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