ANALYSIS

The Leadership Quarterly 33 (2022) 101593

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Leadership Quarterly

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate / leaqua

Full length article

Let’s agree about nice leaders: A literature review and meta-analysis of agreeableness and its relationship with leadership outcomes

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101593 Received 19 October 2020; Revised 1 December 2021; Accepted 18 December 2021 Available online 5 January 2022 1048-9843/© 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

⇑ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A.B. Blake), [email protected] (V.H. Luu), [email protected] (O.V. Petrenko), William.Gardner

(W.L. Gardner), [email protected] (K.J.N. Moergen), [email protected] (M.E. Ezerins).

Andrew B. Blake a,⇑, Vivian H. Luu b, Oleg V. Petrenko a, William L. Gardner b, Kristie J.N. Moergen c, Maira E. Ezerins c

aDepartment of Strategy, Entrepreneurship and Venture Innovation, University of Arkansas, 515 Willard J. Walker Hall, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA bArea of Management, Texas Tech University, 703 Flint Ave, Lubbock, TX 79416, USA cDepartment of Management, University of Arkansas, Business Building 402, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O

Keywords: Agreeableness Leadership emergence Leadership effectiveness

A B S T R A C T

In this study, we draw from 22 years of research in leadership to investigate the ambiguous relationship between the personality trait agreeableness and leadership. First, we conduct a comprehensive review of the leadership literature to build a foundational understanding of leader agreeableness that includes providing a broad definition for agreeableness, identifying emerging trends, and proposing an agenda for future research. Second, using the literature review as our theoretical foundation, we conduct a meta‐analysis from the same body of literature to quantitatively decompose the relationship between leader agreeableness and leadership emergence and effectiveness. We also hypothesize and test the contextual moderating effects for gender, lead- ership level, and cultural context (as reflected by individualism‐collectivism). Collectively, our findings provide a framework for future research on leadership agreeableness and support the notion that nice (highly agree- able) leaders can emerge as effective leaders.

While most people consider the remark “nice guys [and gals] fin- ish last” an old adage, its origins are relatively recent. Indeed, the basis of this adage stems from the statement “the nice guys are all over there, in seventh place” made by Brooklyn Dodgers manager Leo Durocher in 1946 (Shapiro, 2006). In his statement, Mr. Duro- cher referred to the New York Giants, who were in seventh place in the standings (which was actually second‐to‐last). The variant of this quote quickly became the aphorism for the broader concept that being nice is detrimental to performance and that, somehow, nice- ness hinders leadership effectiveness. This notion fits well with much of the leadership research contributing to the idea that agreeableness —a personality trait that describes the qualities of a nice person (Jensen‐Campbell et al., 2010)—is only weakly related to leadership (Judge et al., 2002) which seemingly became lost in a sea of positive leadership theories that have emerged over the past 15 years (Alvesson & Einola, 2019). However, renewed interest in the agreeableness‐leadership relationship has begun to take hold as rela- tively recent studies are “surprisingly” revealing new evidence that agreeableness may be more important to leadership than once

thought. For instance, Antonakis et al. (2017), in an IQ study of 379 middle managers, found strong evidence that agreeableness (when used as a control variable) is significantly and positively related to a host of positive leader behaviors, including the transfor- mational behaviors of idealized‐influence, inspirational motivation, and individualized consideration. These results are echoed in a recent meta‐analysis on charismatic leadership as the authors point out that, “while not expected, agreeableness emerged as a stronger predictor of idealized influence (attributes and behaviors) than extraver- sion…we believe this finding can open the door for future theorizing concerning agreeableness” (Banks et al., 2017, p. 519).

Given the unexpected empirical findings, researchers have called for a more thorough investigation of the agreeableness‐leadership rela- tionship, citing the role of context‐specific performance requirements as a possible influence on current research findings (Koenig et al., 2011; Zaccaro et al., 2018). Additionally, characteristics of agreeable- ness such as being nice, compassionate, and/or altruistic are garnering increased attention among business leaders (Freiberg & Freiberg, 2019; Kelly, 2019), as well as in the popular press (Dowd, 2019;

@ttu.edu

A.B. Blake et al. The Leadership Quarterly 33 (2022) 101593

Hauser, 2018). This renewed interest in agreeableness from the business community, combined with the emphasis on positive psychol- ogy in leadership research (Alvesson, 2020), creates cautious optimism for research on agreeableness, and yet, previous presumptions still hin- der progress regarding the effect of agreeableness on leadership (Antonakis et al., 2012; Judge et al., 2002). We argue and provide evi- dence in this paper that it is time to agree that nice leaders often emerge and operate as effective leaders.

First, however, we need to make an important note regarding the definitions of agreeableness. In general, agreeableness describes the interpersonal tendencies of an individual (Barrick et al., 2013). As illustrated in Table 1, our review and meta‐analysis show that researchers use various terms to describe the interpersonal tendencies of agreeableness, including altruistic, nice, caring, prosocial, honest, kind, gentle, modest, cooperative, and tender‐minded. While the myriad of agreeableness descriptors seems complex and potentially redundant on the surface, a basis for these distinctions emerges in the operationalization. For instance, DeYoung and colleagues (2007) put forth an agreeableness measure that breaks down agree- ableness into the two distinct aspects of compassionate and polite. Ashton and Lee’s (2007) measure of agreeableness describes an indi- vidual’s proclivity to be lenient and forgiving as opposed to easily angered and resentful. Another measure of agreeableness from Costa and McCrae (2008) describes agreeableness in terms of six facets: trust, straightforwardness, altruism, compliance, modesty, and tender‐mindedness. Because of these differences, we refrain from leaning towards a specific measurement definition and instead set an overarching premise for the trait to define agreeableness as “the motivation to maintain smooth interpersonal relationships” (Tobin & Graziano, 2020, p. 105).

To ground this definition of agreeableness phenomenologically, we analyzed the item content of available scales used in this study that measured agreeableness to create a graphical representation and inter- pretation of the most frequently used content words (i.e., a word cloud). To attain content words, we removed stop words, and the remaining words were lemmatized and tokenized from each available scale item (or semantic differential). As shown in Fig. 1,1 the content words were organized as positive items (blue) and reverse‐coded nega- tive items (red) to facilitate interpretation of the content scales used to measure the construct of agreeableness. We ground our interpretation in the assumption (based on our definition of agreeableness) that agree- able leaders are motivated to maintain smooth interpersonal relation- ships. As shown in Table 2, the top five most common positive words were: people (20), feel (8), considerate (6), forgive (6), and human (5). Some of these words speak to the importance that interpersonal rela- tionships (people, human) have for measuring agreeableness, while the other three words describe how agreeable leaders can facilitate smooth relationships through forgiving, feel(ing), and being considerate to people.

On the other hand, the top five negative content words were: peo- ple (23), cold (6), rude (4), advantage (3), and argument (3). As was the case for the positive words, “people” emerged for the negative item content, highlighting the object of importance to the agreeable- ness construct. The words “cold,” “rude,” and “argument” describe behaviors that likely will not foster smooth interpersonal relation- ships, while “advantage” alludes to competitiveness, which is likely not characteristic of a leader interested in interpersonal relationships. Beyond the top five words for each set of items, a similar trend emerges regarding how (dis)agreeable leaders may approach their interpersonal relationships. Trust (4), cooperate (4), and unselfish (3) arise in positive items, while at the same time, critical (3), fault (3), and fight (3) surface from negative items. More broadly, these findings illuminate a constellation of internal and external attributes

1 We removed the content word “people” from the word cloud to enhance the clarity.

2

and behaviors that benefit or hinder smooth interpersonal relationships.

Moving forward with this definition and content interpretation, the purpose of our paper is two‐fold. First, we provide the first systematic review of the agreeableness‐leadership relationship since 1998, the cutoff year for the Big‐Five personality review conducted by Judge and colleagues (2002). Our goal for the review is to create a founda- tion for future research on agreeableness and its relationships with leadership by identifying important trends and research findings. The second purpose of this paper is to go beyond a comprehensive lit- erature review to conduct a series of quantitative analyses on the rela- tionships between agreeableness and leadership. Specifically, we test a set of general hypotheses about the relationships between leader agreeableness and leadership emergence and effectiveness using meta‐ analytic procedures. Using our literature review as a foundation for our theoretical arguments, we first predict that leader agreeableness will positively influence leadership emergence. We theorize that because persons high on agreeableness tend toward cooperation and collaboration rather than conflict, and they are both trustworthy and trusting (McCrae & Costa, 2008)—highly valued leadership attributes in interpersonal and team settings (LePine & Van Dyne, 2001; Morgeson et al., 2005; Tyran et al., 2003). Next, we argue that leader agreeableness is also positively related to leadership effectiveness because agreeable leaders foster cooperation and trust among follow- ers (Tyran et al., 2003) and facilitate goal attainment (Lim & Ployhart, 2004; Peterson et al., 2003). Finally, we develop and test a set of mod- erator hypotheses investigating the effects of gender, leadership level, and culture on the relationships between leader agreeableness and leadership outcomes.

Our paper makes the following contributions to the scholarly con- versation about the relationships of agreeableness with leadership out- comes. First, through our systematic literature review, we synthesize the agreeableness‐leadership literature by identifying three topical areas of research: (a) leadership styles, (b) leader behaviors, and (c) outcomes. We also identify three primary opportunities for future research focused on: (a) key leadership constructs and outcomes, (b) the processes through which leader agreeableness influences out- comes, and (c) exploring the role of perceived leader agreeableness.

Second, by quantitatively decomposing the agreeableness‐ leadership literature through a meta‐analysis, we establish support for our assertion that nice leaders can emerge and operate effectively. Specifically, our results show that agreeableness is a significant and robust predictor of leadership emergence and effectiveness. Answering the call for the examination of personality in leadership contexts (Zaccaro et al., 2018), we also explore contextual effects (gender, lead- ership level, and individualism‐collectivism) that may influence the agreeableness‐leadership emergence and effectiveness relationships (Judge et al., 2002). While we predict that gender will strengthen the relationship between agreeableness and leadership emergence for females versus males, our results do not support that assertion. Our results show that the relationship between agreeableness and leadership effectiveness is stronger for non‐executives than executives. While these results support our hypothesis, we must note that the num- ber of studies investigating leadership agreeableness on the executive level is small, and it presents an opportunity for future investigations in the upper echelons research stream. Finally, the results support our prediction that the relationship of agreeableness with leadership emergence is stronger in job contexts found in collectivistic versus individualistic cultures. Overall, our findings support the idea that agreeableness is an important factor in predicting leadership out- comes, and these results are consistent with the increased emphasis on the “niceness” of leaders in popular (Iger, 2019; Krapivin, 2018; Schultz, 2012) and academic publications (Petrenko, 2020). Further, our study provides strong evidence for the argument that nice leaders do not finish last but are rather effective both in non‐executive and executive roles.

Table 1 Definitions of Agreeableness.

Source Definition

Judge & Bono (2000, p. 752) “Factor 2, Agreeableness, consists of tendencies to be kind, gentle, trusting and trustworthy, and warm.” Murensky (2000, p. 29) “Agreeableness is a dimension reflecting interpersonal tendencies and a fundamental altruism expressed through a willingness to help others and

a belief that they will reciprocate.” Halfhill et al. (2005, p. 44) “Research on individual job performance has linked it with the agreeableness trait (Frei & McDaniel, 1998; Hough, 1992), which includes

personal characteristics such as empathy, humility, willingness to cooperate, altruism, and concern for others.” Bernerth et al. (2007, p. 617) “Overall, the traits associated with an agreeable individual seem likely to influence both parties [supervisor and subordinate]. For example,

agreeableness is characterized by cooperation, tact, modesty, sensitivity, kindness, and respect. Agreeable individuals are described as good- natured, cheerful, and caring. An individual high in agreeableness is fundamentally altruistic. ‘He or she is sympathetic to others and eager to help them and believes that others will be equally helpful in return. By contrast, the disagreeable or antagonistic person is egocentric, skeptical of others' intentions, and competitive rather than cooperative’ (Costa & McCrae, 1992, p. 15).”

O'Neil (2007, p. 38) “Agreeableness refers to the quality of interpersonal relationships (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998). Hogan et al. (1994), defined agreeableness as a measure of an individual’s sympathy, cooperation, and warmth. According to Piedmont (1998), agreeableness includes the facets of trust, straightforwardness, altruism, compliance, modesty, and tender-mindedness.”

Bell & Arthur (2008, p. 688) “Finally, agreeableness is associated with good-natured, flexible, trusting, cooperative, and tolerant dispositions.” Nadkarni & Herrmann (2010,

p. 1054) “Agreeableness represents the tendency to be altruistic (empathetic, kind, cooperative, trusting, and gentle) and compliant (modest, having a values affiliation, and conflict avoiding) (Bono & Judge, 2004).”

Grant & Berg (2011, p. 12) “Agreeableness refers to a positive orientation toward others, and is manifested in higher tendencies toward altruism, cooperation, sympathy, trust, morality, and modesty (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Costa, McCrae, & Dye, 1991).”

Cogliser et al. (2012, p. 758) “Persons high on agreeableness tend toward affiliation, compassion, and cooperation rather than conflict and are both trusting and trustworthy (McCrae & Costa, 2008). Agreeableness arises as a key trait within teams where collaboration is required (Morgeson, Reider, & Campion, 1995). Further, more agreeable persons focus on cooperation rather than competition within teams (LePine & Van Dyne, 2001).”

Powers (2012, p. 19) “This trait describes an individual's ability to interact with others in a harmonious fashion (Mount & Barrick, 1995).” Emery et al. (2013, p. 8) “… we expect individuals high in agreeableness to be increasingly nominated as an interpersonally caring, friendship-based point of reference

for the group over time, independent of any guiding structural direction of the group's task or project.” Comber (2014, p. 19) “The agreeableness factor describes how well an individual is able to connect with others. The consistent demonstration of positive facets of this

trait (e.g., concern for others, empathy, flexibility, straightforwardness) by an individual often results in others experiencing a deeper and more genuine connection as well as greater sense of safety with the agreeable team member.”

Fang & Zhang (2014, p. 787) “Altruism and interpersonal sensitivity, two facets of agreeableness, promote good leadership, but agreeable individuals are likely to be more modest (Goldberg, 1990) and have a greater need for involvement and ”belonging“ within a social group (Yukl, 2012) than are disagreeable individuals.”

Lounsbury et al. (2016, p. 439) “Agreeableness- propensity for working as part of a team and functioning cooperatively on group effects at work.” Baptiste (2018, p. 11) “Agreeableness: The personality trait that ”deals with the motives for maintaining positive relations with others“ (Jensen-Campbell & Graziano,

2001, p. 325). Agreeableness refers to social behaviors such as the expression of interpersonal warmth and positive affect. These social behaviors include smiling, laughing, and eye contact (Cuperman & Ickes, 2009).”

McKee et al. (2018, p. 16) “Agreeableness is primarily a dimension of interpersonal behavior and interaction, though it also influences self-image and social attitudes (Costa et al., 1991). In terms of interpersonal interaction, Agreeableness exists ”along a continuum from compassion to antagonism“ (Costa & McCrae, 1985, p.2). The FFM facets of Agreeableness include Trust, Straightforwardness, Altruism, Compliance, Modesty, and Tender- Mindedness (Costa et al., 1991).”

Fig. 1. Word Cloud from Agreeableness Scale Items. Note. Words extracted from all available scale items found in meta-analysis. We removed the content word “people” (listed in Table 2) to enhance clarity.

A.B. Blake et al. The Leadership Quarterly 33 (2022) 101593

3

Literature review

We reviewed the 89 manuscripts2 that tested or had propositions about leadership and agreeableness with the goals of organizing the extant literature, achieving a more comprehensive understanding, and, subsequently, identifying areas for continued research. The author team followed best practices suggested for conducting a systematic literature review (Hiebl, 2021; Siddaway et al., 2019) and coded each of the included studies’ propositions and (un)supported hypotheses, identify- ing the key variables and relationships considered within each article. In doing so, three main topic categories emerged: (a) leadership style, or a leader’s preferred pattern of interpersonal behavior and decision‐ making (Kaiser & Hogan, 2007); (b) leadership behavior, or the aspects of a leader’s actions that are observable, distinct, measurable and rele- vant to the performance of the group members, teams, work units, and/or organizations (Yukl & Gardner, 2020); and (c) outcomes of lea- der agreeableness that were related to group members, teams, work units, and/or organizations. While the distinction between leadership styles and behaviors may seem somewhat arbitrary, a natural division appeared in the coded data with some studies focusing on leaders enact- ing discrete behaviors (e.g., collaboration tactics or conflict management strategies) versus those studies theorizing or testing more general pat- terns of behavior (e.g., transactional or transformational leadership). Through the literature review, we also identify potential contextual fac- tors that likely influence the relationship between leader agreeableness

2 Details on the sample selection process employed to identify the articles included in our systematic review are described in the methods section of our meta‐analysis.

