Niels Jansen Transformational Leadership

Associations among Team work, the Big Five and Transformational

Leadership in an international environment

Cornelis Nicolaas Jansen, BSc, 3054667

Utrecht University

Faculty of Social Sciences

Master dissertation Work & Organizational Psychology 2009-2010

Supervision: Prof. Dr. Toon Taris / Prof. Dr. Hetty van Emmerik

Date: June, 29th, 2010

Associations among Team work, the Big Five and Transformational Leadership in an

international environment

2

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to create a model explaining the associations

among nationality, the big five personality traits, and team work on the one hand,

and transformational leadership on the other. It was expected that nationality,

agreeableness, openness to experience, extraversion, team identification, team

satisfaction and in-role performance have significant, positive associations with

transformational leadership. 196 participants of an international company

specialized in consumer electronics participated in this research by completing a

questionnaire. Regression analysis revealed that the big five personality traits of

openness to experience, agreeableness, and team identification explained a

significant part of the variance in Transformational Leadership. These findings

contribute to hiring and development activities concerning transformational

leadership in companies. This research presents a model for Transformational

Leadership as a point of reference for further research.



3

Introduction

Leadership is a well-researched topic in the areas of the organizational

behaviour, business studies and psychology alike. Many theories and models,

not only used in science but also in organizations, describe different forms of

leadership (Ismail, 2010; Politis, 2002; Testa, 2002). However, one issue within

the broad area of leadership that still needs further research is leadership in

companies with employees from different cultural backgrounds. Is leadership in a

multicultural organization different from leadership in a company with a more

homogenous population?

This issue is of major importance for both science and business as

research in this area would create better insight in the behaviour of employees in

a society that becomes more international. Scientific studies in this area could

gain new knowledge of behaviour of multicultural groups. Companies could

improve their way of operating, and their hiring and developing of leadership

potential based on new insights.

Basically, the present research examines the associations among the big

five personality traits, team work, and transformational leadership in an

international environment. The findings in this studies will lead to a model that

relates leadership to several factors of working life. Although many factors

contribute to leadership, the factors addressed in this study are seen as the most

relevant and important for organizations with employees from different

backgrounds, as will be explained below.

Leadership and Personality

The most universal and most frequently used set of personality traits is the

so-called ‘big five’. (Hofstede & McCrae, 2004). This taxonomy of personality

traits consists of openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion,

agreeableness and neuroticism/emotional stability. These personality traits are

usually considered the main traits that encompass all other ‘lower-order’ traits.

For example: the lower-order trait assertiveness belongs to the category of the



4

higher-order personality trait extraversion and belongs to a lesser extent to the

other higher-order traits.

A distinction must be made between the individual personality and the

collective personality (Hofmann & Jones, 2005). The individual personality

reflects the personality traits of a single person, however, the collective

personality reflects the personality traits of a team/group, or organization. The

collective personality is the result, or product, of individuals that transmit, interact

and influence each other. This is clearly different, but still somewhat related to

the individual personality. This study will focus mainly on the individual

personality traits, and individual behaviour in groups or individual feelings about

groups. However, even the individual personality in a group is influenced by the

collective personality since the group always influences the individual and vice

versa.

According to De Vries (2008), each form of leadership is linked to a different

set of personality traits. In his studies, charismatic leadership has a profile of high

scores on conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, openness to

experience and a low score on emotional stability/neuroticism.

The construct of transactional/transformational Leadership is mainly based

on the studies of Bass, who was one of the main developers of the Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire (1985). However, the assumptions regarding

transformational leadership have been under an enduring discussion and have

evolved during the years (De Hoogh, Den Hartog & Koopman, 2005).

Transactional leaders tend to maintain the status quo, while

transformational/charismatic leaders try to change the status quo.

Transformational leaders seek contact, take initiative, try to raise the

performance level of their team through information, communication and

knowledge exchange with others. However, transactional leaders prefer to

delegate and give orders; they make clear what is expected (Pieterse et al.,

2010). Transformational leadership is considered to be rather effective in times of

change and instability (Brown & Reilly, 2009). The terms charismatic and



5

transformational leadership refer to the same form of leadership and thus, will be

used interchangeably in this study.

Judge and Bono (2000) contributed with their research to the assumption

that the big five personality dimensions are related to transformational

leadership. In their studies the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) is

used: one of the most frequently used questionnaires to measure

transformational leadership. Their research examined the relations between the

big five personality dimensions and transformational leadership. The relations

found, partly reflect that of other studies in the same field of research (Hetland,

Sandal & Johnson, 2008: Smith & Conger, 2004). Judge and Bono (2000) found

positive relationships between extraversion, agreeableness and openness to

experience with transformational leadership. These findings are supported by the

studies conducted by Moss et al. (2006) and by the research of Hirschfeld et al.

(2008).

When comparing the different studies, most of these support the hypothesis

that all dimensions of the big five are positively related to transformational

leadership, except for the personality traits of conscientiousness and neuroticism.

The most convincing studies show that openness to experience, agreeableness

and extraversion are related to transformational leadership. According to Judge

and Bono (2002), creativity and originality are both characteristics of

transformational leadership and openness to experience. In addition to that:

openness leads to a need for change, which is a characteristic of

transformational leadership. For the personality traits of agreeableness, the link

is clear: transformational leaders need to be able to empathize and show

compassion. Achievement and discipline are important components of both

transformational leadership and conscientiousness. Therefore, the first

hypothesis of this study is:

Hypothesis 1: positive relationships will be found between openness

to experience, agreeableness and extraversion on the one hand and

transformational leadership on the other. Conscientiousness and

neuroticism will be unrelated to transformational leadership.



