RA 1—Literature Review

Measuring leader behaviour: evidence for a “big five”

model of leadership Peter H. Langford and Cameron B. Dougall

Voice Project, Macquarie Park, Australia and Department of Psychology, Macquarie University, North Ryde, Australia, and

Louise P. Parkes Voice Project, Macquarie Park, Australia

Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to provide evidence for a “leadership big five”, a model of leadership behaviour integrating existing theories of leadership and conceptually aligned with the most established model of personality, the big five. Such a model provides researchers and practitioners with a common language to describe leadership behaviour in a field with a plethora of leadership models. The model also describes a wider range of leadership behaviour than other models of leadership, and presents dimensions that correlate with important organisational outcomes as demonstrated in this study. Design/methodology/approach – In total, 1,186 employees completed the Voice Leadership 360, a survey designed to measure the leadership big five, collectively rating 193 managers from a range of different sectors and industries, using a 360-degree survey methodology. Findings – Confirmatory factor analyses and internal reliability analyses provide evidence for 22 lower-order factors of leadership behaviour that aggregate into five higher-order factors of leadership aligned with the big five personality descriptors. Further evidence for the validity of the model is indicated by significant correlations between 360-degree survey ratings and raters’ judgements of leaders’ personality, and significant correlations between 360-degree survey ratings and both work unit engagement levels and manager reports of work unit performance. Research limitations/implications – The cross-sectional design is the main limitation of the present study, limiting conclusions that changes in leadership behaviours will lead to changes in organisational outcomes. The primary research implications of this study include the support for an integrating model of leadership behaviour that aligns with a large body of psychological research, as well as the development of a survey that can be used for future exploration of the model. Practical implications – Practitioners may use the results of the study to rethink how they develop competency frameworks and measure leadership behaviour in organisation development contexts. This broad model of leadership and the familiarity of its dimensions could increase the effectiveness of behaviour change interventions, and the presented survey provides a reliable and valid tool for 360-degree assessments. Originality/value – The study provides evidence that leadership can be described in a structurally similar way to human personality. It presents a leadership model that consists of a broader range of leadership behaviours related to organisational outcomes compared with previous models of leadership. Keywords Leadership, Validity, Employee engagement, 360-degree feedback, Psychometrics, Big five Paper type Research paper

Introduction In a recent review, Lowe (2015) identified at least 30 different models of leadership. The sheer number of leadership models available for researchers to study and practitioners to apply in organisations leads to a number of questions that can impede research and practice. For example, what new information does a certain model provide over another model? Are certain models simply presenting the same theories and ideas (or parts thereof) as other models but using different terminology? The current state of leadership research and practice is reminiscent of a former time in the research of human personality where research was limited by a plethora of models presenting the same ideas using different language. Adopting a common, empirically derived language of human personality proved

Leadership & Organization Development Journal Vol. 38 No. 1, 2017 pp. 126-144 © Emerald Publishing Limited 0143-7739 DOI 10.1108/LODJ-05-2015-0103

Received 11 May 2015 Revised 18 October 2015 2 February 2016 Accepted 2 February 2016

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm

126

LODJ 38,1

useful for the progress of human personality research (DeYoung et al., 2007). We propose that such a common language in leadership research and practice would be similarly useful for researchers and practitioners to create, disseminate, and apply leadership research. The aim of this study was to propose a common language of leadership called the leadership big five. The leadership big five is a broad model of leadership integrating several existing leadership models into five common factors. The leadership big five aligns with the most established, popular, and exhaustive model of human personality, the five-factor model of personality, also known as the “big five” (McCrae and Costa, 1997). This alignment provides researchers and practitioners the opportunity to understand leadership behaviour from a new broader perspective compared to previous models of leadership, and the opportunity to discuss leadership using a common language.

Leadership big five There is a lack of consensus regarding exactly what set of behaviours are necessary for effective leadership. Over the past century, we have seen perceptions of leadership gradually move from a single factor to a more differentiated set of behaviours, as suggested in Table I. The very early days of management research were entirely devoted to the application of rational efficiency to production and labour (e.g. Fayol, 1949, originally published in French in 1916; Taylor, 1911). In the 1920s and 1930s, the human relations movement highlighted the importance of showing concern for the welfare of workers (Mayo, 1933; Roethlisberger and Dickson, 1939). The research programs at the Ohio State University in the 1950s found two meta-categories labelled “initiating structure” and “consideration” (Stogdill, 1957). Subsequently, Blake et al. (1962) proposed a “managerial grid”

Major dimensions of leadership behaviour

Example descriptions

Planning, directing, monitoring

Rewarding, developing, consulting

Energetic, ambitious, strong communicator

Innovating, risk taking, intellectually stimulating

Well-being, work-life balance, resilience

Fayol (1949), Taylor (1911)

Scientific management

Mayo (1933), Roethlisberger and Dickson (1939)

Human relations

Blake et al. (1962), Stogdill (1957)

Initiating structure

Consideration

Bass (1985), Conger (1989), House (1976)

Transactional Transformational

Yukl (2002) Task Relations Change Goleman (1995), Salovey and Mayer (1990)

Emotional intelligence – others

Emotional intelligence – self

Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000)

Positive psychology

Leadership big five (present study)

Organise Connect Voice Innovate Enjoy

Conceptual alignment with big five personality descriptors McCrae and Costa (1997)

Conscientiousness Agreeableness Extroversion Openness to experience

Emotional stability

Table I. Historical

development of major leadership theories

127

Measuring leader

behaviour

which described these same dimensions of behaviour as “concern for production” and “concern for people”.

The 1970s saw a growing recognition of the importance of leaders’ ability to manage change, and researchers began to describe leadership behaviour along two broad dimensions (Bass, 1985; Conger, 1989; House, 1976): transactional leadership, characterised by the previously recognised dimensions associated with the rational management of production and people; and transformational leadership, characterised by creating and communicating an inspiring mission and vision, setting high standards of performance, and providing intellectual stimulation to help subordinates become more innovative. As an integration of the above theories, Yukl (2002) proposed a three-factor model of leadership consisting of task-oriented behaviours (e.g. planning and transactional behaviours such as quality-checking work), relations-oriented behaviours (e.g. transactional behaviours such as recognising others), and change-oriented behaviours (e.g. transformational behaviours such as encouraging innovative thinking).

The 1990s saw a rapid rise in the concept of “emotional intelligence”, thanks to researchers such as Salovey and Mayer (1990) and the popular writings of Goleman (1995). At its broadest level, emotional intelligence has two components: understanding and influencing other people, and having insight and control over one’s own emotions. The latter focus upon emotions is also reflected in the recent “positive psychology” movement and its application in the workplace (Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi, 2000), emphasising the value of positive emotions and resilience among employees and leaders.