Table 2 Frequency Table Illustrated in Word Cloud.

Positive (Not Reverse-Coded) Negative (Reverse coded)

Content Word Count Content Word Count

People 20 People 23 Feel 8 Cold 6 Considerate 6 Rude 4 Forgive 6 Advantage 3 Human 5 Argument 3 Emotion 4 Critical 3 Feeling 4 Fault 3 Nature 4 Fight 3 Tend 4 Selfish 3 Trust 4 Start 3 Cooperate 3 Stubborn 3 Person 3 Aloof 2 Rarely 3 Business 2 Sympathize 3 Calculate 2 Unselfish 3 Cynical 2 Warm 3 Disagreeable 2 Agreeable 2 Egotistical 2 Badly 2 Hard 2 Consideration 2 Head 2 Cooperative 2 Insult 2 Courteous 2 Manipulate 2 Deal 2 Mind 2 Ease 2 Quarrel 2 Flexible 2 Skeptical 2 Forget 2 Sympathy 2 Goal 2 Time 2 Heart 2 Helpful 2 Honest 2 Lenient 2 Like 2 Policy 2 Praise 2 Respect 2 Soft 2 Sympathetic 2 Thoughtful 2 Time 2

A.B. Blake et al. The Leadership Quarterly 33 (2022) 101593

and leadership emergence and effectiveness for use in the meta‐analytic procedures (e.g., leader gender).

Leadership style

There is a natural connection between personality traits and leader- ship style as both, at some level, describe patterns of human behavior (Kaiser & Hogan, 2007). Unsurprisingly, a common question that sur- faced in our sample of articles was how leader agreeableness relates to leadership styles. Our systematic review identified the four leadership styles most emphasized in relation to leader agreeableness: servant leadership, transformational leadership, ethical leadership, and abu- sive supervision.

A positive relationship between leader agreeableness and servant leadership—defined by putting others’ needs, aspirations, and inter- ests first (Greenleaf, 1977)—was supported across multiple studies (Hunter et al., 2013; Sun & Shang, 2019; Washington et al., 2006). For example, Hunter and colleagues (2013) found that manager agree- ableness relates positively to followers’ perceptions of managers’ ser- vant leadership which, in turn, was negatively related to employee turnover intentions and disengagement in the context of retail stores. Agreeableness was also positively related to transformational leader- ship (Judge & Bono, 2000) as one of its components—individualized consideration—focuses on others’ well‐being and developmental needs. Similarly, agreeableness is positively related to dimensions of charismatic leadership, which some scholars believe to be directly related to motives of interpersonal harmony (Bank et al., 2017).

4

Concerning ethical leadership as conceptualized by Brown and Treviño (2006), a positive relationship with leader agreeableness has been identified (Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009; Xu et al., 2011). That is, agreeable leaders are more likely to display and promote “nor- matively appropriate conduct” to their followers (Brown et al., 2005, p. 120). Walumbwa and Schaubroeck (2009), for example, found that, in a major U.S. financial institution, followers rated agreeable leaders higher on ethical leadership and that ethical leadership promoted psy- chological safety. The authors argued that agreeable individuals are likely to use constructive tactics (Jensen‐Campbell & Graziano, 2001) that, when combined with their proclivity to be “considerate, helpful, honest, decent, trustworthy, understanding, [and] responsive to the needs and wishes of others,” lead to higher perceptions of eth- ical leadership (p. 1277).

However, not all leadership styles are ethical or beneficial, and, as such, it is crucial to understand how agreeableness relates to these less desirable styles as well. Leader agreeableness relates negatively to abu- sive supervision (Breevaart & de Vries, 2017; Wu, 2020) or a subordi- nate’s perception of a leader’s sustained hostile behaviors (Tepper et al., 2017), and it attenuates the relationship between psychological power and abusive behavior (Foulk et al., 2018). In the latter example, Foulk and colleagues (2018) found that leader psychological power positively related to abusive behaviors and that leader agreeableness weakened this effect. In sum, our review reveals that leader agreeable- ness relates positively to servant leadership, transformational leader- ship, and ethical leadership and negatively predicts abusive supervision and, therefore, underscores the importance of exploring how trait agreeableness relates to specific leadership styles.

We suggest scholars expand on these findings by first considering the conceptual differences between measures of agreeableness, then creating a theoretical rationale for selecting specific agreeableness measures, and, where appropriate, examining particular individual facets, such as compassionate and polite (DeYoung et al., 2007), or straightforwardness, compliance, altruism, modesty, and tender‐ mindedness (McCrae & Costa, 2003). For example, does altruism (ver- sus straightforwardness or modesty) differentially predict servant lead- ership? Ethical leadership? Does trust relate to the different transformational leadership factors? These are unanswered questions that merit investigation to provide a more nuanced understanding of the relationships between agreeableness (and its facets) and leadership styles.

Leadership behavior

Agreeable leaders behave in a manner consistent with the motiva- tion to get along with others (Barrick et al., 2013). According to our review, research examining leadership behavior primarily focused on how leader agreeableness relates to leader‐member exchange (LMX). LMX theory focuses on the mutual exchange between a leader–fol- lower dyad and pays particular attention to how high‐quality leader‐ member relationships result in more positive outcomes for the organi- zation and its members (Dansereau et al., 1975; Gerstner & Day, 1997). High‐quality LMX relationships are distinguished by “mutual support, trust, liking, provision of latitude, attention and loyalty,” whereas low‐quality relationships emphasize “role distinctions, social distance, contractual obligations and distrust” (Barling et al., 2011, p. 189). Indeed, research indicates that agreeable leaders are more likely to trust their followers (Savino, 2019) and enact relational psycholog- ical contracts, which can strengthen a relationship’s emotional and long‐term dynamics (Metz et al., 2017; Ntalianis, 2006). More broadly, our review indicates empirical support for the theoretical connection between leader agreeableness and LMX quality (Bernerth et al., 2007; Nahrgang et al., 2009; Sears & Hackett, 2011). To further expli- cate the leader agreeableness–LMX relationship, some researchers have taken more nuanced approaches and considered: (a) the moder- ating effects of formal hierarchical power, finding that the relationship

A.B. Blake et al. The Leadership Quarterly 33 (2022) 101593

between leader agreeableness and LMX quality was stronger for super- visors than subordinates (Yoon & Bono, 2016); (b) the mediating role of managers’ positive affect towards their respective supervisors (Sears & Hackett, 2011); and (c) the influence of personality convergence on the agreeableness dimension for leaders and followers (Bernerth et al., 2008; Yoon & Bono, 2016). Other examples such as Kahya and Şahin (2018) found that LMX quality mediates the relationship between lea- der agreeableness and followers’ satisfaction with the leader and fol- lower organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), highlighting how leader personality has downstream consequences for followers’ atti- tudes and behaviors.

Beyond LMX, leader agreeableness relates positively to other func- tional behaviors, including leader engagement in OCB (Singh & Singh, 2009), fairness behaviors (Walker, 2015), empowering exchanges (Jada & Mukhopadhyay, 2019), and relates negatively to the upward influencing tactics of legitimization and pressure (Cable & Judge, 2003). Respectively, the authors above used versions of the NEO‐PI‐ R (e.g., the NEO Personality Inventory‐Revised; Costa & McCrae, 1992), HEXACO Personality Inventory (Ashton & Lee, 2007), and IPIP (Goldberg, 1990) to operationalize agreeableness. While the underly- ing latent construct of agreeableness and its associated markers (altru- istic, collaborative, cooperative, and trust‐building) likely account for higher follower citizenship and perceived fairness levels, there is a lack of clarity as to which markers are driving each relationship.

Concerning conflict management strategies, agreeable leaders are more likely to enact integrating (where leaders adopt a win–win or collaborative approach) and avoidant tactics (where leaders refrain from expressing their needs) and were less likely to enact dominating tactics (where leaders prioritize their own needs) (Antonioni, 1998). Across each of these examples, scholars draw on the fundamentally altruistic, empathetic orientation associated with agreeable individu- als to make their predictions (Judge & Bono, 2000). However, investi- gations of more nuanced predictions regarding the relationships of particular facets of agreeableness (e.g., compassion, altruism) with particular types of conflict management tactics would be informative.

Finally, while not a prominent area of research in the articles we reviewed, leader agreeableness is related to how leaders engage with their team or group. It is reasonable to expect agreeable leaders to be team players (e.g., Gardiner & Jackson, 2015; Mount et al., 1998) and prefer cooperation (Graziano & Eisenberg, 1997). Our review showed that agreeableness in entrepreneurial top management teams (TMTs) positively relates to their collective knowledge integration or how teams make sense of and react to new business opportunities and threats (Dai et al., 2019). Other researchers found that agreeable leaders were more willing to collaborate using a sample of nonprofit managers (Bullock, 2018). Further, Cogliser et al. (2012) demon- strated that agreeableness was positively related to the social‐ oriented aspects of leaders’ emergence (i.e., leader communication ori- ented towards member needs).

Seen as a whole, our review of the literature shows that agreeable leaders’motivation to get along with others manifests in critical leader behaviors at the individual, dyadic, and group/team levels that are related to leadership effectiveness (Yukl & Gardner, 2020). For exam- ple, relations‐oriented behaviors, such as engaging in high‐quality LMX or supporting and developing groups, are markers of leadership effectiveness likely related to some of the agreeableness markers, including altruism, trust, and warmth (O’Neil, 2007). Likewise, change‐oriented behaviors such as facilitating collective learning or inspiring a collective vision relate to leaders’ ability to influence their followers (DeRue et al., 2011; Yukl & Gardner, 2020) and likely align with the cooperative nature of agreeable leaders (Cogliser et al., 2012; O’Reilly et al., 2014). Research is needed to enhance understanding between agreeableness and leadership behaviors by exploring theoret- ically meaningful relationships between specific facets of agreeable- ness and particular behaviors.

5

Outcomes of leader agreeableness

A final category of focal research that emerged from our literature review describes the effects of leader agreeableness across three levels of analysis—follower outcomes, group or team outcomes, and organi- zational outcomes. Notably, as a part of their meta‐analysis on leader traits and behaviors, DeRue and colleagues (2011) found that leader agreeableness was related to leader effectiveness, group performance, follower job satisfaction, and satisfaction with the leader. However, the strength of these relationships lessened when controlling for lead- ership styles (e.g., transformational or laissez‐faire leadership). Despite these relevant findings, fewer studies focus on how leader agreeable- ness directly relates to relevant workplace outcomes than the last two research categories.

Regarding the individual level of analysis, leader agreeableness is related to multiple outcomes for followers. Specifically, followers of agreeable leaders: (a) are less likely to report witnessing or experienc- ing workplace bullying (Mathisen et al., 2011), (b) report higher levels of psychological safety (Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009), (c) engage in more OCBs (Kahya & Şahin, 2018, and (d) report higher total job and supervisor satisfaction (Smith & Canger, 2004). As another exam- ple of follower related outcomes, a study within the hospitality indus- try showed followers’ ratings of the effectiveness of their managers’ evaluations of their performance (i.e., managers’ transparency, com- munication, and effort while distributing evaluations) were positively associated with their managers’ agreeableness (Storey, 2018). Hence, leader agreeableness was associated with more positive follower atti- tudes towards their managers and, more generally, the workplace across these contexts. These findings suggest that agreeable leaders are associated with more positive outcomes for followers, presumably because they desire to satisfy followers' needs and support their work efforts.

Regarding group outcomes, TMTs who operate under agreeable leaders are more likely to engage in joint decision‐making processes (Wu, 2018) and have a healthy expression of ideas and disagree- ments (de Jong et al., 2013). One possible explanation for these find- ings is that the focus on collaboration that characterizes agreeable leaders inspires them to incorporate multiple, and at times divergent, points of view into team processes. Moreover, de Jong and colleagues (2013) found that because of this, performance suffers for new venture teams led by agreeable leaders, demonstrating that group outcomes associated with leader agreeableness are not uniformly positive.

In a similar vein, several studies focused on the relationship between agreeable CEOs and organizational culture or strategic change. For example, O’Reilly and colleagues (2014) found that dis- agreeable CEOs were more likely to lead firms characterized by results‐oriented organizational cultures. Further, in a study of small‐ and medium‐sized businesses, Herrmann and Nadkarni (2014) found support for a posited inverted‐U relationship between CEO agreeable- ness and strategic flexibility, which is positively related to firm perfor- mance. The authors reasoned that while some markers of agreeableness such as altruism and cooperation may foster a culture of creativity and risk‐taking because of open, cooperative, and trust‐ based relationships, excessive CEO agreeableness may produce passiv- ity and compliance, resulting in low levels of employee risk‐taking and thereby inhibiting strategic flexibility. Studies such as these that reflect a more nuanced perspective on the effects of leader agreeable- ness by examining relationships, including those that may be curvilin- ear, with macro‐level variables such as organizational culture and strategy are encouraged.

Overall, it appears that leader agreeableness has a largely positive relationship to followers’ attitudes and behaviors but may have more negative and/or complex implications for group and organizational level outcomes. Moreover, the relative paucity of research focused

Table 3 Opportunities for Future Research.

Opportunity Examples of Future Research Questions

Focus on key leadership constructs and outcomes

What are the cross-level effects of leader agreeableness on leadership development across the organization? How does leader agreeableness relate to the development of different leadership styles across roles (Day, 2000)? What are meaningful relationships be- tween the facets of agreeableness (e.g., trust, altruism, and compliance) and dif- ferent leadership styles? How does leader agreeableness relate to authentic leadership and, in turn, how does this affect follower task performance or organizational citizenship behavior? How does working for an agreeable man- ager influence team perceptions of diver- sity climate or overall team performance? Does this relationship change depend on the leader’s gender, race, ethnicity, or social class background? What is the relationship between leader agreeableness and emotional contagion in groups or organizations? Are more likable leaders better able to inspire passion or dedication in their followers?

Explicate the process through which leader agreeableness influences outcomes

What leadership behaviors (informed by leader agreeableness) operate in tandem to influence key organizational outcomes, such as firm performance or board interlocks? How does the relationship between leader agreeableness and team outcomes unfold over time (Fischer et al., 2017)? What are the short vs. long-term effects of leader agreeableness on top management team integration or efficacy? How does culture or the defining core values of a nation, region, or group (Hofstede, 2001) amplify or attenuate process-driven models of leader agree- ableness and its effects? How does follower identification with the leader or organization mediate the rela- tionship between leader agreeableness and key outcomes such as job perfor- mance or voice behavior?

Attend to perceptions of agreeableness What leader evaluations are associated with follower positive bias? Are more agreeable leaders punished less for poor performance? What are the mechanisms influencing positive bias of agreeable leaders? What expressions of leader agreeableness shape positive bias in followers?

A.B. Blake et al. The Leadership Quarterly 33 (2022) 101593

on outcomes related to leader agreeableness signals a need for contin- ued research, a topic that we explore in detail below.

Opportunities for future research

Through our systematic review of 89 manuscripts that examined leadership and agreeableness, we offered a more complete picture of the current state of literature and highlighted the three main cate- gories of extant work. Drawing on these findings, we suggest three opportunities for scholars to engage understudied areas or address concerns regarding perceptions of leader agreeableness (see Table 3 for opportunities for future work in these areas).

Opportunity 1: focus on key leadership constructs and outcomes Extant work has considered the relationship between being a “nice”

(or not so “nice”) leader and a variety of key leadership styles and behaviors, yet several key leadership constructs require further atten- tion. For instance, while servant leadership, ethical leadership, and transformational leadership have been readily considered, multiple popular leadership styles remain understudied. Authentic leadership —marked by leader self‐awareness, interpersonal transparency, an internalized moral perspective, and objectivity in decision‐making (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Gardner et al., 2011; Luthans & Avolio, 2003)—has received relatively little attention to date but likely relates to the social style adopted by more agreeable managers. Likewise, the relationship between leadership development, which has gained increased attention over the past two decades (Day & Dragoni, 2015; Day & Thorton, 2018; Gardner et al., 2020), and agreeableness has received no attention to our knowledge. Key leadership behaviors that reflect how leaders engage the work unit’s external environment (Yukl & Gardner, 2020), such as boundary spanning or networking, are likely related to the proclivities of an agreeable leader to build and maintain positive relationships across groups (Baptiste, 2018; Costa & McCrae, 1992) and therefore merit empirical attention.

