measurement, and data-analytic practices. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(1), 63-113.

Schuerger, J., & Watterson, D. (1998). Occupational interpretation of the 16

personality factor questionnaire. Cleveland, OH: Watterson & Associates, Inc. Schutz, W. C. (1961). The ego, FIRO theory and the leader as completer. In L. Petrullo

& B. M. Bass (Eds.). Leadership and interpersonal behavior (pp. 48-65). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Schyns, B., Kiefer, T., Kerschreiter, R., & Tymon, A. (2011). Teaching implicit

leadership theories to develop leaders and leadership: How and why it can make a difference. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(3), 397-408.

Scollon, C. N., & Diener, E. (2006). Love, work, and changes in extraversion and

neuroticism over time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(6), 1152.

Scott, W. R. (1987). The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 32(4), 493-511. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge

(United Kingdom): Cambridge University Press. Searle, J. R., Kiefer, F., & Bierwisch, M. (1980). Speech act theory and pragmatics

(Vol. 10). Dordrecht: Reidel. Sederberg, P. C. (1984). The politics of meaning: Power and explanation in the

construction of social reality. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press. Segrin, C. (1998). Interpersonal communication problems associated with depression

and loneliness. In P. A. Andresen & L. A. Guerrero (Eds.), Handbook of communication and emotion: Research, theory, applications and contexts (pp. 215-242). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Segrin, C., & Givertz, M. (2003). Methods of social skills training and development. In

J. O. Grene & B. R. Burleson (Eds.), Handbook of communication and social interaction skills (pp. 135-176). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2001). A social capital theory of career

success. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 219-237. Sells, S., Demaree, R., & Will, Jr, D. P. (1970). Dimensions of personality: I. Conjoint

factor structure of Guilford and Cattell trait markers. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 5(4), 391-422.

229

Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration: A sociological interpretation. New

York: Harper & Row. Semadar, A., Robins, G., & Ferris, G. R. (2006). Comparing the validity of multiple

social effectiveness constructs in the prediction of managerial job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(4), 443-461. doi: 10.1002/job.385

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1992). Moral leadership. NASSP Bulletin, 76(547), 121-121. Shaffer, J. P. (1995). Multiple hypothesis testing. Annual Review of Psychology, 46(1),

561-584. Shamir, B. (2007). From passive recipients to active co-producers: Followers’ roles in

the leadership process. In B. Shamir, R. Pillai, M. C. Bligh & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), Follower-centered perspectives on leadership: A tribute to the memory of James R. Meindl (pp. 6-21). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Shamir, B., Arthur, M. B., & House, R. J. (1994). The rhetoric of charismatic

leadership: A theoretical extension, a case study, and implications for research. The Leadership Quarterly, 5(1), 25-42.

Sharma, S., Deller, J., Biswal, R., & Mandal, M. K. (2009). Emotional intelligence

factorial structure and construct validity across cultures. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 9(2), 217-236.

SHL. (1989). Validation Review. Thames Ditton, UK: SHL Group PLC. SHL. (1995). Second Validation Review. Thames Ditton, UK: SHL Group PLC. Singh, S. (2003). Advanced sampling theory with applications: How Michael 'selected' Amy. Dordrecht (The Netherlands): Kluwer. Skytt, B., Carlsson, M., Ljunggren, B., & Engstrom, M. (2008). Psychometric testing of

the Leadership and Management Inventory: A tool to measure the skills and abilities of first-line nurse managers. Journal of Nursing Management, 16, 784-794

Smith, H. L., & Krueger, L. M. K. (1933). A brief summary of literature on leadership.

Bloomington: Indiana University, School of Education, Bulletin. Snyder, M. (1987). Public appearances, private realities: The psychology of self- monitoring. New York, NY: W H Freeman/Times Books/ Henry Holt and Co. Snyderman, M., & Rothman, S. (1987). Survey of expert opinion on intelligence and

aptitude testing. American Psychologist, 42(2), 137. Soto, C. J., John, O. P., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2011). Age differences in

personality traits from 10 to 65: Big Five domains and facets in a large cross-sectional sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(2), 330.

230

Sorrentino, R. M., & Field, N. (1986). Emergent leadership over time: The functional

value of positive motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(6), 1091.

Spangler, W. D. (1992). Validity of questionnaire and TAT measures of need for

achievement: Two meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 140. Spangler, W. D., & House, R. J. (1991). Presidential effectiveness and the leadership

motive profile. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(3), 439. Spector, P. E., & O'Connell, B. J. (1994). The contribution of personality traits, negative

affectivity, locus of control and Type A to the subsequent reports of job stressors and job strains. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67(1), 1-12.

Spitzberg, B. H. (2003). Methods of interpersonal skill assessment. In M. L. Knapp & J.

R Daly (Eds.), Handbook of communication and social interaction skills (pp. 93-134). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (1984). Interpersonal communication competence

(Vol. 4). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Srivastava, S., John, O. P., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2003). Development of

personality in early and middle adulthood: Set like plaster or persistent change? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(5), 1041.

Stankov, L. (2003). Complexity in human intelligence. In R. Sternberg, J. Lautrey, & T.

Lubart (Eds.) Models of intelligence: International perspective. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Stemmler, G. (1997). Selective activation of traits: Boundary conditions for the

activation of anger. Personality and Individual Differences, 22(2), 213-233. Sternberg, R. J. (1997). The concept of intelligence and its role in lifelong learning and

success. American Psychologist, 52(10), 1030. Sternberg, R. J., Lautrey, J., & Lubart, T. I. (2003). Models of intelligence:

International perspectives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the

literature. Journal of Psychology, 25(1), 35-71. Stogdill, R. M. (1963). Manual for the leader behavior description questionnaire-Form

XII: An experimental revision. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University. Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of the literature. New York:

Free Press.

231

Stogdill, R. M., & Coons, A. E. (1957). Leader behavior: Its description and measurement. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.

Strassburger, K., & Bretz, F. (2008). Compatible simultaneous lower confidence bounds

for the Holm procedure and other Bonferroni based closed tests. Statistics in Medicine, 27(24), 4914-4927.

Student, K. R. (1968). Supervisory influence and workgroup performance. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 53, 188-194. Super, D. E. (1970). Manual for the work values inventory. Chicago, IL: Riverside. Super, D. E. (1973). The work values inventory. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Super, D. E., & Sverko, B. E. (1995). Life roles, values, and careers: International

findings of the Work Importance Study. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass. Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics. (4th ed.). Boston,

MA: Allyn & Bacon. Taggar, S., Hackett, R., & Saha, S. (1999). Leadership emergence in autonomous work

teams: Antecedents and outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 52(4), 899. Tannenbaum, R., & Schmidt, W. H. (1958). How to choose a leadership pattern.

Harvard Business Review, 36(2), 95-101. Taylor, J. R. (1989). Linguistic categorisation: Prototypes in liguistic theory (2nd ed.).

Oxford: Oxford University Press. Taylor, J. R., & Robichaud, D. (2007). Management as metaconversation: The search

for closure. In F. Cooren (Ed.), Interacting and organizing: Analyses of a management meeting (pp. 5-30). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Taylor, P., Keelty, Y., & McDonnell, B. (2002). Evolving personnel selection practices

in New Zealand organisations and recruitment firms. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 31(1), 8.

Tejeda, M. J., Scandura, T. A., & Pillai, R. (2001). The MLQ revisited: Psychometric

properties and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 12(1), 31-52. Terracciano, A., Abdel-Khalek, A. M., Adam, N., Adamovova, L., Ahn, C. K., Ahn, H.

N., & Meshcheriakov, B. (2005). National character does not reflect mean personality trait levels in 49 cultures. Science, 310(5745), 96-100.

Terman, L. M. (1904). A preliminary study in the psychology and pedagogy of

leadership. The Pedagogical Seminary, 11(4), 413-483. Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as predictors

of job performance: a meta analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 44(4), 703-742.

232

Tett, R. R., Jackson, D. N., Rothstein, M., & Reddon, J. R. (1994). Meta analysis of

personality-job performance relations: A reply to Ones, Mount, Barrick, and Hunter. Personnel Psychology, 47(1), 157-172.

Thorndike, E. L. (1920). Intelligence and its uses. Harper's Magazine, 140, 227-35. Tokar, D. M., & Subich, L. M. (1997). Relative contributions of congruence and

personality dimensions to job satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50(3), 482-491.

Topping, K., Bremer, W., & Holmes, E. (2000). Social competence: The social

construction of the concept. . In R. Bar-On & J. Parker (Eds.), The handbook of emotional intelligence: Theory, development, assessment, and application at home, school, and in the workplace (pp. 28 –39). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Topping, P. A. (2002). Managerial leadership. New York: McGraw-Hill. Totterdell, P., Wall, T., Holman, D., Diamond, H., & Epitropaki, O. (2004). Affect

networks: a structural analysis of the relationship between work ties and job-related affect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 854.

Tourish, D., & Vatcha, N. (2005). Charismatic leadership and corporate cultism at

Enron: The elimination of dissent, the promotion of conformity and organizational collapse. Leadership, 1(4), 455-480.

Towler, A. J. (2003). Effects of charismatic influence training on attitudes, behavior,

and performance. Personnel Psychology, 56(2), 363-381. Trask, R. (1999). Key concepts in language and linguistics. New York: Routledge. Treadway, D. C., Hochwarter, W. A., Kacmar, C. J., & Ferris, G. R. (2005). Political

will, political skill, and political behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(3), 229-245. doi: 10.1002/job.310

Trower, P., Bryant, B., Argyle, M., & Marzillier, J. (1978). Social skills and mental

health. London: Methuen. Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1961). Recurrent personality factors based on trait

ratings. San Antonio, TX: Lackland Air Force Base. Tyler, L. E. (1965). The psychology of human differences (3rd ed.). New York:

Appleton-Century-Croft. Tyler, L. E. (1978). Individuality: Human possibilities and personal choice in the

psychological development of men and women. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of

leadership and organizing. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 654-676. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.007

233

Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K. (2014). Followership

theory: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 83-104. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.007

Van Eerde, W., & Thierry, H. (1996). Vroom's expectancy models and work-related

criteria: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(5), 575. Van Veslor, E., & Leslie, J. (1995). Why executives derail: Perspectives across time and

cultures. Academy of Management Executive, 9, 62-72. Vassend, O., & Skrondal, A. (2011). The NEO personality inventory revised (NEO-PI-

R): Exploring the measurement structure and variants of the five-factor model. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(8), 1300-1304.

