Eke jelluma thesis_ccl_maastricht_university_leadership_personality_effectiveness_behaviour


Published on

The first research that examines an integrative approach on leadership effectiveness. The thesis was based upon a global database of managers and executives, provided by the Centre for Creative Leadership. Main results indicate that personality traits contributes less to leadership effectiveness than behavioral competencies.

1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Eke jelluma thesis_ccl_maastricht_university_leadership_personality_effectiveness_behaviour

  1. 1. What makes a good leader?Personality, behaviour and leadership effectiveness: towards an integrative model.Maastricht UniversityFaculty of Psychology and NeuroscienceMaster in Work and Organizational PsychologyMaastricht, 21-07-2012Eke Jellumai605581Words – 10151First supervisor – Regina Eckert, Senior Research Associate at the Centre for Creative Leadership.Second supervisor – Fred Zijlstra, Professor and Head of Work & Organizational Psychology atMaastricht University. 1  
  2. 2. Table of Contents1. ABSTRACT 32. INTRODUCTION 4 2.1. Theoretical review 5 2.2. Leader effectiveness 8 2.3. Personality and leader effectiveness 10 2.4. Transformational leadership 11 2.5. Towards an integrative and mediation model 123. METHODS 17 3.1. Participants and Procedure 17 3.2. Materials and Measures 18 3.3. Methods of Analysis 214. RESULTS 21 4.1. Research Questions 24 4.2. Mediation Hypotheses 265. DISCUSSION 31 5.1. Implications 32 5.2. Limitations 35 5.3. Conclusions 366. REFERENCES 377. APPENDICES 41   2
  3. 3. 1. AbstractThe present research points to a need in integrating the trait and behaviour approach to determineleader effectiveness. A mediation model is proposed, integrating both approaches and examiningto which extent change- and relational-oriented behaviours mediate the relationship betweenpersonality and leader effectiveness. Two specific personality traits, argued to be consistentpredictors of leader effectiveness, are used: extraversion and expressed control. Archival datafrom 438 managers were gathered from the Centre for Creative Leadership. Results provideevidence for a mediation effect. The behaviours influence and results orientation fully mediatedthe effect of expressed control on leader effectiveness. The effect of extraversion was mediatedthrough the behaviours innovation and approachability. Moreover, behaviour was a betterpredictor for leader effectiveness than personality. The latter showed a shortage in significantcorrelation with effective leadership. These findings point to important issues in the assessmentof leadership and in interpreting results of personality measurements to predict leadereffectiveness.   3
  4. 4. 2. IntroductionLeadership research has primarily been concerned with two major questions: which personalitytraits make an individual a leader? And, which behaviour competencies make an effective leader?Each question referring to the trait and behaviour approach, respectively. The current studyaddresses an insufficiency in present leadership research in integrating these two approaches.When relying on previous findings (Ahmetoglu, Chamorro-Premuzic, & Furnham, 2010;Furnham, Crump, & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2007; Judge, Bono, Gerhardt, & Ilies, 2002; Roush &Atwater, 1992), it is argued that personality and behaviour can both independently influenceleader effectiveness, respectively, through the trait and behaviour approach. Only one study waslocated, examining a possible integration of the trait and behaviour approach (Derue, Nahrgang,Wellman, & Humphrey, 2011). Acknowledging the importance and significance of their research,the leadership literature still shows a gap in appraising the indirect relationship between specifictraits and specific behaviour competencies. The present study addresses this gap by developing apowerful model in which both the trait and behaviour approach is integrated, each includingspecific leader traits and behaviours. This theoretical trait-behaviour model of leadereffectiveness suggests the mediation role of behaviour on the relationship between personalityand leader effectiveness. Personality will manifest in specific behaviour styles, whichconsequently impact the leader effectiveness, depending on the behaviour this effect will bepositive or negative. More specifically, the present research considers transformationalleadership, and its associated change- and relational-oriented behaviour. As for the personalitytraits, extraversion and expressed control will be focused on. To conclude, establishing and understanding the relationship between the trait and behaviourapproach and leader effectiveness will further enrich the research on leadership. Also,recommendations will be given for both practice and science. The implications will involveleadership development, assessment and training, and from a scientific point of view,recommendations for the measurement used in trainings will be provided concerning whichconstructs they assess and how they relate to another. The present study uses archival data fromThe Centre for Creative Leadership, that concentrate on three leadership assessmentmeasurements, FIRO-B, MBTI, and a specific 360-degree feedback instrument, LF 360(McCaulley & Moxley, 1996; Myers & McCaulley, 1985; Schutz, 1958).   4
  5. 5. The following section will provide in-depth background information on the leadership topic,involving the trait and behaviour approach, and their related important findings. Next, it will befollowed by an extent description of leader effectiveness, personality traits, and behaviourcompetencies, including their analyzed constructs. Finally, the proposed integrative mediationmodel is outlined. Throughout these sections, research questions and hypotheses are formulated.2.1. Theoretical backgroundLeadership is a widely known concept. Therefore, it is surprising the word did not appear in theEnglish language until around the year 1800 (Gordon, 2001). It was originally known in commonvocabulary, and later on brought into scientific and technical disciplines (Pierce, 2011). Today, itis used in organizations, businesses and daily life. Across time, a variety of definitions have beenproposed. It has been viewed as a trait, a behaviour style, a characteristic of groups and as aninteraction between a leader and a follower (Yukl, 2006). These multiple redefinitions created anambiguity in meaning of the concept leadership. Also different styles of leadership have beensuggested: laissez-faire, transactional, transformational and charismatic leadership, to name afew. Each of these styles entails specific personality traits, skills and competencies, which areexplored through personality and behaviour measurements (Yukl, 2006). However, as thescientific concept leadership appears to be an enigma, then the question emerges: How shouldleadership be assessed? One of the earliest approaches to study leadership is the trait approach. This approach isstudied through psychometric measurements, such as FIRO-B and MBTI, in which the naturalability, intelligence, mental abilities, and interests of an individual are assessed. The traitapproach emphasizes leaders’ attributes such as personality, motives, and values. The assumptionunderlying this approach is that some individuals are natural leaders, endowed with specificpersonality traits. Certain personality traits would therefore predict whether or not an individualis effective in a leadership position. Unfortunately, most prior studies of the trait theory weredescriptive with few attempts to quantify the relationship of these characteristics to leadereffectiveness. Therefore, as research on leadership progressed, a behaviour approach emerged.Here, research analyzed the relationship between behaviour and leader effectiveness and paidcloser attention to what managers actually do on their job. Through the use of competency   5
  6. 6. measures (e.g. 360-degree feedback), researchers look at leaders’ activities, responsibilities andfunctions, and relate it to leader effectiveness (Yukl, 2006). As research on leadership continues, many studies have pursued both the trait and behaviourapproach to further explore the relationship between personality traits, behaviour and leadership(Ahmetoglu et al., 2010; Furnham et al., 2007; Judge et al., 2002; Roush & Atwater, 1992).These studies have shown that personality and leadership are related and that some particularpersonality traits are desirable for effective leadership. The personality traits of the Big Fivemodel (extraversion, neuroticism, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness) are mainlyused in research to explore their relationship to leadership, as the model describes the mostsalient aspects of personality (Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan, 1994; Judge et al., 2002). The mostprominent and consistent trait related to leadership is suggested to be extraversion (Judge et al.,2002). Leaders high on extraversion are likely to be sociable, lively, assertive, optimistic, andinspiringly communicate to followers. Furnham (2008) based its results on data from the measureFIRO-B, a psychometric measure, assessing the typical behaviour of an individual towards othersand how this individual would like others to behave towards him or her (Schutz, 1958). And herevealed that extraversion was significant for two particular FIRO-B types: expressed inclusionand expressed control. Both types were also found to be consistently and positively correlatedwith leadership, intelligence and managerial level (Ahmetoglu et al., 2010; Furnham, 2008;House & Howell, 1997). In accordance, Furnham et al. (2007) identified a significant higherexpressed inclusion and expressed control score for senior managers than non-managers. AnotherFIRO-B type, viz. wanted control, was negatively correlated with leader effectiveness. As for the behaviour approach, Fleishman and colleagues’ (1991) research on thebehavioural requirements for effective organizational leadership, has revealed 13 distinct leaderbehaviour dimensions. Subsequent research on leader behaviour has encountered difficulties toseparate attributions of specific behaviours and the related effectiveness (Judge et al., 2002).Nevertheless, a consistent theme in the leadership literature is that behaviour can be fit into fourcategories: task-oriented behaviour, change-oriented behaviour, relational-oriented behaviour,and passive leadership (Yukl, 2006). First, task-oriented behaviour is determined by initiatingstructure, in the sense that leaders define task roles to the group and set clear expectations, whichthen can be rewarded if the standards for performance are met. This type of behaviour is mainlyseen in transactional leadership, in which the exchange of resources has a central position (Bass,   6