6

Leadership and Culture

Culture can be a critical contributor of conflict (Euwema & Van Emmerik,

2007). The development of intercultural competencies might increase the range

of responses in conflict. People who are becoming interculturally competent learn

to look at situations from different perspectives and therefore, can react in

different ways to a certain situation. They learn to adapt and respond in

appropriate ways that cope more effectively with intercultural differences. Cultural

differences are very important factors in the multicultural organization since

different parties have to deal with behaviour in contexts with a high conflict

potential. Other attributes of individuals, like gender, also have an influence on

leadership (Van Emmerik et al., 2008). However, culture has a stronger impact

on leadership compared with gender. In other words: employees with many

differences in their culture, and therefore different habits, ways of thinking,

values, et cetera, are more prone to conflict with each other if they do not know

how to deal with the present behaviour. Therefore it is of high importance that

employees are interculturally competent. Intercultural competence is the ability to

act and think in a way that is interculturally appropriate (Hammer, Bennett &

Wiseman, 2003). When employees are interculturally competent they are more

aware of the strengths and weaknesses that people of different cultures might

experience when working together. Euwema and Van Emmerik (2007) found that

intercultural competencies are linked with intercultural conflict management.

Therefore, as intercultural competencies are becoming more important in

multicultural societies, they should also become more important in multicultural

organizations. Intercultural competence can be gained not only by experience,

but also by training (McAllister et al., 2006). The factors involved with intercultural

competence are related to the big five personality traits.

Research conducted by Hofstee et al. (1997) show that although different

nationalities might find the same relationships between certain big five

personality traits and a variable, the specific scores or the percentage of

explained variance, often varies. Although culture and nationality are not exactly



7

the same, nationalities can be linked to cultural dimensions (Meeuwesen, 2008).

In the present study a division is made between Dutch and Non-Dutch

employees. Therefore, the second hypothesis of this study is:

Hypothesis 2.1: Dutch and non-Dutch employees will differ

significantly on their scores on the big five personality traits.

A study conducted by Jung et al. (2009) found that transformational

leadership is present across cultures, while culture-specific characteristics like

collectivism influences transformational leadership effectiveness.

Transformational leadership is considered to be more effective in collectivistic

cultures. This study focuses on the relationship between culture and

transformational leadership itself, to gain a better understanding of this topic. If a

relationship is found between culture and transformational leadership

effectiveness, it is important to know if this association is found because

employees from certain cultures have different levels of transformational

leadership itself, or because of transformational leadership effectiveness, as

suggested in the previous studies. Cultures can be different in many ways: the

level of masculinity, individualism, power distance, et cetera (Meeuwesen et al.

2008). Therefore, a difference is expected between Dutch and Non-Dutch

employees on transformational leadership.

Hypothesis 2.2: Dutch and non-Dutch employees will differ

significantly on transformational leadership.

If, as expected, relationships are found between the personality traits of

the big five and transformational leadership, it is important to see if nationality

moderates these relationships. No previous research examines these

relationships, and therefore one exploratory aim of this study is to see if such

relationships exist at all. If nationality moderates the relationship between the big

five personality traits and transformational leadership, this will be a first step in

new area of research. The presence of a moderator effect of nationality on the

relationship between the big five personality traits and transformational



8

leadership will give a better understanding of the associations around leadership.

Therefore, the third hypothesis of this study is:

Hypothesis 2.3: Nationality will moderate the relationship between

the big five personality traits and transformational leadership.

Team Work and Personality

Driskell et al. (2006) suggested a possible link between the big five

personality traits and team work. Very specific behaviour underlying character

traits like self-esteem and achievement contribute to teamwork. However, it is not

clear which traits are linked to which specific areas of team work. The present

study focuses on three different areas of team work: team satisfaction, team

identification and in-role performance.

Team Satisfaction

Moss et al. (2006) suggest that individuals are more committed when they

work in environments that facilitate the expression of their personality traits.

Therefore it is of great importance that more knowledge is available about the

personality traits present in teams. This can lead to improved work group

environments where personality traits can be expressed. One of the personality

traits that is presumed to be related to satisfaction of social relationships is

extraversion. People who score high on the trait of extraversion are easier

satisfied with social relationships (Bernerth et al., 2008). Pearsall and Ellis (2006)

support this research by showing that assertiveness (a facet of Extraversion) is

an important predictor of team satisfaction and team performance. Therefore, it is

expected that a relationship will be present between extraversion and team

satisfaction.

Little research is available concerning the other personality traits of the big

five in relation to team satisfaction. However, research conducted by Simon et al.

(2010) shows that agreeableness is positively associated with job and co-worker

satisfaction. This study will relate all big five personality traits to Team

Satisfaction, but the main statements that can be made based on previous



9

research concern extraversion and agreeableness. This leads to the following

hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3.1: There will be a positive relationship between the big

five personality traits extraversion and agreeableness on the one

hand, and team satisfaction on the other.

Team Identification

Team identification is well researched by Bezrukova et al. (2009). Team

identification can be defined as feeling part of a team, and finding similarities

between oneself and the team. Bezrukova et al. found that team identification

enhances group performance in homogenous groups. Employees with many

similarities tend to get along better. A team with members that get along well is a

strong basis for good performance. This information is very valuable for

organizations that operate with employees from diverse backgrounds, where

homogenous groups are possibly present. These findings are supported by

research conducted by Jehn and Bezrukova (2010) who claim that a strong team

identification causes less conflict and coalition forming. In alignment with the

previous hypothesis that examines the relationship between nationality and the

big five personality traits it is important to see if there are relationships between

the big five personality traits and team identification. Unfortunately, little research

is conducted in this area. New information could shed a different light on

leadership, since team identification is very important for teams and leaders, and

therefore important for organizations. As found in previously described studies by

Jehn and Bezrukova (2010), employees with different cultural backgrounds that

work together are more prone to conflict. Therefore, improvements can be made

in order to increase team identification, and therefore team work.

Little research is available concerning the possible relationships between

the big five personality traits and team identification. Team identification

enhances performance in homogenous groups, therefore, it is important to see if

big five personality traits are related with team identification. If employees with

certain personality traits score higher on team identification compared with other



10

employees, this is valuable information that could lead to a more effective

composition of working groups.

Hypothesis 3.2: There will be significant relations between the big five

personality traits and team identification.

In-role performance is the behaviour an employee has to show and act upon

to obtain the tasks he or she needs to complete. Someone who scores low on in-

role performance behaves in such a way that mandatory tasks are not completed

(Yap et al., 2009). Therefore, besides looking at the possible relationships of the

big five personality traits with team satisfaction and team identification, it is also

interesting to see which big five traits are related to in-role performance. A better

understanding of these associations could lead to better ways of composing

working groups. Similar to team identification, in-role performance is not well-

researched regarding its associations with personality traits.

