Own and others’ personality characteristics influence the emergence of

leadership behavior in teams

Christine Gockel, University of Fribourg

Rebecca Schmidt, Chemnitz University of Technology

Shared Leadership in Teams

• Shared leadership is a “dynamic, interactive influence process among individuals in groups for which the objective is to lead one another to the achievement of group or organizational goals or both”. (Pearce & Conger, 2003, p. 1)

• Facets of shared leadership (Pearce & Sims, 2002;

Piecha & Wegge, in prep.)

a) Transformational d) Directive

b) Transactional e) Aversive

c) Empowering f) Laissez-faire

Shared Leadership in Teams

• Shared leadership is a “dynamic, interactive influence process among individuals in groups for which the objective is to lead one another to the achievement of group or organizational goals or both”. (Pearce & Conger, 2003, p. 1)

• Facets of shared leadership (Pearce & Sims, 2002;

Piecha & Wegge, in prep.)

a) Transformational d) Directive

b) Transactional e) Aversive

c) Empowering f) Laissez-faire

Constructive Destructive

Consequences and Antecedents

• Consequences

Influences team effectiveness above and beyond hierarchical leadership (Pearce, Manz, & Sims,

2009; Pearce & Sims, 2002)

Positively influences other team outcomes, e.g., motivation, cohesion, team-empowerment (Balthazard, Waldman, Howell, Atwater, 2004; Hooker

& Csikszentmihalyi, 2003; Solansky, 2008)

• Antecedents

Team internal environment (Carson, Tesluk, & Marrone,

2007)

Coaching by external leader (Carson, Tesluk, & Marrone,

2007)

Personality Characteristics as Antecedents

• How do own and others’ personality characteristics influence the emergence of leadership behaviors?

• Actor-Partner-Interdependence Model (Kenny, Kashy, &

Cook, 2006)

Own

personality

characteristics

Own

leadership

behavior

Actor Effect

Others‘

personality

characteristics

Extraversion as Predictor

• Extraversion = energetic, lively, assertive behavior (“leaderlike”; Judge, Bono, Ilies,

Gerhardt, 2003)

• Impacts constructive leadership behavior:

Own extraversion should increase constructive leadership behaviors.

Others’ extraversion should decrease constructive leadership behaviors.

Agreeableness as Predictor

• Agreeableness = friendliness, tact, sensitivity (Judge, Bono, Ilies, Gerhardt, 2003)

• Impacts destructive leadership behavior:

Own agreeableness should decrease destructive leadership behaviors.

Others’ agreeableness should also decrease destructive leadership behaviors.

Method: Overview

• 25 student teams (3-4 members; N = 98)

79% female, Mage = 21.84, SDage = 2.75

76% study psychology

• Task: Complete research project

• Duration: 5 months

• Measurement points: beginning (t1), midpoint (t2), end (t3)

Measures

Personality Characteristics (Big Five Inventory-25;

Benet-Martínez & John, 1998; German translation by Gerlitz & Schupp, 2005)

• Assessed at t1

• Extraversion (E): α = .90

• Agreeableness (A): α = .65

Measures

Individual leadership behavior (based on Items

from Pearce & Sims, 2002)

• Assessed at t1, t2, and t3

• Types

Constructive leadership (2 items)

Destructive leadership (2 items)

• Source

Self ( subjective rating)

Others ( objective rating)

Constructive Leadership Behavior

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

t1 t2 t3

subjective

objective

Exte

nt

of constr

uctive leaders

hip

behavio

r (s

cale

: 1

-7)

No significant change over time

For subjective ratings: b = .07, t(170) = 1.33, p = .19

For objective ratings: b = -.08, t(170) = -1.89, p = .06

Destructive Leadership Behavior

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

t1 t2 t3

subjective

objective

Exte

nt

of destr

uctive leaders

hip

behavio

r (s

cale

: 1

-7)

Significant changes over time

For subjective ratings: b = -.12, t(170) = -3.15, p = .002

For objective ratings: b = -.10, t(170) = -2.93, p = .004

Constructive Leadership Behavior (t1)

Parameter Model 1

Subjective Rating

Model 2

Objective Rating

Intercept 5.11* (.10) 5.22* (.10)

Own Extraversion .59* (.24) .23+ (.12)

Own Agreeableness -.35 (.29) -.02 (.14)

Others’ Extraversion 1.84* (.64) .43 (.42)

Others’ Agreeableness -1.31* (.58) -.26 (.33)

Fixed Effects Estimates for Models Predicting

Constructive Leadership Behavior at t1

Note. Unstandardized coefficients (and their standard errors) are

displayed. *p < .05; +p < .10

Constructive Leadership Behavior (t1)

Parameter Model 1

Subjective Rating

Model 2

Objective Rating

Intercept 5.11* (.10) 5.22* (.10)

Own Extraversion .59* (.24) .23+ (.12)

Own Agreeableness -.35 (.29) -.02 (.14)

Others’ Extraversion 1.84* (.64) .43 (.42)

Others’ Agreeableness -1.31* (.58) -.26 (.33)

Fixed Effects Estimates for Models Predicting

Constructive Leadership Behavior at t1

Note. Unstandardized coefficients (and their standard errors) are

displayed. *p < .05; +p < .10

Destructive Leadership Behavior (t1)

Parameter Model 1

Subjective Rating

Model 2

Objective Rating

Intercept 1.97* (.11) 1.60* (.09)

Own Extraversion .27 (.25) -.29 (.20)

Own Agreeableness -.67* (.26) .25 (.17)

Others’ Extraversion .44 (.64) -1.00 (.60)

Others’ Agreeableness -.36 (.52) .88+ (.49)

Fixed Effects Estimates for Models Predicting

Destructive Leadership Behavior at t1

Note. Unstandardized coefficients (and their standard errors) are

displayed. *p < .05; +p < .10

Destructive Leadership Behavior (t1)

Parameter Model 1

Subjective Rating

Model 2

Objective Rating

Intercept 1.97* (.11) 1.60* (.09)

Own Extraversion .27 (.25) -.29 (.20)

Own Agreeableness -.67* (.26) .25 (.17)

Others’ Extraversion .44 (.64) -1.00 (.60)

Others’ Agreeableness -.36 (.52) .88+ (.49)

Fixed Effects Estimates for Models Predicting

Destructive Leadership Behavior at t1

Note. Unstandardized coefficients (and their standard errors) are

displayed. *p < .05; +p < .10

Summary

At the beginning of a team project

• Team members showed more constructive leadership behaviors

the higher they were on extraversion,

the higher others were on extraversion,

the lower others were on agreeableness.

• Team members showed more destructive leadership behaviors

the lower they were on agreeableness.

Effects become smaller over time.

Discussion

• Interplay between members’ personalities

• Usefulness of APIM

• Underlying processes?

• Implication:

Leadership in teams is a mutual influence process.

When selecting team members, pay attention to the interaction of all members’ personalities.

Merci!

• James R. Larson, Jr.

• Maik Beege

• Marie Blume

• Anne Brantl

• Iken Gonnermann

• Josefin Karg

• Elisabeth Kormeier

• Iris Roth