  7. 7. 1985). Second, change-oriented leaders are defined as facilitating and change-driven, includingactions such as developing and communicating a vision for change, encouraging innovativethinking, challenging assumption, and risk taking. Third, relational-oriented leaders are describedas showing respect for individuals, friendly and approachable, open for input, and treat everyoneas equal. Further specific relational-oriented behaviour styles are empowering, encouragingwelfare, participative, and democratic. Both change- and relational-oriented behaviour aresuggested to fall within the scope of transformational leadership, which is commonly referred toas most effective type of leadership (Bono & Judge, 2004; House & Howell, 1992; Judge &Piccolo, 2004). Finally, passive leadership (or laissez-faire) is commonly referred to a leader’sinaction, in which there is no engagement with followers (Yukl, 2006). Bass (1985) includes thistype of behaviour under the transactional leadership, since leaders take a passive approach andonly intervene when problems become serious. To conclude, previous literature on leadership has focused on either the trait or behaviourapproach, on personality traits or on behavioural characteristics, in order to examine and explainleader effectiveness. Up till now, only one study has examined a possible integration between thetrait and behaviour approach, and has analyzed their relative validity (Derue et al., 2011). As aresponse to the call for integration, Derue and colleagues have come up with a theoretical modelin which diverse criteria of leaders’ traits, behaviours and effectiveness are captured. Resultssupport their model and provide evidence for an integrative model of leader effectiveness. Mostimportant findings: passive behaviours were negatively associated with leader effectiveness,behaviours had a greater impact on leader effectiveness than traits, and task competence andinterpersonal attributes predicted change-oriented behaviours. These findings, as well as theiroverall model are rather broad and embrace a lot of dimensions, including demographics, taskcompetences and different behaviour aspects. No suggestions are made considering specificbehaviour competencies and specific personality traits; these different traits and behaviours wererepresented by one overall criterion (e.g. task competence included intelligence,conscientiousness, openness to experience, emotional stability, technical knowledge, andleadership efficacy). Therefore, the aim of the present study is to further close the gap inleadership research, by including specific traits and behaviours into an integrated model. Figure 1captures both the trait and behaviour approach, and displays a proposed integration (orangelines). The current research presents a theoretical, integrative and mediation model that   7
  8. 8. emphasizes the importance of specific personality traits and their influence on particularbehavioural leadership styles, which is conceptualized in Figure 1. The integration includes aneffect of personality on leader effectiveness, through the manifestation of behaviour. Behaviourwill serve as a mediator, mediating the effect of personality on leader effectiveness. Thisresulting effect on leader effectiveness can be positive or negative, depending on the manifestedbehaviour. In the following sections descriptions of and relations between each construct arepresented.Figure 1. An integration of the trait and behaviour approach regarding leader effectiveness. Orange linesindicate proposed mediational influence of behaviour on the effect of personality on leader effectiveness.2.2. Leader effectivenessFirst, the leader effectiveness criterion is defined. The concept leader effectiveness has differed indefinition from one writer to another (Yukl, 2006). However, Gordon (2001) states that afterintensive research for the last 65 years, leadership is well understood and it is possible to describeprecisely what it takes to be a good leader. Today’s organizations and the role of leaders havegone through a transformation, from the quest for authoritative leaders to participative leadership.Therefore, the key to effective leadership, today, is to influence people without using power, tobuild a competent team and work together with other managers and departments. This means; be   8
  9. 9. empathic, listen actively, resolve conflicts so no one loses, and use a non-threateningperformance evaluation (Gordon, 2011). Assessing leader effectiveness is usually done in terms of the consequences of the leader’sactual performance, the leader-role fit, and whether the leader influences and guides its taskssuccessfully in order to attain its goals, as such that it impacts an organization’s bottom line(Hogan et al., 1994). Also, the ability to influence one’s subordinates is of great value to leadereffectiveness (Judge et al., 2002). Further, it is recommended to include a wide range of variouscriteria in research of leader effectiveness, such as traits, behaviour competencies, andperformance. These criteria should be assessed by different evaluator groups, such as bosses,supervisors, subordinates, peers, and direct reports. As for self-ratings, developing an accurateself-awareness increases the reliability of self-assessment on leader effectiveness (Hogan et al.,1994). Various evaluator groups should be included, since previous studies have demonstratedthat leader effectiveness is defined and evaluated differently across groups (Avolio, Sosik, Jung,& Berson, 2003). In this study, the following three distinct criteria are utilized: performance, relativeperformance, and overall effectiveness. With these criteria, a global coverage of the conceptleader effectiveness is presented, including ratings across different evaluator groups (self, boss,peer, and direct report), thanks to the operationalization of a 360-degree feedback measure.Further, the relative predictive validity of both the traits and behaviours will be possible to beexamined across these criteria. The following research questions, concerning leader effectiveness and personality andbehaviour, are put forward, in order to provide a global understanding of how the variablesinfluence one another and how the relationships are situated. Also the relationship betweenpersonality traits and behaviour competencies will be explored, which is conceptualized in thethird research question. I. Which personality traits best predict leader effectiveness? II. Which behaviour competencies best predict leader effectiveness? III. Which personality traits most affect behaviour competencies?   9
  10. 10. 2.3. Personality and leader effectivenessAs for the personality traits, two explicit traits are highlighted in the current study: extraversionand locus of control. This focus is chosen since previous literature points out that both personalitytraits are positively and consistently related with leader effectiveness and managerial success(Ahmethoglu et al., 2010; Furnham, 2008; House & Howell, 1992; Howell & Avolio, 1993;Judge et al., 2002). The construct extraversion is defined as an individual who is sociable, lively,and open for input and feedback. These types of individuals will derive energy by engaging withpeople, and are highly involved with people and things (Yukl, 2006). In the present studyextraversion is measured through MBTI, a psychometric measure, which characterizes a person’sinnate preferences regarding dealing with ideas, people and external world, and provides anindividual’s specific psychological type (Myers & McCaulley, 1985). Next, the locus of controlis described as someone’s belief that one’s own behaviour determines what happens to him orher, rather than chance and external forces, and that one has control over the future. Individualshigh on locus of control are also confident of their ability to induce others to comply (House &Howell, 1992). In the present study locus of control is translated to the FIRO-B scale expressedcontrol. FIRO-B is a psychometric measure and assesses the behaviour of an individual towardsothers (expressed) and how this individual likes other to behave towards him/her (wanted). Thesetwo behavioural dimensions are distinct and may contradict each other. The FIRO-B scaleexpressed control is defined as the need of an individual to exercise control over a person andthings, in order to balance the influence and power in relationships. This item has been found tobe desirable for leader effectiveness, leadership capability, and managerial success (Furnham,2008; Furnham et al., 2007). Its co-dimension, wanted control was negatively related to effectiveleadership (Ahmetoglu et al., 2010; Furnham et al., 2007), and therefore not taken into account inthe current integrative model. All together, based on these previous findings, the following studyhypotheses are derived. H1: Extraversion, as measured by MBTI, is related to leader effectiveness. H2: Expressed control, as measured by FIRO-B, is related to leader effectiveness.   10