Vaughan, E., & McLean, J. (1989). A survey and critique of management selection

practices in Australian business firms. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 27(4), 20-33.

Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2004). Strategic leadership and organizational learning.

Academy of Management Review, 29(2), 222-240. Verhoeven, L., & de Jong, J. H. (1992). The construct of language proficiency:

Applications of psychological models to language assessment. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.

Verhoeven, L., & Vermeer, A. (1985). Ethnic group differences in children's oral

proficiency of Dutch. In G. Extra & T. Vallen (Eds.), Ethnic minorities and Dutch as a second language (pp. 105-132). Dordrecht: Foris Publications.

Verhoeven, L., & Vermeer, A. (1986). Taaltoets Allochtone Kinderen [Language

proficiency test for children with Dutch as a second language]. Arnhem: Cito. Verhoeven, L., & Vermeer, A. (2002). Communicative competence and personality

dimensions in first and second language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 23, 361-374.

Vigoda-Gadot, E. & Drory, A. (2006). Handbook of organizational politics.

Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Vigoda-Gadot, E. & Drory, A. (2008). Handbook of organizational politics.

Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Vitek, T. S. (2003). Leadership behavior and managerial success: A test of three theories. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 63, 5560. Viteles, M. S. (1953). Motivation and morale in industry. New York: Norton. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: John Willey & Sons, Inc.

234

Vroom, V. H. (1966). Organizational choice: A study of pre-and postdecision processes.

Organizational behavior and human performance, 1(2), 212-225. Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (1988). The new leadership: Managing participation in

organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and decision-making. Pittsburgh:

University of Pittsburgh Press. Wagner, R. K., & Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Practical intelligence in real-world pursuits:

The role of tacit knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(2), 436.

Walck, C. L. (1996). Management and leadership. In A. L. Hammer (Ed.), MBTI

applications: A decade of research on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (55-75). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Walcott, W. H. (2007). Knowledge, competence and communication: Chomsky, Freire,

Searle, and communicative language teaching. Montréal: Black Rose Books. Waldman, D. A., Bass, B. M., & Yammarino, F. J. (1990). Adding to contingent-reward

behavior the augmenting effect of charismatic leadership. Group & Organization Management, 15(4), 381-394.

Walker, S. F., & Marr, J. W. (2001). Stakeholder power: A winning strategy for

building stakeholder commitment and driving corporate growth. Cambridge (United Kingdom): Perseus Publishing.

Walter, V. (2000). 16PF personal career development profile technical and interpretive

manual. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing Inc. Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J.

(2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure†. Journal of Management, 34(1), 89-126.

Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., & Chen, Z. X. (2005). Leader-member

exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers' performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 420-432.

Wang, J.-J., & Kaufman, A. S. (1993). Changes in fluid and crystallized intelligence

across the 20-to 90-year age range on the K-BIT. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 11(1), 29-37.

Warr, P., Bartram, D., & Martin, T. (2005). Personality and sales performance:

Situational variation and interactions between traits. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 13(1), 87-91.

235

Watterson, D. (2002). The 16PF leadership coaching report manual. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.

Wayne, S. J., & Green, S. A. (1993). The effects of leader-member exchange on

employee citizenship and impression management behavior. Human Relations, 46(12), 1431-1440.

Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., Graf, I. K., & Ferris, G. R. (1997). The role of upward

influence tactics in human resource decisions. Personnel Psychology, 50(4), 979-1006.

Webb, R. M., & Lubinski, D. (2006). Individual differences. In S. Rogelberg (Ed.),

Encyclopedia of industrial/organizational psychology (Vol. 1). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Weber, M. (1947). The theory of economic and social organization. New York: Oxford

University Press. Wei, L. Q., Liu, J., Chen, Y. Y., & Wu, L. Z. (2010). Political skill, supervisor– subordinate guanxi and career prospects in Chinese firms. Journal of Management Studies, 47(3), 437-454. Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1-19. Weinert, F. E., & Hany, E. A. (2003). The stability of individual differences in

intellectual development: Empirical evidence, theoretical problems, and new research questions. In R. J. Sternberg, J. Lautrey, & T. I. Lubart (Eds.), Models of intelligence: International perspectives (pp. 169-181). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Widdowson, H. G. (1989). Knowledge of language and ability for use. Applied

Linguistics, 10(2), 128-137. Wiemann, J. M., & Backlund, P. (1980). Current theory and research in communicative

competence. Review of Educational Research, 50(1), 185-199. Williamson, O. E. (1995). Organization theory: From Chester Barnard to the present

and beyond. New York: Oxford University Press. Wilson, M. S., & Sibley, C. G. (2011). ‘Narcissism creep?’: Evidence for age-related

differences in narcissism in the New Zealand general population. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 40(3), 87-93.

Wine, J. D., & Smye, M. D. (1981). Social competence. New York: Guilford. Winter, D. G. (1991). A motivational model of leadership: Predicting long-term

management success from TAT measures of power motivation and responsibility. The Leadership Quarterly, 2(2), 67-80.

236

Witt, L. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2003). Social skill as moderator of the conscientiousness-performance relationship: convergent results across four studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 809-821. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.809

Wright, E. O., Baxter, J., & Birkelund, G. E. (1995). The gender gap in workplace

authority: A cross-national study. American Sociological Review, 407-435. Wrightsman Jr, L. S. (1964). Measurement of philosophies of human nature.

Psychological Reports, 14(3), 743-751. Young, R. (2011). Interactional competence in language learning, teaching, and testing.

In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. II). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum (pp. 426-443).

Yukl, G. (1981). Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Yukl, G. (1989). Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. Journal of

Management, 15(2), 251-289. Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall,

Inc. Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and

charismatic leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 285-305. Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Yukl, G. (2013). Leading in organizations. Boston: Pearson. Yukl, G., Wall, S., & Lepsinger, R. (1990). Preliminary report on validation of the

managerial practices survey. In K. E. Clark & M. B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadership (pp. 23–238). West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America.

Zaccaro, S. J. (1999). Social complexity and the competencies required for effective

military leadership. In J. G. Hunt, G. E. Dodge, & L. Wong (Eds.), Out-of-the-box leadership: Transforming the twenty-first century Army and other top performing organizations (pp. 131-151). Stamford, CT: JAI Press, Inc.

Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). The nature of executive leadership: A conceptual and empirical

analysis of success. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Zaccaro, S. J. (2002). Organizational leadership and social intelligence. In R. E. Riggio,

S. E. Murphy, & F. J. Pirozzolo (Eds.), Multiple intelligences and leadership (29-54). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

237

Zaccaro, S. J. (2012). Individual differences and leadership: Contributions to a third tipping point. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(4), 718-728. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.05.001

Zaccaro, S. J., Foti, R. J., & Kenny, D. A. (1991). Self-monitoring and trait-based

variance in leadership: An investigation of leader flexibility across multiple group situations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(2), 308.

Zaccaro, S. J., Gilbert, J. A., Thor, K. K., & Mumford, M. D. (1992). Leadership and

social intelligence: Linking social perspectiveness and behavioral flexibility to leader effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 2(4), 317-342.

Zaccaro, S. J., & Horn, Z. N. (2003). Leadership theory and practice: Fostering an

effective symbiosis. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(6), 769-806. Zaccaro, S. J., Kemp, C., & Bader, P. (2004). Leader traits and attributes. In J.

Antonakis, A. T. Cianciolo, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of leadership (pp. 101-124). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Zaccaro, S. J., & Klimoski, R. J. (Eds.) (2002). The nature of organizational leadership:

Understanding the performance imperatives confronting today's leaders. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Zeidner, M., Matthews, G., & Roberts, R. D. (2004). Emotional intelligence in the

workplace: A critical review. Applied Psychology, 53(3), 371-399. Zeidner, M., Roberts, R. D., & Matthews, G. (2002). Can emotional intelligence be

schooled? A critical review. Educational Psychologist, 37(4), 215-231. Zenger, J. H., & Folkman, J. (2002). The extraordinary leader: Turning good managers into great leaders. New York: McGraw Hill.

238

Appendix A02

List of tables

Table 3-01: Demographic statistics of respondent group ............................................. 261

Table 3-02: BAQ factors aligned to the Big Five Model as measured by the NEO-PI .. 88

Table 3-03: BAQ factors and underlying facets ............................................................. 89

Table 3-04: Summaries of facet-level constructs in BAQ, with high-end and low-end labels ............................................................................................................................. 264

Table 3-05: Example of items from item groups assigned to each facet of the BAQ... 268

Table 3-06: Internal consistency (alpha reliability coefficients) for each factor and facet of the normative section of the BAQ ............................................................................ 270

Table 3-07: Correlations between the first and second halves of the BAQ .................. 272

Table 3-08: Correlations between factors of the BAQ and the NEO-PI-R ................... 274

Table 3-09: Factor analysis of the BAQ facets (Varimax rotation) .............................. 276

Table 3-10: PSI dimensions and definitions ................................................................... 92

Table 3-11: Political Skill Inventory (PSI) items .......................................................... 278

Table 4-01: Percentage of total variance explained by factors of BAQ ....................... 285

Table 4-02: Obliquely rotated component loadings for BAQ variables ....................... 287

Table 4-03: Percentage of total variance explained by factors of PSI .......................... 290

Table 4-04: Obliquely rotated component loadings for PSI variables .......................... 292

Table 4-05: Descriptive statistics for BAQ domain variables ...................................... 100

Table 4-06: Descriptive statistics for PSI domain variables ......................................... 101

Table 4-07: Relationships between respondent demographic variables (Pearson’s r) . 103

Table 4-08: Male/female differences in educational level and leadership status (t tests) ....................................................................................................................................... 104

Table 4-09: Leader versus non leader difference in area of occupation and years in organisation (t tests) ...................................................................................................... 105

Table 4-10: Differences in years of work experience according to education level (t test) ....................................................................................................................................... 107

Table 4-11: Analysis of variance for personality; gender as independent variable ...... 110

Table 4-12: Relationship between age and BAQ variables .......................................... 111

Table 4-13: Relationships between work experience and tenure on current job and BAQ variables ........................................................................................................................ 112

Table 4-14: Relationship between age and “political skill” variables .......................... 114

239

Table 4-15: Relationships between work experience and job tenure, and “political skill” variables ........................................................................................................................ 115

Table 4-16: Occupational-relevant personality traits: Differences between leaders and non-leaders (t tests) ....................................................................................................... 116

Table 4-17: “Political skill” components: Differences between leaders and non-leaders (t tests) ........................................................................................................................... 119