In addition to focusing on key leadership styles and behaviors, we invite scholars to empirically consider a broader set of outcomes across levels of analysis. For example, there is a near absence of research addressing the outcomes of agreeableness for leaders themselves. Do agreeable leaders have longer or shorter tenures than their counter- parts? Does their propensity towards altruism and compassion influ- ence their strategic decision‐making and their focus on corporate social responsibility? While current research highlights followers’ atti- tudes as an outcome of leader agreeableness (e.g., Kahya & Şahin, 2018; Smith & Canger, 2004), it would be informative to consider other outcomes such as objective markers of subordinates’ job perfor- mance. What occurs when an agreeable manager leads teams? Consid- ering team efficacy, the leverage or exploitation of skills, communication patterns, and critical outcomes like creativity or task performance are pertinent and would complement current work in the area (e.g., de Jong et al., 2013). Finally, little consideration has been given to organizational‐level effects of leader agreeableness. We agree with scholars (e.g., Gardner et al., 2020) who suggest an increased awareness of strategic leadership in the field is merited. More specifically, we suggest that thought be given to the trait dispo- sitions of CEOs, such as agreeableness and their downstream conse- quences for the firm. One potential avenue for this research would be to use agency theory lenses (Jensen and Meckling, 1976; Shapiro, 2005; Payne & Petrenko, 2019) to investigate how leader agreeable- ness affects agentic behaviors of top executives.

Opportunity 2: explicate the process through which leader agreeableness influences outcomes

Extant research focused on leader personality lacks a comprehen- sive approach, which some scholars elaborate on: “despite knowledge about average tendencies, little is known about the processes through

6

which leader personality traits influence organizational outcomes” (Barling et al., 2011, p. 196). Understanding what drives the relation- ships between leader agreeableness and its relevant outcomes is vital for a complete explanation of the phenomena. That is, when questions of “why” or “how” are addressed, findings are more generalizable, and boundary conditions can be better assessed (Fischer et al., 2017). It is noteworthy that very few of the studies we reviewed adopted a process‐driven approach, where leadership styles or behaviors acted as a mechanism through which leader agreeableness influenced perfor- mance, affective, or relational outcomes. Notable exceptions include Walumbwa and Schaubroeck’s (2009) study on the mediating role of ethical leadership on psychological safety and Hunter and colleagues’ (2013) study of how leader agreeableness increases perceptions of servant leadership and, in turn, reduces employee turnover and disengagement. As is evident from these examples, adopting a

A.B. Blake et al. The Leadership Quarterly 33 (2022) 101593

process‐driven approach offers academics and practitioners additional insights as to how agreeableness can promote or impede decisions that engender better outcomes for the organization and its members.

We draw on previous work in the area of leadership (Barling et al., 2011; DeRue et al., 2011) to suggest three specific categories of medi- ators to be considered for inclusion in future studies: (a) those relating to how leader agreeableness impacts followers’ internal states, percep- tions of the job, and perceptions of the leader; (b) those relating to specific leadership styles or behaviors; and (c) those relating to the attribution or identification processes engaged in by followers. While we encourage scholars to explicate the mechanisms motivating leader agreeableness–outcome relationships, we join previous authors (Fischer et al., 2017) and urge scholars also to consider the role of time (Day & Dragoni, 2015) and the multiple mechanisms through which leader agreeableness works.

Opportunity 3: attend to perceptions of leader agreeableness A third opportunity for future research is to build theory on how

leader and follower agreeableness can influence perceptions and eval- uations (e.g., Zaccaro et al., 2018). Indeed, while some scholars have shown that agreeable leaders are perceived as effective (Chua & Iyengar, 2011) and competent by their team (Bernardin et al., 2000), it is not clear what mechanisms are driving this relationship and what expressions of leader agreeableness influence this bias. One potential mechanism could be that subordinates like, or have pos- itive feelings towards, their agreeable leaders more than disagreeable leaders (Martinko et al., 2018). Another possible explanation for pos- itive bias could be a desire to reciprocate for a prior transgression over- looked or forgiven by the agreeable leader. We encourage future researchers to explore how agreeable leaders could be (knowingly or unknowingly) influencing how their team rates them and how this could be impacting the organization.

Leadership scholars can also focus on exploring how follower agreeableness may shape leader perceptions. Evidence shows that agreeable followers have higher self‐reported LMX scores (Bernerth et al., 2008; Yoon & Bono, 2016), evaluate leaders as more transforma- tional (Schyns & Felfe, 2006), and are more likely to assign desirable characteristics to leaders (Bono et al., 2012). Researchers have called attention to this pattern of findings, suggesting that “individuals high in agreeableness may be prone to endorse desirable leader behaviors regardless of their actual occurrence” (Hansbrough et al., 2015, p. 222). Future research could examine how agreeable followers influ- ence various team and organization variables, including the proclivity of abusive leadership behavior and leader tenure, and team and orga- nizational performance.

Theory and hypotheses development

Having provided an overview of the extant literature on the agreeableness‐leadership relationship, we will draw on this literature and related theories to advance hypotheses explored in our meta‐ analysis. In doing so, we note that the roots for conceptualizing and measuring leadership begin with two broad categorizations: leader- ship emergence and leadership effectiveness (Judge et al., 2002; Lord et al., 1986). We advance hypotheses regarding the relationships between leader agreeableness and these criteria in the sections that follow.

Leadership criteria

Leadership emergence refers to “the factors associated with some- one being perceived as leaderlike” (Hogan et al., 1994, p. 496). In the context of leadership research, scholars consider individuals occu- pying managerial and supervisory positions to be leaders by default despite well‐argued distinctions between leaders and managers (see

7

Kotter, 2001; Zaleznik, 1992). However, in a recent comprehensive review of the literature on leadership emergence, Hanna et al. (2021) defined emergent leadership as “the degree to which an indi- vidual with no formal status or authority is perceived by one or more team members as exhibiting leaderlike influence” (p. 82). As such, we converge on a definition that enables us to provide a more comprehen- sive examination of the factors influencing perceptions of the leader. Thus, we define leadership emergence as the degree to which an indi- vidual is considered a leader based on his or her leadership character- istics regardless of formal position (e.g., leadership style, leadership behavior, etc.). The second category, leadership effectiveness, is based on understanding the factors that influence leadership goal accom- plishment (House & Podsakoff, 1994; Yukl, 2012). We define leader- ship effectiveness as the individual follower, leader, group, team, or organizational outcomes directly attributable to the leader (Hogan et al., 1994; Judge et al., 2002; Lord et al., 1984).

Leadership emergence Leadership emergence is a within‐group phenomenon (Hanna

et al., 2021; Judge et al., 2002) influenced in part by high‐quality interpersonal relationships (Bass & Bass, 2009; Burns, 1978; DeRue et al., 2011). Advancements in leadership theory posit that individuals’ emergence as leaders is a dynamic process influenced by interdepen- dent actor interactions (DeRue & Ashford, 2010). By adopting this framework, we theorize that tendencies of agreeable group members to be cooperative (Graziano et al., 1996), friendly, and caring (Graziano & Eisenberg, 1997) help to fill the social needs of the group, which influences their emergence as a leader (Cogliser et al., 2012). For instance, in a study of self‐managed groups, agreeable individuals were more likely to be nominated as a relationship‐oriented leader (Emery et al., 2013). In a separate study on virtual teams, agreeable individuals were more likely to emerge as socially‐oriented leaders (Cogliser et al., 2012).

These findings also speak to the broader notion that individuals liked by the group are more likely to be perceived as a leader due to the link between affective reactions and the members’ implicit leader- ship theories (Brown & Keeping, 2005; Hansbrough et al., 2015; Martinko et al., 2018). As our review revealed, prior empirical work documents an association between agreeableness and leadership styles such as transformational and charismatic leadership (Barling et al., 2011; Judge & Bono, 2000) and that agreeable individuals are likely to produce high‐quality interpersonal relationships (Bernerth et al., 2008; Nahrgang et al., 2009; Sears & Hackett, 2011). As such, we the- orize that agreeableness is related to group members' affective responses, which, in turn, increases the likelihood that the focal indi- vidual will be perceived as leaderlike. Taken together, we advance the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1. Leader agreeableness is positively associated with leadership emergence.

Leadership effectiveness Whereas leadership emergence refers to the process whereby an

individual comes to be seen by others as a leader (Hanna et al., 2021), leadership effectiveness is related to the degree to which a lea- der can influence individual, group, team, or organizational task per- formance, affective/relational criteria (e.g., motivation or satisfaction), or both (DeRue et al., 2011; Judge et al., 2002). From a task performance standpoint, agreeable leaders tend to be perceived as more effective by their subordinates (Chua & Iyengar, 2011), build effective relationships with their subordinates (Nahrgang et al., 2009), and create cohesive teams that are associated with organizational income growth (Peterson et al., 2003).

Regarding the affective/relational criteria, agreeable leaders are more likely to inspire, motivate, and build high‐quality relationships

A.B. Blake et al. The Leadership Quarterly 33 (2022) 101593

with their subordinates (Antonakis et al., 2017; Banks et al., 2017). Their teams tend to be committed to the organization, have increased cooperation (Wyatt & Silvester, 2018), and are generally more satis- fied with their leader (Smith & Canger, 2004). Taken together, agree- ableness seems to be playing a role in both the task performance and affective/relational categories of leadership effectiveness. Therefore, we expect to find that, on average, agreeableness will be positively related to leadership effectiveness. Thus, we advance the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2. Leader agreeableness is positively associated with leadership effectiveness.

Moderating role of gender

The underrepresentation of women in leadership positions, espe- cially at the upper echelons of organizations, is a widely discussed topic across management research (Ryan et al., 2016) and within lead- ership studies specifically (Gardner et al., 2020). Gender discrimina- tion has emerged as one recurrent explanation in leadership research for this phenomenon (Eagly & Heilman, 2016). The basis for this explanation stems from role congruity theory (Eagly & Karau, 2002) which postulates that female members of groups do not fit the “pre- dominantly masculine attributes” (p. 557) associated with leadership roles resulting in an increased likelihood of prejudice towards females. Building from this theory, we expect agreeableness to influence the perception of women as leaders for two reasons. First, empirical stud- ies have shown that women are more agreeable on average than their male counterparts (Costa et al., 2001; Feingold, 1994). Second, because agreeableness is associated primarily with stereotypical com- munal/feminine behaviors (e.g., cooperation, friendliness, compas- sion), we expect this will increase the degree of perceivable feminine attributes among females (relative to males) and decrease the likelihood for females to be perceived as leaders. Thus, we advance:

Hypothesis 3. Gender moderates the relationship between leader agreeableness and leadership emergence, such that the relationship is weaker for females.

Moderating role of leadership level

Following the presumption that leader role expectations are associ- ated primarily with masculine characteristics, we shift the focus onto leadership level. Specifically, related research on executives and non‐executives suggests that the context of the leader position influ- ences the degree of masculine expectations for leaders. In the case of the executive leadership, this is primarily due to the high concentra- tion of men in executive positions relative to females (Catalyst, 2010), resulting in higher “role incongruity for women” (Koenig et al., 2011, p. 619). Because agreeable individuals are more likely to exhibit communal and feminine behaviors, our theoretical expecta- tion is that agreeableness manifestations will be less likely to be per- ceived as leaderlike by others in the group. We therefore advance:

Hypothesis 4. Leadership level moderates the positive relationship between leader agreeableness and leadership emergence, such that the relationship is stronger for non‐executives.

Apart from leadership emergence, research on agreeableness and leadership effectiveness reflects some similarities regarding potential moderating effects or leadership level. For instance, research focused on non‐executive managers indicates that followers of agreeable lead- ers are more satisfied with their job and supervisor (Smith & Canger, 2004), engage in more OCBs (Kahya & Şahin, 2018), and report higher

8

levels of psychological safety (Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009). At the same time, research on leadership at the executive level downplays the importance of executive agreeableness, as stated by Colbert and colleagues (2014): “[t]hus, contrary to what research and theory in the small groups’ arena would suggest but consistent with findings in the leadership literature [Judge et al., 2002], we believe neither CEO nor TMT agreeableness will significantly influence firm effective- ness” (p. 360). Other researchers echo this sentiment in empirical research on CEO agreeableness (Harrison et al., 2019; Herrmann & Nadkarni, 2014; Nadkarni & Herrmann, 2010), with results supporting a broader narrative that the unassertive and conflict avoidant pattern of behaviors associated with agreeable leaders is mostly unrelated or detrimental to firm effectiveness. Following this logic, we hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 5. Leadership level moderates the positive relationship between leader agreeableness and leadership effectiveness, such that the relationship is stronger for non‐executives.

Cultural context: individualism-collectivism

From the broadest view, national culture provides a general context for jobs that can vary from study to study (Johns, 2018), contribute to how employees behave in an organization (Meyer et al., 2010), and influence the demands and actions of effective leaders (Dill, 1958; Dorfman et al., 1997; Hansbrough et al., 2015; House et al., 2004; Negandhi & Reimann, 1972; Wendt et al., 2009). This is because national culture involves the nebulous set of values, rituals, heroes, symbols, and practices that are programmed into the minds of individ- uals and groups, vary across nations (Hofstede et al., 2005), and set the “rules of the game of life” (Triandis, 1989, p. 512). Research on national culture and leadership also shows that differences in individualistic‐collectivistic cultures are related to the effectiveness of supportive leadership behaviors on team cohesion (Wendt et al., 2009) and positively influence the relationship between transforma- tional leadership behaviors and team confidence and performance (Schaubroeck et al., 2007). The theoretical expectation underpinning these results rests primarily in the differences of task and relationship foci reflected in individualistic versus collectivistic cultures. On the one hand, individualistic societies prioritize task completion, some- times at the expense of relationships (House et al., 2004). On the other, collectivistic societies prioritize harmonious relationships with group members, which are likely to influence how impactful the relational behaviors of the leader are for followers (House et al., 2004; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Schaubroeck et al., 2007; Triandis, 1995). Building from this logic, we expect the relationship between leader agreeable- ness and leader effectiveness to be higher in collectivistic cultures in relation to individualistic cultures.

Hypothesis 6. Individualism/collectivism moderates the positive relationship between leader agreeableness and leader effectiveness, such that the greater the collectivistic culture (lesser individualistic), the stronger that relationship.

Methods

Literature search

Following past reviews on leadership, we used PsycINFO, a data- base that broadly covers the fields of psychology, political science, management, and leadership, as well as the ProQuest Dissertations database, to perform keyword searches for the years 1998 to 2020 (Judge et al., 2002; Lee & Carpenter, 2018). We included the following terms: agreeableness with leader, leadership, CEO, administrator,

Table 4 Studies Used in Meta-analysis.

Variables Study N r

Effectiveness Judge & Bono, 2000 169 0.039 Gellatly & Irving, 2001 81 0.055 Bartone et al., 2002 855 0.130 Lim & Ployhart, 2004 39 0.280 Morrison et al., 2004 45 0.059 Smith & Canger, 2004 131 0.073 Duehr, 2006 175 0.090 Ntalianis, 2006 50 0.318 Washington et al., 2006 126 0.143 Bernerth et al., 2007 195 0.190 Buddhavarapu, 2007 205 0.214 Grant & Langan-Fox, 2007 211 0.199 Bernerth et al., 2008 195 0.140 Francoeur, 2008 294 0.115 Quinlan, 2008 22 0.110 Chi et al., 2009 122 0.110 Nahrgang et al., 2009 330 0.099 Singh & Singh, 2009 188 0.436 Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009 222 0.485 Nadkarni & Herrmann, 2010 192 0.190 Chua & Iyengar, 2011 83 0.290 Chua & Iyengar, 2011 134 0.310 Chua & Iyengar, 2011 110 0.618 Kalshoven et al., 2011 150 0.150 Sears & Hackett, 2011 161 0.443 Siewert, 2011 151 −0.122 Cogliser et al., 2012 243 0.140 de Jong et al., 2013 323 0.410 Hunter et al, 2013 110 0.352 Powers, 2012 139 0.230 Quigley, 2013 198 0.158 Colbert et al., 2014 94 0.144 Fang & Zhang, 2014 121 0.210 Herrmann & Nadkarni, 2014 120 0.100 Liborius, 2014 210 0.057 Liborius, 2014 209 0.111 Liborius, 2014 207 0.076 Srivastava et al., 2015 152 0.110 Walker, 2015 148 0.233 Barron et al., 2016 55 0.296 Barron et al., 2016 76 0.227 Bernardin et al., 2016 125 −0.170 Camps et al., 2016 103 0.070 Cernea, 2016 116 0.050 Olls, 2016 135 0.070 Panaccio, 2009 231 0.320 Yeh et al., 2016 135 0.118 Yoon & Bono, 2016 693 0.214 Breevaart & de Vries, 2017 107 0.527 Eissa & Lester, 2017 190 0.341 Hu & Judge, 2017 71 0.588 Metz et al., 2017 749 0.260 Bullock, 2018 71 0.254 Foulk et al., 2018 108 0.176 Kahya & Şahin, 2018 67 0.376 McKee et al., 2018 378 0.127 Malhotra et al., 2018 1639 0.020 Storey, 2018 90 0.194 Harrison et al., 2019 3449 −0.020 Jada & Mukhopadhyay, 2019 262 0.833 Mahlamäki et al., 2019 168 0.200 Qu & Page, 2019 374 0.158 Bergner, 2020 123 0.000 Boyd, 2020 69 0.076 Harrison et al., 2020 2880 −0.019 Priesemuth & Bigelow, 2020 160 0.090 Wu, 2020 136 0.280

Emergence Judge & Bono, 2000 169 0.240 Kornør & Nordvik, 2004 106 0.111 Lim & Ployhart, 2004 39 −0.290 Duehr, 2006 525 0.210 Washington et al., 2006 126 0.380 Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009 222 0.410 Kalshoven et al., 2011 89 0.240

(continued on next page)

A.B. Blake et al. The Leadership Quarterly 33 (2022) 101593

manager, and supervisor. To ensure a robust scope of data, we searched annual conference presentations for the past five years of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) con- ference and the past three years of the Academy of Management (AOM) conference. We also made several requests for unpublished data on AOMNet. In total, our preliminary search identified 442 arti- cles. Next, we conducted a screening process to identify articles that fit the scope of our review. We conducted the screening process in two waves with six graduate‐level judges trained in social science. In wave one, we assigned each judge a random set of articles to screen. In wave two, the first author reviewed inclusion/exclusion recommen- dations. The first author resolved any disagreements about a decision. For literature review, articles had to be published in English; hence, we removed articles that were exclusively reported in another language. Additionally, the term “agreeableness” had to be included in a formal proposition or hypothesis relating to some aspect of leadership. Our rationale for employing this inclusion criterion was to ensure that the focal articles shed light on the underlying theoretical rationale for the agreeableness‐leadership relationship examined. For the meta‐ analysis, we included studies that reported the correlation of leader agreeableness with leadership emergence and/or leadership effective- ness in the correlation table along with the sample size. This ensured a more comprehensive representation of our data. The full dataset can be provided upon the request.