  11. 11. 2.4. Transformational leadershipInitially, Burns (1978) introduced transformational leadership, after which Bass (1985) identifiedfour specific behaviours covering this domain: idealized influence, inspirational motivation,intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration. Transformational leadership is alsorelated to the change- and relational-oriented behaviour types, in which the leader seeks tochange the organization according to his/her vision, and is concerned with remaining goodunderstanding with its followers (Yukl, 2006). These two behaviour types are suggested to bemost effective when occurring in combination, thus when the leader focuses on changingfundamentals in the organization, and also focuses on relationships with followers. This type ofapproach positively affects leader effectiveness (Bass, 1985; Bono & Judge, 2004; Yukl, 2006).Both change- and relational-oriented behaviours have been explained and been given definitionsearlier in the theoretical background section. The present study relies on the validity of thesedefinitions, in order to select seven behaviour competencies, from the 360-degree feedbackmeasure used in this study, to fall within the scope of the change- and relational-orientedbehaviours. 360-degree feedback is a Benchmarks ® multisource instrument, where self, boss,peer, and direct reports, assess an individual’s behaviour, performance and effectiveness(McCauley & Moxley, 1996). Specific for the change-oriented behaviours are: influence, vision,innovation, results orientation. For the relational-oriented, these specific behaviours are used:effective communication, engagement, and approachability. Furthermore, transformational leadership can also be described in terms of personality traits.The most commonly mentioned traits, related to transformational leadership are high level ofcharisma, extraverted, sensing, feeling, self-confident, and high locus of control (Bono & Judge,2004; House & Howell, 1992; Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Extraversion and locus of control areconsidered in this study. Bono and Judge (2004) located extraversion to be the strongest and mostconsistent correlate with transformational leadership. Due to their optimism, extraverts tend toexpress positive emotions and a clear vision, and therefore it is likely that leaders high onextraversion exhibit inspirational leadership, a main component of transformational leadership.Howell and Avolio (1993) revealed that locus of control correlated significantly and positivelywith transformational leadership. Thus, due to its proved effectiveness in previous research (Bono & Judge, 2004; House &Howell, 1992; Judge & Piccolo, 2004), transformational leadership will be studied in depth,   11
  12. 12. through its associated change- and relational-oriented behaviour, and suggested to be associatedto its most important personality traits; extraversion and locus of control (expressed control). H3: Change- and relational-oriented behaviour is related to leader effectiveness. H4: Extraversion and expressed control are related to change- and relational-oriented behaviour.2.5. Towards an integrative and mediation modelPrevious research has put forward several mediation factors regarding the relationship ofpersonality traits and leader effectiveness. Situational and environmental factors, job demands,job autonomy, and team characteristics are suggested to mediate the effect of personality onleader effectiveness (Grant, Gino, & Hofmann, 2011; Ng, Ang, & Chan, 2008; Piccolo &Colquitt, 2006). Although prior research has established that leader effectiveness is influenced,independently, by both leader traits and behaviours (Ahmetoglu et al., 2010; Furnham et al.,2007; Judge et al., 2002; Roush & Atwater, 1992), it is not yet clear how specific behaviourstyles and specific personality traits relate to each other (Zulfigar, Naila, & Ahmad, 2011). Whatare the dynamics between traits and behaviours that can lead to increased leader effectiveness?And, could one mediate the effect of the other on leader effectiveness. Insufficient integration oftraits and behaviours calls for more research on the indirect relationship between traits and leadereffectiveness, in which behaviour competencies possibly serve as a mediator (Derue et al, 2011).The present study seeks to develop an integrative theoretical trait-behaviour model of leadereffectiveness, where behaviour serves as a mediator between personality and leader effectiveness.Figure 2 captures this integrative account on personality traits, behaviours, and points to apossible mechanism in which specific behaviours manifest from personality traits into effectiveleadership. Whether personality is expressed in effective leadership depends on how it manifestsin behavioural leadership styles. The personality trait, extraversion is generally related to open,energetic, and assertive behaviour such as seeking for contact and innovation, which is suggestedto be effective behaviour (Judge et al., 2002). However, extraversion can also be ineffective whenit is manifested through ‘dominant’ behaviour (Grant et al., 2011). The same accounts for thepersonality trait expressed control. This trait is commonly associated with stable and effective   12
  13. 13. behaviours of confidence, extraversion and a conscious awareness of self, others, and theenvironment. Nevertheless, a leader high in expressed control may also exert too much self-confidence, feelings of grandiosity, in which he/she becomes disagreeable and ineffective(Furnham, 2008; Furnham et al, 2007) Thus, depending on the behaviour that results from thepersonality trait, effective leadership is achieved or not. Therefore, an important aspect of theproposed model is that behaviour is located as a possible mechanism through which personalitytraits influence leader effectiveness. It is postulated that behaviour serves as a key mediator in therelationship between traits and leader effectiveness. As also displayed in the integrative model (see yellow boxes, Figure 2), the present researchconsiders transformational leadership, and its associated change- and relational-orientedbehaviour. As mentioned earlier, the trait extraversion has been positively linked to thetransformational leadership (Bono & Judge, 2004; Hogan et al., 1994; Judge et al., 2002;Spangler, Dubinsky, Yammarino, & Jolson, 1997; Thompson, 2000). Also, the locus of controlwas found to significantly predict transformational leadership (House & Howell, 1992). In the present study, this locus of control is translated into the FIRO-B item: expressedcontrol. Scales for change- and relational-oriented behaviour are produced, based upon theassociated LF 360 behaviours. Altogether, the following mediation hypothesis states that thechange-oriented behaviour and relational-oriented behaviour mediate the effect of theirassociated personality traits on leader effectiveness. H5: Change- and relational-oriented leadership behaviour mediates the relationship between extraversion and expressed control, and self-rated and boss-rated leader effectiveness. In the proposed model, a wide range of personality traits and behaviours are incorporated. Asthe present research bases its data on leadership assessment and development programs, threeappropriate and specialized instruments are relied upon. Specifically, with respect to thepersonality traits, two different psychometric measures are used: MBTI and FIRO-B. They aretwo of the most widely used standardized instruments in personality assessment. Due to theaccessibility of MBTI in providing a personality preference type, it is frequently used inleadership assessment and development programs.   13
  14. 14. Personality traits Behaviour Leader effectiveness FIRO-B LF 360 degree feedback LF 360 Self-awareness Wanted inclusion Influence Expressed inclusion Effective communication Learning agility PERFORMANCE Wanted control How would you rate this person’s Expressed control Working across boundaries Thinking/acting strategically performance in the present job? Wanted affiliation Expressed affiliation Vision Results orientation RELATIVE PERFORMANCE Engagement Where would you place this person as a Innovation leader relative to other leaders in similar Leading globally roles? Understanding the enterprise MBTI Approachability OVERALL EFFECTIVENESS How would you rate this person’s overall effectiveness in the organization? Extraversion- Introversion Sensing-Intuition Thinking-Feeling Judging-Perceiving Transformational leadership Transformational leadership Extraversion CHANGE-ORIENTED RELATIONAL-ORIENTED Locus of control Influence Effective communication (Expressed control) Vision Engagement Innovation Approachability Results orientationFigure 2. A theoretical model integrating personality traits, behaviour, and leader effectiveness. Behaviour mediates the effect of personality on leadereffectiveness. The focus of the study, transformational leadership and its related traits and behaviours, are displayed below. 14  
  15. 15. Likewise, FIRO-B is a simple, but dynamic model that eases interpretation and application(Schnell et al., 1994). As for the competency measure, the 360-degree feedback is used to assessbehaviour. Over the years, it has proven to be a valuable method to assess development inorganizations (Van Velsor & Fleenor, 1997). In order to provide a more powerful extension to the literature’s research on leadershipeffectiveness, it is been investigated which specific transformational behaviours mediate theeffect of extraversion and expressed control on leader effectiveness. Particular behaviours of thetwo transformational leadership scales are analyzed and hypothesized to serve as a mediator. First, the personality trait extraversion, operationalized by MBTI, is linked to fourtransformational behaviours. Extraverted leaders are suggested to have sense for charisma, have aclear and inspiring vision with eye for innovation, and communicate this effectively (verbally ornon-verbally) with their followers (Bono & Judge, 2004; Spangler et al., 1997). The present studysuggests that extraversion manifests in comfortable expressing and communicating the vision ofthe company, eye for innovation, and seeking for contact. Extraverted leaders are easy toapproach, as they do not exhibit a superiority feeling, and keep in close contact with subordinates(Grant et al., 2011). It is hypothesized that extraversion influences leader effectiveness positivelythrough the manifestation in four particular behaviours: vision, effective communication,innovation, and approachability. H6a: The personality trait extraversion, as measured by MBTI, influences leader effectiveness through the manifestation of the transformational behaviour: vision. H6b: The personality trait extraversion, as measured by MBTI, influences leader effectiveness through the manifestation of the transformational behaviour: effective communication. H6c: The personality trait extraversion, as measured by MBTI, influences leader effectiveness through the manifestation of the transformational behaviour: innovation. H6d: The personality trait extraversion, as measured by MBTI, influences leader effectiveness through the manifestation of the transformational behaviour: approachability. 15  