Hypothesis 3.3: There will be significant relationships between the big

five personality traits and in-role performance.

Teamwork and Transformational Leadership

A strong group is an important basis for a good leader (Boehm & Yoels,

2009). Therefore it is possible that team identification, team satisfaction and in-

role performance predict transformational leadership. Again, little research is

available that examines these ideas, therefore an important aim of this study is to

see if a relationship is present, to gain a better understanding of the associations

among transformational leadership.

Hypothesis 3.4: A positive relationship between team identification

and transformational leadership can be found.

Hypothesis 3.5: A positive relationship between team satisfaction and

transformational leadership can be found.

Hypothesis 3.6: A positive relationship between in-role performance

and transformational leadership can be found.



11

When relationships are found between the personality traits of the big five

and transformational leadership, it is also possible that team identification, team

satisfaction and In-role performance moderate these relationships. Little research

is available regarding these specific relationships, but a better insight in this

matter would enhance the model regarding leadership associations presented in

this study.

Hypothesis 3.7: A moderator effect between team identification and

the relationship between the big five personality traits with


Hypothesis 3.8: A moderator effect between team satisfaction and the

relationship between the big five personality traits with


Hypothesis 3.9: A moderator effect between in-role performance and

the relationship between the big five personality traits with


Nationality & Team Work

To complete the research model presented in this study, a check will be

made to see if there are relationships between nationality and team identification,

team satisfaction and in-role performance. Little research is available on his

topic, however, due to cultural-specific characteristics that could influence teams,

like individualism, uncertainty avoidance, or masculinity (Meeuwesen, 2008), a

significant difference may be expected between nationalities and the team

variables of team identification, team satisfaction and in-role performance. A

better understanding of the relationship of nationality with the three team

variables could possibly improve the leadership model as presented in this study.

Hypothesis 4.1: A significant difference between Dutch and non-Dutch

employees and team identification can be found.


employees and team satisfaction can be found.



12


employees and in-role performance can be found.

The ideas presented in this introduction lead to a basic leadership model

that could be used in both science and business. Since little previous research is

available, this model is a first proposal and needs further, extensive research.

However, this model could contribute to a better understanding of the

associations among transformational leadership. The proposed hypotheses are

summarized in the following leadership model:

Figure 1: Leadership model with hypotheses

Methods

Participants

The employees of an international company specialized in consumer

electronics were asked to complete an internet-based questionnaire. 117 males



13

and 79 females contributed to this research, with a total of 196 participants who

fully completed the questionnaire. No data is present about the age of the

employees due to restrictions regarding confidentiality and the protection of

personal data. Due to the multicultural background of this study, a company was

chosen where employees of different cultures work together. 93 employees

where from a Dutch nationality. 103 employees where from a Non-Dutch

nationality. The specific nationalities with the largest number of representatives

were British (n = 17), Japanese (n = 11), French (n = 9), German (n = 6), Italian

(n = 5), and Spanish (n = 5). The appendix provides a specification of all

nationalities present in the current study. Most participants were not native

speakers of English.

Measures

The questionnaire used in this research, which can be found in the

appendix, was created by merging several other frequently used questionnaires.

The language of the questionnaires used was English.

Part of the questionnaire consisted of the ‘Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire’ (MLQ) created by Bass and Avolio (1992). This questionnaire is

one of the most frequently used questionnaires to measure leadership (Judge &

Bono, 2000). The questionnaire consisted of 21 items. The participants indicated

on a 4-point scale their preferred answer on a range from ‘not at all’ to

‘frequently, if not always’. The MLQ consists of six different subscales: idealized

influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, individualized

consideration, contingent reward, management-by-exception, and laissez-faire

leadership. The separate subscales of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

have been combined to increase the alpha value (α =.77).

For the subscale ‘idealized influence’ the following statement, among

others, has been provided to the participants: ‘I make others feel good to be

around me’. ‘I express with a few simple words what we could and should do’ is

an example of a statement belonging to the subscale of ‘inspirational motivation’.

For the subscale of ‘intellectual stimulation’, one of the used items is: ‘I enable



14

others to think about old problems in new ways’. ‘individual consideration’ is

covered by the statement ‘I help others develop themselves’ among others. ‘I tell

others what to do if they want to be rewarded for their work’ is an example of a

statement that is part of the subscale ‘contingent reward’. ‘management-by-

exception’ uses items like: ‘I am satisfied when others meet agreed-upon

standards’. ‘I am content to let others continue working in the same way as

always.’ is an example of a statement that represents the subscale ‘laissez-faire

leadership’.

The questionnaire used for the measurement of the big five personality

traits was a translation of a short questionnaire developed by Van Emmerik et al.

(2004). The questionnaire consisted of fifteen items with characteristics.

Participants indicated their answer on a 7-point scale with answers ranging from

‘completely agree’ to ‘completely disagree’. The big five questionnaire consisted

of five subscales in alignment with the personality traits ‘openness to experience’

(α = .85 ), ‘conscientiousness’ (α = .87 ), ‘introversion’ (α = .90 ), ‘agreeableness’

(α = .84 ) and ‘emotional stability’ (α = .86 ).

For the subscale ‘openness to experience’ statements like ‘Frequently

highly creative’ were used. A statement for the subscale ‘conscientiousness’ is

‘Organized’, among others. An example of the subscale ‘introversion’ is ‘Quiet

when with people’. ‘Agreeableness’ is covered by statements like ‘Tender

hearted’. The subscale ‘emotional stability’ consisted of items like ‘More irritable

than others’.

The questionnaire used to measure ‘team identification’ (α = .78), ‘in-role

performance’ (α = .85) and ‘team satisfaction’ (α = .90) was created by merging

several questionnaires (Gladstein, 1984; Janssen & Xu, 2008; Tjosvold, 2003).

The questionnaire consisted of 24 statements. Participants indicated on a five-

point scale ranging from ‘completely agree’ to ‘completely disagree’.

‘Team identification’ consisted of statements like ‘I identify with other

members of my team/department’. An example of an item for the subscale ‘in-

role performance’ is ‘We fulfil all responsibilities required by the job’. For the



15

subscale ‘team satisfaction’ statements like ‘I am very satisfied with working in

this team’ were used.