Table 4-18: Relationships between the BAQ variables ................................................ 294

Table 4-19: Relationships between the PSI variables ................................................... 296

Table 4-20: Relationships between extraversion and altruism and the communicative competence variables .................................................................................................... 121

Table 4-21: Relationships between conscientiousness and interpersonal influence, networking ability, and social astuteness variables....................................................... 122

Table 4-22: Descriptive statistics for BAQ variables across leader and non-leader groups ............................................................................................................................ 297

Table 4-23: Descriptive statistics for PSI variables across leader and non-leader groups.. ....................................................................................................................................... 299

Table 4-24: Relationships between the dimensions of work-related personality and the dimensions of communicative competence for leaders ................................................ 123

Table 4-25: Relationships between the dimensions of work-related personality and the dimensions of communicative competence for non-leaders ......................................... 124

Table 4-26: β values, multiple regression coefficients of extraversion and communicative competence predicting leadership tenure ............................................ 130

Table 4-27: β values, multiple regression coefficients of altruism and communicative competence predicting leadership tenure ...................................................................... 132

Table 4-28: β values, multiple regression coefficients of conscientiousness and communicative competence predicting leadership tenure ............................................ 133

240

Appendix A03

List of figures

Figure 2-01: Verhoeven and Vermeer’s communicative competence model ................. 65

241

Appendix A04

Background on linguistic competence argument

As part of summarising a few central tenets of Communicative Competence (CC)

theory, Section 2.1.3.4.1 reviews theoretical antecedents of CC. The introduction of CC

as a new concept in theoretical and applied linguistics can best be understood if

contrasted to pre-existing models of 'linguistic competence' and 'grammatical

competence'. This Appendix outlines conceptual proposals, such as Chomsky's

competence/ performance distinction, that anchored and enriched such models before

the advent of CC research.

(A)

Linguistic potentialities

Language is a shared medium of a community, but situated language use varies from

person to person (Fillmore, Kempler, & Wang, 1979). Findings in applied linguistics

and the psychology of language, from classical research into affective connotation in

lexical meaning (Osgood, Suci, & Tannenbaum, 1957; Osgood, May, & Miron, 1975)

to experimental projects (Daneman & Carpenter, 1980; Carpenter & Just, 1989;

Carpenter, Miyake, & Just, 1994, 1995) demonstrate theoretically and practically

weighty individual differences in the use of natural language. Variation is systematic

rather than random, and not entirely idiolect-based (Oksaar, 1987).

Inter-individual differences are manifested in using one's native language(s) in areas

such as language comprehension, production, and acquisition. It is a truism that such

differences are noticeable in second language learning and use.

242

Theoretical linguistics predominantly focused on 'knowledge' of symbol systems shared

by members of a community of users; in simplistic terms, on knowledge that does not

vary from individual to individual. Sharing these systems is one condition enabling

members to communicate. In case inter-individual differences in language use exist,

these become a legitimate subject of inquiry. Therefore it is legitimate to look for

constructs explaining and predicting the individual differences, rather than just

manifestations of divergence (e.g. different ways in which Leader Ld1 versus Leader

Ld2 communicate in a real-life context).

A differential-psychological view seeks to introduce covert explanatory entities to

explain why manifestations differ. For example, the construct of verbal intelligence

(Carroll, 1993) can be used to explain why Individual In1 is able to accurately follow

complex sentences with multiple subordinate clauses while Individual In2 fails to

comprehend them. Differential psychology has in many cases advanced 'in tandem' with

psychometrics. Researchers in the tradition attempted to obey the law of parsimony

when postulating new constructs, and sought defensible operationalisations of each

construct as far as possible. Most operationalisations resulted in psychometric tools

(such as language proficiency tests).

While the major issue for the differential psychologist is to signal that a test is 'construct

valid' (capable of tapping a hypothetical construct) and reliable, a more recent cognitive

approach to differences in language use investigates mental processing (e.g. the

information processing sequences required for an output).

243

In practice, psychometric operationalisations of constructs may have some utility

without a genuine cognitive inquiry. For instance, total scores of a test can accurately

predict a future behaviour of practical importance (the 'criterion' of criterion-related

validity). Applied linguistics and language testing (Bostrom, 1984; Rivera, 1984;

Bachman & Palmer, 1981, 1982; Verhoeven & de Jong, 1992) made extensive use of

this possibility. However, optimisation of measurement by psychometric tests requires

insight into the processing occurring when test takers respond, or solve problems

presented in tests.

Constructs of language comprehension were among the first for which a full cognitive

de-composition of test tasks was attempted. The later work of John B. Carroll and his

componential models (see Carroll, 1968, 1979, 1985, 1987, 1993; Carroll & Freedle,

1972) pioneered the study of information processing underlying responding to items of

language tests (Curtis, 1986).

(B)

Grammatical competence and accounting for language use

It has become a literary commonplace to conceive of CC as a notion introduced in

contradistinction to Noam Chomsky's grammatical competence. While some

potentialities of users were investigated for a long time before the 1950s --mainly in

educational research -- it was the competence/performance distinction (Chomsky, 1965)

that made linguists aware of how necessary a precisely delimited concept of

competence is. The distinction is rooted in de Saussure's langue/parole theory.

Chomsky described linguistic competence as a form of knowledge:

244

'We .... make a fundamental distinction between competence (the speaker-hearer's

knowledge of the language), and performance, the actual use of language in concrete

situations'

(Chomsky, 1965, p. 4).

This knowledge, possessed by an idealised language user, enables her/him to produce

well-formed strings of symbols, and distinguish well-formed from ill-formed strings.

Chomsky's linguistic competence was elaborated in concordance with his consecutive

theories of grammar, such as versions of transformational generative grammar. It was

further adjusted when 'generative semanticists' re-modelled grammar (cf. Maclay, 1971,

for a critical summary), signalling the adequacy of the label 'grammatical competence'.

Chomskyan grammatical competence has a phonological and syntactic, later a syntacto-

semantic, emphasis. The main, syntactic, component of competence was outlined as an

automaton represented as a sequence of rules generating well-formed sentences in

abstracto. Further, competence was depicted as a human faculty that is mostly

'biological' - in other words, is inborn and pre-wired – or at least dependent on a

genetically determined apparatus (Pinker, 2007, 2013).

Performance, in Chomsky's original competence/ performance distinction, is close to

realistic language use. Chomsky (1965) equated performance with situated language

use, although interpretation of the Chomskyan notion of a 'situation' is disputed.

Performance includes factors manifested in real-life use that are thought to be external

to grammatical competence. Examples point to psychological aspects of users such as

memory resources (that may limit the number of clauses in sentences with multiple

embedding), attention shifts, fluctuation of interest (Chomsky, 1964). From the

245

psycholinguist's point of view, both Chomskyan competence and performance proved to

be fruitful. Rules in models of grammatical competence triggered the research

programme of 'psychological reality' (Greene, 1972, 1986). The impact was especially

notable in empirical analyses of syntactic and semantic mechanisms in human sentence

processing (Carroll, 1986).

Researchers also examined non-linguistic cognitive factors that influence

comprehension and production. Pioneers such as Charles E. Osgood attempted to build

a 'performance grammar' in psychological terms.

It might first appear that the competence/performance distinction is in line with an older

paradigm in empirical psychology: the correlational tradition. At first glance, the

distinction follows the classical dichotomy of potentiality (constructs) and manifestation

(observable behaviour). Chomsky's competence, further, is an example of a hypothetical

construct in that it has 'added meaning' (as opposed to a 'bare' variable defined by a

formula), assumes a mental entity, and is introduced as part of a multi-concept model

inviting mutual clarification of constructs (MacCorquodale and Meehl, 1948).

In an insightful study to clarify Chomsky's, Hymes', Munby's and Corder's views on

competence, Taylor denies the above parallelism. He claims that a 'source of difficulty

is the .... interpretation of competence to include ability .... Chomsky's original

definition of the term always excluded this idea'

(Taylor, 1988, pp. 148-149).

246

Taylor distinguishes an 'absolute' and a 'relative' variant of linguistic competence, and

claims Chomsky's notion is absolute. This distinction is supposed to be sharper than the

so-called 'strong' versus 'weak' interpretation of competence (Campbell & Wales, 1970;

Greene, 1972). By an 'absolute' linguistic competence Taylor means that the notion does

not 'admit degrees'; therefore it does not, and is not intended to, account for inter-

individual variability. So, while grammatical competence is a construct, and it can

explain situated, real-time language use, it is not a differential or 'relative' construct, and

is not meant to explain patterns of use that differ from individual to individual.

Chomsky (1980) states that the term 'competence' is misleading if it happens to suggest

ability.

In Reflections on Language (1975) Chomsky considers 'mind .... as an innate capacity

to form cognitive structures, not first- order capacities to act'. He asserts that

'knowledge' of a language -- the way he originally defined competence -- is not a

'capacity' or 'ability' to act, 'though it enters into the capacity or ability exercised in

language use' (p. 23). He draws a taxonomy of mental constructs with two strata.

Competence is placed at a more profound level (abstract cognitive structure) while

capacity, ability, as well as 'dispositions', at a distinct, shallower level (Chomsky, 1975).

Locating the competence notion at a level more abstract than differential-psychological

constructs, and restricting it to universally possessed architecture, makes us more aware

of the necessity of introducing a construct such as CC that

is meant to, and is fit to, account for inter-individual variance in language use;

fulfils this expectation at the level of an underlying potentiality rather than

relegating it to the level of observable manifestation (performance);

247

includes precisely stated rules outside phonology, syntax, and semantics (e.g.

socio-cultural appropriateness rules).

(C)

Conceptualising communicative ability: the linguistic competence/CC antinomy

The original proposal of CC (Hymes, 1967a/1970; Jakobovits, 1970) recognises that

Chomsky's grammatical competence does not cover sufficiently many aspects of an

assumed construct required to explain individual variance in language use. This can

appear unsurprising if grammatical competence is taken, as originally intended, as a

model of a 'knowledge' most human minds possess (Widdowson, 1989). Intended goals

of Chomsky's competence theory also discouraged inclusion of pragmatic aspects of

competence as defined in linguistic pragmatics (Levinson, 1983; Mey, 1993). The

theory focused on idealised functioning stripped of the factors operating in natural

communication settings.

Introducing CC appeared useful, in the first instance, as:

grammatical competence (as a 'non-ability', 'absolute' concept) did not attend to

all internal preconditions for language use, especially not use in interpersonal or

social context;

as originally suggested (Chomsky, 1965), performance was a notion unsuited for

developing a full-fledged theory of potentialities, such as those in situated

language use.