With a plethora of different leadership models, to help progress leadership research and practice it would be useful to have a broader model of leadership integrating several different perspectives into one model. Analyses of natural language and personality questionnaires reveal virtually all descriptors of individual differences in people can be categorised with the big five factors – extraversion, openness to experience, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and emotional stability (McCrae and Costa, 1997). Given the robust empirical support for the big five, leadership behaviours are also likely to fall on these five dimensions. Indeed, as shown in Table I, while no single model of leadership conceptually links with all big five dimensions, the broad range of leadership behaviours is conceptually aligned with all big five personality characteristics. Researchers have previously examined the relationship between personality traits and leadership (e.g. Derue et al., 2011; De Hoogh et al., 2005; Hogan and Hogan, 2001; Judge et al., 2002). Studies such as Judge et al. (2002) help us understand what personality characteristics might be related to leadership effectiveness, but they do not provide any conclusive evidence that the big five is a useful model for the description of leadership behaviour. Given leadership behaviour is related to a range of different explanatory factors in addition to personality such as learned skills, group processes, and organisational systems and practices, we propose the relationship between personality traits and leadership behaviour is a descriptive, rather than a necessarily explanatory, relationship.

In an effort to develop an integrative model of leadership, in an exploratory study presented as a conference paper, Langford and Fong (2008) developed 114 new survey items describing leadership behaviour, representing the theories identified in Table I. After gathering ratings of leaders from 1,766 employees, factor analyses reduced the item set to 63 questions that loaded neatly on 22 lower-order factors which in turn could be loaded on two, three, or five higher-order factors. The two-factor solution resembled the “initiating structure” and “consideration” dimensions of leadership, accounting for 59 per cent of variance in the data. The three-factor solution resembled the “task”, “relations”, and “change” dimensions of leadership, accounting for 64 per cent of variance. The five-factor solution resembled the big five, and accounted for 72 per cent of variance in the data, supporting the existence and usefulness of the leadership big five.

128

LODJ 38,1

The current study builds directly upon Langford and Fong (2008). In the earlier study, three of the 22 lower-order factors were represented by two items each, so an additional three items were designed with the aim of representing 22 factors each with three items. Moreover, the previous study was not conducted in an ecologically valid 360-degree feedback setting – respondents were simply asked to rate a manager in their workplace, with each respondent choosing a different manager, and the ratings were not reported to the managers being rated. Given that leadership surveys are commonly used in 360-degree feedback settings, it was deemed important to examine the refined set of 66 survey items with a methodology that provided greater ecological validity and practical application. Hence, the current study was conducted in organisations with multiple ratings from employees of different hierarchical levels for each manager, and with employees knowing that reports would be returned to the rated managers. Finally, Langford and Fong (2008) did not provide evidence for the criterion and convergent validity of the leadership big five. For the model to be of theoretical and practical use, it is important to understand whether the behaviours in the model are related to useful outcomes for organisations, and important to understand whether the behaviours have relationships with established descriptors of the big five model of personality.

Measuring the leadership big five: evidence for the reliability and validity of previous 360-degree feedback surveys For the leadership big five to have implications for practice and research it is important to be able to reliably and validly measure the leadership big five in a manner likely to be applied by managers and researchers, such as with a survey that can be effectively implemented using a 360-degree feedback methodology. We review the validity of existing surveys and studies here to understand how best to test the validity of the leadership survey presented in this paper. When 360-degree feedback surveys are developed, practical relevance often tends to be prioritised over methodological rigour, a common concern in industrial-organisational psychology (Anderson et al., 2001). For example, researchers tend to report reliability coefficients (e.g. Garman et al., 2003; Church, 2000; Kets de Vries et al., 2004; Lelliott et al., 2008; Redeker et al., 2014), or the dimensionality or factor structure of 360-degree feedback surveys (e.g. Kets de Vries et al., 2004; Lelliott et al., 2008; Redeker et al., 2014). However, evidence that survey scores can predict business relevant criterion measures is rare, which is problematic because it is important to know whether changes in ratings of leadership behaviour will result in improvements in practically important business outcomes (Atkins and Wood, 2002).

The few studies that have provided evidence for the criterion validity of 360-degree feedback surveys have been limited in several ways. First, often the people completing the criterion measures are the same people giving 360-degree feedback ratings at the same time (e.g. Anderson, 2006; Redeker et al., 2014), such as employees rating a leader’s behaviour and then reporting their overall satisfaction with the leader. Such an approach is subject to measurement error such as halo effects (Waldman et al., 1998), and common method variance (CMV) that spuriously inflates the relationship between the variables (Podsakoff et al., 2003). While methods such as using questions with different wording can reduce the effects of CMV (Podsakoff et al., 2003), criterion studies should not solely rely on data gathered from participants who completed both the criterion measures and 360-degree feedback ratings.

Another limitation of previous criterion validation research is that it can be difficult to interpret the practical implications of criterion measures and their relevance for business performance. For example, criterion measures of leadership effectiveness often consist of generalised questions asking raters how “effective” a leader is (Anderson, 2006; Redeker et al., 2014). However, in such studies no evidence presented that this generalised criterion measure of effectiveness is related to relevant business outcomes such as productivity or

129

Measuring leader

behaviour

employee turnover. Other criterion measures in the literature have been more interpretable and practically relevant than general leadership effectiveness, such as trust in leaders and organisational citizenship behaviours (Podsakoff et al., 1990). However, more concrete organisational outcomes such as productivity and turnover are even more clearly interpretable and practically relevant.

One emerging criterion related to leadership behaviour and organisational performance is employee engagement. Employee engagement has a wide range of definitions and theoretical perspectives, although recent perspectives have emphasised a multidimensional approach related to positive attitudes a person holds about his/her job and organisation (Langford, 2010; Shuck, 2011). Employee engagement is related to important organisational outcomes such as customer satisfaction, profitability, productivity, safety, turnover, and absenteeism (Harter et al., 2002; Langford, 2009). Several models have suggested that leadership is an important factor related to employee engagement (e.g. Carasco-Saul et al., 2015; Christian et al., 2011; Langford, 2009; Macey and Schneider, 2008). Transformational leadership behaviour, in particular, has been theorised to be related to employee engagement through several paths such as increasing employees’ innovative behaviour (Carasco-Saul et al., 2015), influencing perceptions of meaning in work (Ghadi et al., 2013), and inspiring employees to form an emotional attachment to the vision and goals of the organisation (Shuck and Herd, 2012). Thus, employee engagement is a particularly relevant and useful criterion variable for evaluating a leadership 360-degree feedback survey.

The present study In summary, we highlight the need for a broad, integrated model of leadership behaviour that may assist researchers and practitioners to conceptualise leadership using a consistent language. The aim of the present study is to present a broad model of leadership behaviour called the leadership big five that is aligned with the most established and exhaustive model of human personality, the big five. We aimed to measure and provide evidence for the validity of the leadership big five with a 360-degree feedback survey, overcoming limitations in previous validation research of 360-degree feedback surveys.

Our hypotheses were:

H1. Ratings of a broad range of leadership behaviour can be reduced to five higher-order factors.