Statistical Analysis

For the statistical analysis of the data SPSS statistics 17.0.0 for Windows

was used. The data of the item ‘nationality’ was recoded into a dichotomous

variable (Dutch = 1 versus Non-Dutch = 0). The Cronbach’s Alpha was analysed

( α ) to check for internal consistency, after collecting the data. Reliability scores

ranged from acceptable (.60 at minimum) to good (.80 and higher).

All results of this study have been calculated using the method of

(stepwise) multiple regression analysis to see which proportion of the variance in

the dependent variables could be explained by the independent variables and the

interactions between those variables. Interaction variables were created for the

predictors of the big five personality traits with the predictors of nationality and

team identification, team satisfaction and in-role performance to calculate

possible moderator effects in accordance with the research model. These

interactions were created by first standardizing variables, after which the

respective standardized variables were multiplied. In the regression analyses we

first entered the (unstandardized) main variables, after which the interaction

terms involving these main variables were entered. In this way we could examine

whether addition of interactions accounted for a significant additional part of the

variance in the outcome variables.

Results

Transformational Leadership

Table 1, Model 1 reveals that there is at least one variable of team

identification, in-role performance and/or team satisfaction that explains a

significant part of the variance of transformational leadership: F(3,192) = 5,928, p

< 0.05. This model explains 7% of the variance of transformational leadership.



16

Table 1: Results stepwise regression with three models comprised of possible predictors for transformational leadership. Model Adj. R2 Adj. R2 Change df1 df2 P

1 .070 .070 3 192 .001* 2 .294 .224 6 186 .000* 3 .320 .026 19 167 .144

* = significant at p > .05 Model 1 consists of the predictors team identification, in-role performance and team satisfaction

with transformational leadership as the dependent variable.

Model 2 consists of the predictors agreeableness, openness to experience, emotional stability,

conscientiousness, introversion and nationality with transformational leadership as the dependent

variable.

Model 3 consists of the interaction variables of agreeableness, openness to experience,

emotional stability, conscientiousness and introversion with nationality and team identification, in-

role performance and team satisfaction with transformational leadership as the dependent

variable.

Table 1, Model 2, shows that at least one of the personality traits of the big

five explains a significant part of the variance in transformational leadership:

F(9,186) = 10,017, p < 0.05. This model explains 22,4 % of the variance in

transformational leadership. The results for the individual predictors and the

accepted and/or rejected hypothesis will be discussed in accordance with Table

2. Hypotheses 2.3, 3.7, 3.8 and 3.9 stated that nationality, team identification,

team satisfaction and in-role performance moderate the relationship between the

big five personality traits and transformational leadership. Table 1, Model 3 show

no existing significant relationships between the interaction variables of the

personality traits of the big five with nationality and team identification, in-role

performance and team satisfaction: F(28,167) = 4,279, p > 0.05, and therefore,

these hypotheses were rejected.



17

Table 2: Results regression analysis for team identification, in-role performance, team satisfaction, the big five personality traits and nationality as predictors of transformational leadership. Model Beta Team identification .325* In-role performance -.071 Team satisfaction -.125 Openness .411* Conscientiousness .035 Introversion -.076 Emotional stability -.058 Agreeableness .154* Nationality .028 * = significant at p < .05

Hypothesis 3.4 stated that team identification would be a significant

predictor of transformational leadership. This hypothesis was confirmed by the

results shown in Table 2 (p < 0.05). Higher scores on team identification are

associated with higher scores of transformational leadership. In-role performance

and team satisfaction have no significant relationship with transformational

leadership, and therefore Hypotheses 3.5 and 3.6 are rejected (p > 0.05). Table 2

also reveals a significant relationship between openness to experience and

agreeableness with transformational leadership (p < 0.05). More specifically,

higher scores on openness to experience or agreeableness are associated with

higher scores on transformational leadership. This is partly in accordance with

Hypothesis 1, that stated that, apart from openness to experience and

agreeableness, extraversion would be related to transformational leadership. No

significant relationship was found for the effects of conscientiousness,

introversion and emotional stability on transformational leadership (p > 0.05).

Contrary to Hypothesis 2.2, no significant relationship has been found between

nationality and transformational leadership (p > 0.05)

Team Identification

Table 3, Model 1 reveals that at least one personality trait of the big five

explained a significant part of the variance in team identification (p < 0.05). This



18

model explains 6.4% of the variance in Team Identification. This is explained

more detailed in Table 4. Contrary to Hypothesis 4.1, no significant difference

was found for the association between nationality and team identification (p >

0.05).

Table 3: Results stepwise regression analysis with two models comprised of possible predictors for team identification. Model Adj. R2 Adj R2 Change df1 df2 P

1 .064 .064 5 190 .003* 2 .062 .002 1 189 .504

* = significant, p < .05 Model 1 consists of the predictors agreeableness, openness to experience, emotional stability,

conscientiousness, introversion with team identification as the dependent variable.

Model 2 consists of the predictor nationality with team identification as the dependent variable.

Hypothesis 3.2, that stated that the big five personality traits would predict

team identification, is partly supported by the results shown in Table 4. A

significant relationship between the personality traits conscientiousness and

emotional stability and team identification (p < 0.05) was found. Higher scores on

conscientiousness are associated with higher scores on team identification, but

higher scores on emotional stability are associated with lower scores on team

identification. No significant relationship was found for openness to experience,

introversion and agreeableness (p > 0.05).

Table 4: Results regression analysis for the big five personality traits as predictors for team identification. Model Beta Openness -.005 Conscientiousness .215* Introversion .012 Emotional stability -.172* Agreeableness .017 * = significant at p < .05



19

In-Role Performance

Table 5, Model 1, reveals that at least one personality trait of the big five

explains a significant part of the variance in in-role performance (p < 0.05). The

percentage of explained variance in in-role performance is 12.2%. Hypothesis

4.3 was rejected as no significant relationship was found between nationality and

in-role performance, as can be seen from Table 5, Model 2 (p > 0.05).

Table 5: Results stepwise regression analysis with two models comprised of possible predictors for in-role performance. Model Adj. R2 Adj R2 Change df1 Df2 p

1 .122 .122 5 190 .000* 2 .119 -.003 1 189 .570


conscientiousness, introversion with in-role performance as the dependent variable.