  16. 16. The second personality trait proposed is locus of control. This is operationalized by FIRO-B.The FIRO-B scale expressed control is defined as the need of an individual to exercise controlover a person, in order to balance the influence and power in relationships. This scale has beenfound to be desirable for effective leaders, however, wanted control was negatively related toeffective leadership (Furnham et al., 2007). That is why, in the present study, the FIRO-B scaleexpressed control, as such, which was suggested to be positively related to leader effectiveness(Howell & Avolio, 1993). Up to now, the FIRO-B assessment has only recently been directlylinked to leadership outcomes (Ahmetoglu et al., 2010). Results have shown that the itemexpressed control is a positive predictor for leadership capability (Furnham, 2008; Furnham et al.,2007). In the current research, expressed control is hypothesized to be associated with thefollowing transformational leadership behaviours: influence, results orientation, and engagement.These relationships are argued since transformational leaders who exert great control over others,lead and inspirationally influence people with a main focus on results, while still keep engagedwith subordinates (Furnham, 1996; Furnham, 2008). The three specific transformational behaviours are hypothesized to manifest when leadersscore high on expressed control item of FIRO-B, and consequently this will positively affectleader effectiveness. H7a: Expressed control, as measured by FIRO-B, influences leader effectiveness through the manifestation of the transformational behaviour: results orientation. H7b: Expressed control, as measured by FIRO-B, influences leader effectiveness through the manifestation of the transformational behaviour: engagement. H7c: Expressed control, as measured by FIRO-B, influences leader effectiveness through the manifestation of the transformational behaviour: influence. For the research questions, self-, boss-, peer-, and direct report-ratings of behaviour andleader effectiveness are examined. These subsequent results will feed the leader researchperspective of how leaders are viewed by others, and how this may differ with their self-perspective. The central focus of the integrative model lies on the leader, and how his behaviour,   16
  17. 17. mediates the effect of his personality traits on leader effectiveness. Therefore, the specificmediation hypothesis (H1-H5) will exclusively use self-ratings. Boss-ratings are only includedfor the general hypothesis as a point of comparison. Further cross-rating differences are notconsidered in the present research, since this was not the main focus of attention for theintegrative mediation model.3. Methods3.1. Participants and ProcedureThis research is conducted in collaboration with and as a part of the Centre for CreativeLeadership (CCL), whose aim is to assess, develop and maintain leadership skills throughcustomized training programs. The research of this thesis was commissioned by the Centre forCreative Leadership to give input into their research process when developing or optimizingleadership trainings. Archival data used for the study were obtained through a research request to CCL, andretrieved from CCL’s customized training program, ‘Leading For Organizational Impact’ (LOI).Participants of this program participated via self-selection or by recommendation from one’s HRdepartment, and indicated whether their data might be used for research purposes. The programconsisted of a five-day, face-to-face training, and mainly focused on four fundamental leadershipcompetencies: self-awareness, communication, learning agility and influence. Participants werefirst assessed and during the training days, were individually given feedback on the test results.The program used FIRO-B, MBTI and the Benchmarks ® assessment tool LF 360-degreefeedback to assess and consequently develop leadership. These different assessment measureswere conducted via an online survey provided in English. Participants received a shortintroduction of what the measure assesses and were given additional information specific to eachmeasure. Before starting the FIRO-B assessment, people were attended to the fact that there areno right or wrong answers, they shouldn’t debate too long over any item, and that each item isdifferent, so consistency should be avoided. The same instructions were provided for MBTIassessment. The LF 360 instructions were explicitly shorter, only referring to the differentevaluators of the survey. The archival data comprise a specific homogeneous group: all middle (9.1%), upper middle(29.5%), executive (46.3%) or top (5.5%) level managers, leading an organizational function or   17
  18. 18. business unit, with a tenure of eight or more years. The archival data set presents data from June2011 till March 2012, and contains data from 438 managers. The group ethnicity comprised inthe data is largely American (70.5%).3.2. Materials and MeasuresIn the present study, the personality traits are examined through psychometric measurements,which assess the natural ability of an individual. In a structured manner, these measures candetermine the intelligence, mental abilities, interests and personality aspects of an individual.Behaviour is assessed through competency measures, which look at the behaviour styles leadersdisplay and how they relate to leader effectiveness. A brief introduction on each measurement,used in this research, is presented below. The first psychometric measurement to assess personality is the Fundamental InterpersonalRelations Orientation (FIRO-B), introduced by Schutz (1958). This measure assesses personalityby looking at the typical behaviour of an individual towards others and how this individual wouldlike others to behave towards him or her. According to Furnham (1996), individuals strive toestablish compatible relations in their interactions with others. These interpersonal relations aremeasured on three levels: inclusion, control and affiliation. Inclusion is concerned with wantingthe desired contact with people; include others in their activities and also being included by them.Control focuses on achieving the desired amount of power or influence over people. The thirdlevel, affiliation, is concerned with having close personal relationships with people. The threelevels are divided into two dimensions: expressed and wanted, referring to individuals own(expressed) behaviour and the behaviour they like to receive from others (wanted). Thisexpressed and wanted behaviour can contradict each other. An individual may want to exertcontrol over people, while also remaining independent from them (Thompson, 2000). In order togive a profound understanding of what each item entails, example questions are provided inAppendix A. Further, FIRO-B consists of three scales, all made up from two other dimensions. Thequestionnaire contains 54 items, from which 23 items have a range of scores: (1 = nobody to 6 =most people), the other items are scored by (1 = never to 6 = usually). The reliability of FIRO-Bshows overall consistency, ranging from .62 to .93 for split-half reliability and ranging from .71to .82 for test-retest reliability. Research results support both the content and construct validity of   18
  19. 19. the instrument, showing it to be related to measures of leadership and the MBTI instrument, r = -.56 to .29 (Kendall & McHenry, 2007). The second psychometric measurement used in this study is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator(MBTI). The MBTI was originally developed by Myers and McCaulley (1985). MBTIcharacterizes a person’s innate preferences regarding dealing with ideas, people and externalworld. Its results provide the psychological type of a person, based on four indices, each of whichcomprises two exclusive preferences: introversion (I) and extraversion (E), sensing (S) andintuition (N), thinking (T) and feeling (F), judging (J) and perception (P). The I/E indexdifferentiates between extravert individuals who focus on people and things, and introvertindividuals who rather focus on concepts and ideas. The S/N index categorizes individuals interms of how they take in information. Sensing individuals will rely on information gathered bytheir senses, intuitive individuals, on the other hand, will follow their intuition among events. TheT/F index is related to the decision making pattern of individuals. Thinking individuals areconcerned with principles, whereas feeling individuals rely on the subjectivity of an event.Finally, in the J/P index, a judging individual is described as having a preference for structure andorder. A perceiving individual is marked by his or her spontaneity and flexibility (Roush &Atwater, 1992). For example questions of each item see Appendix B. The MBTI instrument assesses personality through a 166-item questionnaire. The instrumentconsists of four scales, which can be combined to form 16 preference types. Revision of the testhas let to technical improvements and the constitution of the most recent form, Form M. Form Mis a standard form for identifying the preference type. Each of its five scales has internalconsistency reliability of .90 or greater. Validity on Form M has been examined throughobservations, exploratory factor analyses and correlations with other measurements. Evidence forvalidity on both the four preference scales and the whole types has been provided (Briggs Myers,McCaulley, Quenk, & Hammer, 2003). In the results section, correlations are positive ornegative, depending on which of the two exclusive preferences it reflects. When positive, it refersto the second exclusive preference (e.g. introversion-extraversion, the given variable correlateswith extraversion), when negative, it implies the first preference type (e.g. introversion). Finally, the competency measure is the 360-degree feedback. This is a Benchmarks ®multisource instrument, where ratings from self, boss, peer, and direct reports, regarding anindividual’s behaviour, performance and effectiveness, are collected (McCauley & Moxley,   19