248

The consequences of these observations were first drawn in the early work of Hymes

(1967a/1970, 1967b/ 1974, 1967c, 1970) and Jakobovits (1970), leading to conceptual

exploration of a notion of CC.

To be a successful user in a naturalistic situation, one needs grammatical competence

(e.g. syntactic generator/parser and lexicon). However, there are further elements and

mechanisms to be assumed in order that:

one could describe how users mobilise a static 'knowledge of language';

situated language use be explained and/or predicted;

regular patterns of inter-individual difference in use are accounted for.

(Examples for the 'extended' mechanisms are provided by familiar notions of

pragmatics such as computation of illocutionary force, or accommodation to relative

statuses of speaker and hearer.)

The necessity to broaden grammatical competence entailed a shift from static, universal

competence to genuine differential-psychological constructs. It motivated studies of a

number of distinct aspects of language potentialities. They include pragmatic, social,

sociolinguistic and discourse competence (even competence in using non-linguistic

semiotic systems as part of conversation). There is no reason to exclude any of these as

a legitimate target for modelling competence in communication, in a broader sense of

'communication'.

Within a short time, several alternative models of CC were suggested (Munby, 1968;

Corder, 1973; Rivers, 1973; Paulston, 1974; Canale & Swain, 1979, 1980, 1981; see

249

also McCarthy, 1973; Ervin-Tripp, 1978; Wiemann & Backlund, 1980; Bachman &

Palmer, 1981, 1982; Palmer, Groot, & Trosper, 1981).

Models of pragmatic (Bates, 1976; Kasper & Blum-Kulka, 1993; Ifantidou, 2014)

conversational (Ochs Keenan, 1974; Ochs & Schieffelin, 1983; Dimitracopoulou, 1990;

Geis, 1995), interpersonal (Wiemann & Kelly, 1981; Wiemann, Takai, Ota, &

Wiemann, 1997) or dialogic competence (Weigand, 1997) were also developed, without

adopting the terminology of CC.

250

Appendix A05

Personality tests: Tests adapted for occupational use

16PF

Cattell (1946) identified 16 primary level personality traits, which he viewed as the

basic elements of personality. Using factor analysis, Cattell developed the Sixteen

Personality Factor questionnaire (16PF) (Cattell, Eber, & Tatsuoka, 1970), which

provides scores on the following factors: Warm vs. Reserved (A), Abstract-Reasoning

vs. Concrete-Reasoning (B), Emotionally Stable vs. Reactive (C), Dominant vs.

Deferential (E), Lively vs. Serious (F), Rule-Conscious vs. Expedient (G), Socially

Bold vs. Shy (H), Sensitive vs. Utilitarian (I), Vigilant vs. Trusting (L), Abstracted vs.

Grounded (M), Private vs. Forthright (N), Apprehensive vs. Self-Assured (0), Open to

Change vs. Traditional (Q1), Self-Reliant vs. Group-Oriented (Q2), Perfectionistic vs.

Tolerates Disorder (Q3), Tense vs. Relaxed (Q4). These factors are assessed through

185 questions in a three-choice format.

The 16PF is a widely used measure of personality characteristics; since its release in

1949 it has been applied in a range of settings, including industrial and organisational,

clinical and counselling, and education (Cattell, et al., 1970; Conn & Rieke, 1994).

There is a widespread body of research demonstrating the 16PF’s ability to predict a

wide variety of occupational profiles (Cattell, et al., 1970; Conn & Rieke, 1994; Russell

& Karol, 2002; Schuerger & Watterson, 1998; Walter, 2000), and it has also been

deemed useful in predicting executive and leadership styles (Cattell, et al., 1970;

Cattell, et al., 1999; Roy, 1995; Watterson, 2002).

251

The 16PF’s lower level trait approach to the study of personality is one aspect often

used in criticisms of the Big Five model of personality, where personality is viewed at a

global level and may not provide the same level of detail as lower level trait

examinations (Boyle, Stankov, & Cattell, 1995; Kline, 2013; Warr, Bartram & Martin,

2005). The 16PF does project five global factor scores in addition to its primary level

traits: Extraverted vs. Introverted (EX), High Anxiety vs. Low Anxiety (AX), Tough-

Minded vs. Receptive (TM), Independent vs. Accommodating (IN), Self-Controlled vs.

Unrestrained (SC).

Despite the positives of Cattell's 16PF, the most apparent criticism in the literature is

that despite many later research attempts, his theory has never been entirely replicated

(Eysenck & Eysenck, 1969, 1987; Sells, et al., 1970; Noller, Law, Comrey, 1987). This

could have been due to errors in Cattell’s factor analysis computations, thus hindering

the possibility of replication. Also, the use of the 16PF in an organisational context

could be questioned as it is not designed specifically for use in the workplace; rather, it

measures traits in a number of contexts.

CPI

The California Psychological Inventory (CPI) purports to measure 20 features of normal

personality important for social living and interaction (Gough & Weinhart, 1975). The

author conceptualised the 20 basic scales as dimensions of interpersonal behaviour that

exist in all human societies, explaining the label “folk concepts” (Bolton, 1992). These

20 scales are: Dominance (Do), Capacity for Status (Cs), Sociability (Sy), Social

Presence (Sp), Self-Acceptance (Sa), Independence (In), Empathy (Em), Responsibility

(Re), Socialization (So), Self-Control (Sc), Good Impression (Gi), Communality (Cm),

252

Well-Being (Wb), Tolerance (To), Achievement via Conformance (Ac), Achievement

via Independence (Ai), Intellectual Efficiency (Ie), Psychological-Mindedness (Py),

Flexibility (Fx), Femininity/Masculinity (Fm). Assessments are made using 462

true/false items. Overall, the CPI is viewed as an excellent and reliable normal

personality assessment (Bolton, 1992).

The CPI has been validated as a predictor of occupational performance in police officers

by Pugh (1985) and Hogan (1971). A breakthrough meta-analysis by Aamodt (2004,

Aamodt & Weiss, 2010) of police psychology selection data provided support for the

predictive validity of the CPI. The developer of the CPI posits that as leadership is a

mode of social conduct, the instrument is theoretically a relevant tool for the study of

the phenomenon (Gough, 1969). Several studies are cited as providing evidence on the

utility of the CPI when linked to leadership (Carson & Parker, 1966; Collins, 1967;

Liddle, 1958; Elliott, 1960; Johnson & Frandsen, 1962), however these studies exploit

students, college males and military programme attendees in their participant groups,

thus the extrapolation of the findings to occupational incumbents could have been

compromised.

An issue that organisational psychologists should be aware of when using the CPI is the

inclusion of 194 items from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)

that refer to symptoms of pathology; this constitutes almost half of the assessment.

Seventy of these items present themselves as explicit indicators of depression, paranoia,

hysteria, hypochondriasis, and similar problems. The use of such psychiatric-focused

items in an organisational context to assess variations in normal personality functioning

is questionable.

253

NEO-PI-R

The purpose of conducting the NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992b) is to measure the

five main dimensions of normal, individual adult personality, which accords with the

Five Factor model of personality. The instrument is comprised of a 240-item

questionnaire, measuring 30 facets across the five domains. Each domain is comprised

of the following six facets: Neuroticism – anxiety, angry hostility, depression, self-

consciousness, impulsiveness, vulnerability; Extraversion – warmth, gregariousness,

assertiveness, activity, excitement-seeking, positive emotions; Openness – fantasy,

aesthetics, feelings, actions, ideas, values; Agreeableness – trust, straightforwardness,

altruism, compliance, modesty, tender-mindedness and Conscientiousness –

competence, order, dutifulness, achievement striving, self-discipline, deliberation.

The NEO-PI-R has been adopted by a number of professionals in the organisational

psychology field. Application of the NEO-PI-R can include developing strategies for

selection and placement in order to find the optimal match between the person and

position; rational strategies require that the organisational psychologist determine the

optimal personality profile for a particular position and seeks candidates who have such

a profile (McCrae, 1996).

McCrae (1996) suggests that based on many studies reviewed earlier, “it would be

reasonable to look for high scores on Conscientiousness in candidates for almost any

job”. Costa & McCrae (1995) looked at the correlation of the NEO-PI-R with

occupational scales, and showed that desirable employees are well adjusted and

conscientious - two facets that are linked to the Conscientiousness domain. Other

254

studies also support this trait as a predictor of desirable employees and accordingly,

successful job performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Mount & Barrick, 1995; Salgado,

1997; Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991; Tokar & Subich, 1997). Though the explicit

use of the NEO-PI-R in the examination of leaders is missing, the trait of

Conscientiousness has been considered important to several components of leadership,

such as motivating others, goal-setting, and task-orientation (Aronoff & Wilson, 1985;

Barrick, Mount, & Strauss, 1993; Costa & McCrae, 1992a; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991).

The NEO-PI-R is only a starting point for personnel predictions because of its broad

nature. Nonetheless, Boyle, Matthews, & Saklofske (2008) state that results from the

NEO-PI-R have been used to predict real-life outcomes such as occupational change,

life satisfaction, and coping with traumatic events. This suggests evidence of

occupational related criterion-validity of the NEO-PI-R.

MBTI

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is one of the most widely used personality

tools, with over three million people a year completing it (Center for Applications of

Psychological Type, CAPT, 1992, in Gardner & Martinko, 1996), with major

corporations administering the MBTI predominantly for team building and leadership

development. Jung’s (1971) psychoanalytical conceptualisation of personality provided

the basis of the MBTI. This inventory seeks to classify the personality traits of

individuals along four continuums, and produces 16 subtypes of personality “types”. It

is composed of 94 forced-choice items that constitute the four bipolar scales implied in

Jung’s theory. The four dimensions of the MBTI include:

Extraversion versus Introversion

255

Sensing versus Intuition

Thinking versus Feeling

Judging versus Perceiving

Michael (2003) notes that the MBTI has become popular as a leadership development

tool. Bass & Stogdill (1990) report that in a sample of 875 US managers who were

tested between 1979 and 1983, individuals were concentrated in the following four

subtypes: ISTJ; ES TJ; ENTJ; and, INTJ. It has been posited that such “leader” types

gravitate toward leadership positions (Gardner & Martinko, 1996). However Myers &

Myers (1980) note that because each type has certain strengths, no particular type is

superior. In fact, no particular type has been linked to leadership, and the use of the

MBTI on its own has been found to provide an incomplete picture of managerial

behaviour (Walck, 1996; Michael, 2003). This is concerning, as the MBTI often

appears as a stand-alone tool or as a lead-in to a leadership-training programme.