Model 2 consists of the predictor nationality with in-role performance as the dependent variable.

Table 6 reveals a significant relationship between the personality trait

conscientiousness on in-role performance (p < 0.05), such that higher levels of

conscientiousness are associated with higher levels of in-role performance. This

is partly in accordance with Hypothesis 3.3. which stated that the big five

personality traits have a positive relationship with in-role performance. No

significant relationships were found for openness to experience, introversion,

emotional stability and agreeableness (p > 0.05).

Table 6: Results regression analysis for the big five personality traits as a predictor for in-role performance. Model Beta Openness .130 Conscientiousness .365* Introversion -.096 Emotional stability .074 Agreeableness -.024 * = significant at p < .05



20

Team Satisfaction

Table 7, Model 1 reveals that at least one personality trait of the big five

explains a significant part of the variance in team satisfaction (p < 0.05). The

percentage explained variance in team satisfaction is 8%. Contrary to Hypothesis

4.2, that stated an existing, significant difference between nationality and team

satisfaction, no difference has been found for nationality and team satisfaction (p

> 0.05).

Table 7: Results stepwise regression analysis with two models comprised of possible predictors for team satisfaction. Model Adj. R2 Adj R2 Change df1 df2 p

1 .080 .080 5 190 .001* 2 .076 -.004 1 189 .771


conscientiousness, introversion with team satisfaction as the dependent variable.

Model 2 consists of the predictor nationality with team satisfaction as the dependent variable.

Table 8 reveals a significant relationship between conscientiousness and

emotional stability on team satisfaction (p < 0.05); higher levels of

conscientiousness and lower levels of emotional stability are associated with

higher levels of team satisfaction, which partly supports Hypothesis 3.1.

Hypothesis 3.1 stated that extraversion and agreeableness have a positive

relationship with team satisfaction. No significant relationship has been found for

openness to experience, introversion and agreeableness (p > 0.05).



21

Table 8: Results regression analysis for the big five personality traits as a predictor for team satisfaction. Model Beta Openness .108 Conscientiousness .189* Introversion -.007 Emotional stability -.181* Agreeableness .041 * = significant, p < .05

Nationality

Hypothesis 2.1, stating that Dutch and non-Dutch employees will differ

significantly on their scores on the big five personality traits, can partly be

accepted as Table 9 reveals that nationality explains a significant part of the

variance in the big five personality trait of conscientiousness (p < 0.05).

Nationality explains 1.7% of the variance in conscientiousness. Dutch employees

score significantly higher on conscientiousness compared with non-Dutch

employees. No relationship is found for the personality traits ‘openness to

experience’, ‘Introversion’, ‘emotional stability’ and ‘agreeableness’.

Table 9: Results multiple regression analysis with nationality as a predictor of the big five personality traits Model Adj. R2 df1 df2 Beta

Openness -.02 1 193 .060 Conscientiousness .017 1 193 .149*

Extraversion -.005 1 193 .023 Agreeableness -.004 1 193 .090

Emotional Stability .003 1 193 .040 * = significant, p < .05

The initially described research model looks like the following (Figure 2),

with all accepted relationships and their directions as shown. Rejected

hypotheses were not included.



22

Figure 2: Research model with accepted hypotheses

Discussion and conclusion

Theoretical and practical relevance

The purpose of this research was to create a transformational leadership

model that explains the associations among the big five personality traits,

nationality, team identification, team satisfaction, in-role performance, and

transformational leadership. The most interesting findings of the present study

were on the one hand the relationships between openness to experience,

agreeableness, and team identification with transformational leadership, but on

the other hand, the total absence of associations among leadership and

extraversion.

The model with associations around transformational leadership is less

complex and accounted for less of the variance in transformational leadership

compared to what was expected, considering the number and type of variables

included in the model. Possibly, associations with other variables could enhance

the model and account for a greater proportion of the variance in transformational

leadership.



23

The model in this research is most useful to the company that cooperated

in this research since this research is a quite accurate analysis of their population

of employees. The results of this research could be used for Human Resources

purposes, like hiring and assessing new employees or developing employees

into leadership functions. Applicants participating in assessments could be rated

differently with this new knowledge about the associations among

transformational leadership. If high scores of transformational leadership are

criteria for new employees, applicants could be assessed not only on

transformational leadership, but also on their personality traits. The applicant

must score high on the MLQ, but additionally, also on variables like openness to

experience and agreeableness. However, more research is needed to see if the

findings can be replicated and have practical relevance.

This research is also valuable to organizations with a multicultural

environment in general: processes around leadership may work differently in

comparison with other organizations. The hypotheses in this study are often

based on studies with a non-international setting and that might have influenced

the contradictory findings of this study. This research might be a first step in the

area of transformational leadership studies in multicultural environments, but

further research is needed to see if the findings of this study can be replicated.

Big Five Personality Traits

One remarkable finding in this research is the absence of any association

with the big five personality trait of extraversion. In this study the term

‘Introversion’ is used to illustrate the variable of extraversion, the opposite end of

the scale. While extraversion was expected to explain part of the variance in

transformational leadership and team satisfaction, nothing was found. Also, no

significant difference was found for nationality and extraversion, while past

research revealed that those differences were frequently found. A possible

explanation for the absence of any effects of extraversion may be found in the

population used in this research. If employees were hired with a certain level of

extraversion, e.g. because the trait of extraversion is considered to be important



24

in the company, it is possible that no true variance is measured for extraversion.

If every employee has the same scores on extraversion, no relationship can be

found, while this could be different in other companies. Therefore, it is of great

importance the results of this study are verified by future research.

Some research, however, contradicts the most accepted mindset that

personality traits are associated with transformational leadership (Judge et al.

2002), with weaker ratings in organizational settings (Bono & Judge, 2004).

Since these studies are relatively rare, more research needs to be done before

assumptions about possible weaker relationships of personality traits with

leadership should be accepted.

As expected, openness and agreeableness predict a significant part of the

variance in transformational leadership, which is in accordance with previous

studies. In spite of the fact that extraversion does not predict a significant part of

the variance in transformational leadership, these findings imply that the

hypothesis is (partly) accepted, especially with the fact that previous studies are

not always consistent about the results regarding personality traits and

transformational leadership (Hetland, Sandal & Johnson, 2008: Smith & Conger,

2004). The most feasible explanation for the absence of the variable extraversion

is that the population used in this study scored differently on extraversion, which

could be important information for the company that contributed to this research

and for further research in this field.

