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
th
Date: June, 29 , 2010

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

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.

2


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

3


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

4


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.

5


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

6


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

7


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

8


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

9


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.

10


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.

11


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

12


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

13


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

14


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.

15


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.

16


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

17


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
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

18


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
Introversion -.096
Emotional stability .074
Agreeableness -.024

19


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).

20


Table 8: Results regression analysis
for the big five personality traits as a
predictor for team satisfaction.
Model Beta
Openness .108
Introversion -.007
Emotional stability -.181*
Agreeableness .041

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

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.

21


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.

22


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

23


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

24


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

25


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.

26


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

27


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

28


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.

29


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

30


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.

31


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.

32


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.

33


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.

34


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

35


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

36


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

37

Niels Jansen Transformational Leadership

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to Niels Jansen Transformational Leadership

Similar to Niels Jansen Transformational Leadership (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Niels Jansen Transformational Leadership