H2. Ratings of leadership behaviour using a 360-degree feedback survey measuring these five higher-order factors will be associated with ratings on conceptually aligned measures of the big five personality traits.

H3. The leadership big five will be related to a range of practically relevant criterion variables, including work unit engagement levels and manager reports of work unit performance.

Method Participants In total, 193 managers voluntarily invited at least five employees they work with (including a minimum of two subordinates) to rate their leadership behaviour. Approximately 90 per cent of the managers described themselves as middle managers or above. The characteristics of the managers including the size of organisation, sector, and industry are located in Table II. In total, 1,186 employee participants rated the managers. Each manager had on average 6.15 people rate them (SD ¼ 1.61). The characteristics of the rater participants including their gender, age, employment status, and relationship with the manager they rated are summarised in Table III.

130

LODJ 38,1

The 193 managers were recruited by undergraduate students who participated in exchange for course credit. In return for participation, each manager received a report presenting their aggregated survey scores, and benchmarking their results with other managers in the sample.

Manager characteristic Frequency % of sample

Size of organisation (employees) Less than 20 31 16.1 20-99 43 22.3 100-199 20 10.4 200-999 32 16.6 1,000-10,000 38 19.7 More than 10,000 27 14.0 Not reported 2 1 Total 193 100

Sector Public sector 21 10.9 Private sector 158 81.9 Not-for-profit 11 5.7 Not reported 3 1.6 Total 193 100

Industry Agriculture, forestry and fishing 2 1 Manufacturing 7 3.7 Electricity, gas and water supply 2 1 Construction 7 3.7 Wholesale trade 2 1 Equipment supply and service 3 1.6 Retail trade 44 23 Accommodation, hospitality, tourism, cafes and restaurants 24 12.6 Transport and storage 7 3.7 Information and communication technologies 15 7.9 Finance and insurance 11 5.8 Accounting and financial advising 2 1 Law 5 2.6 Management consulting 2 1 Engineering 4 2.1 Other professional, property and business services 5 2.6 Other government administration 3 1.6 Police and security 1 0.5 Education – primary or early childhood 4 2.1 Education – secondary 3 1.6 Education – university 3 1.6 Education – tertiary other than university (e.g. VET) 1 0.5 Health – hospital and medical 6 3.1 Health – other (e.g. allied health professions not in hospitals) 5 2.6 Community services other than health 4 2.1 Cultural and recreational services 2 1 Personal services 2 1 Pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical products 5 2 Other 10 5 Not reported 2 1.0 Total 193 100 Note: n ¼ 193

Table II. Characteristics of

managers receiving feedback represented

in the sample

131

Measuring leader

behaviour

Measures Voice Leadership 360. The initial development of the item set used in this study has been described earlier in this paper. As reported in the conference paper by Langford and Fong (2008), 114 items were developed to measure leadership behaviours represented by the theories in Table I. Factor analysis reduced the set to 63 items, and initial evidence was presented suggesting the presence of 22 lower-order factors and five higher-order factors conceptually aligned with the big five dimensions of personality. For the present study three items were added with the goal of having three items for each of the 22 lower-order factors, resulting in the 66 items used in the present study.

In an effort to make the model as practical and user-friendly as possible for leaders and raters engaged in 360 surveys in organisational settings, the five factors were labelled as voice, organise, innovate, connect and enjoy (with VOICE as an acronym). Using established scientific labels from the big five personality factors, these factors can perhaps be described as relating to, respectively, extraversion, conscientiousness, openness, agreeableness, and emotional stability (see Table I for the thematic links between these factors and other leadership theories).

Big five measure of personality. In order to evaluate the convergent validity of the leadership big five with big five personality dimensions, raters completed a brief 15-item measure of the big five personality traits. Raters were asked how well adjectives described the leaders on a five-point scale from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree”.

Rater characteristic Frequency % of sample

Gender Female 528 44.5 Male 630 53.1 Not reported 28 2.4 Total 1,186 100

Age Younger than 20 171 14.4 20-29 452 38.1 30-39 226 19.1 40-49 173 14.6 50-59 125 10.5 60 or older 18 1.5 Not reported 21 1.8 Total 1,186 100

Employment status Full-time permanent 676 57.0 Part-time permanent 262 22.1 Contract/fixed-term 52 4.4 Long-term casual (W12 months) 129 10.9 Short-term casual (o12 months) 49 4.1 Not reported 18 1.5 Total 1,186 100

Relationship with the manager they rated The manager’s subordinate 959 80.9 The manager’s peer 152 12.8 The manager’s manager 74 6.2 Not reported 1 0.1 Total 1,186 100 Note: n ¼ 1,186

Table III. Characteristics of raters represented in the sample

132

LODJ 38,1

The adjectives are consistent with behaviours and descriptions of the big five (e.g. McCrae and John, 1992).

The measure showed good psychometric properties. As shown in Table IV, internal consistency was high for each scale (αW0.8) and a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) showed the measure to acceptably fit the big five model. The χ2 test was significant, which was expected given the large sample size ( χ2 ¼ 520, df ¼ 80, po0.001). The Comparative Fit Index (CFI) ¼ 0.96, Normative Fit Index (NFI) ¼ 0.96, Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) ¼ 0.95, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) ¼ 0.04, and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) ¼ 0.07. The results exceed acceptable model fit cut-offs: CFIW0.90, NFIW0.90 (Byrne, 1994); TLIW0.90, SRMRo0.08 (Hu and Bentler, 1999); RMSEAo0.08 (Browne and Cudeck, 1993; MacCallum et al., 1996).

Managers’ survey. The individuals receiving feedback on their leadership behaviours were asked to complete a brief survey requesting demographic information about their organisation (Table II) and performance details of their business unit (described in more detail below). Langford (2009) used a version of this survey to evaluate the criterion validity of an organisational climate survey.

Managers receiving ratings of their behaviour were asked to respond to 16 questions relating to the performance of the group of employees they supervise on a five-point scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). There were five performance dimensions, four consisting of three items and one consisting of four items. The dimensions were overall performance (e.g. “the goals and objectives of my work unit are being reached”), change and innovation (e.g. “my work unit is innovative”), safety (e.g. “staff in my work unit engage in good safety behaviour”), customer satisfaction (e.g. “customers (internal or external) are satisfied with our products and/or services”), and employee productivity (e.g. “staff in my unit do their jobs quickly and efficiency”). Additionally, managers were asked to provide the approximate percentage rate of voluntary annual employee turnover and approximate number of days employees are absent per employee per year within their work unit.

Work unit engagement. To measure the employee engagement of each work unit, raters were asked to complete the ten-item engagement scale of Langford’s (2009) climate survey on a five-point scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree) (e.g. “I feel a sense of loyalty and commitment to this organisation”).