As predicted, higher scores on openness to experience or agreeableness

are associated with higher scores on transformational leadership. Employees

showing specific behavior related to openness to experience or agreeableness

are more likely to be transformational leaders. If a company seeks

transformational leaders, it is likely that possible future leaders with specific

personality traits need to be recruited. Besides assessing employees on

questionnaires like the MLQ, other questionnaires can be used to strengthen the

choice of the company for an certain employee. An applicant scoring high on

openness to experience, agreeableness and transformational leadership seems

a better choice compared with an applicant scoring low on openness to



25

experience and agreeableness, but has high scores on transformational

leadership.

Another striking finding is that whereas conscientiousness explains

variance in team identification, team satisfaction and in-role performance, no

relationships with other concepts have been found (with exception of emotional

stability). However, as mentioned in the introduction, little is known about the

exact associations of the big five personality traits and the different aspects of

team work. This study is a small step forward regarding the knowledge about the

big five personality traits and team work.

This study found that higher scores on conscientiousness are associated

with higher scores on team identification, team satisfaction and in-role

performance. Employees scoring high on conscientiousness should be highly

valued by companies when hiring employees for team-based occupations. This

could have an effect on the hiring policies of companies since employees who

score high on conscientiousness could be favoured compared with employees

who score low on the same trait.

Higher scores on emotional stability are associated with lower scores on

team identification and team satisfaction. An explanation for this finding is that

employees who score high on emotional stability are possibly also less

emotionally flexible, and do not like to show their emotions. However, employees

value colleagues showing emotions, which enables them to identify with their

team, and therefore show more emotions themselves. The question is on which

level these assumptions can be made. How ‘emotional unstable’ can someone

be while still maintaining high levels of team identification and team satisfaction?

Therefore, more research, possibly with peer-ratings of emotional stability, is

needed.

As mentioned before, also extraversion does not explain any variance in

the three team variables. Another explanation for the absence of this trait could

be the hierarchical structure and Japanese company culture present in the

organization that cooperated to this research. This culture could be present in

such a way that employees of other nationalities are also affected. This contrasts



26

with research that found that certain personality traits, like extraversion, are

related to successful expatriation (Van Emmerik & Euwema, 2009). In the

company that contributed to this research, many expatriates are present and the

absence of any relationship with extraversion is quite interesting. However, more

research is needed before firm conclusions can be drawn. However, for the time

being it can be concluded that personality factors (especially conscientiousness

and emotional stability) may well be relevant in affecting the scores on other

concepts, including leadership and team-related variables.

Team Work

Out of the three variables of team identification, team satisfaction and in-

role performance, only team identification predicts a significant part of the

variance in transformational leadership. Theoretically, team identification is very

important for groups since this creates a stable and safe basis for team

members. Transformational leadership is characterised by the tendency of

changing the status quo. Why would changing the status quo in a group with a

leader who scores high on team identification possibly lead to higher levels of

success? In such groups, leaders may feel more safe to take risky actions, which

could improve group performance. It is easier to change the status quo when the

employees in a team, including the leader, identify with the group and trust each

other. However, further research is needed before assumptions can be made.

This could explain why no relationship is found for the variables of in-role

performance, and to a lesser extent for team satisfaction. Leaders can feel

satisfied about their team, but they can still feel uncertain when they have to take

initiatives themselves, or if they want to implement changes. Also, for these

assumptions more research is needed.

These findings could have implications for finding the transformational

leader in an existing team. Employees who score high on team identification are

likely to score high on transformational leadership, and therefore, could be

suitable leaders for that same team. This knowledge could be applied when

managers or leaders get hired internally.



27

No moderator effect has been found for team identification, team

satisfaction and in-role performance on the relationship between the big five

personality traits and transformational leadership. One reason for the non-

appearance of moderator relationships could be that team identification, team

satisfaction and in-role performance are mostly outcomes, instead of predictors

of leadership.

Nationality

The only relationship found for Nationality was with openness to

experience. There is a significant difference between Dutch and Non-Dutch

employees for the personality trait of openness to experience. A possible

explanation for the absence of other associations is that the employees involved

in this research score the same on most personality traits. This could be due to

either the hiring policy of the company or the company culture that influences the

display of personality traits. The company may hire employees with a specific set

of personality traits, and therefore, create a homogenous group of employees,

regardless of (or overruling) the effect of nationality. However, more research

needs to be conducted before assumptions can be made.

Dutch employees score significantly higher on conscientiousness

compared with non-Dutch employees, but to state that Dutch employees are

better transformational leaders compared with non-Dutch employees goes

somewhat far. More obviously, Dutch employees tend to score higher on

transformational leadership compared with other cultures. Therefore, it is likely

that more Dutch employees are hired for leadership positions compared to other

cultures, when the MLQ is part of the hiring process. However, it is the personal

score of the individual in the application procedure that is of importance.

No relationship has been found between nationality and transformational

leadership. It can be hypothesised that Nationality influences the effectiveness of

transformational leadership, as Jung et al (2009) found in their studies. This is in

accordance with the studies by Kearney and Gebert (2009), who found that

transformational leadership moderates the relationship between nationality and



28

team outcomes. However, the finding that no direct relationship between

nationality and transformational leadership is present, is valuable additional

information which could contribute to the understanding of the research model

created in this studies, but also for the model studied by Jung et al. (2009) and

Kearney and Gebert (2009).

However, as Kearny and Gebert (2009) found a moderator effect for

transformational leadership and the relationship between nationality and team

outcomes: in this studies nationality does not appear to have a relationship with

team identification, team satisfaction and in-role performance. Therefore, it is

uncertain what the exact reason is for the apparent absence of any relationship

between nationality and transformational leadership, but also the absence of a

relationship between nationality and team identification, team satisfaction and in-

role performance.

No moderator effect has been found for nationality of the relationship

between the big five personality traits and transformational leadership. Nationality

may have lost its associations since the employees in this study are working in

an international organization. Working experience could be an explanation for

this, since the effects of culture could have diminished in this population.