Meta-analytic methods

As reported in Table 4, our search yielded 82 studies that met the literature review criteria; 254 correlations of leader agreeableness with leadership emergence and/or effectiveness were included in the meta‐analysis. Next, we coded each included study and sample individ- ually to ensure that no sample was counted twice (Cragun et al., 2020). The coding of leadership emergence and effectiveness followed two distinctive steps.

In step one, we assigned a unique code to the study’s variables related to either leadership emergence or effectiveness. Our definitions of leadership emergence and leadership effectiveness are based on those employed by Judge and colleagues (2002) in their meta‐ analysis. Specifically, leadership emergence included instances when an individual was scored on a leadership characteristic (e.g., leader- ship style or leadership behavior). For leadership effectiveness, we included and assigned unique codes to any individual (follower or lea- der), dyadic, team, or organizational outcome variable that was directly related to the leader's actions (e.g., follower job satisfaction, team performance, or follower creativity). The lead authors reviewed each unique variable in step two and assigned it to either the leader- ship emergence or leadership effectiveness category.

In sum, there were 27 emergence studies (49 total correlations) and 67 effectiveness studies (205 total correlations). In studies for which a negative effect size would be considered effective leadership (e.g., job burnout, abusive supervision, role overload), we multiplied it by a neg- ative one. We coded for effect size, sample size, mean, standard devi- ation, reliability, and the correlations of other Big‐Five traits. We also coded for three moderators: (a) percentage of females in the sample, (b) leadership level (non‐executive = 0, executive = 1; Lee & Carpenter, 2018), and (c) cultural context (individualistic culture = 0, collectivistic culture = 1; Hofstede et al., 2005).

Following Schmidt and Hunter (2015) and the “individual‐correc tions” approach (see Wiernik & Dahlke, 2020 for the procedure), we used a random‐effects model for our meta‐analysis that allows for the correction of individual study artifacts. We computed a mean compos- ite score for studies that reported more than one intercorrelation between leader agreeableness and the outcome of interest (Schmidt & Hunter, 2015). We used Cronbach’s alpha to correct for measure- ment error. In cases where measurement error was not provided, we imputed scores by bootstrapping measurement error for agreeableness

9

Table 4 (continued)

Variables Study N r

Kalshoven et al., 2011 150 0.150 Thomason et al., 2011 114 0.208 Xu et al., 2011 59 0.400 Cogliser et al., 2012 243 0.121 de Vries, 2012 113 0.050 Zopiatis & Constanti, 2012 131 0.246 Hunter et al, 2013 110 0.370 Colbert et al., 2014 94 0.098 Yeh et al., 2016 135 0.076 Hu & Judge, 2017 71 0.150 Baptiste, 2018 55 −0.278 Johnson, 2018 177 0.286 Reeve et al., 2018 42 −0.358 De Hoyos-Aguilar, 2019 247 0.224 Hu et al., 2019 223 0.090 Hu et al., 2019 337 −0.070 Jada & Mukhopadhyay, 2019 262 0.739 Sun & Shang, 2019 81 0.140 Bergner, 2020 123 −0.050 Ishaq et al., 2021 131 0.220

Note. Correlations in table are aggregated at the study level.

A.B. Blake et al. The Leadership Quarterly 33 (2022) 101593

(M = 0.77, SD = 0.08; M = 0.76, SD = 0.07), leadership emergence (M = 0.85, SD = 0.12), and leadership effectiveness (M = 0.86, SD = 0.07) (Schmidt & Hunter, 2015). We applied individual correc- tions to the effect size (observed r) and standard deviation, as seen in equations 1–7 below (adapted from Wiernik & Dahlke, 2020).

rc ¼ robsffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi rxxÂ�

p ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiryyÂ� p� � ð1Þ

w� i ¼ Ni � robsi

rci

� �2

ð2Þ

ρ ¼ ∑w� i rc i

∑w� i

ð3Þ

SE2 rc ¼ SE2

robs � rc

robs

� �2

ð4Þ

SD2 rc ¼

∑w� i rci � ρð Þ2 ∑w�

i ð5Þ

SE2 rc

� ¼ ∑w�

i

SE2 rci

∑w� i

ð6Þ

SDρ ¼ SD2 rc � SE2

rc

� ð7Þ

Except for our meta‐regression analysis, we computed all correc- tions and meta‐analysis computations using the Psychmeta package in R (Dahlke & Wiernik, 2019; R Core Team, 2021). We also corrected for studies with small sample sizes. We computed confidence intervals (95%) and credibility intervals (80%) using a normal distribution. Out- liers were assessed by removing scores above and below three stan-

Table 5 Meta-Analysis of Leadership Effectiveness and Emergence.

Variables k N rm ρ SD

Effectiveness 67 19,670 0.118 0.143 0.18 Emergence 27 4174 0.197 0.241 0.23

Note. k=number of studies, N= total sample size, rm = average correlation adjust adjusted for sample size, SDρ = standard deviation of estimated population correlat interval lower limit, CIUL = confidence interval upper limit, CVLL = credibility in

10

dard deviations and then recalculating the mean correlation. In both cases (leadership emergence and effectiveness), outliers did not heav- ily influence our findings (see Tables A3–A8 of the Appendix for results without outliers). To conduct our meta‐regression, we used the Metafor package for continuous moderators (Viechtbauer, 2010). Following prior meta‐analytic work, we computed credibility intervals to assess heterogeneity (Bank et al., 2017). Finally, we calculated ret- rospective power analyses (Valentine et al., 2010) for leadership emer- gence and effectiveness. In both cases, statistical power was sufficient (>0.80).

Results

Results for leadership emergence and effectiveness are reported in Table 5. Consistent with Hypotheses 1 and 2, the effect sizes of agree- ableness on leadership emergence and effectiveness were both positive and had confidence intervals that did not include zero. Leadership emergence showed stronger results for agreeableness (k = 27; ρ = 0.241; LL = 0.146, UL = 0.336) than leadership effectiveness (k = 67; ρ = 0.143; LL = 0.095, UL = 0.191). Statistical artifacts (a general term to describe error or bias in the data (Wiernick & Dablke, 2020)) accounted for 14.175 and 12.218 percent variance respectively (regarding this study, measurement error is the statistical artifact). We also conducted an omnibus ANOVA to examine the potential for publication bias. Specifically, we compared the effect size of studies that were published versus studies that were unpublished for both leadership emergence and effectiveness. In both cases, the differ- ences were not significant (emergent: F = 0.004, p = 0.952; effective- ness: F = 1.114, p = 0.300). The corrected standard deviation (variation in effect size between studies) was SDρ = 0.234 for leader- ship emergence and SDρ = 0.188 for leadership effectiveness. The credibility intervals both included zero, which provided additional evi- dence for moderators which we explore in the following paragraph (LL = −0.059, UL = 0.541; LL = −0.098, UL = 0.384).

To further explore the potential for publication bias in the form of p‐hacking (a practice which researchers use to make non‐significant results significant), we follow research in leadership (Li, Sun, Tari, Xing, & Peeters, 2021) and psychology (Simonsohn. Nelson & Simmons, 2014) by using the P‐curve method to explore our data. The underlying logic of the P‐Curve method is that significant true effects of a relationship found in the literature will naturally skew towards p‐values at p < 0.01 (positive skew). In cases of p‐hacking, the skew will be towards p‐values at p < 0.05 (negative skew). Upon visual inspection (Figs. A3 and A4 of the Appendix), leadership emer- gence and leadership effectiveness follow a positive skew pattern.

Results for Hypothesis 3 are reported in Table 6. In sum, 22 studies reported gender descriptions that fit our criteria for meta‐regression analysis. Counter to our hypothesis, gender did not significantly mod- erate the relationship between leader agreeableness and leadership emergence (k = 22; β = −0.001; p = 0.823; LL = −0.006, UL = 0.005).

Table 7 shows results for Hypotheses 4 and 5. For leadership emer- gence, there were 25 studies that included non‐executive managers and two studies that included executives. We did not find that leader- ship level moderated the relationship between leader agreeableness

ρ % Var CILL CIUL CVLL CVUL

8 12.243 0.095 0.191 −0.098 0.384 4 14.175 0.146 0.336 −0.059 0.541

ed for sample size, ρ= average effect size corrected for measurement error and ion, % Var = percentage of variance explained by artifacts, CILL = confidence terval lower limit, CVUL = credibility interval upper limit.

Table 7 Moderator Analyses of Leadership Level and Individualism-Collectivism.

Variables k rm ρ SDρ CILL CIUL p-value

Leadership Level Effectiveness Non-executive 54 0.174 0.215 0.127 0.174 0.258 0.058 Executive 10 0.056 0.069 0.204 −0.057 0.195 Emergence Non-executive 25 0.161 0.198 0.172 0.120 0.276 0.283 Executive 2 0.571 0.676 0.340 0.198 1.155 Cultural Context (individualism-collectivism) Effectiveness Collectivistic 11 0.359 0.446 0.312 0.254 0.638 0.058 Individualistic 50 0.190 0.234 0.131 0.193 0.280

Note. k=number of studies, N= total sample size, rm = average correlation adjusted for sample size, ρ= average effect size corrected for measurement error and adjusted for sample size, SDρ = standard deviation of estimated population correlation, CILL = confidence interval lower limit, CIUL = confidence interval upper limit.

Table 6 Moderator Analysis (meta-regression) of Leader Gender and Leadership Emergence.

DV/Moderator k β p-value CILL CIUL

Emergence Percentage of female leaders 22 −0.006 0.823 −0.006 0.005

Note. k = number of studies, β = regression coefficient, CILL = confidence interval lower limit, CIUL = confidence interval upper limit.

A.B. Blake et al. The Leadership Quarterly 33 (2022) 101593

and emergence (F = 4.090; p = 0.283). Thus, Hypothesis 4 was not supported. Regarding leadership effectiveness, there were 54 studies that included non‐executives (ρ = 0.215, LL = 0.172 UL = 0.225) and 10 studies that included executives (ρ = 0.069, LL = −0.057, UL= 0.195). We found support for Hypothesis 5 at the p< 0.10 alpha level (F = 4.440; p = 0.058).

As shown in Table 7, results support our hypothesis that collectivis- tic versus individualistic culture positively moderates the relationship between leader agreeableness and effectiveness. In sum, there were 11 studies that represented samples from collectivistic countries and 50 studies that represented individualistic societies. Omnibus ANOVA showed that there is a significant difference between collectivistic (ρ = 0.446; LL = 0.254, UL = 0.638) and individualistic cultures (ρ = 0.234; LL = 0.193, UL = 0.280) at the p < 0.10 alpha level (F = 4.440; p = 0.058).

Research designs and methodological approaches

In this section, we summarize key research design and method- ological features of the studies included in our meta‐analysis, identify areas of concern and gaps regarding these methods, and offer recom- mendations for addressing them. Our analysis produced several inter- esting observations. First, studies in our sample rely heavily on survey designs (68 studies, 83%), with only 13 studies (15%) utiliz- ing archival research designs. Additionally, there is an apparent lack of experimental designs. Only six studies (<8%) included experi- ments. Second, most studies utilize a single‐level analysis, with only 22 (27%) using multi‐level analyses. Third, 36 studies (44%) pro- vided additional validity checks and/or analyzed the robustness of their findings to different specifications. Fourth, 65 studies (79%) employed cross‐sectional designs, and 17 studies utilized either longi- tudinal or time‐lagged designs. Finally, five studies (6%) mentioned endogeneity concerns, and one study (1%) took active steps to address endogeneity.

Based on our coding and analysis of methodological and design approaches, we want to note specific concerns that require attention from the field moving forward. First, consistent with the broader lead- ership literature (Podsakoff & Podsakoff, 2019), the lack of experimen- tal designs is a concern. Only 7 out of 82 studies utilized experiments. This provides an important opportunity for future research because

11

experimental designs can establish causality and thereby help to build stronger theory (Antonakis et al., 2010). The second concern for the study design arises from a lack of time‐lagged or longitudinal designs (17 studies out of 82). Such designs can help address common method variance and establish the precedence of measures (not causality) and, in doing so, improve theory strength and methodological rigor. The third concern related to research design arises from a lack of multi‐ level studies, with only 22 studies utilizing such approaches. Leader- ship is an inherently multi‐level phenomenon with executives or man- agers leading teams or organizations consisting of many other individuals. To grasp the complexity of agreeableness and leadership, we suggest increased attention to developing multi‐level studies and analyses. Finally, out of 82 studies in our sample, only one attempted to address endogeneity (i.e., the correlation of an explanatory variable with the error term). To remedy this deficiency, we recommend that future scholars apply additional rigor and attention to research design by consulting works that have painstakingly described various solu- tions to endogeneity (e.g., Antonakis et al., 2014).

Our findings also highlight several important research design and methodological gaps. First, we found that only two studies included qualitative approaches out of the 82 studies in our sample. We strongly encourage scholars to utilize qualitative methods as appropriate in future studies to facilitate grounded theory building on how leaders express agreeableness in organizations and the organizational effects of such expressions (cf., Weick, 1979). The second gap that our analy- sis revealed involves the underutilization of experimental, multi‐level, and longitudinal designs, as previously noted. We recommend that researchers take advantage of these more rigorous designs to enhance confidence in the findings obtained. To address the third gap, a dearth of objective measurement, we suggest scholars move beyond tradi- tional self‐report measures towards the utilization of alternative tech- niques such as machine learning (Blake et al., 2020; Cooper at el., 2020; Harrison et al., 2019) or videometric analysis (Petrenko et al., 2016; Petrenko et al., 2019) to operationalize agreeableness and other focal variables. These techniques can provide opportunities for mea- surement triangulation of personality (i.e., when multiple methods are used to measure the construct) and enhance access to difficult‐ to‐reach leader populations (e.g., CEOs). The concerns and the gaps we identify provide exciting new venues for exciting research ques- tions and theory building.

Table 8 Moderator Analyses of Common Method Variance and Agreeableness Measurement.