Criticism for the MBTI’s use in the leadership context exists, as it is being used in ways

that it was not originally intended for. Moreover, the MBTI has been psychometrically

criticised. Gardner & Martinko (1996) note that concerns exist about the MBTI’s

psychometric properties and have led researchers to seek alternative measures. Critics

have also noted that the MBTI does not give comprehensive information on all the

scales (Furnham, 1996). Additionally, concerns exist regarding type theory and its

operationalisation. McCrae & Costa (1989), in Furnham (1996), note that the MBTI is

unusual among personality assessment tools as it is based on classic theory, and the

original concepts posited by Jung are distorted with the MBTI attempting to

256

operationalise Jung’s theory in ways that are inconsistent. Studies using the MBTI have

not always confirmed the theory or the validity of the measure.

257

Appendix A06

Personality tests: Tests for occupational use

OPQ

The Occupational Personality Questionnaire (OPQ) is a workplace specific personality

assessment developed by SHL to predict how a person might behave in the work setting

(Saville, Holdsworth, Nyfield, Cramp, & Mabey, 1984). It is widely used in the UK,

where it was developed in the early 1980s, and has been translated into at least 15

different languages for use around the globe. Through 416 items, the OPQ provides

scores on the following 30 scales that are grouped into 3 areas: Relationships with

People (Persuasive, Controlling, Independent, Outgoing, Affiliative, Socially Confident,

Modest, Democratic, Caring); Thinking Style (Practical, Data Rational, Artistic,

Behavioral, Traditional, Change Oriented, Conceptual, Innovative, Forward Planning,

Detail Conscious, Conscientious), and Feelings and Emotions (Relaxed, Worrying,

Tough-Minded, Emotional Control, Optimistic, Critical, Active, Competitive,

Achieving, Decisive).

The OPQ differs from the other personality measurements described in this thesis, at it

was not developed to suit a single theory of personality; instead, an “eclectic approach”

was used utilising personality traits and management style constructs proposed by

theorists such as Cattell, Murray, Eysenck, and Hersey, as well as appraisal

documentation and personality construct markers from the observation of a sample of

people in work (Saville, Sik, Nyfield, Hakston & MacIver, 1996).

Evidence supporting the job-related validity of the OPQ instruments has been reported

in a number of studies across a range of industry sectors and job types (e.g. Saville, Sik,

258

Nyfield, Hackston, & MacIver, 1996; Robertson & Kinder, 1993; SHL, 1989, 1995)

though the OPQ manual provides some superficial discussions, and references

unpublished validation studies, which is of concern. There is a scarcity of literature

available that looks at the OPQ with regards to leadership. It seems that for

practitioners, the attractiveness of the OPQ lies in its high face validity.

15FQ+

The 15FQ+ was developed as a workplace version of the 16PF (Cattell, et al., 1970).

Through 200 items, the 15FQ+ measures 15 bipolar scales – Empathic, Emotionally

stable, Dominant, Enthusiastic, Conscientious, Socially bold, Tender-minded,

Suspicious, Abstract, Restrained, Apprehensive, Radical, Self-sufficient, Self-

disciplined, and Tense-driven – which can be combined to calculate scores for the five

global personality factors that reflect the Big Five personality traits. The five global

scales of the 15FQ+ are: Extraversion, Neuroticism, Openness, Agreeableness, and

Self-Control (Psychometrics International, 2002).

The 15FQ+ measures the 15 non-ability factors that the 16PF identified; the excluded

16th factor is the B factor that measures an ability source trait – intelligence (Cattell, et

al., 1970). Factor B was excluded from the 15FQ as it is now commonly accepted that

ability factors can only be reliably measured through the use of timed tests. As such,

untimed personality tests are unable to assess intelligence with an acceptable degree of

reliability and validity (Psychometrics International, 2002).

Published in 1949, the 15FQ+ remains one of the most commonly used personality

inventories (Cattell & Krug, 1986), with its reliability and validity appearing to be

259

reasonably well supported. Strong correlations with the 16PF point to the strong

construct validity of the 15FQ+ (Moyo & Theron, 2011). However, there is little

criterion-related validity evidence for the instrument, but organisations throughout the

world have used the 15FQ+ widely.

HPI and HDS

Developed in line with socioanalytic theory and modelled on the CPI, the Hogan

Personality Inventory is designed for the assessment of normal personality and is used

in personnel selection, individualised assessment, and career-related guidance (Hogan &

Hogan, 1995). The focus for this tool is on practical use within a workplace context, as

is apparent in its business-focused language and writing style; thus it presents with good

face validity. The following scales, established through factor analysis, comprise the

primary level traits: Intellectance, Adjustment, Ambition, Sociability, Likeability,

Prudence, and School Success, and these scales can be aligned with the Big Five model.

The instrument consists of 206 true/false items.

As noted, the HPI can be mapped onto the Big Five model. The authors (Hogan &

Hogan 2007:15, 17) claim though that the HPI offers a more detailed description of

personality, asserting for example that Extraversion and Openness to Experience should

be subdivided in the following way – Extraversion into Ambition (dominance,

ambitiousness) and Sociability (gregariousness, communicativeness) and Openness to

Experience into Inquisitiveness (imagination, cognitive style, openness to the new) and

Learning Approach (educational style, information processing).

260

With regards to leadership, Hogan, et al. (1994) emphasise the presence of social and

interpersonal skills; these skills are reflected in the HPI’s personality traits such as

adjustment (e.g., being self-confident and able to handle pressure), social impact (e.g.,

being outgoing and assertive), and agreeableness (e.g., being warm and friendly).

Rooted in the taxonomies of the personality disorders, the Hogan Development Survey

(HDS) is designed to assess 11 common dysfunctional dispositions – these 11 scales

are: Excitable, Skeptical, Cautious, Reserved, Leisurely, Bold, Mischievous, Colorful,

Imaginative, Diligent and Dutiful (Hogan & Hogan, 1997). The HDS is used in

occupational settings to assess the “dark side” of human personality. The instrument

consists of 168 agree/disagree items. The authors’ rationale for the HDS’s development

is the paucity of tools mapping dysfunctional interpersonal behaviour outside the

clinical area.

The authors note that the Big Five model normally captures people when they are

controlling themselves and trying to produce maximum performance (Hogan & Hogan

2007). There are situations, however, when a person stops controlling their public

image, for example when stressed, bored, or exhausted. Research indicates that in these

situations there are characteristics people display that go beyond the Big Five (Hogan &

Hogan 2007: 4 – 8). Here the HDS can be utilised.

Although previous research has examined “bright” and “dark” personality

characteristics in the prediction of leadership effectiveness (Judge, Bono, Illies, &

Gerhardt, 2002) there is little validation research supporting the use of the HPI and HDS

in the occupational context.

261

Appendix A07

Table 3-01 Demographic statistics of respondent group

Table 3-01

Demographic statistics of respondent group

Demographics Frequency (n) Percentage

Gender

Male 31 30.4%

Female 71 69.6%

Currently in leadership position

Yes 47 46.1%

No 55 53.9%

Years of leadership experience

Not applicable 42 41.2%

<1 to 4 years 27 26.5%

5 to 9 years 23 22.5%

10 to 19 years 6 5.9%

20+ years 3 2.9%

Unusable result 1 1.0%

Age (years)