Limitations

Several factors that influence the findings of this study should be kept in

mind. First, the population in this study consisted for the major part of Dutch

employees (n = 93), while the employees of other cultures were less well

represented; the largest group of employees of a specific nationality were British

(n = 17). The findings of this study might have been different if larger groups of

certain nationalities could have contributed to this research. This limitation could

have consequences for the generalizability of this study. Moreover, the category

of non-Dutch participants included very different nationalities (and, possibly,

cultures), meaning that the effects of “culture” on the variables in the present

study may cancel each other out. Nationality does not necessarily translate



29

literally with culture: someone who recently gained a Dutch nationality might still

think and act closely fitting the culture related to their origin.

In the second place, the variables in this study are possibly not the only

important factors contributing to leadership. Therefore, the proposed leadership

model is only limited to the variables used in this study. The leadership model

proposed in this study should be extended in further research.

Another limitation of this study is that most findings have not been

replicated in other research yet. This is partly due to the fact that little research

has covered the areas addressed in this study. However, some findings were

contradictory to previous studies that did address some of the topics covered,

like the absence of associations among extraversion.

The company that contributed to this study was undergoing a large

reorganization at the time of data gathering. Therefore, the responses of the

participants could have been influenced by the events concerning the

reorganization. Team identification is an example of a variable that could be

influenced by the reorganization. When employees leave the company this might

have an effect on other employees and their identification with their team.

Suggestions for further research

The model suggested in this research can be a start for further research

that enhances this specific model, and contributes to the understanding of

leadership in multicultural environments. It is important that future studies focus

on these areas since an increasing number of organizations are operating in

various, multicultural environments.

Although this study examined associations that haven’t been studied yet,

the limitations of this research should not be underestimated. Future research

should address these limitations. For instance, one suggestion for further

research could be the examination of other variables related to team work, like

deep-level similarity or team performance. This will enhance the current model

and result in a better understanding of the nomological network that surrounds

transformational leadership.



30

Culture, or nationality, has been an important factor in this study.

However, many more ways of differentiating influences can be studied: age, or

educational diversity are all possible variables for future studies. Although this

would be a topic that is interesting to gain more knowledge of, the current model

mainly focuses on leadership in a multicultural environment, and therefore

nationality was used. Either way, also age and educational diversity may play a

role in the multicultural organization.

Not only self-rated transformational leadership could be used in this

model, but also leader-follower ratings or peer-ratings of transformational

leadership. Research in these topics could complete this model since this will

contribute to a better understanding of transformational leadership from different

angles.

This study focuses on a model that tries to explain the associations

between several sets of variables on the one hand, and transformational

leadership on the other. Although much research has been conducted about this

kind of leadership, few studies attempted to test a model that integrates several

different variables to increase understanding of the processes involving

transformational leadership. This study tested a model that can be used to

explain the associations of transformational leadership. However, many

hypotheses in this studies have been rejected, and therefore further research is

needed to see if this model can be used in other settings. However, this study is

a small step forward in the understanding of leadership processes.

References

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

Free Press.

Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J. (1992). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire-short form

6S. Binghamton NY: Center for Leadership Studies.

Bezrukova, K., Jehn, K. A., Zanutto, E.L. & Thatcher, S.M.B. (2009). Do

workgroup faultlines help or hurt? A moderated model of faultlines, team



31

identification, and group performance. Organization Science, 20(1), pp.

35-50.

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

Transactional Leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 89(5), pp. 901-910.

Boehm, A. & Yoels, N. (2009). Effectiveness of welfare organizations: The

contribution of leadership styles, staff cohesion, and worker

empowerment. British Journal of Social Work, 39, pp. 1360-1380.

Brown, F.W.B. & Reilly, M.D. (2009). The Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator and

Transformational Leadership. Journal of Management

Development,28(10), pp.916-932.

De Hoogh, A.H.B., Den Hartog, D.N. & Koopman, P.L. (2005). Linking the Big

Five-factors of personality to Charismatic and Transformational

Leadership: Perceived Dynamic Work Environment as a moderator.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, pp.839-865.

De Vries, R.E. (2008). What are we measuring? Convergence of leadership with

interpersonal and non-interpersonal personality. Leadership,4, pp.403-

417.

Driskell, J.E., Goodwin, G.F., Salas, E. & O’Shea, P.G. (2006). What makes a

good team player? Personality and team effectiveness. Group Dynamics:

Theory, Research and Practice, 10(4), pp. 249-271.

Euwema, M.C., Van Emmerik, IJ.H. (2007). Intercultural competencies and

conglomerated conflict behaviors in intercultural conflicts. International

Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31, pp. 427-441.

Gladstein, D.L. (1984) Groups in context: A model of task groups effectiveness.

Administrative Quarterly, 29(4), pp. 499-517

Hammer, M.R., Bennett, M.J. & Wiseman, R. (2003). Measuring intercultural

sensitivity: The Intercultural Development Inventory. International Journal

of Intercultural Relations, 27(4), pp. 421-443.



32

Hetland, H., Sandal, G.M. & Johnson, T.B. (2008). Followers personality and

leadership. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 14(4),

pp.322-332.

Hofmann, D.A. & Jones, L.M. (2005). Leadership, collective personality, and

performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, (90)3, pp.509-522.

Hofstede, G. & McCrae, R.R. (2004). Personality and culture revisited: Linking

traits and dimensions of culture. Cross-Cultural Research, (38)1, pp.52-

88.

Hofstee, W.K.B., Liers, H.A., De Raad, B., Goldberg, L.R. & Ostendorf, F. (1997).

A comparison of Big-Five structures of personality traits in Dutch, German

and English. European Journal of Personality,11(1), pp.15-31.

Ismail, K. M. & Ford, D.L. (2010). Organizational leadership in Central Asia and

the Caucasus: Research considerations and directions. Asia Pacific

Journal of Management, 27(2), pp. 321-340.

Janssen, O., & Xu, H. (2008). Us and me: Team Identification and Team

Differentiation as complementary drivers of team members‘ citizenship

and creative behaviors. Journal of Management, 34(1), pp. 69-88.

Jehn, K.A. & Bezrukova, K. (2010). The Faultline Activation Process and the

effects of activated faultlines on coalition formation, conflict, and group

outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 112,

pp.24-42.