Big five factors Items CFA

Openness to experience (0.86) 1. Flexible 0.85 2. Open-minded 0.89 3. Innovative 0.74

Conscientiousness (0.85) 4. Organised 0.76 5. Conscientious 0.83 6. Self-disciplined 0.84

Extraversion (0.85) 7. Energetic 0.79 8. Extroverted 0.78 9. Lively 0.88

Agreeableness (0.89) 10. Caring 0.86 11. Agreeable 0.87 12. Forgiving 0.83

Emotional stability (0.83) 13. Relaxed 0.76 14. Emotionally stable 0.81 15. Satisfied 0.80

Note: Scale α’s in parentheses

Table IV. Brief big five measure

factor loadings and regression weights

133

Measuring leader

behaviour

Results Missing data In total only 3.1 per cent of rater responses to the Voice Leadership 360 were either unanswered or “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”, suggesting the survey is suitable for a range of different industries and management levels. Because there was only a small amount of missing data and it was essentially missing at random, missing data were replaced using a standard regression-based expectation maximisation algorithm, common in organisational research (e.g. Langford, 2009; Patterson et al., 2005).

Levels of analysis Data were analysed at the levels of both individual raters and work units (i.e. all ratings combined for a single manager being rated). Factor analyses and reliability analyses were conducted at the individual rater level. All validity coefficients calculated between 360-degree feedback ratings, rater judgements of leader personality, rater engagement, and work unit performance outcomes were calculated at the work unit level to be consistent with the practical application of 360-degree feedback surveys.

Factor analyses CFAs were conducted to confirm the validity of the Voice Leadership 360’s factor structure proposed in Langford and Fong’s (2008) exploratory study.

Lower-order factors. The CFA of the 22 lower-order factors indicated the lower-order factor model was an acceptable fit for the data, with strong regression weights (Table V) and acceptable model fit statistics. The χ2 test was significant, which was expected given the large sample size ( χ2 ¼ 5,330, df ¼ 1,848, po0.01). CFI ¼ 0.94, NFI ¼ 0.92, TLI ¼ 0.94, SRMR ¼ 0.03, and RMSEA ¼ 0.04.

H1 – higher-order factors The first hypothesis was that a five-factor model would provide a valid explanation of the survey results. The CFA of the five higher-order factors indicated the high-order factor model was an acceptable fit with the data, with strong regression weights (Table VI) and acceptable model fit statistics ( χ2 ¼ 1,342, df ¼ 199, po0.01). CFI ¼ 0.94, NFI ¼ 0.93, TLI ¼ 0.93, SRMR ¼ 0.04, RMSEA ¼ 0.07. The five-factor model was a better fit than the poorer fitting one-factor model (CFI ¼ 0.89, NFI ¼ 0.88, TLI ¼ 0.88, SRMR ¼ 0.04, RMSEA 0.09), supporting the use of a multi-factor model. Thus, H1 was supported.

H2 – relationship with a “big five” measure of personality The second hypothesis is that the leadership big five would show empirical convergence with conceptually aligned measures of the big five personality dimensions. Analyses were conducted to determine how well raters’ descriptions of leaders’ personality would predict Voice Leadership 360 scores. To determine the independent relationships of the personality measures with the Voice Leadership 360 higher-order factor scores, five regression analyses were conducted. In each regression a 360 higher-order factor was regressed on all of the personality factors and the other four 360 higher-order factors. The standardised regression coefficients for each of the personality factors predicting each of the 360 higher-order factors are presented in Table VII. The data demonstrate good convergent and discriminate validity. As expected, each of the five personality factors best predicted leadership behaviour on the higher-order factor conceptually aligned with the personality dimension. The personality factors generally had either no or a weaker relationship with higher-order factors not conceptually aligned with the personality factor, compared to higher-order factors that were aligned with the personality factor. Thus, H2 was supported.

134

LODJ 38,1

Lower-order factors Items CFA

Vision and inspiration (0.83) 1. Makes the purpose of the organisation feel important 0.78 2. Talks enthusiastically about the goals of the organisation 0.79 3. Inspires people with ideas for the future 0.80

High expectations (0.86) 4. Has high performance expectations 0.80 5. Wants to achieve 0.85 6. Has a strong focus on results 0.81

Advocacy (0.84) 7. Speaks positively about the organisation to others 0.78 8. Promotes the organisation’s products and/or services well 0.81 9. Tells others about the value of what the organisation does 0.81

Verbal influence (0.86) 10. Is a confident presenter 0.76 11. Explains his/her ideas well face-to-face 0.88 12. Speaks clearly 0.82

Time management (0.84) 13. Manages his/her workload well 0.86 14. Is good at managing the demands on his or her time 0.90 15. Is good at delegating work to others 0.66

Quality (0.90) 16. Shows attention to detail 0.83 17. Quality checks his/her work well 0.91 18. Ensures work meets required quality standards 0.85

Speed (0.87) 19. Completes work quickly 0.83 20. Ensures tasks are completed on time 0.85 21. Gets a lot of work done 0.80

Problem solving (0.86) 22. Is good at solving problems 0.84 23. Takes action to prevent problems from occurring 0.83 24. Responds to problems quickly 0.80

Continuous improvement (0.85)

25. Looks for ways to improve products and services 0.78 26. Finds more efficient ways to complete tasks 0.81 27. Considers creative solutions to problems 0.82

Intellectual stimulation (0.89)

28. Has ideas that make others rethink some of their own ideas 0.85 29. Stimulates others to think about old problems in new ways 0.87 30. Has interesting ideas 0.84

Risk taking (0.87) 31. Is comfortable with change 0.86 32. Is willing to try new things 0.89 33. Takes calculated risks 0.74

Optimism (0.83) 34. Sees the positive side of things 0.80 35. Shows enthusiasm 0.85 36. Sees the future as being better than today 0.73

Receiving feedback (0.88) 37. Seeks feedback about how he/she is performing 0.76 38. Responds well when others give feedback 0.90 39. Acts upon feedback given by others 0.89

Empathy (0.90) 40. Understands the values, needs and interests of others 0.87 41. Treats people fairly 0.86 42. Is sensitive to the different needs of different people 0.87

Developing others (0.90) 43. Gives others chances to perform well on their own 0.83 44. Creates opportunities for others to learn new skills 0.88 45. Helps others achieve their development goals 0.88

Recognition (0.88) 46. Recognises people’s achievements 0.87 47. Tells others that he/she believes in their abilities 0.86 48. Thanks others for their help 0.80

Performance correction (0.88)

49. Is good at managing people who are underperforming 0.84 50. Is good at correcting undesirable behaviour in others 0.89 51. Resolves disputes well 0.82

Cooperation (0.86) 52. Keeps people informed about what’s going on 0.75 53. Works well in a team 0.86 54. Is good at coordinating his/her work with others 0.86

(continued)

Table V. Voice Leadership 360

lower-order factor loadings and

regression weights

135

Measuring leader

behaviour

H3 – organisational and employee outcomes The final hypothesis was that the leadership big five would correlate with practically important business outcomes. The 360-degree feedback ratings for each manager were aggregated and correlated with the manager’s ratings of five outcomes of work unit performance, absenteeism, and turnover, and a composite performance measure, which is an average of the standardised scores for the five outcome measures, absenteeism, and turnover. Additionally, the ratings for each manager were correlated with an average of their raters’ employee engagement scores. The data are presented in Table VIII.