22 – 29 42 41.2%

30 – 39 33 32.4%

40 – 49 15 14.7%

50 – 59 12 11.7%

Ethnicity

262

NZ European/Pakeha 70 68.6%

NZ Euro/Pakeha & Pacific

Island/Māori

12 11.8%

Other European 11 10.8%

NZ Euro/Pakeha & Asian/Indian 5 4.9%

Other 4 3.9%

Education level

Master’s or higher 10 9.8%

Bachelors degree 50 49.0%

Other degree 4 3.9%

Lower tertiary qualification 20 19.6%

Completed secondary school 16 15.7%

Did not complete secondary school 2 2.0%

Years of work experience

<1 to 9 years 34 33.3%

10 to 19 years 41 40.2%

20 to 29 years 18 17.7%

30+ years 9 8.8%

Tenure at current organisation

<1 year 24 23.5%

1 year to <5 years 37 36.3%

5 years to <10 years 29 28.4%

10 years+ 12 11.8%

Occupation

HR & recruitment 18 17.6%

263

Marketing 12 11.8%

Education 9 8.8%

Administration & support 9 8.8%

Specialist 8 7.8%

Retail & sales 8 7.8%

Accounting & finance 8 7.8%

Trades 6 5.9%

Public services 4 3.9%

IT 4 3.9%

Healthcare 4 3.9%

Other 3 2.9%

Hospitality 3 2.9%

Self employed 2 2.0%

Insurance 2 2.0%

Executive 2 2.0%

264

Appendix A08

Table 3-04 Summaries of facet-level constructs in BAQ, with high-end and low-end

labels

Table 3-04

Summaries of facet-level constructs in BAQ, with high-end and low-end labels

BAQ Factor BAQ Facet Negative Pole

Descriptor

Positive Pole

Descriptor

Emotional Stability Relaxed Feels anxious or guilty

in the event of failure,

worried, lacking

calmness, nervous

Free from anxiety,

maintains a calm

attitude in the event of

failure, calm and

relaxed

Emotional Stability Optimistic Expects things to go

wrong, worries about

how things will turn

out, pessimistic

Confident that things

will turn out well, does

not worry how things

will turn out, remains

cheerful

Emotional Stability Stress-resistant Susceptible to stress,

difficulties to cope with

tension and pressure,

quickly affected by

situations

Not subjected to stress,

not particularly

bothered by tension

and pressure, not easily

affected by situations Emotional Stability Decisive Hesitates over

decisions, needs time to

reach conclusions

Takes decisions

quickly, draws

conclusions quickly Extraversion Leading Lets others take the

lead, does not take

initiative, does not like

giving instructions Likes to lead, takes

initiative, gives others

instructions

265

Extraversion Communicative Does not like speaking,

has difficulties to keep

the conversation going,

is inarticulate

Likes speaking, keeps

conversation going, is

articulate

Extraversion Persuasive A poor salesperson, not

at ease in negotiations,

non convincing

Able to sell, at ease in

negotiations,

convincing

Extraversion Motivating Uninspiring, lacks a

motivating influence,

does not motivate

others for the task

Inspires others, has a

motivating influence,

fills others with

enthusiasm for the task

Openness Abstract Concrete, both feet on

the ground, practical-

minded

Theoretical,

intellectually curious,

likes complex, abstract

things

Openness Innovative Lacks inventiveness

and creativity, rarely

thinks of new ways of

seeing things

Is creative, generates

new ideas and thinks of

original ways of seeing

things Openness Change-oriented Prefers routine, needs

security, prefers

regularity to variety

Likes change, tries out

new things, prefers

variety to regularity Openness Open-minded Does not see many

possibilities, has

trouble thinking up

alternatives and options Sees various

possibilities, thinks up

alternatives and options

Altruism People-oriented Enjoys being alone, is

not very fond of

company, is focused on

himself/herself, does

not need company

Enjoys group

situations, is fond of

company, is focused on

others, seeks out

company

266

Altruism Cooperating Rarely consults, rarely

involves others, does

not seek out

cooperation, places

own interests above

those of the group

Consults others,

involves others, seeks

out cooperation, places

group’s interests above

his/her own

Altruism Helpful Self-involved, is not

concerned about others,

lacks considerateness,

leaves others fend for

themselves

Helps when others face

problems, gives advice,

is considerate

Altruism Socially confident Finds it hard to

establish contacts, does

not always get along

with people,

unfriendly, unpleasant

Establishes contacts

easily, cheerful, gets

along with people,

friendly, pleasant,

spontaneous

Conscientiousness Organised Does not work to a

plan, pays insufficient

attention to time limits,

pays little attention to

routine tasks

Plans carefully in the

light of priorities, sets

time limits, pays

attention to routine

tasks Conscientiousness Meticulous Not very methodical or

meticulous, has little

eye for detail

Works methodically

and meticulously, pays

attention to details Conscientiousness Rational Pays little attention to

facts, relies on

intuition, tends not to

quantify, speaks or acts

first and thinks

afterwards

Sticks to the facts,

evaluates and

measures, quantifies,

thinks twice before

speaking or acting

Conscientiousness Persevering Loses heart quickly,

gives up when facing

opposition, drops

things quickly, rarely

sees tasks through to a

Does not give up when

facing setbacks, keeps

trying and perseveres,

persists in the face of

opposition, gets stuck

267

successful conclusion into the task

Professionalism Ambitious Not very career-

minded, lacks

ambition, sets moderate

objectives

Career-minded and

ambitious, sets difficult

objectives, wants to go

far, wants to get ahead Professionalism Critical Not very critical in

his/her approach,

accepts information or

ideas from others

without questioning

them

Examines information

critically, identifies

potential drawbacks

and limitations Professionalism Result-oriented Not very result-

oriented, feels little

need to achieve a great

result, lacks

competitiveness

Likes to achieve

results, wants to stand

out, is competitive-

minded Professionalism Strategic Sets short-term

objectives, looks at

things from an

operational or short-

term perspective

Sets long-term

objectives, looks at

things from a strategic

or long-term

perspective Professionalism Autonomous Adapts to the situation,

takes account of the

circumstances, does not

show own approach or

opinion

Influences the

situation, makes his/her

own mark, has his/her

own approach and

opinion Note. Derived from information within the BAQ technical manual (Bogaert, et al.,

2006).

268

Appendix A09

Table 3-05 Examples of items from item groups assigned to each facet of the BAQ

Table 3-05

Examples of items from item groups assigned to each facet of the BAQ

BAQ Facets Example Item

Abstract I like working with ideas and concepts

Ambitious I want to reach the highest possible level in my career

Autonomous I decide my own way of working

Change Oriented I regularly try out new things

Communicative I like to actively contribute in a conversation

Cooperating I think teamwork is very important

Critical I critically evaluate information rather than blindly accepting

what is said

Decisive I make decisions quickly

Helpful I take the time to help colleagues

Innovative I offer original perspectives

Leading I am a leader who delegates

Meticulous I pay attention to detail

Motivating I can motivate people to complete a task

Open Minded I elaborate several alternatives

Optimistic I look on the bright side

Organised I plan completion times for activities

People Oriented I seek out the company of other people

Persevering I do not give up quickly

269

Persuasive I can persuade others to embrace my opinion

Rational I prefer to rely on objective facts

Relaxed I usually keep calm

Result Oriented I am keen to stand out from the competition

Socially Confident I find it easy to network with other people

Strategic I mainly pay attention to the long-term

Stress Resistant I remain calm when I am under pressure

270

Appendix A10

3-06 Reliability information for each factor and facet of the normative section of

the BAQ

Table 3-06

Internal consistency (alpha reliability coefficients) for each factor and facet of the

normative section of the BAQ

BAQ Factors and Facets

Alpha Coefficient

Emotional stability 0.96

Relaxed 0.89

Optimistic 0.92

Stress-resistant 0.93

Decisive 0.92

Extraversion 0.97

Leading 0.96

Communicative 0.93

Persuasive 0.93

Motivating 0.92

Openness 0.96

Abstract 0.95

Innovative 0.94

Change-oriented 0.90

Open-minded 0.92

Altruism 0.96

271

People-oriented 0.95

Cooperating 0.91

Helpful 0.92

Socially confident 0.93

Conscientiousness 0.95

Organised 0.89

Meticulous 0.93

Rational 0.90

Persevering 0.91

Professionalism -

Ambitious 0.92

Critical 0.90

Result-oriented 0.90

Strategic 0.91

Autonomous 0.90

Sample: 4650 Dutch-speaking candidates (1557 women and 3093 men) (Bogaert, et al.,

2006).

272

Appendix A11

Table 3-07 Reliability of BAQ: Split-half correlations

Table 3-07

Correlations between the first and second halves of the BAQ

BAQ Factors and Facets Correlation Coefficient

Emotional stability 0.89

Relaxed 0.79

Optimistic 0.79

Stress-resistant 0.81

Decisive 0.83

Extraversion 0.92

Leading 0.89

Communicative 0.83

Persuasive 0.84

Motivating 0.73

Openness 0.90

Abstract 0.87

Innovative 0.86

Change-oriented 0.80

Open-minded 0.81

Altruism 0.89

People-oriented 0.87

Cooperating 0.82

Helpful 0.79

273

Socially confident 0.82

Conscientiousness 0.87

Organised 0.79

Meticulous 0.84

Rational 0.72

Persevering 0.80

Professionalism -

Ambitious 0.75

Critical 0.77

Result-oriented 0.78

Strategic 0.80

Autonomous 0.78

Sample: 4650 Dutch-speaking candidates (1557 women and 3093 men) (Bogaert, et al.,

2006).

274

App

endi

x A

12

Tab

le 3

-08

Con

stru

ct v

alid

ity o

f BA

Q: C

onve

rgen

t val

idat

ion

findi

ngs

Tabl

e 3-

08

Cor

rela

tions

bet

wee

n fa

ctor

s of t

he B

AQ a

nd th

e N

EO-P

I-R

NEO

-PI-R

Fac

tors

B

AQ

Fac

tors

Em

otio

nal S

tabi

lity

Extra

vers

ion

Ope

nnes

s A

ltrui

sm

Con

scie

ntio

usne

ss

Neu

rotic

ism

-0

.42*

* -0

.25

-0.1

1 -0

.15

-0.0

5

Extra

vers

ion

0.23

0.

53**

0.

30**

0.

36**

0.

07

Ope

nnes

s 0.

07

0.23

0.

44**

0.

12

-0.0

2

Agr

eeab

lene

ss

-0.0

3 -0

.35*

* -0

.17

0.07

0.

07

Con

scie

ntio

usne

ss

0.14

0.

19

0.14

0.

18

0.47

**

Not

e. C

orre

latio

ns m

arke

d *

are

sign

ifica

nt a

t p<.

05, t

hose

mar

ked

** a

re si

gnifi

cant

at p

<.01

.

275

The factors in the BAQ show a significant link to the equivalent factors in the NEO PI-

R. The test provider explains the negative correlation between Emotional Stability and

Neuroticism as a result of the poles of the Emotional Stability factor being swapped

around with the Neuroticism factor; this is because the term neuroticism has clinical

significance.

The low correlation between the Altruism factor and the factor of Agreeableness in the

NEO PI-R is explained in terms of the different orientation of these two facets. During

the BAQ development, clinical aspects were removed from the Altruism factor and

replaced by facets that reflect personality in a professional context; for example, the

altruism and compliance presented in the NEO PI-R versus helpful and co-operative

presented in the BAQ. The test provider further explains that facets of Altruism in the

BAQ correspond more to facets of Extraversion in the NEO PI-R, hence the correlation

result. Different factor analyses conducted on the BAQ confirm the relevance of the

Altruism and Extraversion factors, as defined by the BAQ.

The test provider comments on the correlation between Openness in the BAQ and

Extraversion in the NEO PI-R. Openness shows a significant correlation with the NEO-

PI-R domain Extraversion. This relationship is explained in terms of Extraversion being

also defined as an outwards orientation, suggesting an open attitude. This is in contrast

with Introversion, which is defined as an inwards orientation (Jung, 1933).

276

Appendix A13

Table 3-09 Factor analysis of the BAQ facets (Varimax rotation)

Table 3-09

Factor analysis of the BAQ facets (Varimax rotation)

BAQ Facets Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5

Relaxed 0.88

Optimistic 0.65 0.52

Stress-resistant 0.77

Decisive 0.47 0.61

Leading 0.86

Communicative 0.69

Persuasive 0.85

Motivating 0.70

Abstract 0.68

Innovative 0.79

Change-

oriented

0.65

Open-minded 0.72

People-oriented 0.83

Cooperating 0.66

Helpful 0.64

Socially

confident

0.75

Organised 0.81

277

Meticulous 0.83

Rational 0.77

Persevering 0.56

Sample: 4650 Dutch-speaking candidates (1557 women and 3093 men) (Bogaert, et al., 2006).

Factor 1 can be defined as Emotional Stability, factor 2 as Extraversion, factor 3 as

Openness, factor 4 as Altruism and factor 5 as Conscientiousness, given that the

selected facets in each case clearly load onto the factors concerned. The various facets’

loading on “their” factor is great enough to justify their place in their factor. Only the

facets decisive and optimistic also have a loading onto other domains, Extraversion and

Altruism respectively. The instrument developer explains these findings as follows:

“The higher loading of the “Optimistic” facet on the “Altruism” factor is because the

“Altruism” facets also require a positive attitude. A similar trend can be found in the

factor analysis of the NEO PI-R, where the “Irritation” scale has a negative loading on

“Altruism”. The higher loading of the “Decisive” facet on the “Extraversion” factor can

be explained in the same way by the tendency of people who describe themselves as

extravert to come to decisions easier and quicker. Extravert people are dominant people

who take initiatives and take the lead and who are often responsible for making

decisions” (Bogaert, et al., 2006).