Judge, T.A. & Bono, J.E. (2000). Five-Factor Model of Personality and

Transformational Leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), pp.

751-765.

Judge, T.A., Bono, J.E. Ilies, R. & Gerhardt, M.W, (2002). Personality and

Leadership: A qualitive and quantitative review. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 87(4), pp. 765-780.

Jung, D., Yammarino, F.J. & Lee, J.J. (2009). Moderating role of subordinates’

attitudes on Transformational Leadership and effectiveness: A multi-

cultural and multi-level perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, pp.

586-603.



33

Kearny, E. & Gebert, D. (2009). Managing diversity and enhancing team

outcomes: The promise of Transformational Leadership. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 94(1), pp. 77-89.

McAllister, L., Whiteford, G., Hill, B., Thomas, N. & Fitzgerald, M. (2006).

Reflection in intercultural learning: Examining the international experience

through a critical incident approach. Reflective Practice, 7(3), pp. 367-381.

Meeuwesen, L., Van Den Brink-Muinen, A. & Hofstede, G. (2008). Can

dimensions of national culture predict cross-national differences in medical

communication? Patient Education and Counseling,75, pp. 58-66.

Pearsall, M.J. & Ellis, A.P.J. (2006). The effects of Critical Team Member

Assertiveness on team performance and satisfaction. Journal of

Management 32(4), pp. 575-594.

Pieterse, A., Van Knippenberg, D., Schippers, M. & Stam, D. (2010).

Transformational and transactional leadership and innovative behavior:

The moderating role of psychological empowerment. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 31, pp. 609-623.

Politis, J. D. (2002). Transformational and transactional leadership enabling

(disabling) knowledge acquisition of self-managed teams: The

consequence of performance. Leadership and Organization Development

Journal, 23(4), pp. 186-197.

Simon, L.S., Judge, T.A. & Halvorsen-Ganepola, M.D.K. (2010). In a good

company? A multi-study, multi-level investigation of the effects of

coworker relationships on employee well-being. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 76(3), pp. 534-546.

Smith, M.A. & Canger, J.M. (2004). Effects of supervisor ‘Big Five’ personality on

subordinate attitudes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18(4), pp.

465-481.

Testa, M. R. (2002). A model for organization-based 360 degree leadership

assessment. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23(5), pp.

260-268.



34

Tjosvold, D., Yu, Z. & Liu, H. (2003). Traditional values for applying abilities and

leader effectiveness in China. Leadership & Organization Development

Journal, 24(8), pp. 460-468.

Van Emmerik, IJ.H. & Euwema, M.C. (2009). The international assignments of

peacekeepers: What drives them to seek future expatriation? Human

Resource Management, 48(1), pp. 135-151.

Van Emmerik, IJ.H., Euwema, M.C. & Wendt, H. (2008). Leadership behaviors

around the world: The relative importance of gender versus cultural

background. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 8(3),

297-315.

Van Emmerik, IJ.H., Jawahar, J. & Stone, T.H. (2004). The relationship between

personality and discretionary helping behaviors. Psychological Reports,

95, pp. 355-365.

Yap, J.E., Bove, L.L. & Beverland, M.B. (2009). Exploring the effects of different

reward programs on in-role and extra-role performance of retail

associates. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 12(3),

pp.1352-2752.



35

Appendix: Participants’ Nationalities

Nationality Number American 4 Australian 2 Belgian 1 Brazilian 2 British 17 Canadian 1 Colombian 1 Czech 2 Danish 3 Dutch 93 Egyptian 1 Finnish 2 French 9 German 6 Greek 2 Hungarian 2 Indian 3 Indonesian 1 Irish 1 Israeli 1 Italian 5 Japanese 11 Malaysian 1 Mexican 2 New Zealander 1 Peruvian 1 Polish 3 Portuguese 4 South African 2 Spanish 5 Swedish 3 Turkish 2 Venezuelan 1 Jordanian 1 Total 196



36

Appendix: Questionnaire

Team work Please indicate on a five-point scale which response reflects your answer best (Completely disagree to Completely agree).

We fulfill all responsibilities required by the job We never fail to perform essential duties We never neglect aspects of the job that we are obligated to perform We meet all the formal performance requirements of the job We are willing to assist new colleagues in adjusting to the work

environment We are willing to help colleagues solve work-related problems We are willing to cover work assignments for colleagues when needed

and always complete their duties specified in their job description We receive feedback about our team performance We are collectively held accountable for our team performance We receive regular feedback about our team functioning We are informed about the goals we should attain as a group I am satisfied with my present colleagues I am pleased with the way my colleagues and I work together I am very satisfied with working in this team I identify with other members of my team/department I am like other members of my team/department My team/department is an important reflection of who I am I would like to continue working with my team/department I dislike being a member of my team/department I would rather belong to another team/department I have a one-person job I rarely have to check or work with others I have to work closely with my colleagues to do my work properly In order to complete our work, my colleagues and I have to exchange

information and advice Big Five Please indicate on a seven-point scale which response option reflects

your answer best (Completely disagree to Completely agree). I am frequently highly creative I find novel solutions I am imaginative I am orderly I am organized I am precise I am shy I am reserved when with people I am quiet when with people I am moodier than others I often have mood swings I am more irritable than others I am kind to others I am tender hearted I am sympathetic



37

I am efficient I am temperamental MLQ Please indicate on a four-point scale which response reflects your

answer best (Completely disagree to Completely agree). I make others feel good to be around me I express with a few simple words what we could and should do I enable others to think about old problems in new ways I help others develop themselves I tell others what to do if they want to be rewarded for their work I am satisfied when others meet agreed-upon standards I am content to let others continue working in the same way as always Others have complete faith in me I provide appealing images about what we can do I provide others with new ways of looking at puzzling things I let others know how I think they are doing provide recognition/rewards when others reach their goals As long as things are working, I do not try to change anything Whatever others want to do is OK with me Others are proud to be associated with me I help others find meaning in their work I get others to rethink ideas that they had never questioned before I give personal attention to others who seem rejected I call attention to what others can get for what they accomplish I tell others the standards they have to know to carry out their work I ask no more of others than what is absolutely essential

Technology

Niels Jansen Transformational Leadership