  20. 20. 1996). It is used to assess behaviour and is widely used in organizations, especially in HRpractices. The main goal of this measurement is to allow managers to see how their boss, peersand subordinates view them and to compare these views with their own view. This feedback canmotivate managers to change their behaviour and improve performance (McCauley & Moxley,1996). It was even suggested that a positive change of leader behaviour, due to 360-degreefeedback, could create a positive change in subordinate’s attitudes, engagement and satisfaction(Atwater & Brett, 2006). Because of various evaluating groups in 360-degree feedback, adisagreement between the views of those groups regarding a manager may occur (Carless, Mann,& Wearing, 1998). In the current study, a customized 360-degree feedback survey is conducted, called ‘Leadingthe Function 360’. This LF 360 survey consists of executive dimensions, addressing top levelleadership issues. The survey includes 13 specific competencies important for effective leaders:self awareness, influence, effective communication, learning agility, working across boundaries,thinking/acting strategically, vision, results orientation, engagement, innovation, leading globally,understanding the enterprise, and approachability. These competencies are argued to befundamentals for effective leadership. Here, the focus shifts from team execution to viewingopportunities. The ability to envision a future (vision), effectively communicate an idea, and thestrategy for execution (thinking/acting strategically) become critical talents for the individual andthe success of the organization. The LF 360 instrument includes the following four evaluatorgroups: Self, Boss, Peer, and Direct Reports (CCL, 2009). The LF 360 survey includes 13 scales,on which each evaluator must complete 50% or more of the item in the competency. A minimumof two completed surveys should be submitted for Peers and Direct Reports. There is nominimum threshold of submitted surveys for the Boss evaluator. Further, 74 items are rated on arange score (1 = to a little extent to 5 = to a very great extent). The reliability of the LF 360 is ator above .70 for all competencies and observers. For self-reported data however, this is generallylower. To assess leader effectiveness, the following three performance evaluation items from the LF360 are used: (1) “How would you rate this persons performance in his/her present job?” (1 =among the worst to 5 = among the best); (2) “Where would you place this person as a leaderrelative to other leaders in similar roles?” (1 = among the worst to 5 = among the best), and (3)“How would you rate this person’s overall effectiveness in the organization?” (1 = among the   20
  21. 21. worst 5 = among the best). A scale of leader effectiveness rating is obtained by using these threeitems, providing a separate scale for each evaluator.3.3. Methods of data analysisThe methods for analysis are divided into two types: preliminary analysis and analysis to test thehypotheses. The preliminary analysis will be conducted through confirmatory factor analysis andCronbach’s Alpha. The hypotheses will be tested, using quantitative methods: correlation, partialcorrelation, regression analysis, and in particular for the mediation hypotheses, the bootstrappingmethodology will be used. This alternative Bootstrapping method is a nonparametric approachthat makes no assumptions about the shape of the distributions of the variables. The method isbased upon resample methods, in which 1000 to 100000 times new samples are taken from theoriginal one, using sampling with replacement. From these bootstrapping sampling distributions,a confidence interval and indirect effect is derived (Preacher & Hayes, 2004; Wood, 2005). Inthis study, the Bootstrapping method is performed due to its numerous advantages: the use of a95% confidence interval instead of significance levels (p values), the fact that it is a non-parametric test, that it does not violate the normality assumption, and the ability to apply themethod to small sample sizes. In the results section, confidence intervals and coefficients for theindirect effect size are presented. Indirect effects are reported with their corresponding β andconfidence interval, direct and total effects are provided with a β and p value. Statisticalsignificance is argued when zero is not included in the interval. Throughout the study, statisticalsignificance will be considered when p < .05.4. ResultsTable 1 displays the means, standard deviations, correlations and alpha coefficients of allvariables and scales measured in the present study. Inspection of the results reveals that from theindependent variable personality traits, expressed inclusion correlated most with all the othervariables and scales. Further, the majority of the behaviour competencies, the mediator in thisstudy, showed significant correlation with the other variables, personality and leadereffectiveness. The latter was considered as the dependent variable.   21
  22. 22. Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of variables Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1. Introversion - Extraversion -3.93 15.62 --- 2. Sensing - Intuition -1.72 14.63 .10* --- 3. Thinking - Feeling -10.40 11.82 .18** .28** --- 4. Judging - Perceiving -6.32 15.22 .19** .49** .20** --- 5. Expressed Inclusion 3.97 2.14 .51** .07 .11* .07 --- 6. Expressed Control 4.76 2.71 .20** .06 -.22** .03 .18** --- 7. Expressed Affiliation 4.29 2.31 .40** .01 .21** .01 .57** .05 --- 8. Wanted Inclusion 3.34 3.30 .26** .04 .07 .08 .53** .14** .36** --- 9. Wanted Control 2.93 1.94 .14** .07 .15** .02 .22** -.05 .16** .10 --- 10. Wanted Affiliation 5.28 2.15 .19** .05 .23** .03 .33** -.03 .48** .52** -.00 --- 11. Self awareness 3.73 0.50 .10* -.08 -.05 -.11* .25** .06 .19** .17** .03 .12* --- 12. Influence 3.71 0.50 .24** .02 -.01 -.04 .26** .18** .17** .14** -.05 .10* .55** --- 13. Effective communication 3.80 0.49 .03 .09 -.11* -.05 .16** .16** .12* .11* -.08 .05 .54** .56** --- 14. Learning agility 3.75 0.48 .01 .04 -.05 -.09 .24** -.01 .18** .19** .09 .11* .71** .47** .51** --- 15. Working across boundaries 3.62 0.50 .10* -.05 .02 -.10* .26** .02 .21** .15** -.05 .09 .68** .65** .56** .69** --- 16. Thinking strategically 3.70 0.51 -.04 .05 -.14** -.06 .19** .10* .09 .15** -.05 .03 .55** .57** .57** .52** .58** 17. Vision 3.78 0.60 .08 .04 -.13** -.01 .21** .16** .12* .17** -.03 .04 .40** .57** .46** .32** .47** 18. Result orientation 3.91 0.53 .00 -.14** -.12* -.19** .16** .12* .05 .08 -.07 .01 .50** .55** .54** .42** .51** 19. Engagement 3.64 0.52 .11* -.10* -.02 - .09 .24** .08 .19** .14** -.04 .09 .62** .73** .53** .58** .76** 20. Innovation 3.66 0.57 .09 .24** -.14** .16** .20** .19** .08 .14** -.06 .03 .39** .58** .42** .38** .47** 21. Leading globally 3.49 0.59 .09 .03 -.06 .04 .27** .14** .12* .17** -.00 .01 .39** .50** .43** .41** .52** 22. Understanding the enterprise 3.60 0.56 .04 -.03 -.08 -.00 .26** .12** .11* .19** -.01 .03 .47** .49** .42** .45** .54** 23. Approachability 3.72 0.58 .33** .01 .10* .03 .33** .08 .29** .23** .06 .17** .63** .60** .46** .59** .64** 24. Change-oriented behaviour 3.77 0.45 .13* .04 -.12* -.03 .26** .21** .13** .17** -.06 .05 .55** .81** .59** .47** .63** 25. Relational-oriented behaviour 3.72 0.44 .19** -.01 .00 -.05 .29** .12* .24** .19** -.03 .12** .71** .76** .76** .67** .78** 26. Leader effectiveness Self 3.83 0.60 .06 -.09 -.10* -.10* .16** .12* .10* .06 -.07 .01 .34** .49** .40** .26** .44** 27. Leader effectiveness Boss 3.78 0.81 -.07 -.07 -.02 -.07 -.01 .09 -.00 -.04 - 04 -.02 .14** .17** .16** .13** .15** 28. Leader effectiveness Peer 3.77 0.63 -.02 -.10* .03 -.12* -.01 -.04 .06 -.07 -.04 -.02 .07 .02 .06 .05 .15** 29. Leader effectiveness Direct Report 3.95 0.65 .08 -.06 -.04 -.08 .03 .06 .08 -.02 -.07 .03 .07 .20** .17** .06 .19**Note. N = 438. Change-oriented and Relational-oriented behaviours are scales, reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha) of scales appears on diagonal between brackets. * p < .05. ** p < .01. 22
  23. 23. Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of variables - Continued Variable Mean SD 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 1. Extraversion - Introversion -3.93 15.62 2. Sensing - Intuition -1.72 14.63 3. Thinking - Feeling -10.40 11.82 4. Judging - Perceiving -6.32 15.22 5. Expressed Inclusion 3.97 2.14 6. Expressed Control 4.76 2.71 7. Expressed Affiliation 4.29 2.31 8. Wanted Inclusion 3.34 3.30 9. Wanted Control 2.93 1.94 10. Wanted Affiliation 5.28 2.15 11. Self awareness 3.73 0.50 12. Influence 3.71 0.50 13. Effective communication 3.80 0.49 14. Learning agility 3.75 0.48 15. Working across boundaries 3.62 0.50 16. Thinking strategically 3.70 0.51 --- 17. Vision 3.78 0.60 .63** --- 18. Result orientation 3.91 0.53 .72** .54** --- 19. Engagement 3.64 0.52 .58** .49** .57** --- 20. Innovation 3.66 0.57 .63** .53** .46** .50** --- 21. Leading globally 3.49 0.59 .52** .45** .41** .51** .54** --- 22. Understanding the enterprise 3.60 0.56 .61** .57** .53** .54** .48** .62** --- 23. Approachability 3.72 0.58 .37** .36** .32** .63** .32** .42** .44** --- 24. Change-oriented behaviour 3.77 0.45 .79** .82** .79** .69** .79** .58** .63** .47** (.83) 25. Relational-oriented behaviour 3.72 0.44 .59** .51** .56** .86** .48** .53** .54** .85** .69** (.79) 26. Leader effectiveness Self 3.83 0.60 .50** .38** .47** .50** .33** .27** .36** .36** .50** .50** (.85) 27. Leader effectiveness Boss 3.78 0.81 .15** .08 .22** .18** .05 .00 .02 .09 .15** .18** .39** (.91) 28. Leader effectiveness Peer 3.77 0.63 .04 -.07 .03 .08 -.04 -.01 -.05 .09 -.02 .10* .23** .46** (.95) 29. Leader effectiveness Direct Report 3.95 0.65 .13** .09 .15** .23** .09 .06 .07 .14** .16** .22** .35** .33** .38** (.96)Note. N = 438. Change-oriented and Relational-oriented behaviours are scales, reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha) of scales appears on diagonal between brackets. * p < .05. ** p < .01.       23