278

Appendix A14

Table 3-11 Items and scale assignations in PSI

Table 3-11

Political Skill Inventory (PSI) items

Item Number Item PSI Dimension

1 I spend a lot of time and effort at work

networking with others

Networking ability

2 I am able to make most people feel

comfortable and at ease around me

Interpersonal influence

3 I am able to communicate easily and

effectively with others

Interpersonal influence

4 It is easy for me to develop good rapport

with most people

Interpersonal influence

5 I understand people very well Social astuteness

6 I am good at building relationships with

influential people at work

Networking ability

7 I am particularly good at sensing the

motivations and hidden agendas of others

Social astuteness

8 When communicating with others, I try to

be genuine in what I say and do

Apparent sincerity

9 I have developed a large network of

colleagues and associates at work who I

can call on for support when I really need

to get things done

Networking ability

279

10 At work, I know a lot of important people

and am well connected

Networking ability

11 I spend a lot of time at work developing

connections with others

Networking ability

12 I am good at getting people to like me Interpersonal influence

13 It is important that people believe I am

sincere in what I say and do

Apparent sincerity

14 I try to show a genuine interest in other

people

Apparent sincerity

15 I am good at using my connections and

network to make things happen at work.

Networking ability

16 I have good intuition and am savvy about

how to present myself to others

Social astuteness

17 I always seem to instinctively know the

right things to say or do to influence

others

Social astuteness

18 I pay close attention to people’s facial

expressions

Social astuteness

Note. Table adapted from Ferris, Davidson & Perrewe (2005).

280

Appendix A15

Information sheet for participants

Leadership Personality and Communication in the Workplace Research

Information Sheet

My name is Caroline Schischka and I am currently at Massey University completing my

Masters in workplace psychology. As a part of my degree I am completing a thesis.

The topic I am researching is leadership personality and communication in the

workplace and I am keen for your involvement in this study.

I am looking for professional adults at various levels who are currently working in New

Zealand to take part in my research. Participation in this study involves completing a

personality questionnaire and another very short survey online. The questions you will

be asked will examine your behaviours in a workplace context. They will take you

approximately one hour to complete.

By taking part in this study, you will gain exposure to some of the types of questions

that are commonly asked in a workplace personality questionnaire. Additionally, you

will be contributing to leadership research in New Zealand. The findings from my

study may help to improve communication in leadership in New Zealand.

Your name will remain anonymous, as you will be assigned an ID number. You will

not be asked to name the organisation you work for. The data you provide will be

281

treated as confidential and will only be viewed by my thesis supervisor and myself. The

results of the study will be used for scholarly purposes only.

At your request, I will be glad to provide you with feedback on your individual

responses to the survey, as well as share with you the research findings at the study’s

conclusion.

If you would like to take part in this research, or if you know of anyone else who would

be interested in participating, please contact me on 021 252 3020, or email me at

c.schischka@gmail.com. If you have any questions at all about the study, please do not

hesitate to get in touch.

Thank you kindly in advance for your participation.

This research has been deemed as low risk by the Massey University Human Ethics

Committee.

282

Appendix A16

Letter to interested participants

Leadership Personality and Communication in the Workplace Research

Dear <insert participant name>,

Thank you for taking part in my research. The time you are putting into participating is

greatly appreciated. There are two surveys that I would like you to complete, and it is

important that you complete the surveys in the order specified. All together, they

should take you no longer than an hour to do. If you are able to complete both of these

surveys by the end of the week, that would be extremely helpful.

The first survey you will be completing is called the Business Attitudes Questionnaire

(BAQ). This survey is designed to measure your work related behavioural preferences.

It should take you about 40 minutes to complete. In this survey, you will be required to

describe yourself by means of a number of statements. You will be presented with

blocks of five statements that you will be required to evaluate in two different ways:

Your first task is to indicate the extent to which you agree with each statement,

using a scale that ranges from completely agree to completely disagree.

Your second task is to look again at each block and rank the five statements in

terms of how applicable it is to you, using a scale that ranges from most

applicable to least applicable.

283

You will receive more instructions on your screen when you proceed with this

questionnaire.

The second survey should take you about 10 minutes to complete. It will contain some

questions that are, again, designed to measure your behavioural preferences in the

workplace. You will be presented with a statement, which you will need to evaluate in

terms of how much you agree with it. You will indicate you much you agree with each

statement using a scale that ranges from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

This survey will also contain a range of demographic questions so I can collect

important data on the characteristics of the people that have chosen to take part in this

research. This data will be used for statistical purposes only.

Although there are no time limits on either questionnaire, I advise that you go through

both questionnaires quickly and not spend too long thinking about any statement. Your

first answer is often the closest to reality.

By beginning the surveys, you acknowledge that you have read the relevant information

and agree to participate in this research, with the knowledge that you are free to

withdraw your participation at any time.

Your link to survey one:

<insert hyperlink to survey one>

284

Your link to survey two:

<insert hyperlink to survey two>

Please remember to complete both surveys. All data you provide will be treated as

strictly confidential. My thesis supervisor and myself only will view your data and the

findings.

If you have any questions about this research at any stage, please do not hesitate to

contact me. I will be happy to answer any queries that you may have.

Thank you very much again for your participation. I greatly appreciate your help with

completing my thesis.

Kind regards,

Caroline.

285

Appendix A17

Table 4-01 Factor analysis of BAQ: Component loadings

Table 4-01

Percentage of total variance explained by factors of BAQ

Factor Initial Eigenvalues % of Variance Cumulative %

1 8.46 33.83 33.83

2 2.75 10.99 44.82

3 2.18 8.70 53.52

4 1.86 7.42 60.94

5 1.65 6.59 67.53

6 1.13 4.52 72.05

7 .95 3.78 75.83

8 .78 3.12 78.94

9 .68 2.70 81.64

10 .60 2.39 84.04

11 .55 2.20 86.23

12 .52 2.07 88.31

13 .44 1.75 90.06

14 .35 1.42 91.47

15 .34 1.38 92.85

16 .29 1.18 94.03

17 .26 1.06 95.08

18 .25 .98 96.06

19 .21 .84 96.90

286

20 .19 .77 97.68

21 .14 .57 98.24

22 .14 .55 98.79

23 .11 .45 99.24

24 .10 .39 99.63

25 .09 .37 100.00

Extraction method: Principal Component Analysis. Footnote: Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was .80, and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (χ2 (300) = 1674.84, p<.05). Internal consistency was examined using Cronbach’s alpha, reporting an alpha coefficient of .91.

287

Appendix A18

Table 4-02 Rotated factor structure of BAQ

Table 4-02

Obliquely rotated component loadings for BAQ variables

Factors

Item Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6

Innovative .790

Abstract .781

Open-minded .775

Change-oriented .591 .422

Strategic .388 .382 .331 .363

Leading .861

Communicative .786

Persuasive .734 .346

Motivating .585 .552 .341

Decisive .393 .473 .406

Co-operating .813

People-oriented .753

Helpful .709 .394

Social confident .697 .330

Rational .325 .808

Meticulous .755

Organised .623 .490

Critical .511 .303 .588

288

Result-oriented .823

Ambitious .795

Persevering .436 .537

Autonomous .321 .421 .339

Relaxed .867

Stress-resistant .311 .797

Optimistic .320 .697

Nine items loaded onto Factor 1. It is clear that the four highest loading items relate to

the Openness domain of the BAQ– the participant group’s reported ratings on the

attributes named Innovative, Abstract, Open-minded and Change-oriented. Critical –

which falls under the Professional domain of the BAQ - loaded highly onto this factor

too.

Seven items loaded onto Factor 2. The four highest loading items relate to the

Extraversion domain of the BAQ - the participant group’s reported ratings on the

attributes named Leading, Communicative, Persuasive and Motivating. Decisive –

which falls under Emotional Stability domain of the BAQ – also loaded highly onto this

factor.

Six factors loaded onto Factor 3. It is apparent that the four highest loading items relate

to the Altruism domain of the BAQ – the participants group’s reported ratings on the

attributes named Co-operating, People-oriented, Helpful and Social Confident.

Motivating – which falls under Extraversion domain of the BAQ – also loaded highly

onto this factor.

289

Eight factors loaded onto Factor 4. The three highest loading items relate to the

Conscientiousness domain of the BAQ – the participant group’s reported ratings on the

attributes named Rational, Meticulous and Organised. Critical – which falls under the

Professional domain of the BAQ - loaded highly onto this factor too. The next highest

loading item was Persevering, which relates to the Conscientiousness domain.

Eight factors loaded onto Factor 5. The two highest loading items relate to the

Professionalism domain of the BAQ – the participant group’s reported ratings on the

attributes named Results-oriented and Ambitious. The next two highest loading items

relate to the Conscientiousness domain – Persevering and Organised. Following this,

Strategic and Autonomous were found to load onto the Professionalism domain.

Critical – which falls under the Professional domain of the BAQ – is assumed to have a

loading of <.30 and thus did not contribute to Professionalism.

Seven factors loaded onto Factor 6. It is apparent that the four highest loading items

relate to the Emotional Stability domain of the BAQ – the participant group’s reported

ratings on the attributes named Relaxed, Stress-resistant, Optimistic and Decisive.

290

Appendix A19

Table 4-03 Factor analysis of PSI: Component loadings

Table 4-03

Percentage of total variance explained by factors of PSI

Factor Initial Eigenvalues % of Variance Cumulative %

1 7.41 41.19 41.19

2 2.41 13.41 54.60

3 1.53 8.49 63.08

4 .99 5.51 68.59

5 .90 5.00 73.59

6 .69 3.81 77.41

7 .61 3.37 80.77

8 .59 3.25 84.02

9 .50 2.79 86.81

10 .39 2.18 88.99

11 .39 2.14 91.13

12 .37 2.07 93.20

13 .31 1.71 94.91

14 .24 1.35 96.26

15 .20 1.12 97.38

16 .19 1.06 98.44

17 .16 .91 99.35

18 .12 .66 100.00

Extraction method: Principal Component Analysis. Footnote: Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was .85, and Bartlett’s

291

test of sphericity was significant (χ2 (153) = 1091.21, p<.05). Internal consistency was examined using Cronbach’s alpha, reporting an alpha coefficient of .91.