DV/Moderator k rm ρ SDρ CILL CIUL

Common Method Variance Effectiveness Same source, same time 25 0.246 0.298 0.232 0.202 0.394 Same source, different time 3 0.138 0.174 0.000 0.093 0.254 Different source, same time 7 0.170 0.237 0.132 0.114 0.359 Different source, different time 37 0.070 0.086 0.136 0.038 0.135 Emergence Same source, same time 7 0.297 0.374 0.341 0.112 0.635 Same source, different time 2 0.181 0.235 0.000 0.113 0.356 Different source, same time – – – – – –

Different source, different time 17 0.164 0.201 0.177 0.106 0.296 Measurement Effectiveness BFI 10 0.177 0.241 0.132 0.136 0.346 HEXACO 2 0.358 0.437 0.113 0.235 0.640 IPIP 12 0.322 0.393 0.239 0.251 0.534 NEO 24 0.159 0.195 0.108 0.141 0.248 TEXT 3 −0.011 −0.013 0.000 −0.036 0.009 MMI 2 0.002 0.008 0.149 −0.250 0.266 SDI 2 0.258 0.306 0.000 0.261 0.352 TIPI 3 0.410 0.492 0.141 0.299 0.685 PCI 2 0.196 0.240 0.000 0.151 0.328 Emergence BFI 5 0.154 0.183 0.164 0.009 0.356 HEXACO – – – – – –

IPIP 6 0.394 0.488 0.247 0.280 0.696 NEO 13 0.125 0.154 0.177 0.045 0.263

Note. k=number of studies, N= total sample size, rm = average correlation adjusted for sample size, ρ= average effect size corrected for measurement error and adjusted for sample size, SDρ = standard deviation of estimated population correlation, CILL = confidence interval lower limit, CIUL = confidence interval upper limit, BFI = Big Five Inventory, HEXACO = HEXACO Personality Inventory, IPIP = International Personality Item Pool, NEO = NEO Personality Inventory, TEXT = Text-based Personality Measurement, MMI = Mini Markers Inventory, SDI = Self-Description Inventory, (PCI) = Personal Characteristics Inventory, Ten Item Personality Inventory = TIPI.

3 Out of all studies, one used the IPIP‐NEO measure of agreeableness. Because the items of the IPIP‐NEO are derived from the IPIP, we categorized this study under the broader IPIP category for analysis.

A.B. Blake et al. The Leadership Quarterly 33 (2022) 101593

Post hoc analysis

To further explore our results, we conducted four post hoc analyses. First, we tested how common method variance (CMV; Lindell & Whitney, 2001) could be influencing the relationship between agree- ableness and leadership emergence and effectiveness. CMV was coded on a bivariate basis from one to four, with the number “1″ correspond- ing to “same source, same time” and “4” corresponding to “different source, different time.” As expected, results in Table 8 show that stud- ies with the largest degree of CMV (i.e., same source, same time) also had the strongest effect sizes for leadership emergence (ρ = 0.374) and effectiveness (ρ = 0.298); the weakest effect size for leadership emergence (ρ = 0.201) and effectiveness (ρ = 0.086) was found for studies that had the smallest degree of CMV (i.e., different source, dif- ferent time).

These results clearly show that CMV is an issue for studies of the agreeableness‐leadership relationship, as is the case for much of the leadership literature (Antonakis et al., 2010). Nonetheless, we also agree with the logic of Richardson et al. (2009), who concluded fol- lowing an extensive review of purported statistical remedies for CMV that “we cannot recommend any post hoc CMV technique as a means of correcting CMV’s potential effects in a given data set, nor can we recommend any technique as a means for detecting bias” (p. 296). Following their logic, we instead offer a straightforward recom- mendation for future investigations of the agreeableness‐leadership relationships: adopt multi‐source, multi‐wave, and multi‐method designs rather than relying on cross‐sectional designs with exclusive use of survey measures of leader effectiveness and emergence. Rather than applying post hoc statistical techniques to identify and detect CMV, researchers should implement a priori research design solutions that minimize CMV, such as those described by Podsakoff and col- leagues (Podsakoff et al., 2003; Podsakoff et al., 2012; Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). These include: (a) temporal separation of the indepen-

12

dent, mediating, and dependent variables to reduce the impact of tran- sient factors such as respondent mood state, which could elevate or dampen ratings of agreeableness and leadership; (b) employing differ- ent sources for ratings of agreeableness and leadership (e.g., self, others [such as superiors, subordinates, peers, or customers]), and (c) using non‐survey methods such as experimental manipulations and content‐analysis of textual data to operationalize agreeableness and leadership. Note that given the tendency of agreeable individuals to inaccurately rate their abilities (Chamorro‐Premuzic et al., 2004; Furnham et al., 2005), including leadership skills (McKee et al., 2018), separating the source of personality and leadership ratings may help to attenuate bias brought about by self‐ratings of leadership or performance.

Second, we examined how the measurement of agreeableness may be moderating the effect size between agreeableness and leadership emergence and effectiveness. Personality measurement coding fol- lowed a two‐step process. In step one, coders copied the name of the measurement tool and citation. In step‐two, the lead authors grouped the measures into their broader categories, such as the Big Five Inven- tory (BFI; John & Srivastava, 1999), HEXACO (Ashton & Lee, 2007), International Personality Item Pool3 (IPIP; Goldberg, 1990), and NEO‐PI‐R (Costa & McCrae, 1992). We note that some measures were only found to be used once (e.g., the Big‐Five Aspects Scale; DeYoung et al., 2007) and could not be included in the moderation analysis. Also, in some cases, CEO personality was measured using a text analysis tech- nique, which we categorized as “TEXT.” Regarding agreeableness and leadership emergence, IPIP was used in six studies and had the largest effect size (ρ = 0.488), followed by five studies that used the BFI (ρ = 0.183), and 13 studies that used the NEO‐PI‐R (ρ = 0.154).

A.B. Blake et al. The Leadership Quarterly 33 (2022) 101593

Regarding leadership agreeableness measurement and leadership effec- tiveness, while only used in two studies, HEXACO had the strongest effect size (ρ = 0.437). The IPIP, used in 12 studies, had a slightly weaker (ρ = 0.393) effect size. The NEO‐PI‐R which was used the most with 24 studies, had a weaker effect size (ρ = 0.195) than the IPIP. The effect size of the BFI, used in 10 studies, was slightly stronger than that of the NEO‐PI‐R (ρ = 0.241). Notably, the studies using text‐based measurement of leader agreeableness had a negative effect size (ρ = −0.013).

Third, given the popularity of unobtrusive measurement in execu- tive research (Cragun et al., 2020; Hill et al. 2019) and the disparity in the measurement moderation analysis on leader agreeableness and leadership effectiveness for text versus survey measurement, we explored the potential influence that unobtrusive measurement could be having on the relationship between executive agreeableness and leadership effectiveness. Specifically, we first used binary coding to categorize executive studies employing text‐based (unobtrusive) or survey‐based (obtrusive) measurement. We then conducted a hierar- chical moderation analysis to examine the relationship between exec- utive agreeableness and leadership effectiveness when using text‐ based measurement versus survey‐based measurement. The results showed the magnitude of the relationship between executive agree- ableness and leadership effectiveness to be medium and positive in survey‐based studies (k = 7; ρ = 0.418, LL = 0.227, UL = 0.608) and weak and negative in text‐based studies (k = 3, ρ = −0.013, LL = −0.036, UL = 0.009). We consider the implications of this find- ing in the discussion section.

Fourth, following previous leadership studies (Judge et al., 2002), we conducted a correlation matrix regression from our leadership sam- ple to control for other factors of the Big‐Five. Results show that when controlling for other Big‐Five factors, the effect of leader agreeableness on leadership effectiveness is still positive and significant (β = 0.117, p = 0.043, t = 2.026). The effect of leader agreeableness on leader- ship emergence, however, is not significant (β = 0.101, p = 0.236, t = 1.191). Notably, none of the other Big‐Five factors are significant; this is likely due to the low average sample size in the leadership emer- gence sample.

Discussion

In the meta‐analysis on leadership emergence and effectiveness that covered the period up to 1998, Judge and colleagues (2002) found that agreeableness overall was not a significant predictor, and it was the “least relevant of the Big Five traits” (p. 774). That particular find- ing was in line with the concept of nice guys [or gals] finishing last and fit well with the implicit leadership theories that presented a stereo- type of a strong leader (Lord, 1985; Lord & Maher, 1991; Shondrick et al., 2010). Two decades later, however, that stereotype is changing, yielding first to an acceptance of nice leaders and moving towards an expectation of the leader to be nice, which is seen in the business press (Dowd, 2019; Hauser, 2018). This subtle shift in leadership expecta- tions coincided with sporadic evidence that leader agreeableness is positively related to leadership outcomes (Antonakis et al., 2017). However, a question remains: does sufficient evidence exist to substan- tiate the notion that agreeable individuals are likely to emerge as lead- ers and be effective leaders? Our paper gives a definitive “yes” answer to this question.

Our review of current literature shows that leader agreeableness relates to several key leadership styles, leader behaviors, and out- comes. Specifically, extant research shows that leader agreeableness relates positively to servant leadership (Hunter et al., 2013; Sun & Shang, 2019; Washington et al., 2006), transformational leadership (Judge & Bono, 2000), and ethical leadership (Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009; Xu et al., 2011), while it relates negatively to pat- terns of abusive supervision (Breevaart & de Vries, 2017; D. Wu, 2020). Leader agreeableness is also associated with higher quality

13

LMX (Bernerth et al., 2007; Nahrgang et al., 2009; Sears & Hackett, 2011) and other functional behaviors (e.g., cooperation and collabora- tion, conflict management tactics, OCBs). Finally, current literature shows that having an agreeable manager is associated with positive outcomes for followers (Mathisen et al., 2011; Smith & Canger, 2004; Storey, 2018), while there have been mixed findings at the team (de Jong et al., 2013; Y. Wu, 2018) and organization levels (Dai et al., 2019; de Jong et al., 2013). These relationships thus necessitate addi- tional research.

The literature review revealed three exciting opportunities for future research. First, we encourage scholars to draw from previous work in leadership to test the relationship between leadership agree- ableness and other key constructs and outcomes. For instance, multiple leadership styles (e.g., authentic leadership; Avolio & Gardner, 2005), constructs (e.g., leadership development; Day & Thorton, 2018), and outcomes (e.g., the effect of leader agreeableness on manager tenure or turnover) remain understudied concerning agreeableness. Second, we suggest scholars attend to the questions of “why” and “how” lead- ership agreeableness influences relevant outcomes, advancing under- standing as it relates to the processes through which leader agreeableness operates. Finally, we encourage giving attention to how leaders' perceptions foster a “positive bias” that may lead to inflated ratings of leader performance (Hansbrough et al., 2015). That is, as studies often rely on the follower, superior, and/or peer ratings of leader behavior, it may be that “liking” the leader because of their agreeable personality skews the accuracy of ratings (Martinko et al., 2018).

While the literature review provides a foundation for the idea that leader agreeableness is important for leadership emergence and effec- tiveness, it is also important to analyze the evidence from empirical studies to investigate support for these relationships. The results of our meta‐analysis show that leader agreeableness is positively related to leadership emergence. This supports the importance of high‐ quality interpersonal relationships to leadership emergence and sug- gests that agreeable leaders—being cooperative, friendly, and caring —are more likely to develop such high‐quality interpersonal relation- ships and help fill the social needs of groups (Hanna et al., 2021). Fur- thermore, this supports the idea that agreeable individuals could be more likely to produce affective responses of group members, making such individuals more likely to be perceived as leaderlike. The results of our meta‐analysis also support our prediction that leader agreeable- ness is positively related to leadership effectiveness. This reinforces arguments that agreeable leaders build more effective relationships with their subordinates and create cohesive teams that are more likely to perform well (Cogliser et al., 2012). Additionally, this supports the argument that agreeable leaders are more likely to inspire and moti- vate their subordinates (Antonakis et al., 2017), leading to teams that are more committed to the organization.

One interesting finding of our meta‐analysis is that we did not obtain support for an interactive effect of gender and leader agreeable- ness on leadership emergence. We think that several factors can explain this. First, there has been a shift in beliefs in the 21st century. Specifically, research has revealed that beliefs about the equality of women’s and men’s competency have increased since 1946 (Eagly et al., 2020). Second, following a similar pattern, the masculine con- strual of leadership has decreased over time (Koenig et al., 2011), and recent conceptual models of leadership emergence move beyond implicit leadership theory (Hanna et al., 2021). And while gender is still important factor to consider when examining the team dynamics (Min et al., 2021), interpersonal skills have become more critical for leadership (Lord et al., 2017). This results in leader agreeableness being equally essential for men and women.

Another interesting finding was that the relationship between lea- der agreeableness and leadership effectiveness was significantly stron- ger for the non‐executive leadership level than the executive leadership level. This finding fits well within some implicit leadership

A.B. Blake et al. The Leadership Quarterly 33 (2022) 101593

theories which focus on the socially constructed stereotype of a leader who is “assertive, confrontational, and aggressive in social relation- ships” (House et al., 2004, p. 12) — a prototypical component of lead- ership that is strongly endorsed in many cultures. While studies of leader agreeableness at the executive level are few, they seem to fit within a dated paradigm embraced by many that goal‐oriented execu- tives who put performance ahead of relationships are more effective (Bass & Bass, 2009). Interestingly, this finding is dependent on the measure of executive agreeableness. As we show in the post hoc anal- ysis, if we eliminate text‐based measures of agreeableness and analyze only survey‐based measures, then the relationship between leader agreeableness and leadership effectiveness is positive and significant compared to negative and non‐significant. This presents an important opportunity for future research into executive agreeableness to improve the validity of measurements of executive personality (i.e., Petrenko et al., 2019).

As we pursue research on executive agreeableness, we should con- sider the fundamental nature of the executive position. Generally, foundational research has shown that executives spend most of their workday interacting with individuals, groups, and teams (Barnard, 1968; Kotter, 1982; Mintzberg, 1973). Agreeable executives are likely creating high‐quality relationships throughout these various interac- tions (Sears & Hackett, 2011) which could also be resulting in inclu- sive (Chatman & Barsade, 1995) and cooperative organizational cultures (O’Reilly et al., 2014). Indeed, in a study of CEO agreeable- ness and top management team dynamics, agreeable CEOs were found to promote team cohesion in their TMT leading to the “smooth imple- mentation of intended goals because all team members are coopera- tively focus[ed] on decisions” resulting in organizational growth (Peterson et al., 2003, p. 797). Our post hoc analysis shows that the relationship between executive agreeableness and leadership out- comes is more complex than previously conceptualized, aligning with the null result for our Hypothesis 4. Our results indicate that the rela- tionship between leader agreeableness and leadership emergence is not stronger on the non‐executive versus the executive level, as pos- ited. However, this null finding might be due to only two studies that look at leader agreeableness and leadership emergence on the execu- tive level. This scarcity of research presents an important opportunity for future research in upper echelons to understand how leader agree- ableness affects the emergence of leaders in the new paradigm where nice leaders are no longer perceived as weak and ineffective. Overall, we see a preponderance of evidence that indicates a need for addi- tional research examining agreeableness at the executive level.

Our last finding underscores the importance of utilizing different job contexts, such as national culture, when studying the personality to leadership relationships. As predicted, the relationship between lea- der agreeableness and leadership effectiveness was stronger in collec- tivistic versus individualistic cultures. This finding underscores the logic that collectivistic societies prioritize harmonious relationships with group members and that relational behaviors associated with agreeable leaders are more impactful in such contexts (House et al., 2004). While there were 11 studies conducted within a collectivistic cultural context, the number of studies within the individualistic cul- tural context was more than four times higher (50), underscoring the importance of researching with cross‐cultural samples.

Finally, we would like to highlight a theoretical issue with the con- ceptualization of agreeableness that we uncovered during our review process. It became evident that the current theoretical focus is on understanding how higher levels of agreeableness influence leadership emergence and effectiveness. Such focus ignores the lower spectrum of agreeableness, where the theoretical mechanisms might be unique in nature. Only three studies theorized the effects of low levels of agree- ableness on leadership effectiveness or emergence. We need to under- stand how disagreeableness (i.e., a low score on the agreeableness) impacts leadership processes. We believe that by extending the theo- retical focus to include both ends of the trait spectrum, researchers will

14

build richer and stronger theory and improve our understanding of agreeableness.

Limitations

As with any correlational study, there is the potential for endogene- ity. We caution readers that some of the studies included in our meta‐ analysis did not always control for every potential predictor of leader- ship emergence and leadership effectiveness which should be consid- ered in interpreting this study's results. For instance, not all studies control for humility, which is related to leadership effectiveness (Petrenko et al., 2019). Also, very few studies controlled for IQ (see Antonakis et al., 2017 for exception), which leadership scholars believe is a critical aspect of leadership. Finally, we believe that it is important to control for other Big‐Five traits when investigating effects of individual traits. We encourage future researchers to unpack the leadership‐agreeableness relationship using study designs that facili- tate the elimination of potential endogeneity.