Lower-order factors Items CFA

Stress management (0.89) 55. Is able to stay productive when facing stressful events 0.84 56. Keeps a positive attitude when something goes wrong 0.85 57. Copes well under pressure 0.88

Happiness (0.86) 58. Keeps a good sense of humour 0.88 59. Has fun at work 0.88 60. Likes the kind of work he/she does 0.70

Work/life balance (0.89) 61. Maintains a good balance between work and other aspects of his/her life 0.82 62. Stays involved in non-work interests and activities 0.88 63. Has a social life outside of work 0.88

Health and safety (0.82) 64. Maintains a physically healthy lifestyle 0.68 65. Engages in safe workplace behaviour 0.87 66. Encourages others to be safe and healthy 0.83

Notes: The Voice Leadership 360 is copyrighted by Macquarie University, with an exclusive licence to Voice Project. With permission, university researchers involved in non-profit research can use the survey without cost. For all enquiries regarding use of the survey or benchmarking data please contact Peter Langford on [email protected]. Scale α’s in parenthesesTable V.

Higher-order factors Lower-order factors CFA

Voice (0.92) 1. Vision and inspiration 0.82 2. High expectations 0.73 3. Advocacy 0.77 4. Verbal influence 0.74

Organise (0.94) 5. Time management 0.78 6. Quality 0.80 7. Speed 0.81 8. Problem solving 0.84

Innovate (0.93) 9. Continuous improvement 0.83 10. Intellectual stimulation 0.85 11. Risk taking 0.75 12. Optimism 0.80

Connect (0.96) 13. Receiving feedback 0.77 14. Empathy 0.84 15. Developing others 0.83 16. Recognition 0.85 17. Performance correction 0.71 18. Cooperation 0.83

Enjoy (0.92) 19. Stress management 0.77 20. Enjoyment 0.81 21. Work/life balance 0.75 22. Health and safety 0.72

Note: Scale α’s in parentheses

Table VI. Voice Leadership 360 higher-order factor loadings and regression weights

136

LODJ 38,1

The pattern of correlations generally shows good evidence of criterion, convergent, and discriminant validity. For example, all higher-order factors and lower-orders factors were related to at least one criterion measure of performance, suggesting the Voice Leadership 360 scales measure a broad set of behaviours that are likely important for work unit performance. The criterion measures also had stronger relationships with behaviours that are theoretically closer to the outcome measure at both lower-order factor and higher-order factor levels. For example, safety performance was related most to the lower-order factor of health and safety, involving leaders engaging in safe behaviour and encouraging safe behaviour. Turnover was related most (negatively) to the lower-order factor of developing others (i.e., helping others achieve development opportunities). Change and innovation was related most to the higher-order factor of innovate, assessing continuous improvement, intellectual stimulation and risk taking. Work area engagement was broadly related to the leadership ratings, consistent with previous research suggesting the quality of supervision and leadership is a driver of engagement (Langford, 2009). Additionally, consistent with theory (e.g. Carasco-Saul et al., 2015; Shuck and Herd, 2012), work area engagement had stronger relationships with transformational leadership behaviours such as making the purpose of the organisation feel important, inspiring others, and talking enthusiastically about the goals of the organisation (vision and inspiration) than task-oriented leadership behaviours such as quality checking. Unexpectedly, customer satisfaction was related to only one leadership behaviour (advocacy, measuring the positive promotion of the organisation, and its products and services). Absenteeism also had only one relationship with leadership behaviour (receiving feedback), but in a positive direction. That is, leaders who tended to take feedback well and act upon it had slightly higher rather than lower absenteeism in their work area. Thus, H3 was generally supported, although not across all outcome measures.

Discussion The present study aimed to explore the existence of a “leadership big five” – a five-factor model of leadership providing an overarching framework and integrating existing leadership models.

Leadership big five As hypothesised, the results showed that the leadership big five, aligned to the big five model of personality, provided an empirically useful explanation of the survey data. Further, the low percentage of unanswered or “Don’t Know/Not Applicable” responses suggests the leadership big five, and the way it was measured in the current study, is applicable across a wide range of different industries and levels of raters and ratees.

Data collected from raters (work unit level) Rater feedback M SD

Leader extraversion

Leader conscientiousness

Leader openness

Leader agreeableness

Leader emotional stability

M 4.25 4.32 4.24 4.29 4.21 SD 0.50 0.45 0.48 0.49 0.50 Voice 4.36 0.39 0.25** 0.21** −0.03 −0.12 0.12 Organise 4.24 0.42 −0.03 0.51** 0.05 −0.16* −0.14 Innovate 4.16 0.44 0.04 0.01 0.26* −0.12 −0.17* Connect 4.15 0.44 −0.10* −0.07 0.06 0.40** −0.01 Enjoy 4.23 0.44 0.16** 0.00 −0.07 −0.10 0.51** Notes: Standardized β coefficients ⩾ 0.25 are made italics for emphasis. *po0.05; **po0.01

Table VII. Standardized linear

regression β coefficients of

leader personality judgements predicting

higher-order leadership

factor scores

137

Measuring leader

behaviour

W or k un

it pe rf or m an ce

da ta

co lle ct ed

fr om

m an ag er s

W or k un

it en ga ge m en t da ta

co lle ct ed

fr om

ra te rs

R at er

fe ed ba ck

M SD

C om

po si te

pe rf or m an ce

T ur no ve r

(w or k un

it )

E m pl oy ee

pr od uc ti vi ty

Sa fe ty

C ha ng

e an d

in no va ti on

C us to m er

sa ti sf ac ti on

A bs en te ei sm

O ve ra ll

w or k un

it pe rf or m an ce

W or k un

it en ga ge m en t

n 19 3

17 5

19 3

19 3

19 3

19 2

17 9

19 2

19 2

M 0

16 .0 2

4. 20

4. 30

3. 97

4. 34

6. 31

4. 31

4. 00

SD 0. 60

23 .5 9

0. 59

0. 66

0. 57

0. 55

6. 02

0. 54

0. 49

V oi ce

(e xt ra ve rs io n)