  24. 24. 4.1. Research QuestionsThe first research question considered which personality traits best predicted leadereffectiveness. Altogether, personality traits explained 7% of the variance in the self-rated leadereffectiveness criteria, F(10, 419) = 3.01, p = .001. In a stepwise linear regression model, first thevariables with highest partial correlations and then lowest, were entered. Table 2 displays theresults. Here, three significant predictors: the judging MBTI type, expressed inclusion, andwanted control, are displayed, which were found to significantly predict self-rated leadereffectiveness. Wanted control negatively influenced leader effectiveness, β = -.10, t(427) = -2.05,p = .04. Within the boss-rated leader effectiveness, 2.5% of the variance was explained bypersonality traits, F(10, 394) = 1.00, p = .44. No traits were considered as significant predictorsin the stepwise linear regression model. Also for direct report-rated leader effectiveness, nopredictors were identified (R2 = .34, F(10, 395) = 1.38, p = .19). However, for the peer-ratedleader effectiveness, 3.1%, F(10, 427) = 1.36, p = .20, of the variance was explained, and herethe judging MBTI type showed to significantly predict leader effectiveness. These findingsindicate that when rating leader effectiveness, different personality traits best predict thiscriterion depending on who rates this leader effectiveness criterion; self, bosses, peers, or directreports. The second research question was concerned to which extent behaviour competenciespredicted leader effectiveness. The explained variance of behaviour ranged from 39% on self-rated leader effectiveness to 81% on direct report-rated leader effectiveness. A stepwise linearregression model was performed. Inspection of the results reveals that there were eight significantpredictors for self-rated leader effectiveness, six in the boss-ratings, six in the peer- ratings, andfive in the direct-report-ratings, all displayed in Table 3. The most significant predictor withinthe boss-, peer-, and direct report-rated leader effectiveness was the same (influence), however,this predictor differed from the predictor in self-ratings (thinking strategically). This dispersionin ratings indicates a difference in expectations of the manager’s effective leadership behaviour.Further, more surprisingly, some behaviour competencies were found to negatively relate toleader effectiveness, which also differed between evaluator groups. Innovation related negativelywithin the self- and peer-ratings (see Table 3). Further, self evaluated the behaviours learningagility and leading globally as negative predictors for leader effectiveness, and boss-ratingsshowed negative relations with approachability and understanding the enterprise. These results 24
  25. 25. are rather surprising since the behaviour competencies of the LF 360 are suggested to allpositively correlate with leader effectiveness and are fundamental for leadership (CCL, 2009).The corresponding beta coefficients, t values, significant levels of all the significant predictorsand total explained variance are presented in Table 3. Finally, a linear regression was conducted in order to examine the third research question,raising the question which behaviour competencies were most affected by personality traits. Hereall behaviour competencies of LF 360 degree feedback and all personality traits of FIRO-B andMBTI were entered into the regression. When considering the self-rated competencies, resultsshowed that all the personality traits of FIRO-B and MBTI overall predicted 12.7% of thevariance in behaviour, F(10, 411) = 5.97 p = .001. The behaviour competency innovation wasmost affected by personality, as traits explained 17.4% of the variance in innovation. In specific,the intuition type (β = .27, t(427) = 5.16, p < .001), thinking type (β = -.23, t(427) = -4.61, p <.001), expressed inclusion (β = .19, t(427) = 2.93, p = .004), and wanted control (β = -.09, t(427)= -2.03, p = .043), were significant predictors of the behaviour innovation. For the boss-ratedbehaviours, results showed that only 3.5% was explained through personality traits, F(10, 364) =1.33, p = .21. Again, innovation was most explained by personality traits, R2 = .07, F(10, 393) =3.02, p = .001. Specifically, by the intuition MBTI type (β = .17, t(393) = 2.89, p = .004), andexpressed control (β = .11, t(393) = 2.31, p = .03). In peer-ratings, personality explained 2.7% ofthe variance in behaviour, F(10, 421) = 1.17, p = .31. Approachability was most predicted bytraits (R2 = .05), the extraversion type explained a significant proportion of this behaviour, β =.14, t(427) = 2.30, p = .02. Within direct report-rated behaviours, the explained variance bypersonality was 3.8%, F(10, 394) = 1.60, p = .11. Again, the behaviour approachability was mostexplained (R2 = .07) by the extraversion type, β = .21, t(395) = 3.48, p = .001. Thus, from thesefindings, it becomes clear that from all evaluator groups, personality predicts most variance inself-rated leader effectiveness. Also, the same behaviour, innovation, in self- and boss-ratings ismost explained by personality traits. However, the respective predictive personality traits werenot the same. Almost the same was found for peer- and direct report-ratings, whereapproachability was most explained, but here, by the same personality trait: extraversion.   25
  26. 26. Table 2. Significant personality predictors for self-rated leader effectiveness. Leader effectiveness Self Personality Indirect effect (β) t value p value Expressed Inclusion .19 3.80 .000 Judging - Perceiving - .13 - 2.84 .005 Wanted Control - .10 - 2.05 .04Total R2 = .07 Leader effectiveness Peer Judging - Perceiving - .10 - 2.10 .04Total R2 = .01 Note. N (self) = 429. N (peer) = 437. * p < .05. ** p < .01. 4.2. Mediation Hypotheses   The first three hypotheses, stating the relationship between personality, behaviour and leader effectiveness, considering self- and boss-ratings, were not fully supported. As presented in Table 1, extraversion did not correlate significantly with self- and boss-rated leader effectiveness (Hypothesis 1), and expressed control only showed significant correlation with self-ratings, r = .12, p = .03 (Hypothesis 2). All the change- and relational-oriented behaviours correlated significantly with self-ratings on leader effectiveness, but for the boss-ratings, only two change- and two relational-oriented behaviours showed significant correlations (Hypothesis 3). Finally, as for the relationship between expressed control, extraversion, and change- and relational-oriented behaviour, extraversion correlated with two relational-oriented behaviours, engagement and approachability, and with one change-oriented behaviour, influence. Expressed control showed more significant correlations: with all change-oriented behaviours: influence, vision, result orientation and innovation, and with one relational-oriented behaviour, effective communication (Hypothesis 4). From this, it can be concluded that not all the required relationships between the variables exists, and that the hypotheses 1, 2, 3, and 4 are only partially supported. Full support for these four hypotheses was required in order to examine a possible mediation effect according to the approach of Baron & Kenny (1986). Therefore, the bootstrapping methodology, which does not require these significant relationships, was used as an alternative test to examine the mediation effect. The bootstrapping method is based upon resample methods, in which 1000 to 100000 times new samples are taken from the original one, using sampling with replacement. The present study used 20000 new samples. Results from bootstrapping show the total, direct and indirect (mediation) effect. Only for the indirect effect a corresponding confidence interval is   26
  27. 27. Table 3. Significant behaviour predictors of leader effectiveness, relatively for self, boss, peer, and direct report. Leader effectiveness Self Behaviour Indirect effect (β) t value p valueSelf Thinking strategically .36 5.6 .000 Engagement .24 3.31 .001 Influence .19 2.74 .01 Learning agility - .24 - 4.06 .000 Innovation - .12 - 2.02 .05 Effective communication .13 2.27 .02 Leading globally - .13 - 2.40 .02 Working across boundaries .16 2.18 .03Total R2 = .39 Leader effectiveness BossBoss Influence .37 6.24 .000 Thinking strategically .32 6.12 .000 Working across boundaries .27 4.52 .000 Approachability - .16 - 3.36 .001 Understanding the enterprise - .12 - 2.57 .01 Self awareness .13 2.53 .01Total R2 = .61 Leader effectiveness PeerPeer Influence .41 6.73 .000 Thinking strategically .20 3.76 .000 Effective communication .17 3.43 .001 Results orientation .12 2.69 .01 Engagement .14 2.69 .01 Innovation - .09 - 2.33 .02Total R2 = .76 Leader effectiveness Direct ReportDirect Report Influence .38 6.40 .000 Thinking strategically .16 2.77 .01 Engagement .18 3.46 .001 Results orientation .13 2.98 .003 Vision .11 2.37 .02Total R2 = .81Note. N (self) = 414. N (boss) = 371. N (peer) = 431. N (direct report) = 404. Total R2 measured with significant variables. * p < .05. ** p < .01   27