Conclusion

Beyond synthesizing the literature and providing meta‐analytic evi- dence on the relationship between leader agreeableness and leader- ship outcomes, our paper makes two critical points for practicing managers and leaders. First, managers might try to suppress some of the tendencies associated with agreeableness because they do not want to seem weak and soft. This suppression might not be necessary any- more as being nice is becoming more accepted—and possibly even expected—for leaders. We show that this is true for both women and men. It seems that leaders no longer need to choose to be “effective” or “nice,” but rather both can be achieved simultaneously. Second, practicing managers can benefit from our finding that leader agree- ableness is also positively related to leadership emergence, as it has implications for current training programs designed to promote diver- sity in business leadership. This finding is critically important as the paradigm shift regarding nice leaders continues because, as Offermann et al. (1994) noted, “people’s implicit theories do not sim- ply appear, fully formed, out of nowhere.” Instead, they are “generated and refined over time as a result of people’s experiences with actual leaders” (p. 45). Therefore, providing research‐based evidence to prac- ticing managers that nice individuals can emerge as effective leaders can further the leadership paradigm towards a more inclusive reality.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ- ence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgement

We gratefully acknowledge Kevin Lowe and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive suggestions that helped shape this manuscript. We also would like to acknowledge Jarkynai Baidolotova and Olivia Dobrin for their work on data collection and Elizabeth Karam for her invaluable insight.

Appendix A

Figs. A1–A4 and Tables A1–A8.

Fig. A1. Leadership Effectiveness Funnel Plot.

A.B. Blake et al. The Leadership Quarterly 33 (2022) 101593

15

Fig. A2. Leadership Emergence Funnel Plot.

Fig. A3. Leadership Effectiveness P-Curve. Fig. A4. Leadership Emergence P-Curve.

A.B. Blake et al. The Leadership Quarterly 33 (2022) 101593

16

Table A1 List of Reverse Coded Phenomena.

List of Reverse Coded Phenomena

Abusive Supervision Managerial Burnout Team Conflict Follower Disengagement Follower Deviance Paradoxical Leader Behavior Managerial Avoidance and Substance Abuse Passive Leadership Perceived Incivility Supervisor Role Overload Destructive Leadership

Table A2 Coded Study Designs.

Coded Study Designs

Archival Computer simulation Content Analysis Diary study/experience sampling Experimental simulation Field experiment Interview Judgement task (e.g., raters) Lab experiment Meta-analysis Observation Quasi-experiment Review Survey Other (specified in notes)

Table A3 Studies Used in Meta-analysis: Leadership Effectiveness (outliers removed).

Variables Study N r

Effectiveness Judge & Bono, 2000 169 0.039 Gellatly & Irving, 2001 81 0.055 Bartone et al., 2002 855 0.130 Lim & Ployhart, 2004 39 0.280 Morrison et al., 2004 45 0.059 Smith & Canger, 2004 131 0.073 Duehr, 2006 175 0.090 Ntalianis, 2006 50 0.318 Washington et al., 2006 126 0.143 Bernerth et al., 2007 195 0.190 Buddhavarapu, 2007 205 0.214 Grant & Langan-Fox, 2007 211 0.199 Bernerth et al., 2008 195 0.140 Francoeur, 2008 294 0.115 Quinlan, 2008 22 0.110 Chi et al., 2009 122 0.110 Nahrgang et al., 2009 330 0.099 Singh & Singh, 2009 188 0.436 Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009 222 0.485 Nadkarni & Herrmann, 2010 192 0.190 Chua & Iyengar, 2011 83 0.290 Chua & Iyengar, 2011 134 0.310 Kalshoven et al., 2011 150 0.150 Sears & Hackett, 2011 161 0.443 Siewert, 2011 151 −0.122 Cogliser et al., 2012 243 0.140 de Jong et al., 2013 323 0.410 Hunter et al, 2013 110 0.352 Powers, 2012 139 0.230 Quigley, 2013 198 0.158

Table A3 (continued)

Variables Study N r

Colbert et al., 2014 94 0.144 Fang & Zhang, 2014 121 0.210 Herrmann & Nadkarni, 2014 120 0.100 Liborius, 2014 210 0.057 Liborius, 2014 209 0.111 Liborius, 2014 207 0.076 Srivastava et al., 2015 152 0.110 Walker, 2015 148 0.233 Barron et al., 2016 55 0.296 Barron et al., 2016 76 0.227 Bernardin et al., 2016 125 −0.170 Camps et al., 2016 103 0.070 Cernea, 2016 116 0.050 Olls, 2016 135 0.070 Panaccio, 2009 231 0.320 Yeh et al., 2016 135 0.118 Yoon & Bono, 2016 693 0.214 Eissa & Lester, 2017 190 0.341 Hu & Judge, 2017 71 0.588 Metz et al., 2017 749 0.260 Bullock, 2018 71 0.254 Foulk et al., 2018 108 0.176 Kahya & Şahin, 2018 67 0.376 McKee et al., 2018 378 0.127 Malhotra et al., 2018 1639 0.020 Storey, 2018 90 0.194 Harrison et al., 2019 3449 −0.020 Mahlamäki et al., 2019 168 0.200 Qu & Page, 2019 374 0.158 Bergner, 2020 123 0.000 Boyd, 2020 69 0.076 Harrison et al., 2020 2880 −0.019 Priesemuth & Bigelow, 2020 160 0.090 Wu, 2020 136 0.280

Note. Correlations in table are aggregated at the study level.

Table A4 Studies Used in Meta-analysis: Leadership Emergence (outliers removed).

Variables Study N r

Emergence Judge & Bono, 2000 169 0.240 Kornør & Nordvik, 2004 106 0.111 Lim & Ployhart, 2004 39 −0.290 Duehr, 2006 525 0.210 Washington et al., 2006 126 0.380 Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009 222 0.410 Kalshoven et al., 2011 89 0.240 Kalshoven et al., 2011 150 0.150 Thomason et al., 2011 114 0.208 Xu et al., 2011 59 0.400 Cogliser et al., 2012 243 0.121 de Vries, 2012 113 0.050 Zopiatis & Constanti, 2012 131 0.246 Hunter et al, 2013 110 0.370 Colbert et al., 2014 94 0.098 Yeh et al., 2016 135 0.076 Baptiste, 2018 55 −0.278 Johnson, 2018 177 0.286 Reeve et al., 2018 42 −0.358 De Hoyos-Aguilar, 2019 247 0.224 Hu et al., 2019 223 0.090 Hu et al., 2019 337 −0.070 Sun & Shang, 2019 81 0.140 Bergner, 2020 123 −0.050 Ishaq et al., 2021 131 0.220

Note. Correlations in table are aggregated at the study level.

A.B. Blake et al. The Leadership Quarterly 33 (2022) 101593

17

Table A5 Meta-Analysis of Leadership Effectiveness and Emergence (outliers removed).

Variables k N rm ρ SDρ % Var CILL CIUL CVLL CVUL

Effectiveness 63 19,120 0.101 0.122 0.146 18.419 0.089 0.161 −0.065 0.308 Emergence 25 3841 0.160 0.195 0.168 24.826 0.120 0.271 −0.021 0.411

Note. k=number of studies, N= total sample size, rm = average correlation adjusted for sample size, ρ= average effect size corrected for measurement error and adjusted for sample size, SDρ = standard deviation of estimated population correlation, % Var = percentage of variance explained by artifacts, CILL = confidence interval lower limit, CIUL = confidence interval upper limit, CVLL = credibility interval lower limit, CVUL = credibility interval upper limit.

Table A6 Moderator Analysis (meta-regression) of Leader Gender and Leadership Emergence (outliers removed).

DV/Moderator k β p-value CILL CIUL

Emergence Percentage of female leaders 20 0.001 0.961 −0.004 0.004

Note. k = number of studies, β = regression coefficient, CILL = confidence interval lower limit, CIUL = confidence interval upper limit.

Table A7 Moderator Analyses of Leadership Level and Individualism-Collectivism (outliers removed).

Variables k rm ρ SDρ CILL CIUL p-value

Leadership Level Effectiveness Non-executive 52 0.166 0.207 0.114 0.167 0.246 0.007 Executive 9 0.034 0.041 0.126 −0.0445 0.127 Emergence Non-executive 24 0.161 0.198 0.170 0.120 0.276 –

Executive 1 – – – – –

Cultural Context (individualism-collectivism) Effectiveness Collectivistic 9 0.233 0.284 0.129 0.174 0.395 0.258 Individualistic 48 0.181 0.226 0.116 0.185 0.267

Note. k=number of studies, N= total sample size, rm = average correlation adjusted for sample size, ρ= average effect size corrected for measurement error and adjusted for sample size, SDρ = standard deviation of estimated population correlation, CILL = confidence interval lower limit, CIUL = confidence interval upper limit.

Table A8 Moderator Analyses of Common Method Variance and Agreeableness Measurement (outliers removed).

DV/Moderator k rm ρ SDρ CILL CIUL

Common Method Variance Effectiveness Same source, same time 23 0.205 0.251 0.155 0.180 0.323 Same source, different time 3 0.138 0.174 0.000 0.090 0.258 Different source, same time 7 0.170 0.237 0.132 0.114 0.359 Different source, different time 35 0.064 0.076 0.119 0.032 0.121 Emergence Same source, same time 6 0.156 0.199 0.178 0.033 0.365 Same source, different time 2 0.181 0.235 0.000 0.113 0.356 Different source, same time – – – – – –

Different source, different time 16 0.165 0.199 0.174 0.103 0.295 Measurement Effectiveness BFI 9 0.155 0.211 0.069 0.129 0.293 HEXACO 1 – – – – –

IPIP 11 0.263 0.327 0.119 0.241 0.412 NEO 24 0.159 0.195 0.109 0.141 0.249 TEXT 3 −0.011 −0.013 0.000 −0.035 0.009 MMI 2 0.002 0.008 0.149 −0.250 0.266 SDI 2 0.258 0.319 0.000 0.268 0.369 TIPI 2 0.304 0.367 0.000 0.351 0.384 PCI 2 0.196 0.243 0.000 0.146 0.340 Emergence BFI 4 0.154 0.182 0.182 −0.023 0.387 HEXACO – – – – – –

IPIP 5 0.283 0.367 0.070 0.265 0.469 NEO 13 0.125 0.154 0.167 0.051 0.257

Note. k=number of studies, N= total sample size, rm = average correlation adjusted for sample size, ρ= average effect size corrected for measurement error and adjusted for sample size, SDρ = standard deviation of estimated population correlation, CILL = confidence interval lower limit, CIUL = confidence interval upper limit, BFI = Big Five Inventory, HEXACO = HEXACO Personality Inventory, IPIP = International Personality Item Pool, NEO = NEO Personality Inventory, TEXT = Text-based Personality Measurement, MMI = Mini Markers Inventory, SDI = Self-Description Inventory, (PCI) = Personal Characteristics Inventory, Ten Item Personality Inventory = TIPI.

A.B. Blake et al. The Leadership Quarterly 33 (2022) 101593

18

A.B. Blake et al. The Leadership Quarterly 33 (2022) 101593

References

Asterisk indicates studies included in the meta-analysis

Alvesson, M. (2020). Upbeat leadership: A recipe for–or against–“successful” leadership studies. The Leadership Quarterly, 31(6). https://doi.org/10.1016/j. leaqua.2020.101439 101439.

Alvesson, M., & Einola, K. (2019). Warning for excessive positivity: Authentic leadership and other traps in leadership studies. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(4), 383–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.04.001.

Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. (2010). On making causal claims: A review and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(6), 1086–1120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.010.

Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. (2014). Causality and endogeneity: Problems and solutions. The Oxford Handbook of Leadership and Organizations, 93–117.

Antonakis, J., Day, D. V., & Schyns, B. (2012). Leadership and individual differences: At the cusp of a renaissance. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(4), 643–650. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.05.002.

Antonakis, J., House, R. J., & Simonton, D. K. (2017). Can super smart leaders suffer from too much of a good thing? The curvilinear effect of intelligence on perceived leadership behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(7), 1003–1021. https://doi. org/10.1037/apl0000221.

Antonioni*, D. (1998). Relationship between the big five personality factors and conflict management styles. International Journal of Conflict Management, 9(4), 336–355. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022814.

Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11 (2), 150–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868306294907.

Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 315–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.001.

Banks, G. C., Engemann, K. N., Williams, C. E., Gooty, J., McCauley, K. D., & Medaugh, M. R. (2017). A meta-analytic review and future research agenda of charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(4), 508–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. leaqua.2016.12.003.

Baptiste*, B. A. M. (2018). The relationship between the big five personality traits and authentic leadership (Order No. 10743458) [Doctoral dissertation, Walden University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (2002082200). https:// search-proquest-com.lib-e2.lib.ttu.edu/dissertations-theses/relationship-between- big-five-personality-traits/docview/2002082200/se-2?accountid=7098.

Barling, J., Christie, A., & Hoption, C. (2011). Leadership. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 183-240). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/12169-007.

Barnard, C. I. (1968). The functions of the executive (Vol. 11). Harvard University Press. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job

performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x.

Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Li, N. (2013). The theory of purposeful work behavior: The role of personality, higher-order goals, and job characteristics. Academy of Management Review, 38(1), 132–153. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.0479.

Barron*, L. G., Carretta, T. R., & Bonto-Kane, M. V. A. (2016). Relations of personality traits to military aviator performance. Aviation Psychology and Applied Human Factors, 6(2), 57–67. https://doi.org/10.1027/2192-0923/a000100.

Bartone*, P. T., Snook, S. A., & Tremble, T. R. Jr, (2002). Cognitive and personality predictors of leader performance in West Point cadets. Military Psychology, 14(4), 321–338. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327876MP1404_6.

Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2009). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications. Simon and Schuster.

Bell, S. T., & Arthur, W. Jr., (2008). Feedback acceptance in developmental assessment centers: The role of feedback message, participant personality, and affective response to the feedback session. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(5), 681–703. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.525.

Bergner*, S. (2020). Being smart is not enough: Personality traits and vocational interests incrementally predict intention, status and success of leaders and entrepreneurs beyond cognitive ability. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 204. https:// doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00204.

Bernardin, H. J., Cooke, D. K., & Villanova, P. (2000). Conscientiousness and agreeableness as predictors of rating leniency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 (2), 232–236. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.2.232.

Bernardin*, J. H., Thomason, S., Buckley, R. M., & Kane, J. S. (2016). Rater rating-level bias and accuracy in performance appraisals: The impact of rater personality, performance management competence, and rater accountability. Human Resource Management, 55(2), 321–340. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21678.

Bernerth*, J. B., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., Giles, W. F., & Walker, J. H. (2007). Is personality associated with perceptions of LMX? An empirical study. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 28(7), 613–631. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 01437730710823879.

Bernerth*, J. B., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., Giles, W. F., & Walker, J. H. (2008). The influence of personality differences between subordinates-supervisors on perceptions of LMX: An empirical investigation. Group & Organization Management, 33(2), 216–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601106293858.

Blake, A. B., Lee, D. I., De La Rosa, R., & Sherman, R. A. (2020). Wearable cameras, machine vision, and big data analytics: Insights into people and the places they go.

19

In Big data in psychological research (pp. 125–143). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000193-007.

Bono, J. E., Hooper, A. C., & Yoon, D. J. (2012). Impact of rater personality on transformational and transactional leadership ratings. The Leadership Quarterly, 23 (1), 132–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.11.011.

Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 901–910. https:// doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.901.

Boyd*, E. (2020). Examining the predictive role of personality traits, denominational membership, and years of experience on the likelihood of male pastors to display an avoiding conflict management style (Order No. 27996082) [Doctoral dissertation, Capella University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. https://search. proquest.com/dissertations-theses/examining-predictive-role-personality- traits/docview/2417795080/se-2?accountid=7098.

Breevaart*, K., & de Vries, R. E. (2017). Supervisor's HEXACO personality traits and subordinate perceptions of abusive supervision. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(5), 691–700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.02.001.

Brown, D. J., & Keeping, L. M. (2005). Elaborating the construct of transformational leadership: The role of affect. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(2), 245–272. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.01.003.

Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. leaqua.2006.10.004.

Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(2), 117–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. obhdp.2005.03.002.

Buddhavarapu*, S. (2007). The relationship between work experience and leader traits in the prediction of leadership effectiveness (Order No. 3291607) [Doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. https://search. proquest.com/dissertations-theses/relationship-between-work-experience- leader/docview/304801752/se-2?accountid=7098.

Bullock*, K. T. (2018). Examining the associations between collaboration and nonprofit managers' personality types (Order No. 10840732) [Doctoral dissertation, Northcentral University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. https://search. proquest.com/dissertations-theses/examining-associations-between- collaboration/docview/2121078065/se-2?accountid=7098.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper & Row. Cable*, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Managers' upward influence tactic strategies: The

role of manager personality and supervisor leadership style. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(2), 197–214. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.183.

Camps*, J., Stouten, J., & Euwema, M. (2016). The relation between supervisors’ big five personality traits and employees’ experiences of abusive supervision. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 112. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00112.