4. 36

0. 39

0. 24 **

− 0. 17 *

0. 10

0. 17 *

0. 28 **

0. 11

− 0. 04

0. 11

0. 58 **

V is io n an d in sp ir at io n

4. 22

0. 48

0. 29 **

− 0. 16 *

0. 15 *

0. 22 **

0. 34 **

0. 13

− 0. 01

0. 15 *

0. 60 **

H ig h ex pe ct at io ns

4. 47

0. 42

0. 14 *

− 0. 13

0. 04

0. 07

0. 17 *

0. 05

− 0. 05

0. 05

0. 37 **

A dv

oc ac y

4. 36

0. 42

0. 28 **

− 0. 16 *

0. 13

0. 16 *

0. 27 **

0. 15 *

− 0. 10

0. 15 *

0. 59 **

V er ba l in fl ue nc e

4. 39

0. 50

0. 12

− 0. 09

0. 03

0. 11

0. 17 *

0. 04

0. 00

0. 04

0. 41 **

O rg an

is e (c on sc ie nt io us ne ss ) 4. 24

0. 42

0. 15 *

− 0. 09

0. 00

0. 24 **

0. 25 **

− 0. 01

0. 08

0. 08

0. 45 **

T im

e m an ag em

en t

4. 18

0. 48

0. 06

− 0. 02

− 0. 01

0. 15 *

0. 15 *

− 0. 02

0. 11

0. 04

0. 31 **

Q ua lit y

4. 32

0. 46

0. 18 *

− 0. 11

0. 00

0. 27 **

0. 29 **

0. 03

0. 06

0. 08

0. 41 **

Sp ee d

4. 24

0. 48

0. 05

− 0. 04

− 0. 06

0. 18 *

0. 16 *

− 0. 08

0. 08

0. 01

0. 37 **

P ro bl em

so lv in g

4. 22

0. 49

0. 24 **

− 0. 14

0. 06

0. 25 **

0. 30 **

0. 06

0. 02

0. 17 *

0. 50 **

In no va te (o pe nn

es s)

4. 16

0. 44

0. 26 **

− 0. 13

0. 12

0. 21 **

0. 35 **

0. 04

0. 00

0. 16 *

0. 60 **

C on ti nu

ou s im

pr ov em

en t

4. 20

0. 47

0. 23 **

− 0. 09

0. 08

0. 18 *

0. 31 **

0. 06

− 0. 01

0. 16 *

0. 54 **

In te lle ct ua l st im

ul at io n

4. 06

0. 51

0. 27 **

− 0. 11

0. 15 *

0. 22 **

0. 33 **

0. 06

− 0. 05

0. 16 *

0. 61 **

R is k- ta ki ng

4. 10

0. 52

0. 14 *

− 0. 10

0. 06

0. 14

0. 28 **

− 0. 06

0. 03

0. 07

0. 47 **

O pt im

is m

4. 28

0. 47

0. 29 **

− 0. 16 *

0. 16 *

0. 21 **

0. 34 **

0. 11

0. 02

0. 19 *

0. 57 **

C on ne ct (a gr ee ab le ne ss )

4. 15

0. 44

0. 25 **

− 0. 07

0. 08

0. 27 **

0. 32 **

0. 08

0. 03

0. 16 *

0. 57 **

R ec ei vi ng

fe ed ba ck

3. 89

0. 55

0. 17 *

0. 02

0. 02

0. 26 **

0. 33 **

0. 06

0. 16 *

0. 15 *

0. 47 **

E m pa th y

4. 27

0. 54

0. 23 **

− 0. 07

0. 08

0. 22 **

0. 27 **

0. 10

− 0. 02

0. 15 *

0. 51 **

D ev el op in g ot he rs

4. 28

0. 47

0. 30 **

− 0. 18 *

0. 17 *

0. 26 **

0. 34 **

0. 04

− 0. 07

0. 15 *

0. 57 **

R ec og ni ti on

4. 31

0. 51

0. 24 **

− 0. 13

0. 08

0. 22 **

0. 25 **

0. 08

− 0. 04

0. 15 *

0. 54 **

P er fo rm

an ce

co rr ec ti on

3. 88

0. 48

0. 18 *

− 0. 01

0. 04

0. 24 **

0. 27 **

0. 06

0. 08

0. 13

0. 45 **

C oo pe ra ti on

4. 24

0. 44

0. 19 **

− 0. 03

0. 08

0. 23 **

0. 25 **

0. 09

0. 05

0. 11

0. 44 **

E nj oy

(e m ot io na

ls ta bi lit y)

4. 23

0. 44

0. 25 **

− 0. 12

0. 13

0. 24 **

0. 32 **

0. 06

0. 02

0. 13

0. 60 **

St re ss

m an ag em

en t

4. 17

0. 52

0. 22 **

− 0. 06

0. 12

0. 18 *

0. 31 **

0. 03

− 0. 02

0. 13

0. 51 **

H ap pi ne ss

4. 39

0. 50

0. 26 **

− 0. 14

0. 16 *

0. 16 *

0. 28 **

0. 11

− 0. 03

0. 17 *

0. 55 **

W or k- lif e ba la nc e

4. 16

0. 55

0. 17 *

− 0. 07

0. 10

0. 18 *

0. 26 **

0. 06

0. 08

0. 08

0. 52 **

H ea lt h an d sa fe ty

4. 20

0. 47

0. 20 **

− 0. 11

0. 07

0. 33 **

0. 25 **

0. 01

0. 04

0. 06

0. 48 **

N o te s:

*p o

0. 05 ;* *p

o 0. 01

Table VIII. Means, standard deviations and correlations between Voice Leadership 360 factors and organisational outcome measures

138

LODJ 38,1

The leadership big five has several theoretical and practical implications. Theoretically, the leadership big five provides evidence that a broad set of leadership behaviours can be reduced and described with a similar set of factors commonly used to describe personality. This set of factors has advantages over previous, more narrowly defined models of leadership. Specifically, because all leadership big five factors were related to business relevant criterion measures such as turnover and work unit engagement, the data suggest that leadership behaviour is better conceptualised as a broad range of multidimensional leadership behaviours rather than a narrower set of behaviours as described by any one of the leadership models outlined in Table I.

In the same way the personality literature was once limited by competing and overlapping models of personality (McCrae and John, 1992), the leadership literature consists of a variety of different models and frameworks that make it difficult to integrate findings, and collaborate between researchers using different theoretical constructs and measures of leadership behaviour (e.g. Anderson, 2006; Redeker et al., 2014; Yukl, 2002). We propose the leadership big five reported in this study can begin the development of a common language of leadership behaviour, for two important reasons; first, because it conceptually aligns leadership behaviour with the most established and common-language model of personality in the research literature; second, because it includes a broad list of leadership behaviours that spans multiple existing models of leadership. This has several implications for researchers and practitioners. For future research direction, this common language would be useful for researchers to synthesise both previous and future research. The increased consistency and understanding of leadership behaviour in the research literature could help leadership research progress faster in a similar way that the big five model of personality helped personality research progress.

For practitioners, the leadership big five provides a framework that practitioners may find easier to understand and more comprehensive than other leadership models. The big five model of personality is so prevalent that virtually all psychologist practitioners would be familiar with its theory and application. For example, the big five model of personality and associated assessments are used by practitioners in executive coaching settings to increase leadership effectiveness (McCormick and Burch, 2008). Thus, the familiarity and ease of conceptual integration with the big five and associated assessments is likely to be advantageous for practitioner understanding, which may have implications for the effectiveness of behaviour change interventions. Additionally, because the leadership big five describes a broader range of leadership behaviours important for organisational outcomes compared with many previous leadership models, its application (e.g. in a leadership development context) may be more likely to increase organisational performance compared with other models.