  28. 28. provided (significance when zero is not included in the interval) (Preacher & Hayes, 2004;Wood, 2005). The present study suggested four mediation hypotheses, which are all analyzed through thebootstrapping methodology. The first mediation hypothesis is the general suggestion in whichchange- and relational-oriented behaviour mediate the relationship between extraversion andexpressed control, and leader effectiveness. Two scales were composed and treated in separatebootstrapping analyses. All total, direct, indirect effects, effect sizes, and confidence intervalsbetween behaviours and extraversion are displayed in Table 4. Results showed nonsignificanttotal (β = .002, t(427) = 1.04, p = .30) and direct effects (β = -.001, t(427) = -.30, p = .77) ofchange-oriented behaviour, and also for relational-oriented behaviour nonsignificant total (β =.002, t(427) = 1.02, p = .31) and direct effects (β = -.002, t(427) = -1.48, p = .14). However,significant indirect effects were only found for self-rated leader effectiveness with the twochange- and relational-oriented behaviour scales, providing evidence for a full mediation betweenextraversion and self-rated leader effectiveness. Results for the trait expressed control aredisplayed in Table 5. Full mediation effects through the change- and relational-orientedbehaviour occurred between expressed control and self-rated leader effectiveness. As for theboss-ratings, only change-oriented behaviour served as a mediator on expressed control. Overall,expressed control displayed larger effect sizes than the MBTI personality trait extraversion.These findings imply that leader effectiveness is increased when extraversion is accompaniedwith change- and relational-oriented behaviour, for self-ratings. Bosses only indicate a higherlevel of leader effectiveness when change-oriented behaviour is performed. All results forHypotheses 6a, 6b, 6c, and 6d are provided in Table 4. These hypotheses predicted the mediationeffect of four self-rated transformational behaviours on the relationship between extraversion andself-rated leader effectiveness. Hypothesis 6a specified on the behaviour vision. No correlationwas found between extraversion and leader effectiveness, or a significant relationship betweenextraversion and vision. However, vision showed significant correlation, r = .38, p < .001, withleader effectiveness rated by self. Results of the bootstrapping method indicated that both thetotal and direct effect were not significant. Also, no indirect effect was found. Thus, Hypothesis,6a is not supported. Hypothesis 6b predicted the mediation effect of the behaviour effectivecommunication on the effect of extraversion on leader effectiveness. Extraversion and effectivecommunication did not correlate significantly, but the latter did with leader effectiveness, r = .40, 28
  29. 29. p < .001. No significant total effect between extraversion and leader effectiveness was perceived,and no significant results were found on the test of direct and indirect effect. Therefore,Hypothesis 6b is not supported. Hypothesis 6c was concerned with the behaviour innovation. Nosignificant relation was identified between extraversion and innovation, however, betweeninnovation and self-rated leader effectiveness there was, r = .33, p < .001. Results of thebootstrapping method showed that both the total and direct effect were nonsignificant. Thesignificant indirect effect supported the mediation suggestion between extraversion and leadereffectiveness, showing a full mediation effect by the behaviour innovation. Thus, Hypothesis 6cis supported. Hypothesis 6d predicted that the behaviour approachability was a key mediatorbetween extraversion and self-rated leader effectiveness. Approachability and leadereffectiveness correlated, r = .39, p < .001, as well as extraversion and approachability, r = .33, p< .001. Results of the bootstrapping method support the hypothesis, showing a significant indirecteffect between extraversion and self-rated leader effectiveness. The direct effect and total effectwere both nonsignificant, indicating a full mediation effect of approachability on the relationshipbetween extraversion and leader effectiveness. Hypotheses 7a, 7b, and 7c were concerned with the personality trait expressed control. Allresults are displayed in Table 5. Hypothesis 7a predicted that the trait expressed controlinfluenced leader effectiveness through the specific behaviour results orientation. Results showedonly significant correlation between expressed control and self-rated leader effectiveness, r = .12,p = .02, and a significant total effect between both variables, β = .03, t(428) = 2.30, p = .02.Further, the direct effect was not significant. The indirect effect was significantly present,showing a full mediation effect of results orientation on expressed inclusion, and thereforesupporting the Hypothesis. Hypothesis 7b considered engagement as a key mediator betweenexpressed control and leader effectiveness. There was no significant correlation betweenengagement and expressed control. The total effect between expressed control and leadereffectiveness appeared to be significant, being the same as in Hypothesis 7a. Both the direct andindirect effects, however, were nonsignificant. Therefore, Hypothesis 7b is not supported.Hypothesis 7c suggested the mediation of the behaviour influence on the relationship betweenexpressed control and leader effectiveness. The total effect was again significant, same as inHypothesis 7a and 7b, but the direct effect was not. Finally, the test for indirect effect showed tobe significant. The total effect was larger than the direct effect, suggesting full mediation between   29
  30. 30. expressed control and leader effectiveness, through the behaviour influence. Thus, Hypothesis 7c is supported. Table 4. The indirect effects of behaviour on the relationship between extraversion and leader effectiveness rated by self and boss.   Leader effectiveness Self Extraversion Transformational leadership Total effect c Direct effect c’ Indirect effect (β) LLCI ULCI Change-oriented behaviour .002 - .001 .002 .0004 .005 Innovation .002 .001 .002 .0003 .003 Vision .002 .001 .001 - .001 .003 Relational-oriented behaviour .002 - .002 .004 .002 .007 Effective communication .002 .001 .001 - .001 .002 Approachability .002 - .003 .01 .004 .007 Leader effectiveness Boss Change-oriented behaviour - .004 - .004 .000 - .004 .004 Relational-oriented behaviour - .004 - .004 - .0001 - .003 .003 Note. N (self) = 429. N (boss) = 404. LLCI: Lower limit confidence interval. ULCI: Upper limit confidence interval. * p < .05. ** p < .01 Table 5. The indirect effects of behaviour on the relationship between expressed control and leader effectiveness rated by self and boss. Leader effectiveness Self Expressed control Transformational leadership Total effect c Direct effect c’ Indirect effect (β) LLCI ULCI Change-oriented behaviour .03 .003 .01 .01 .02 Influence .03 .01 .02 .01 .03 Results orientation .03 .01 .01 .004 .02 Relational-oriented behaviour .03 .01 .01 .002 .02 Engagement .03 .01 .01 - .001 .02 Leader effectiveness Boss Change-oriented behaviour .02 .003 .02 .001 .03 Relational-oriented behaviour .02 .01 - .001 - .01 .01 Note. N (self) = 429. N (boss) = 404. Lower limit confidence interval. ULCI: Upper limit confidence interval. * p < .05. ** p < .01   30
  31. 31. Altogether, four mediation hypotheses were supported, and three were not. The generalhypotheses, considering overall change- and relational-oriented behaviour, were fully supportedfor the self-ratings, and only partially for the boss-ratings. On the whole, these findings partiallysupport the proposed integrative model. These findings imply that full mediation occurs whenextraversion is accompanied with the behaviour innovation and approachability, positivelyinfluencing leader effectiveness. And, that the trait expressed control influences leadereffectiveness through the manifestation of the behaviours results orientation and influence. After concluding that the mediation effect of behaviour occurred, a post-hoc analysis wasconducted to examine whether behaviours would also predict more variance in leadereffectiveness than personality traits. Results from research question 1 showed that the personalitytraits explained 7% of the variance in the leader effectiveness criterion. New analyses providedresults, displaying higher explained variances by the behaviour competencies, 15.3% (boss-rated)to 33.4% (self-rated). Thus, behaviour explains more variance in leader effectiveness thanpersonality traits.5. DiscussionIn the present study, a need for integrative research was addressed, concerning the leadershipliterature on the trait and behaviour approach. An integrative trait-behaviour model wassuggested, modelling behaviour as a key mediator between personality traits and leadereffectiveness. As for the research questions, the following results are found. Within thepersonality, the traits predicted a low percentage of leader effectiveness. Of the examinedpersonality variables, expressed inclusion was found to correlate most highly with leadereffectiveness. Further, of the two specific analyzed traits, only expressed control was significantfor self rated effectiveness. Within the behaviour competencies, influence was the best predictorin self-ratings, whereas in boss-, peer-, and direct report-ratings, the behaviour thinkingstrategically was the most consistent predictor. This indicates a cross-rating difference inevaluating leader effectiveness through behaviour and supports prior findings (Carless et al.,1998; Van Velsor & Fleenor, 1997). It appears that the expectation and evaluation ofperformance (behaviour) and leader effectiveness differ among self and others. Also, it was foundthat behaviours had a significant greater impact on leader effectiveness than personality,supporting previous results from the integrative model of Derue and colleagues (2011).   31
