own and others’ personality characteristics · own and others’ personality characteristics...

Own and others’ personality characteristics influence the emergence of

leadership behavior in teams

Christine Gockel, University of Fribourg

Rebecca Schmidt, Chemnitz University of Technology

Shared Leadership in Teams

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

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

Piecha & Wegge, in prep.)

a) Transformational d) Directive

b) Transactional e) Aversive

c) Empowering f) Laissez-faire

Shared Leadership in Teams

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

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

Piecha & Wegge, in prep.)

a) Transformational d) Directive

b) Transactional e) Aversive

c) Empowering f) Laissez-faire

Constructive Destructive

Consequences and Antecedents

• Consequences

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

2009; Pearce & Sims, 2002)

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

& Csikszentmihalyi, 2003; Solansky, 2008)

• Antecedents

Team internal environment (Carson, Tesluk, & Marrone,

2007)

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

2007)

Personality Characteristics as Antecedents

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

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

Cook, 2006)

Own

personality

characteristics

Own

leadership

behavior

Actor Effect

Others‘

personality

characteristics

Extraversion as Predictor

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

Gerhardt, 2003)

• Impacts constructive leadership behavior:

Own extraversion should increase constructive leadership behaviors.

Others’ extraversion should decrease constructive leadership behaviors.

Agreeableness as Predictor

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

• Impacts destructive leadership behavior:

Own agreeableness should decrease destructive leadership behaviors.

Others’ agreeableness should also decrease destructive leadership behaviors.

Method: Overview

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

79% female, Mage = 21.84, SDage = 2.75

76% study psychology

• Task: Complete research project

• Duration: 5 months

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

Measures

Personality Characteristics (Big Five Inventory-25;

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

• Assessed at t1

• Extraversion (E): α = .90

• Agreeableness (A): α = .65

Measures

Individual leadership behavior (based on Items

from Pearce & Sims, 2002)

• Assessed at t1, t2, and t3

• Types

Constructive leadership (2 items)

Destructive leadership (2 items)

• Source

Self ( subjective rating)

Others ( objective rating)

Constructive Leadership Behavior

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

t1 t2 t3

subjective

objective

Exte

nt

of constr

uctive leaders

hip

behavio

r (s

cale

: 1

-7)

No significant change over time

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

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

Destructive Leadership Behavior

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

t1 t2 t3

subjective

objective

Exte

nt

of destr

uctive leaders

hip

behavio

r (s

cale

: 1

-7)

Significant changes over time

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

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

Constructive Leadership Behavior (t1)

Parameter Model 1

Subjective Rating

Model 2

Objective Rating

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

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

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

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

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

Fixed Effects Estimates for Models Predicting

Constructive Leadership Behavior at t1

Note. Unstandardized coefficients (and their standard errors) are

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

Constructive Leadership Behavior (t1)

Parameter Model 1

Subjective Rating

Model 2

Objective Rating

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

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

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

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

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

Fixed Effects Estimates for Models Predicting

Constructive Leadership Behavior at t1

Note. Unstandardized coefficients (and their standard errors) are

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

Destructive Leadership Behavior (t1)

Parameter Model 1

Subjective Rating

Model 2

Objective Rating

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

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

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

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

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

Fixed Effects Estimates for Models Predicting

Destructive Leadership Behavior at t1

Note. Unstandardized coefficients (and their standard errors) are

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

Destructive Leadership Behavior (t1)

Parameter Model 1

Subjective Rating

Model 2

Objective Rating

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

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

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

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

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

Fixed Effects Estimates for Models Predicting

Destructive Leadership Behavior at t1

Note. Unstandardized coefficients (and their standard errors) are

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

Summary

At the beginning of a team project

• Team members showed more constructive leadership behaviors

the higher they were on extraversion,

the higher others were on extraversion,

the lower others were on agreeableness.

• Team members showed more destructive leadership behaviors

the lower they were on agreeableness.

Effects become smaller over time.

Discussion

• Interplay between members’ personalities

• Usefulness of APIM

• Underlying processes?

• Implication:

Leadership in teams is a mutual influence process.

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

Merci!

• James R. Larson, Jr.

• Maik Beege

• Marie Blume

• Anne Brantl

• Iken Gonnermann

• Josefin Karg

• Elisabeth Kormeier

• Iris Roth