All lower-order and higher-order factors predicted some form of criterion of work unit performance including employee engagement, turnover, safety, customer satisfaction, change and innovation, and overall work unit performance. Unexpectedly, customer satisfaction and absenteeism were related to fewer leadership behaviours. This is likely because the process by which leadership behaviour affects certain organisational outcomes is complicated and indirect, involving several steps of mediator and moderator variables. For example, because employees are more likely to interact directly with customers than leaders, the relationship between leadership behaviour and customer satisfaction may be mediated or moderated by employee engagement and the personal characteristics of employees. Indeed, employee engagement shows more consistent relationships with customer satisfaction (Langford, 2009) than the leadership behaviours in the present study.

Measurement of the leadership big five: Voice Leadership 360 The present study overcomes several limitations with validity research of previous 360-degree feedback surveys by using criterion variables that are interpretable and have

139

Measuring leader

behaviour

practical relevance for organisations. Also, because most of the criterion variables were measured independently of rater feedback, the study overcomes a significant limitation of CMV, which can spuriously increase the relationship between predictor and criterion measures. The exception to this was rater engagement and judgements of managers’ personality, which raters completed at the same time as completing the 360 surveys. However, the engagement items were written differently such that the rater was the subject rather than the leader (cf. the 360 items). Additionally, the personality items and 360 items were not similarly worded. Thus, there is less concern about CMV here than with the methodologies of previous research, where criterion and predictive measures were worded similarly with the leader always as the subject (e.g. Anderson, 2006; Redeker et al., 2014). The methodologies strengthen the conclusion that the lower-order and higher-order factors in the leadership big five are related to work unit performance.

Limitations and strengths The cross-sectional nature of the study is perhaps the biggest limitation of the present study and there is an opportunity for future research to confirm the findings using a longitudinal design. Another limitation of the study is that the leaders personally chose the 360-degree feedback raters, which may have resulted in leaders selectively choosing raters who would provide more positive rather than negative feedback, or whose ratings reflect the generalised likeability of the leader rather than leadership behaviour, a concern in 360-degree feedback methodologies (Eichinger and Lombardo, 2004). Indeed, the mean scale scores for managers were generally high. However, in practice because leaders often choose their own 360-degree feedback raters, this would have likely increased the ecological validity of the study. Additionally, because the CFA showed that the leadership big five was a better fit for the data than a one-factor model, it is unlikely that ratings reflect generalised likeability. Further, any range restriction from the generally high ratings may have resulted in an underestimation of the relationship between the predictive and criterion measures that was not corrected for in the present study. Criterion validity coefficients of 360-degree feedback surveys are likely to increase substantially with the correction of measurement error and range restriction (Conway and Huffcutt, 1997; Schmidt et al., 2006).

The organisational performance data collected were based partly on subjective reports by the managers who received feedback. Thus, managers could have provided inaccurate information about the performance of their work area. However, the performance outcomes are of interest to managers and observable, and managers were able to opt out of providing specific performance ratings if they were not confident in their ratings.

Because the data were primarily collected from a western sample it is unknown whether the leadership model presented here is relevant for non-western populations. Researchers have suggested that a single leadership model is unlikely to be successfully applied in all Asian and African contexts (Blunt and Jones, 1997). Additionally, researchers have suggested that a six rather than a five-factor model more adequately describes personality in the Chinese culture (Cheung et al., 2001). Thus, validating the model with non-western cultures is needed for researchers and practitioners in those contexts.

The study has several strengths. First, it presents data that is oriented towards both researchers and practitioners. There is a well-known divide between practitioners and researchers (Anderson et al., 2001), and the present study aims to be both methodologically rigorous (e.g. overcoming limitations of previous validation research) and practically relevant (e.g. presenting an easy to understand, broad model of leadership behaviour, assessed against practically important business outcomes). The combination

140

LODJ 38,1

of rigour and practical relevance may lead to more effective research and practical use of 360-degree feedback surveys than previously reported (e.g. Nowack and Mashihi, 2012). Second, the study has high external and ecological validity relevant for the practical application of the leadership model. The data suggest the leadership model and measurement survey presented in the current study are applicable for a wide range of industries and management levels, and the data were collected in a manner consistent with its practical application. Third, the study invites researchers to adopt a common language of leadership, consistent with the common language of the big five model of personality. This may encourage consistency, prevent redundancy, and stimulate increased cross-fertilisation of future leadership research.

References

Anderson, N., Herriot, P. and Hodgkinson, G.P. (2001), “The practitioner-researcher divide in industrial, work and organizational (IWO) psychology: where are we now, and where do we go from here?”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 4, pp. 391-411, doi: 10.1348/ 096317901167451.

Anderson, R.J. (2006), “The leadership circle profile: breakthrough leadership assessment technology”, Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 175-184, doi: 10.1108/ 00197850610671946.

Atkins, P.W.B. and Wood, R.E. (2002), “Self- versus others’ ratings as predictors of assessment center ratings: validation evidence for 360-degree feedback programs”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 871-904, doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2002.tb00133.x.

Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, Free Press, New York, NY.

Blake, R.R., Mouton, J.S. and Bidwell, A.C. (1962), “Managerial grid”, Advanced Management – Office Executive, Vol. 1 No. 9, pp. 12-15.

Blunt, P. and Jones, M.L. (1997), “Exploring the limits of Western leadership theory in East Asia and Africa”, Personnel Review, Vol. 26 Nos 1-2, pp. 6-23, doi: 10.1108/00483489710157760.

Browne, M.W. and Cudeck, R. (1993), Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit, in Bollen, K.A. and Long, J.S. (Eds), Testing Structural Qquation Models, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 136-162.

Byrne, B.M. (1994), “Testing for the factorial validity, replication, and invariance of a measurement instrument: a paradigmatic application of the Maslach burnout inventory”, Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 1 No. 29 No. 3, pp. 289-311.

Carasco-Saul, M., Kim, W. and Kim, T. (2015), “Leadership and employee engagement proposing research agendas through a review of literature”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 38-63, available at: http://doi.org/10.1177/1534484314560406

Cheung, F.M., Leung, K., Zhang, J.X., Sun, H.F., Gan, Y.Q., Song, W.Z. and Xie, D. (2001), “Indigenous Chinese personality constructs. Is the five-factor model complete?”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 407-433, doi: 10.1177/0022022101032004003.

Christian, M.S., Garza, A.S. and Slaughter, J.E. (2011), “Work engagement: a quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 89-136, available at: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01203.x

Church, A.H. (2000), “Do higher performing managers actually receive better ratings? A validation of multirater assessment methodology”, Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 99-116, doi: 10.1037/1061-4087.52.2.99.

Conger, J.A. (1989), The Charismatic Leader: Behind the Mystique of Exceptional Leadership, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA.