292

Appendix A20

Table 4-04 Rotated factor structure of PSI

Table 4-04

Obliquely rotated component loadings for PSI variables

Factors

Item Variable 1 2 3

Networking ability 5 .815

Networking ability 4 .813

Networking ability 6 .791

Networking ability 3 .785

Networking ability 1 .680 .330

Networking ability 2 .644

Interpersonal influence 1 .620 .553

Interpersonal influence 4 .568 .463 .348

Apparent sincerity 3 .820

Apparent sincerity 1 .764

Apparent sincerity 2 .698

Interpersonal influence 3 .462 .633

Interpersonal influence 2 .478 .563

Social astuteness 2 .773

Social astuteness 3 .346 .723

Social astuteness 5 .311 .675

Social astuteness 1 .435 .625

Social astuteness 4 .483 .609

293

Twelve items loaded onto Factor 1. It is clear that the six highest-loading items relate to

the Networking Ability domain. All four items of the Interpersonal Influence domain

also loaded highly onto this factor, with items 1 and 4 loading the highest: “I am able to

make most people feel comfortable and at ease around me” and “I am good at getting

people to like me”. Two items of the Social Astuteness domain loaded onto Factor 1

also.

Ten items loaded onto Factor 2. The three highest-loading items relate to the Apparent

Sincerity domain of the PSI. All four items of the Interpersonal Influence domain also

loaded highly onto this factor, with items 2 and 3 loading the highest: “I am able to

communicate easily and effectively with others” and “It is easy for me to develop good

rapport with most people”. Two items of the Social Astuteness domain and one item of

the Networking Ability domain loaded onto Factor 2 also.

Six factors loaded onto Factor 3. The five highest-loading items relate to the Social

Astuteness domain of the PSI. One item from the Interpersonal Influence domain also

loaded onto Factor 3.

294

Appendix A21

Table 4-18 Correlation matrix for relationships among BAQ score variables

Table 4-18

Relationships between the BAQ variables

Emotional

stability

Extraversion Openness Altruism Conscientiousness

Extraversion .49**

Openness .42** .44**

Altruism .31** .52** .45**

Conscientiousness .28** .28** .17 .30**

Professionalism .45** .61** .44** .34** .64**

Note. Coefficients marked * are significant at p<.05, those marked ** are significant at p<.01.

Significant relationships were discovered between Emotional Stability on the one hand,

and all the dimensions of Extraversion (r=.49, p= <.01), Openness (r=.42, p=<.01),

Altruism (r=.31, p=<.01), Conscientiousness (r=.28, p=<.01), and Professionalism

(r=.45, p=<.01).

Significant relationships were found between Extraversion on the one hand, and

Openness (r=.44, p=<.01), Altruism (r=.52, p=<.01), Conscientiousness (r=.28,

p=<.01), and Professionalism (r=.61, p=<.01).

295

Significant relationships were found between Openness and Altruism (r=.45, p=<.01),

as well as Openness and Professionalism (r=.44, p=<.01). Openness and

Conscientiousness were uncorrelated.

Significant relationships were found between Altruism and Conscientiousness (r=.30,

p=<.01), as well as Altruism and Professionalism (r=.34, p=<.01).

A significant relationship was noted between Conscientiousness and Professionalism

(r=.64, p=<.01).

296

Table A22

Table 4-19 Correlation matrix for relationships among PSI score variables

Table 4-19

Relationships between the PSI variables

Apparent Sincerity Interpersonal

Influence

Networking

Ability

Interpersonal

Influence

.56**

Networking

Ability

.30** .66**

Social Astuteness .45** .56** .38**

Note. Coefficients marked * are significant at p<.05, those marked ** are significant at p<.01.

All of these relationships appear statistically significant. Significant relationships were

discovered between Apparent Sincerity and Interpersonal Influence (r=.56, p=<.01),

Networking Ability (r=.30, p=<.01), and Social Astuteness (r=.45, p=<.01).

Significant relationships were discovered between Interpersonal Influence and

Networking Ability (r=.66, p=<.01), and Social Astuteness (r=.56, p=<.01).

A significant relationship was discovered between Networking Ability and Social

Astuteness (r=.38, p=<.01).

297

Appendix A23

Table 4-22 Descriptive statistics for BAQ variables across leader and non-leader

groups

Table 4-22

Descriptive statistics for BAQ variables across leader and non-leader groups

Leaders (n=47) Non-leaders (n=55)

M SD M SD

Emotional Stability 179.38 22.13 168.89 21.42

Extraversion 191.02 22.42 164.75 26.08

Openness 180.53 26.99 170.87 23.39

Altruism 190.45 21.58 184.07 21.25

Conscientiousness 182.77 22.05 182.33 17.71

Professionalism 238.19 24.84 228.09 22.26

For leaders, mean scores ranged from 179.38 to 238.19, with standard deviations of

between 21.58 and 26.99. The highest average score of the “leader” participant group

was on Professionalism, though this was most likely due to this domain containing the

most items. The next highest average score of the leader participants was on

Extraversion, then Altruism, then Conscientiousness, followed by Openness, and then

Emotional Stability. In terms of variance, Openness showed the greatest variance,

whereas Altruism showed the least of the six domains.

For non-leaders, mean scores ranged from 168.89 to 228.09, with standard deviations of

between 17.71 and 26.08. The highest average score of the “non-leader” participant

298

group was on Professionalism, though this was most likely due to this domain

containing the most items. The next highest average score of the non-leader

participants was on Altruism, then Conscientiousness, then Openness, followed by

Emotional Stability, and then Extraversion. In terms of variance, Extraversion showed

the greatest variance, whereas Conscientiousness showed the least of the six domains.

299

Appendix A24

Table 4-23 Descriptive statistics for PSI variables across leader and non-leader

groups

Table 4-23

Descriptive statistics for PSI variables across leader and non-leader groups

Leaders (n=47) Non-leaders (n=55)

M SD M SD

Networking ability 32.19 5.72 27.89 5.97

Interpersonal influence 23.11 4.01 22.07 3.54

Social astuteness 26.26 4.44 26.42 3.53

Apparent sincerity 18.64 2.29 19.07 2.01

For leaders, mean scores ranged from 18.64 to 32.19, with standard deviations of

between 2.29 and 5.72. The highest average score of the leader participant group was on

Networking Ability. The next highest average score of the leader participants was on

Social Astuteness, then Interpersonal Influence, and then Apparent Sincerity, though

this pattern could be related to the number of items in each domain (Networking Ability

had the greatest number, followed by Social Astuteness, then Interpersonal Influence,

and then Apparent Sincerity). In terms of variance, Networking Ability showed the

greatest variance, whereas Apparent Sincerity showed the least of the four domains.

300

For non-leaders, mean scores ranged from 19.07 to 27.89, with standard deviations of

between 2.01 and 5.97. The highest average score of the non-leader participant group

was on Networking Ability. The next highest average score of the non-leader

participants was on Social Astuteness, then Interpersonal Influence, and then Apparent

Sincerity, though this pattern could be related to the number of items in each domain

(Networking Ability had the greatest number, followed by Social Astuteness, then

Interpersonal Influence, and then Apparent Sincerity). In terms of variance,

Networking Ability showed the greatest variance, whereas Apparent Sincerity showed

the least of the four domains.

301

Appendix A25

Work-relevant value orientations linked to Professionalism

Ambition. Leaders are ambitious about their work and careers. They have a desire to

get ahead. To advance, leaders actively take steps to demonstrate their drive and

determination. Ambition impels leaders to set hard, challenging goals for themselves

and their organisations. Effective leaders are more ambitious than non-leaders. In their

20-year study, Howard & Bray (1988) found that among a sample of managers at

AT&T, ambition (specifically the desire for advancement) was the strongest predictor

of success twenty years later.

Results-oriented. Previous leadership studies have discovered that a clear leadership

arises during the initial stage of operation of an independent work team (Neubert &

Taggar, 2004; Taggar, Hackett & Saha, 1999). Leadership motivation is an important

factor for the emergence of leadership. The finding becomes noteworthy as in most

cases, there is no particular tangible reward for the leader in an independent work team.

Members share the rewards and responsibilities of their work evenly (Taggar et al.,

1999). The group member who shows a higher level of leadership motivation and

participates actively in leadership behaviours emerges as the person who is more likely

to be recognised as a formal or informal leader (Sorrentino & Field, 1986).

Strategic. The strategic perspective of leadership attributes organisational outcomes to

the choices made by top leaders, similar to Child’s (1972) strategic choice model and

which can be traced to Hambrick and Mason's (1984) upper echelons theory. The

strategic perspective holds that top leaders are in a unique position to have the most

impact on the organisation’s strategy (Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1996), and it seeks to

302

explain leaders’ strategic choices by looking into the psychological make-up of the top

leader.

This viewpoint posits that top leaders vary on a range of psychological constructs - such

as knowledge, preferences, and values - and that this variability operates on top leaders’

processing of information to influence the strategic choices they make (Carpenter,

Geletkanycz, & Sanders, 2004; Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2007; Finkelstein, Hambrick, &

Cannella, 2009). Essentially, it is a decision making theory, as it contends that leaders’

personalities, cognitions and values affects their field of vision and perception and

interpretation of information – this in turn affect the options that leaders select. A small

number of empirical studies have examined the relationship between top leader

psychological make-up and organisational strategy; these studies have generally

provided support for strategic leadership theory.

Critical. Critical thinking is the ability to see beyond simple facts and to think at a

more comprehensive level. Paul (2005) suggests that ‘critical thinking is the art of

thinking about thinking in an intellectually disciplined manner’. This definition goes

beyond merely giving thought to something; it involves intentional consideration.

Leaders deal with complex problems that require complex solutions, thus leaders who

can think critically will be more effective given these parameters. Unfortunately, most

leaders operate from an egocentric worldview and lack well-developed critical thinking

skills (Rooke &Torbert, 2005). Critical thinking from a leadership perspective entails

the ability to think complexly.

303

Autonomous. Leaders are achievement-oriented, ambitious, energetic, tenacious, and

proactive. These same qualities, however, may result in a manager who tries to

accomplish everything alone, thereby failing to develop follower commitment and

responsibility. Effective leaders must not only be full of drive and ambition, they must

want to lead others – this is leadership motivation.

Leadership motivation involves the desire to influence and lead others and is often

equated with the individual’s need for power. People with high leadership motivation

think a lot about influencing other people, winning an argument, or being the greater

authority. They prefer to be in a leadership rather than followership role. The

willingness to assume responsibility, which seems to coincide with leadership

motivation, is frequently found in leaders.