  32. 32. As for the integrative trait-behaviour model of leader effectiveness, the following results wereobserved. First, on a general note, change- and relational-oriented behaviours served as mediatorson the relationship between extraversion/expressed control and self-rated leader effectiveness.More change-oriented behaviours were found to mediate between extraversion/expressed controland leader effectiveness, than relational-oriented behaviours. And among boss-ratings, onlychange-oriented behaviour mediated between expressed control and leader effectiveness. Second,the specific mediation hypotheses revealed four full mediation effects. Here, the directcorrelation between the independent variable, personality, and the dependent variable, leadereffectiveness is absent, but when controlling for the mediator, behaviour, an indirect effectshows. This type of mediation is rather infrequent and unique. Full mediation occurred with thetrait extraversion when it was accompanied with innovation or approachability. This implies thatextraverted leaders were effective when they were approachable and innovative in their ideas andactions. Also, the behaviours results orientation and influence mediated the effect of expressedcontrol, indicating that leaders high in expressed control resulted in effective leadership, onlywhen accompanied by one of these two behaviours. Altogether, the results do not all support the hypotheses, but together they provide strongevidence for the general idea of the proposed integrated model, in which several transformationalleadership competencies serve as a mediator through which two specific personality traits(extraversion and expressed control) influence leader effectiveness. These results point to thepossibility of integrating the trait and behaviour approach as such that they complement eachother when only one is insufficient to predict the desired outcome. Also, the findings demonstratethe importance of three change-oriented behaviours (innovation, results orientation, andinfluence) and one relational-oriented behaviour (approachability) in the assessment ofleadership, and its added value in explaining leader effectiveness, in addition to personality.5.1. ImplicationsIn regard to the findings, implications for both leadership research and leadership developmentassessment and training programs can be put forward. First, it was expected, based upon previous literature, that personality was a key predictor ineffective leadership (Ahmetoglu et al., 2010; Furnham, 2008; Furnham et al., 2007: Judge et al.,2002). However, a lack in correlation between personality and leader effectiveness has been   32
  33. 33. found, and therefore, the present study questions the importance and contribution ofpsychometric measures, in specific FIRO-B and MBTI, in assessing leader effectiveness. Thisfinding is also critical for leadership assessment and development, as such that when analyzingpersonality traits of individuals, predictions regarding effective leadership should be made withcaution. Therefore, the findings ask for future research in order to structure and possibly reframethe relationship between these particular psychometric measures and leader effectiveness. Also,the small number of the specific significant personality trait predictors for leader effectiveness israther surprising. In specific, extraversion was pointed out in several studies to be a consistentpredictor for leader effectiveness (Bono & Judge, 2004; Judge et al., 2002). Nevertheless,extraversion did not correlate significantly with leader effectiveness. This contradicts withprevious findings, and asks for future research where new traits are considered to predict leadereffectiveness. Grant and colleagues’ (2011) research inspires, since they stated that proactivegroups perform better under introverted leadership. Thus, extraverted leadership should notalways lead to effective performance of followers, as most previous findings suggest (Ahmetogluet al., 2010; Furnham, 2008; Furnham et al., 2007: Judge et al., 2002), but can depend on groupfactors. Second, it can be concluded that more FIRO-B items, rather than MBTI items significantlycorrelate with self-rated leader effectiveness. The same is argued with regard to the behaviourcompetencies: more FIRO-B personality traits show significance for behaviours, whereas onlyfew behaviours correlate with only a limited number of MBTI traits. This implies that FIRO-Btraits, rather than MBTI traits, are better predictors of effective leadership and correspondingeffective behaviour. As for research, these results should be considered when examining theinterrelationship of FIRO-B and MBTI (Schnell et al., 1994), in order to relate it to leadereffectiveness. Since Brown and Reilly (2008) did not find any significant relation between MBTItraits and transformational leadership, but Roush and Atwater (1992) did, more research on thevalidity of MBTI and overall effective leadership behaviour should be conducted, in order toprovide a better understanding of the validity of MBTI and FIRO-B, in respect to leadereffectiveness and corresponding behaviours. Also, for practice, the findings can guide leadershipdevelopment programs, and be of help in interpreting results of personality measures. However,interpreting personality results in respect to leader effectiveness should be done with caution.   33
  34. 34. Third, the finding that behaviours tend to predict more variance across the leadereffectiveness criterion than do personality traits, provides guidance for future research andsupports the behaviour approach (Derue, 2011). Specifically, the results suggest that althoughcertain traits dispose individuals to certain behaviours, behaviours are the more importantpredictor for leader effectiveness. Given that behaviours can be learned and developed, thisfinding highlights the need for more research on which specific behaviours individuals shouldexhibit and how these should be developed (e.g. Gordon, 2001). Also, the results reveal thedominant role of behaviour and suggest the emphasis of behaviours in leadership developmentprograms. Behaviours are changeable aspects of an individual and, through coaching andtraining, able to modulate in order to obtain effective leadership. On the other hand, personality isa stable trait, and therefore can be difficult to improve or change to achieve effective leadership.Hence, there should be primarily focused on these modulating behaviours in learning, trainingand development. Finally, results of the present study provide support for the integrative trait-behaviourmediation model. This has several theoretical and practical implications. As for research,behavioural theories should include trait theories, and search for appropriate traits to combinewith specific leader behaviours. Also, the mediation model further complicates leadershipresearch, as the dynamics between traits and behaviours require more insight via a mix ofdifferent measures. The results respond to the request for more integration of the trait andbehaviour approach (Avolio, 2007; Derue et al., 2011), and provide the motivation for futureattention in research, considering other types of organizational settings and high-quality samples.Future research should explore more personality traits and a variety of leader behaviours, in orderto capture more dimensions of effective ways in which leader traits and behaviours togethercreate effective leadership. Moreover, the mediation effects have some important implications forpractice. As not all the change- and relational-oriented behaviours showed mediation effects, andsome specific behaviours in combination with a specific trait, did and others did not contribute toadditional explained variance in leader effectiveness, indicates the importance of a precisecombination of traits and behaviours in order to achieve increased leader effectiveness. Thissuggests that only well-defined situations of specific trait-behaviour combinations will provokefull mediation effects, and it captures an exclusive path in which personality positively affectsleadership through the manifestation of specific behaviour. In this combination, personality   34
  35. 35. serves as an indicator for the ideal match with a behaviour competency. Subsequently, thisbehaviour can be assessed, developed, and trained throughout leadership development programs(e.g. Day, 2000). This way, even individuals with a rather non-effective personality can achievehigh leader effectiveness by developing certain behaviours, which particularly in combinationwith this trait, lead to effective leadership. Therefore, leadership development programs shouldbe guided by the traits individuals posses, but focus on assessing, developing and training theeffective behaviours.5.2. LimitationsIn the course of conducting scientific research, some limitations are inevitably expected. First, thepsychometric measurements FIRO-B and MBTI assess the interpersonal and cognitivepreferences of respondents. These measure solely depend on self-reported data, and therefore, theresponses may reflect personality preference types that the respondent thought he/she possess,rather than he/she actually does. On the other hand, just because a respondent has a preferencestyle doesn’t necessarily mean he/she will actually report this style. This could have biased thedata and subsequent results. However, it is argued that using strength of preferences measure willreduce the risk for such biases. Second, the validity of the study’s results can be influenced, due to the fact that the data werearchival. They were retrieved from a development program of CCL in which participants attainedfor training and development purposes rather than research purposes. These participants arepredisposed to work on their leadership skills and want to develop themselves further. As aresult, these managers are likely to be more conscious of their leader competencies and points fordevelopment, and therefore may not reflect managers who not attend these trainings. Another limitation stems from the homogeneity of the sample. The participants form ahomogeneous group limited to managers leading a function or businesses unit. Therefore, itremains to be seen whether the present results generalize to other managers in different settings,organizations and businesses. Finally, the fact that there were only three specific personality traits and seven behaviourcompetencies used, limits the extent to which suggestions can be made regarding learning,training, and development programs. More traits and behaviours should be investigated, in orderto build a more complete leadership approach. As such, more traits can be related to specific   35