Conway, J.M. and Huffcutt, A.I. (1997), “Psychometric properties of multisource performance ratings: a meta-analysis of subordinate, supervisor, peer, and self-ratings”, Human Performance, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 331-360, doi: 10.1207/s15327043hup1004_2.

141

Measuring leader

behaviour

De Hoogh, A.H., Den Hartog, D.N. and Koopman, P.L. (2005), “Linking the big five‐factors of personality to charismatic and transactional leadership; perceived dynamic work environment as a moderator”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 839-865.

Derue, D.S., Nahrgang, J.D., Wellman, N. and Humphrey, S.E. (2011), “Trait and behavioral theories of leadership: an integration and meta-analytic test of their relative validity”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 7-52, doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01201.x.

DeYoung, C.G., Quilty, L.C. and Peterson, J.B. (2007), “Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the big five”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 5, pp. 880-896, doi: 10.1037/ 0022-3514.93.5.880.

Eichinger, R.W. and Lombardo, M.M. (2004), “Patterns of rater accuracy in 360-degree feedback”, Human Resource Planning, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 23-25.

Fayol, H. (1949), General and Industrial Management, Pitman, London.

Garman, A.N., Tyler, J.L. and Darnall, J.S. (2003), “Development and validation of a 360-degree- feedback instrument for healthcare administrators”, Journal of Healthcare Management, Vol. 49 No. 5, pp. 307-322.

Ghadi, M., Fernando, M. and Caputi, P. (2013), “Transformational leadership and work engagement: the mediating effect of meaning in work”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 532-550, available at: http://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-10-2011-0110

Goleman, D. (1995), Emotional Intelligence: Why it can Matter More Than IQ, Bantom Book, Toronto.

Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L. and Hayes, T.L. (2002), “Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 2, pp. 268-279, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.268.

Hogan, R. and Hogan, J. (2001), “Assessing leadership: a view from the dark side”, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 9 Nos 1-2, pp. 40-51, doi: 10.1111/1468-2389.00162.

House, R.J. (1976), “A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership”, Working Paper Series Nos 76-06, Toronto University, Ontario, available at: http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED133827

Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55, doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118.

Judge, T.A., Bono, J.E., Ilies, R. and Gerhardt, M.W. (2002), “Personality and leadership: a qualitative and quantitative review”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 4, pp. 765-780.

Kets de Vries, M.F.R., Vrignaud, P. and Florent-Treacy, E. (2004), “The global leadership life inventory: development and psychometric properties of a 360-degree feedback instrument”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 475-492, doi: 10.1080/0958519042000181214.

Langford, P.H. (2009), “Measuring organisational climate and employee engagement: evidence for a 7 Ps model of work practices and outcomes”, Australian Journal of Psychology, Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 185-198.

Langford, P.H. (2010), “The nature and consequences of employee engagement: searching for a measure that maximizes the prediction of organizational outcomes”, in Albrecht, S.L. (Ed.), Handbook of Employee Engagement: Perspectives, Issues, Research and Practice, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltonham, pp. 375-384.

Langford, P.H. and Fong, Y. (2008), “Development of a survey that supports two, three and five meta- categories of leadership behaviour”, Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Australian Psychological Society Conference, Hobart, 23-27 September, pp. 189-193.

Lelliott, P., Williams, R., Mears, A., Andiappan, M., Owen, H., Reading, P., Coyle, N. and Hunter, S. (2008), “Questionnaires for 360-degree assessment of consultant psychiatrists: development and psychometric properties”, The British Journal of Psychiatry: The Journal of Mental Science, Vol. 193 No. 2, pp. 156-160, doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.107.041681.

142

LODJ 38,1

Lowe, K. (2015), “Making responsible leadership more responsible: elevating the internal perspective”, paper presented at the APS Industrial and Organisational Psychology Conference, Melbourne, 3 July.

McCormick, I. and Burch, G.S.J. (2008), “Personality-focused coaching for leadership development”, Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 267-278, doi: 10.1037/ 1065-9293.60.3.267.

McCrae, R.R. and Costa, P.T. (1997), “Personality trait structure as a human universal”, American Psychologist, Vol. 52 No. 5, pp. 509-516.

McCrae, R.R. and John, O.P. (1992), “An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications”, Journal of Personality, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 175-215, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x.

MacCallum, R.C., Browne, M.W. and Sugawara, H.M. (1996), “Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modelling”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 130-149, doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130.

Macey, W.H. and Schneider, B. (2008), “The meaning of employee engagement”, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 3-30, available at: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754- 9434.2007.0002.x

Mayo, E. (1933), The Human Problems of an Industrial Organization, McMillan, New York, NY.

Nowack, K.M. and Mashihi, S. (2012), “Evidence-based answers to 15 questions about leveraging 360-degree feedback”, Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, Vol. 64 No. 3, pp. 157-182, doi: 10.1037/a0030011.

Patterson, M.G., West, M.A., Shackleton, V.J., Dawson., J.F., Lawthom, R., Maitlis, S., Robinson, L. and Wallace, A.M. (2005), “Validating the organizational climate measure: links to managerial practices, productivity and innovation”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 379-408, doi: 10.1002/job.312.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903, doi: 10.1037/0021- 9010.88.5.879.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H. and Fetter, R. (1990), “Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 107-142, doi: 10.1016/1048- 9843(90)90009-7.

Redeker, M., de Vries, R.E., Rouckhout, D., Vermeren, P. and de Fruyt, F. (2014), “Integrating leadership: the leadership circumplex”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 435-455, doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2012.738671.

Roethlisberger, F.J. and Dickson, W.J. (1939), Management and the Worker: An Account of a Research Program Conducted by the Western Electric Company, Hawthorne Works, Chicago, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Salovey, P. and Mayer, J.D. (1990), “Emotional intelligence”, Imagination, Cognition and Personality, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 185-211.

Schmidt, F.L., Oh, I.S. and Le, H. (2006), “Increasing the accuracy of corrections for range restriction: implications for selection procedure validities and other research results”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 281-305, doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00065.x.

Seligman, M.E. and Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000), “Positive psychology: an introduction”, American Psychologist, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 5-14.

Shuck, B. (2011), “Integrative literature review: four emerging perspectives of employee engagement: an integrative literature review”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 304-328, doi: 10.1177/1534484311410840.

Shuck, B. and Herd, A.M. (2012), “Employee engagement and leadership exploring the convergence of two frameworks and implications for leadership development in HRD”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 156-181, doi: 10.1177/1534484312438211.

143

Measuring leader

behaviour

Stogdill, R.M. (1957), Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement, Bureau of Business Research, College of Commerce and Administration, Ohio State University, Columbus.

Taylor, F.W. (1911), The Principles of Scientific Management, Norton, New York, NY. Waldman, D.A., Atwater, L.E. and Antonioni, D. (1998), “Has 360 degree feedback gone amok?”,

The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 86-94, doi: 10.5465/ AME.1998.650519.

Yukl, G.A. (2002), Leadership In Organizations, Prentice-Hall International, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Corresponding author Peter H. Langford can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected]

144

LODJ 38,1

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.