Catalyst. (2010). Quick takes: Women in U.S. management. Catalyst. http://www.catalyst. org/publication/206/women-in-us-management.

Cernea*, M. (2016). Global leadership effectiveness: A European perspective (Order No. 10246513) [Doctoral dissertation, The Chicago School of Professional Psychology]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. https://search.proquest.com/dissertations- theses/global-leadership-effectiveness-european/docview/1845887285/se-2? accountid=7098.

Chatman, J. A., & Barsade, S. G. (1995). Personality, organizational culture, and cooperation: Evidence from a business simulation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 423–443. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393792.

Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Furnham, A., & Moutafi, J. (2004). The relationship between estimated and psychometric personality and intelligence scores. Journal of Research in Personality, 38(5), 505–513.

Chi*, S. C. S., Friedman, R. A., & Yang, M. Y. (2009). Are supervisors fair mediators? The effects of personality traits and age difference on expected mediation fairness. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 37(1), 59–71. https://doi.org/ 10.2224/sbp.2009.37.1.59.

Chua*, R. Y. J., & Iyengar, S. S. (2011). Perceiving freedom givers: Effects of granting decision latitude on personality and leadership perceptions. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 863–880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.07.008.

Cogliser*, C. C., Gardner, W. L., Gavin, M. B., & Broberg, J. C. (2012). Big five personality factors and leader emergence in virtual teams: Relationships with team trustworthiness, member performance contributions, and team performance. Group & Organization Management, 37(6), 752–784. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1059601112464266.

Colbert*, A. E., Barrick, M. R., & Bradley, B. H. (2014). Personality and leadership composition in top management teams: Implications for organizational effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 67(2), 351–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/ peps.12036.

Comber*, E. (2014). Does team leader level of transformational leadership, emotional stability, conscientiousness, and agreeableness impact team member stress, trust, and team climate? (Order No. 3639962) [Doctoral dissertation, Northern Illinois University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. https://search.proquest.com/dissertations- theses/does-team-leader-level-transformational/docview/1614530734/se-2? accountid=7098.

Cooper, A. B., Blake, A. B., Pauletti, R. E., Cooper, P. J., Sherman, R. A., & Lee, D. I. (2020). Personality assessment through the situational and behavioral features of Instagram photos. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 36(6), 959–972. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000596.

Costa, P. T., Jr, & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO-PI manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.

A.B. Blake et al. The Leadership Quarterly 33 (2022) 101593

Costa, P. T., Jr, & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.

Costa Jr, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (2008). The revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R). In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment: Vol. 2. Personality measurement and testing (pp. 179- 198). Sage Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849200479.n9.

Costa, P. T., Jr, McCrae, R. R., & Dye, D. A. (1991). Facet scales for agreeableness and conscientiousness: A revision of the NEO Personality Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 12(9), 887–898. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(91) 90177-D.

Costa, P. T., Jr, Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(2), 322–331. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022- 3514.81.2.322.

Cragun, O. R., Olsen, K. J., & Wright, P. M. (2020). Making CEO narcissism research great: A review and meta-analysis of CEO narcissism. Journal of Management, 46(6), 908–936. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206319892678.

Cuperman, R., & Ickes, W. (2009). Big Five predictors of behavior and perceptions in initial dyadic interactions: Personality similarity helps extraverts and introverts, but hurts “disagreeables”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(4), 667–684. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015741.

Dahlke, J. A., & Wiernik, B. M. (2019). Psychmeta: An R package for psychometric meta- analysis. Applied Psychological Measurement, 43(5), 415–416. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0146621618795933.

Dai, S., Li, Y., & Zhang, W. (2019). Personality traits of entrepreneurial top management team members and new venture performance. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 47(7), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.8107.

Dansereau, F., Jr, Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13(1), 46–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(75)90005-7.

Day, D. V. (2000). Leadership development: A review in context. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 581–613. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(00)00061-8.

Day, D. V., & Dragoni, L. (2015). Leadership development: An outcome-oriented review based on time and levels of analyses. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 133–156. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev- orgpsych-032414-111328.

Day, D. V., & Thorton, A. M. A. (2018). Leadership development: The nature of leadership development. In J. Antonakis & D. V. Day (Eds.), The nature of leadership (pp. 354–380). Sage.

De Hoyos-Aguilar*, I. (2019). The association between time perspective and authentic leadership (Order No. 22615497) [Doctoral dissertation, Our Lady of the Lake University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. https://search.proquest.com/ dissertations-theses/association-between-time-perspective-authentic/docview/ 2287611650/se-2?accountid=7098.

de Jong*, A., Song, M., & Song, L. Z. (2013). How lead founder personality affects new venture performance: The mediating role of team conflict. Journal of Management, 39(7), 1825–1854. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311407509.

DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: A meta-analysis of 137 personality traits and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 197–229. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.197.

DeRue, D. S., & Ashford, S. J. (2010). Who will lead and who will follow? A social process of leadership identity construction in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 35(4), 627–647. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.35.4.zok627.

DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N., & Humphrey, S. E. (2011). Trait and behavioral theories of leadership: An integration and meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 7–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744- 6570.2010.01201.x.

de Vries*, R. E. (2012). Personality predictors of leadership styles and the self-other agreement problem. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(5), 809–821. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.03.002.

DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the big five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 880–896.

Dill, W. R. (1958). Environment as an influence on managerial autonomy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2(4), 409–443. https://doi.org/10.2307/2390794.

Dorfman, P. W., Howell, J. P., Hibino, S., Lee, J. K., Tate, U., & Bautista, A. (1997). Leadership in Western and Asian countries: Commonalities and differences in effective leadership processes across cultures. The Leadership Quarterly, 8(3), 233–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(97)90003-5.

Dowd, M. (2019). The slow-burning success of Disney’s Bob Iger. New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/22/style/disney-bob-iger-book.html.

Duehr*, E. E. (2006). Personality, gender, and transformational leadership: Investigating differential prediction for male and female leaders (Order No. 3235398) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. https://search.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/personality-gender- transformational-leadership/docview/305309823/se-2?accountid=7098.

Eagly, A. H., & Heilman, M. E. (2016). Gender and leadership: Introduction to the special issue [Editorial]. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(3), 349–353. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.04.002.

Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573.

Eagly, A. H., Nater, C., Miller, D. I., Kaufmann, M., & Sczesny, S. (2020). Gender stereotypes have changed: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of U.S. public opinion polls from 1946 to 2018. American Psychologist, 75(3), 301–315. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/amp0000494.

20

Eissa*, G., & Lester, S. W. (2017). Supervisor role overload and frustration as antecedents of abusive supervision: The moderating role of supervisor personality. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(3), 307–326. https://doi.org/10.1002/ job.2123.

Emery, C., Calvard, T. S., & Pierce, M. E. (2013). Leadership as an emergent group process: A social network study of personality and leadership. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16(1), 28–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1368430212461835.

Fang*, H., & Zhang, S. (2014). A structural model of enterprise managers' tacit knowledge and personality traits. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 42(5), 783–798. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2014.42.5.783.

Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 429–456. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.429.

Fischer, T., Dietz, J., & Antonakis, J. (2017). Leadership process models: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1726–1753. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0149206316682830.

Foulk*, T. A., Lanaj, K., Tu, M. H., Erez, A., & Archambeau, L. (2018). Heavy is the head that wears the crown: An actor-centric approach to daily psychological power, abusive leader behavior, and perceived incivility. Academy of Management Journal, 61(2), 661–684. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.1061.

Francoeur*, K. A. (2008). The relationship between the five -factor model of personality and leadership preferences for initiating structure and consideration (Order No. 3315390) [Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. https://search.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/relationship- between-five-factor-model/docview/304404456/se-2?accountid=7098.

Frei, R. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (1998). Validity of customer service measures in personnel selection: A review of criterion and construct evidence. Human Performance, 11(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1101_1.

Freiberg, K., & Freiberg, J. (2019). 20 reasons why Herb Kelleher was one of the most beloved leaders of our time. Forbes https://www.forbes.com/sites/ kevinandjackiefreiberg/2019/01/04/20-reasons-why-herb-kelleher-was-one-of- the-most-beloved-leaders-of-our-time/#4456282bb311.

Gardiner, E., & Jackson, C. J. (2015). Personality and learning processes underlying maverickism. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30(6), 726–740. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/JMP-07-2012-0230.

Gardner, W. L., Cogliser, C. C., Davis, K. M., & Dickens, M. P. (2011). Authentic leadership: A review of the literature and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), 1120–1145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.09.007.

Gardner, W. L., Lowe, K. B., Meuser, J. D., Noghani, F., Gullifor, D. P., & Cogliser, C. C. (2020). The leadership trilogy: A review of the third decade of the leadership quarterly. The Leadership Quarterly, 31(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j. leaqua.2019.101379 101379.

Gellatly*, I. R., & Irving, P. G. (2001). Personality, autonomy, and contextual performance of managers. Human Performance, 14(3), 231–245. https://doi.org/ 10.1207/S15327043HUP1403_2.

Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader–member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 827–844. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.6.827.

Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative description of personality: The big-five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216–1229. https:// doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216.

Grant, A. M., & Berg, J. M. (2011). Prosocial motivation at work: When, why, and how making a difference makes a difference. The Oxford Handbook of Positive Organizational Scholarship. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/ 9780199734610.013.0003.

Grant*, S., & Langan-Fox, J. (2007). Personality and the occupational stressor-strain relationship: The role of the big five. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12 (1), 20–33. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.12.1.20.

Graziano, W. G., & Eisenberg, N. (1997). Agreeableness: A dimension of personality. In Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 795–824). Academic Press. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/B978-012134645-4/50031-7.

Graziano, W. G., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Hair, E. C. (1996). Perceiving interpersonal conflict and reacting to it: The case for agreeableness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(4), 820–835. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022- 3514.70.4.820.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant Leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. Paulist Press.

Halfhill, T., Nielsen, T. M., Sundstrom, E., & Weilbaecher, A. (2005). Group personality composition and performance in military service teams. Military Psychology, 17(1), 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327876mp1701_4.

Hanna, A. A., Smith, T. A., Kirkman, B. L., & Griffin, R. W. (2021). The emergence of emergent leadership: A comprehensive framework and directions for future research. Journal of Management, 47(1), 76–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0149206320965683.

Hansbrough, T. K., Lord, R. G., & Schyns, B. (2015). Reconsidering the accuracy of follower leadership ratings. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(2), 220–237. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.11.006.

Harrison*, J. S., Thurgood, G. R., Boivie, S., & Pfarrer, M. D. (2019). Measuring CEO personality: Developing, validating, and testing a linguistic tool. Strategic Management Journal, 40(8), 1316–1330. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3023.

Harrison*, J. S., Thurgood, G. R., Boivie, S., & Pfarrer, M. D. (2020). Perception is reality: How CEOs’ observed personality influences market perceptions of firm risk and shareholder returns. Academy of Management Journal, 63(4), 1166–1195. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.0626.

Hauser, F. (2018). The myth of the nice girl: Achieving a career you love without becoming a person you hate. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

A.B. Blake et al. The Leadership Quarterly 33 (2022) 101593

Herrmann*, P., & Nadkarni, S. (2014). Managing strategic change: The duality of CEO personality. Strategic Management Journal, 35(9), 1318–1342. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/smj.2156.

Hiebl, M. R. W. (2021). Sample selection in systematic literature reviews of management research. Organizational Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1094428120986851.

Hill, A. D., Petrenko, O. V., Ridge, J. W., & Aime, F. (2019). Videometric measurement of individual characteristics in difficult to access subject pools: Demonstrating with CEOs. In Standing on the shoulders of giants (Vol. 11). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-838720190000011005.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Sage.

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (Vol. 2). McGraw-Hill.

Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership: Effectiveness and personality. American Psychologist, 49(6), 493–504. https://doi. org/10.1037/0003-066X.49.6.493.

Hough, L. M. (1992). The 'big five' personality variables–construct confusion: Description versus prediction. Human Performance, 5(1–2), 139–155. https://doi. org/10.1080/08959285.1992.9667929.

House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Sage Publications.

House, R. J., & Podsakoff, P. M. (1994). Leadership effectiveness: Past perspectives and future directions for research. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of the science (pp. 45–82). Erlbaum.

Hu*, J., & Judge, T. A. (2017). Leader-team complementarity: Exploring the interactive effects of leader personality traits and team power distance values on team processes and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(6), 935–955. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/apl0000203.

Hu*, J., Zhang, Z., Jiang, K., & Chen, W. (2019). Getting ahead, getting along, and getting prosocial: Examining extraversion facets, peer reactions, and leadership emergence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(11), 1369–1386. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/apl0000413.

Hunter*, E. M., Neubert, M. J., Perry, S. J., Witt, L. A., Penney, L. M., & Weinberger, E. (2013). Servant leaders inspire servant followers: Antecedents and outcomes for employees and the organization. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(2), 316–331. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.12.001.

Iger, R. (2019). The ride of a lifetime: Lessons learned from 15 years as CEO of the Walt Disney Company. Random House.

Ishaq*, E., Bashir, S., & Khan, A. K. (2021). Paradoxical leader behaviors: Leader personality and follower outcomes. Applied Psychology, 70(1), 342–357. https://doi. org/10.1111/apps.12233.

Jada*, U. R., & Mukhopadhyay, S. (2019). Empowering leadership and LMX as the mediators between leader’s personality traits and constructive voice behavior. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 27(1), 74–93. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/IJOA-09-2017-1232.

Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X.

Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Graziano, W. G. (2001). Agreeableness as a moderator of interpersonal conflict. Journal of Personality, 69(2), 323–362. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/1467-6494.00148.

Jensen-Campbell, L. A., Knack, J. M., & Gomez, H. L. (2010). The psychology of nice people. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(11), 1042–1056. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00307.x.

John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The big-five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives, Vol. 2, 102–138.

Johns, G. (2018). Advances in the treatment of context in organizational research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5, 21–46. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104406.

Johnson*, A. S. (2018). Personality traits and behavioral style dimensions as predictors of authentic leadership in American leaders (Order No. 13424129) [Doctoral dissertation, Grand Canyon University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. https://search. proquest.com/dissertations-theses/personality-traits-behavioral-style-dimensions- as/docview/2164298949/se-2?accountid=7098.

Judge*, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 751–765. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.85.5.751.

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765–780. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.87.4.765.

Kahya*, M., & Şahin, F. (2018). The effect of leader personality on follower behaviour. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 39(1), 14–33. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/LODJ-08-2016-0206.

Kaiser, R. B., & Hogan, R. (2007). The dark side of discretion: Leader personality and organizational decline. In R. Hooijberg, J. G. Hunt, J. Antonakis, K. B. Boal, & N. Lane (Eds.). Being There Even When You Are Not Monographs in Leadership and Management (Vol. 4, pp. 173–193). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi. org/10.1016/S1479-3571(07)04009-6.

Kalshoven*, K., Den Hartog, D. N., & De Hoogh, A. H. (2011). Ethical leader behavior and big five factors of personality. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(2), 349–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0685-9.

Kelly, J. (2019). Top CEOs sign a statement prioritizing people over profits: What it means for employees. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2019/08/

21

20/top-ceos-sign-a-radical-statement-prioritizing-employees-over-profits/ #10bb80df581b.

Koenig, A. M., Eagly, A. H., Mitchell, A. A., & Ristikari, T. (2011). Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological Bulletin, 137 (4), 616–642. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023557.

Kornør*, H., & Nordvik, H. (2004). Personality traits in leadership behavior. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 45(1), 49–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 9450.2004.00377.x.

Kotter, J. P. (1982). What effective general managers really do. Harvard Business Review, 60(6), 156–167.

Kotter, J. P. (2001). What leaders really do. Harvard Business Review, 79(11), 25–34. Krapivin, P. (2018). Sir Richard Branson’s five billion reasons to make your employees

and candidates happy. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/pavelkrapivin/2018/ 07/09/sir-richard-bransons-5-billion-reasons-to-make-your-employees-candidates- happy/?sh=af8803967100.

Lee, A., & Carpenter, N. C. (2018). Seeing eye to eye: A meta-analysis of self-other agreement of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(2), 253–275. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.06.002.

LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting forms of contextual performance: Evidence of differential relationships with big five personality characteristics and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(2), 326–336. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.2.326.

Li, P., Sun, J. M., Taris, T. W., Xing, L., & Peeters, M. C. (2021). Country differences in the relationship between leadership and employee engagement: A meta-analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 32(1) 101458.

Liborius*, P. (2014). Who is worthy of being followed? The impact of leaders’ character and the moderating role of followers’ personality. The Journal of Psychology, 148(3), 347–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2013.801335.

Lim*, B. C., & Ployhart, R. E. (2004). Transformational leadership: Relations to the five- factor model and team performance in typical and maximum contexts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), 610–621. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.4.610.

Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.114.

Lord, R. G. (1985). An information processing approach to social perceptions, leadership and behavioral measurement in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.). Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 87–128). JAI Press.

Lord, R. G., Day, D. V., Zaccaro, S. J., Avolio, B. J., & Eagly, A. H. (2017). Leadership in applied psychology: Three waves of theory and research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 434–451. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000089.

Lord, R. G., De Vader, C. L., & Alliger, G. M. (1986). A meta-analysis of the relation between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity generalization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 402–410. https:// doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.402.

Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J., & De Vader, C. L. (1984). A test of leadership categorization theory: Internal structure, information processing, and leadership perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34(3), 343–378. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/0030-5073(84)90043-6.

Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1991). Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions and performance. Routledge.

Lounsbury, J. W., Sundstrom, E. D., Gibson, L. W., Loveland, J. M., & Drost, A. W. (2016). Core personality traits of managers. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(2), 434–450. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-03-2014-0092.

Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Authentic leadership development. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 241–258). Berrett-Koehler.

Mahlamäki*, T., Rintamäki, T., & Rajah, E. (2019). The role of personality and motivation on key account manager job performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 83, 174–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2018.11.013.

Malhotra*, S., Reus, T. H., Zhu, P., & Roelofsen, E. M. (2018). The acquisitive nature of extraverted CEOs. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(2), 370–408.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224.

Martinko, M. J., Mackey, J. D., Moss, S. E., Harvey, P., McAllister, C. P., & Brees, J. R. (2018). An exploration of the role of subordinate affect in leader evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(7), 738–752. https://doi.org/10.1037/ apl0000302.

Mathisen*, G. E., Einarsen, S., & Mykletun, R. (2011). The relationship between supervisor personality, supervisors’ perceived stress and workplace bullying. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(4), 637–651. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0674-z.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. Jr, (2003). Personality in adulthood: A five factor theory perspective (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. Jr., (2008). Empirical and theoretical status of the five- factor model of personality traits. In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.). The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment: Personality theories and models (Vol. 1, pp. 273–294). Sage Publications Inc.. https://doi.org/10.4135/ 9781849200462.n13.

McKee*, R. A., Lee, Y. T., Atwater, L., & Antonakis, J. (2018). Effects of personality and gender on self-other agreement in ratings of leadership. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 91(2), 285–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12209.

Metz*, I., Kulik, C. T., Cregan, C., & Brown, M. (2017). The manager as employer agent: The role of manager personality and organizational context in psychological contracts. Personnel Review, 46(1), 136–153. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-04-2015- 0087.

A.B. Blake et al. The Leadership Quarterly 33 (2022) 101593

Meyer, R. D., Dalal, R. S., & Hermida, R. (2010). A review and synthesis of situational strength in the organizational sciences. Journal of Management, 36(1), 121–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309349309.

Min, S. W., Humphrey, S. E., Aime, F., Petrenko, O. V., Quade, M. J., & Fu, S. (2021). Dealing with New Members: Team Members’ Reactions to Newcomer’s Attractiveness and Sex. Journal of Applied Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/ apl0000872.

Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. Harper and Row. Morgeson, F. P., Reider, M. H., & Campion, M. A. (2005). Selecting individuals in team

settings: The importance of social skills, personality characteristics, and teamwork knowledge. Personnel Psychology, 58, 583–611. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744- 6570.2005.655.x.

Morrison*, J. D., Jr, Abraham, J. D., & Dennis, G. B. (2004). Relationship between the performance perspectives inventory’s leadership scales and job performance of quick service restaurant managers. Applied HRM Research, 9(1), 31–34. https://doi. org/10.1111/ijsa.12028.

Mount, M. K., & Barrick, M. R. (1995). Personal characteristics inventory. Wonderlic, Inc. Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Stewart, G. L. (1998). Five-factor model of personality

and performance in jobs involving interpersonal interactions. Human Performance, 11(2–3), 145–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.1998.9668029.

Murensky*, C. L. (2000). The relationships between emotional intelligence, personality, critical thinking ability and organizational leadership performance at upper levels of management (Order No. 9962991) [Doctoral dissertation, George Mason University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/dissertations- theses/relationships-between-emotional-intelligence/docview/304670322/se-2? accountid=8361.

Nadkarni*, S., & Herrmann, P. O. L. (2010). CEO personality, strategic flexibility, and firm performance: The case of the Indian business process outsourcing industry. Academy of Management Journal, 53(5), 1050–1073. https://doi.org/10.5465/ amj.2010.54533196.

Nahrgang*, J. D., Morgeson, F. P., & Ilies, R. (2009). The development of leader–member exchanges: Exploring how personality and performance influence leader and member relationships over time. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(2), 256–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.09.002.

Negandhi, A. R., & Reimann, B. C. (1972). A contingency theory of organization re- examined in the context of a developing country. Academy of Management Journal, 15(2), 137–146. https://doi.org/10.5465/254904.

Ntalianis*, F. (2006). Employer -employee relationships in small firms: The role of personality and psychological contracts (Order No. NR16305) [Doctoral dissertation, Concordia University]. Dissertations & Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/ dissertations-theses/employer-employee-relationships-small-firms-role/docview/ 61664184/se-2?accountid=8361.

Offermann, L. R., Kennedy, J. K., Jr, & Wirtz, P. W. (1994). Implicit leadership theories: Content, structure, and generalizability. The Leadership Quarterly, 5(1), 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(94)90005-1.

Olls*, C. W. (2016). Leader personality traits and subordinate perceptions of destructive leadership: A pattern-oriented approach (Order No. 10583520) [Doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. https:// www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/leader-personality-traits-subordinate- perceptions/docview/1880137750/se-2?accountid=8361.

O'Neil*, D. P. (2007). Predicting leader effectiveness: Personality traits and character strengths (Order No. 3272367) [Doctoral dissertation, Duke University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/ predicting-leader-effectiveness-personality/docview/304864089/se-2?accountid= 8361.

O’Reilly, C. A., III, Caldwell, D. F., Chatman, J. A., & Doerr, B. (2014). The promise and problems of organizational culture: CEO personality, culture, and firm performance. Group & Organization Management, 39(6), 595–625. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1059601114550713.

Panaccio*, A. (2009). Trois études sur l'engagement des employés: Une approche multi-formes et multi-cibles (Order No. 3691599) [Doctoral dissertation, HEC Montreal]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1671720831). https://www.proquest.com/ dissertations-theses/trois-études-sur-lengagement-des-employés-une/docview/ 1671720831/se-2?accountid=8361.

Payne, G. T., & Petrenko, O. V. (2019). Agency theory in business and management research. Oxford research encyclopedia of business and management. Oxford University Press.

Peterson, R. S., Smith, B., Martorana, P. V., & Owens, P. D. (2003). The impact of CEO personality on TMT dynamics: One mechanism by which leadership affects organizational performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 795–808. https:// doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.795.

Petrenko, O. V. (2020). CEOs another reason to value humble leaders. Harvard Business Review, 98(3), 28–29.

Petrenko, O. V., Aime, F., Ridge, J., & Hill, A. (2016). Corporate social responsibility or CEO narcissism? CSR motivations and organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal, 37(2), 262–279. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2348.

Petrenko, O. V., Aime, F., Recendes, T., & Chandler, J. A. (2019). The case for humble expectations: CEO humility and market performance. Strategic Management Journal, 40(12), 1938–1964. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3071.

Piedmont, R. L. (1998). The revised NEO personality inventory clinical and research applications. Plenum Press.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi. org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.

22

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452.

Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/014920638601200408.

Podsakoff, P. M., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2019). Experimental designs in management and leadership research: Strengths, limitations, and recommendations for improving publishability. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(1), 11–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. leaqua.2018.11.002.

Powers*, M. S. (2012). Examining the correlation between personality traits and career success of financial services project managers (Order No. 3506703) [Doctoral dissertation, Northcentral University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/examining-correlation-between- personality-traits/docview/1013911410/se-2?accountid=8361.

Priesemuth*, M., & Bigelow, B. (2020). It hurts me too!(or not?): Exploring the negative implications for abusive bosses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(4), 410–421. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000447.

Qu*, J., & Page, R. C. (2019). Predictive Validities of Personality Facets for Leadership Across Leadership Levels [Conference Session]. The Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Annual Conference, Washington D.C.

Quigley*, N. R. (2013). A longitudinal, multilevel study of leadership efficacy development in MBA teams. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 12(4), 579–602. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2011.0524.

Quinlan*, L. M. (2008). Leader personality characteristics and their effects on trust in the organizational setting (Order No. 3325342) [Doctoral dissertation, Walden University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. https://search.proquest.com/ dissertations-theses/leader-personality-characteristics-their-effects/docview/ 304390067/se-2?accountid=7098.

R Core Team (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/.

Reeve*, J., Jang, H. R., & Jang, H. (2018). Personality-based antecedents of teachers' autonomy-supportive and controlling motivating styles. Learning and Individual Differences, 62, 12–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.01.001.

Richardson, H. A., Simmering, M. J., & Sturman, M. C. (2009). A tale of three perspectives: Examining post hoc statistical techniques for detection and correction of common method variance. Organizational Research Methods, 12(4), 762–800. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428109332834.

Ryan, M. K., Haslam, S. A., Morgenroth, T., Rink, F., Stoker, J., & Peters, K. (2016). Getting on top of the glass cliff: Reviewing a decade of evidence, explanations, and impact. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(3), 446–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. leaqua.2015.10.008.

Savino*, C. J. (2019). Principal personality and leadership: An exploratory study on principal personality and leadership behavior using the five-factor model and trait activation framework (Order No. 27664121) [Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. https://search.proquest.com/ dissertations-theses/principal-personality-leadership-exploratory/docview/ 2327410751/se-2?accountid=7098.

Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S., & Cha, S. E. (2007). Embracing transformational leadership: Team values and the impact of leader behavior on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1020–1030. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021- 9010.92.4.1020.

Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2015). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Sage Publications.

Schultz, H. (2012). Pour your heart into it: How Starbucks built a company one cup at a time. Hachette Books.

Schyns, B., & Felfe, J. (2006). The personality of followers and its effect on the perception of leadership: An overview, a study, and a research agenda. Small Group Research, 37(5), 522–539. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496406293013.

Sears*, G. J., & Hackett, R. D. (2011). The influence of role definition and affect in LMX: A process perspective on the personality–LMX relationship. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84(3), 544–564. https://doi.org/10.1348/ 096317910X492081.

Shapiro, S. P. (2005). Agency theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 31, 263–284. https:// doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.31.041304.122159.

Shapiro, F. R. (2006). The Yale book of quotations. Yale University Press. Shondrick, S. J., Dinh, J. E., & Lord, R. G. (2010). Developments in implicit leadership

theory and cognitive science: Applications to improving measurement and understanding alternatives to hierarchical leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 21 (6), 959–978. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.004.

Siddaway, A. P., Wood, A. M., & Hedges, L. V. (2019). How to do a systematic review: A best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-syntheses. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 747–770. https://doi.org/ 10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803.

Siewert*, J. J. (2011). Personality and organizational characteristics as predictors of supervisors' management of problems of professional competence (Order No. 3488968) [Doctoral dissertation, The University of Wisconsin-Madison]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/ personality-organizational-characteristics-as/docview/912378482/se-2? accountid=8361.

Simonsohn, U., Nelson, L. D., & Simmons, J. P. (2014). P-curve: A key to the file-drawer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(2), 534.

Singh*, A. K., & Singh, A. P. (2009). Does personality predict organisational citizenship behaviour among managerial personnel. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 35(2), 291–298.

A.B. Blake et al. The Leadership Quarterly 33 (2022) 101593

Smith*, M. A., & Canger, J. M. (2004). Effects of supervisor “big five” personality on subordinate attitudes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18(4), 465–481. https:// doi.org/10.1023/B:JOBU.0000028447.00089.12.

Srivastava*, S. C., Chandra, S., & Shirish, A. (2015). Technostress creators and job outcomes: Theorising the moderating influence of personality traits. Information Systems Journal, 25(4), 355–401. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12067.

Storey*, J. M. (2018). Assessing hospitality industry employee perceptions of performance appraisals (Order No. 10748262) [Doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/dissertations- theses/assessing-hospitality-industry-employee/docview/2061054713/se-2? accountid=8361.

Sun*, P., & Shang, S. (2019). Personality traits and personal values of servant leaders. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 40(2), 177–192. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/LODJ-11-2018-0406.

Tepper, B. J., Simon, L., & Park, H. M. (2017). Abusive supervision. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 123–152. https://doi.org/ 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062539.

Thomason*, S. J., Weeks, M., Bernardin, H. J., & Kane, J. (2011). The differential focus of supervisors and peers in evaluations of managerial potential. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 19(1), 82–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468- 2389.2010.00536.x.

Tobin, R. M., & Graziano, W. G. (2020). Agreeableness. In B. J. Carducci & C. S. Nave (Eds.), The Wiley encyclopedia of personality and individual differences: Models and theories. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118970843.ch19.

Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96(3), 506–520. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033- 295X.96.3.506.

Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Westview Press. Tyran, K. L., Tyran, C. K., & Shepherd, M. (2003). Exploring emerging leadership in

virtual teams. In C. Gibson & S. Cohen (Eds.), Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness (pp. 183–195). Jossey-Bass.

Valentine, J. C., Pigott, T. D., & Rothstein, H. R. (2010). How many studies do you need? A primer on statistical power for meta-analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 35(2), 215–247. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998609346961.

Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1–48 https://www.jstatsoft.org/v36/i03/.

Walker*, S. D. S. (2015). Maintaining justice: The effect of managerial personality and trait activation on procedural, interpersonal, and informational fairness. In S. W. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner, & D. P. Skarlicki (Eds.), Research in social issues in management. The social dynamics of organizational justice (pp. 143–175). IAP Information Age Publishing.

Walumbwa*, F. O., & Schaubroeck, J. (2009). Leader personality traits and employee voice behavior: Mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group psychological safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1275–1286. https://doi.org/10.1037/ a0015848.

Washington*, R. R., Sutton, C. D., & Feild, H. S. (2006). Individual differences in servant leadership: The roles of values and personality. Leadership & Organization

23

Development Journal, 27(8), 700–716. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 01437730610709309.

Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill Inc.. Wendt, H., Euwema, M. C., & Van Emmerik, I. H. (2009). Leadership and team

cohesiveness across cultures. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(3), 358–370. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.03.005.

Wiernik, B. M., & Dahlke, J. A. (2020). Obtaining unbiased results in meta-analysis: The importance of correcting for statistical artifacts. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 3(1), 94–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245919885611.

Wu*, D. (2020). Leader personality, abusive supervision and employee outcomes: An integrative model (Order No. 27838418) [Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/ dissertations-theses/leader-personality-abusive-supervision-employee/docview/ 2395895332/se-2?accountid=8361.

Wu*, Y. (2018). The effects of strategic change on innovative performance in Taiwanese SMEs: The impacts of CEO's personality, top management team behavior integration and organizational culture (Order No. 10811750) [Doctoral dissertation, Alliant International University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. https://www. proquest.com/dissertations-theses/effects-strategic-change-on- innovative/docview/2043000271/se-2?accountid=8361.

Wyatt, M., & Silvester, J. (2018). Do voters get it right? A test of the ascription-actuality trait theory of leadership with political elites. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(5), 609–621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.02.001.

Xu*, X., Yu, F., & Shi, J. (2011). Ethical leadership and leaders' personalities. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 39(3), 361–368. https://doi.org/ 10.2224/sbp.2011.39.3.361.

Yukl, G. A., & Gardner, W. L. (2020). Leadership in organizations (9th ed.). Prentice-Hall. Yeh*, S. C. J., Yuan, K. S., Chen, S. H. S., Lo, Y. Y., Chou, H. C., Huang, S., ... Wan, T. T.

(2016). The moderating effect of leadership on the relationship between personality and performance. Journal of Nursing Management, 24(7), 869–883. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/jonm.12391.

Yoon*, D. J., & Bono, J. E. (2016). Hierarchical power and personality in leader-member exchange. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(7), 1198–1213. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/JMP-03-2015-0078.

Yukl, G. (2012). Effective leadership behavior: What we know and what questions need more attention. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(4), 66–85. https://doi.org/ 10.5465/amp.2012.0088.

Zaccaro, S. J., Green, J. P., Dubrow, S., & Kolze, M. (2018). Leader individual differences, situational parameters, and leadership outcomes: A comprehensive review and integration. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(1), 2–43. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.10.003.

Zaleznik, A. (1992). Managers and leaders: Are they different? Harvard Business Review, 70(2), 126–135.

Zopiatis*, A., & Constanti, P. (2012). Extraversion, openness and conscientiousness. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 33(1), 86–104. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/01437731211193133.