Essay total including the fisrt page to reference 10 pages.
Annierossi
TheDarkSideofPersonalityandExtremeLeader.pptxThe Dark Side of Personality and Extreme Leader Behavior
Annie Rossi
http://www.awair.eu/wpcontent/uploads/2017/03/DarkSideExtremeLeaderBehavior_APIR20152.pdf
abreviations
Big Five or Five-Factor Model (FFM): Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Openness.
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV (American Psychiatric Association [DSM-IV-TR], 2000).
Hogan Development Survey (HDS; Hogan & Hogan, 2009).
Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI; Hogan & Hogan, 2007).
The Leadership Versatility Index version 3.1 (LVI).
http://www.awair.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/DarkSideExtremeLeaderBehavior_APIR20152.pdf
Thesis
In this study, dark-side traits are conceptualised as extreme extensions of the “bright-side” traits of the Five-Factor Model that often have counterproductive effects. We predict which dark-side traits will be related to ratings of “too little” and “too much” of four leader behaviors and how low levels of Emotional Stability may accentuate the relationship between dark-side traits and excessive leader behavior. Analyses in a sample of 320 American and European managers and executives rated by 4,906 co-workers provided support for most predicted relationships, with medium-sized overall multivariate effects. Support for a moderating effect for Emotional Stability was also found.
THE DARK SIDE OF PERSONALITY
The dark side refers to the impression people make when they let down their guard—when they are stressed, tired, or otherwise less vigilant about how they are being perceived. It often takes repeated exposure for observers to recognise these dispositions. Dark-side tendencies originate in efforts to get along and get ahead but rest on flawed assumptions about how one expects to be treated or how best to serve one’s personal interests
Classifying Dark-Side Traits
There is no universally accepted taxonomy of dark-side traits in organizational research. For instance, Wu and LeBreton (2011) and O’Boyle et al.
(2012) studied “the Dark Triad” of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy (cf. Paulhus & Williams, 2002), whereas Moscoso and Salgado
(2004) identified 14 “dysfunctional personality styles”.
As shown in Table 1, the content of the inventories overlaps and the relations among them can be organised using themes from the 11 Axis II personality disorders (Hogan & Hogan, 2001; Hogan et al., 2010).
Extreme Extensions of Bright-Side Traits
The bright and dark sides of personality are neither conceptually nor empirically independent. For instance, conceptual research suggests linkages between the FFM dimensions and the 11 Axis II dimensions (Widiger, Trull,Clarkin, Sanderson, & Costa, 2002), and meta-analytic research shows aconsistent pattern of correlations between scales that measure the twodomains (Samuel & Widiger, 2008; Saulsman & Page, 2004). The Axis IIdimensions are most strongly related to low levels of FFM Emotional Stability and FFM Agreeableness, reflecting their tendency to disrupt relationships. However, all dimensions of the FFM have been mapped into one ormore Axis II dimensions (e.g. FFM Conscientiousness and Axis II ObsessiveCompulsive). Nonetheless, bright-side and dark-side traits are not redundant(Hogan & Hogan, 2009; Paulhus & Williams, 2002) and dark-side traitsprovide incremental validity over the bright-side traits of the FFM in predicting leadership behavior and performance criteria (Harms, Spain,Hannah, Hogan, & Foster, 2011b).
(TABLE 1) A Taxonomy of the Dark Side of Personality and Related Measurement Scales
Dark-Side Dynamics
. First, the higher the dark-side score, the more likely the extreme, counterproductive behavior (Schuman & Presser, 1981). Second, the experience of psychological threat triggers the defensive behaviors that can be offensive to others (Kaiser & Kaplan, 2006). Finally is the consideration of an individual’s ability to selfregulate: managers who are aware of their dark sides, who have techniques for managing their disruptive effects, and who are motivated to do so are more likely to express these traits positively (Davies, 2009; Kaiser & Kaplan, 2006; Mansi, 2007; Nelson & Hogan, 2009).
Therefore, we propose that managers who are low on FFM Emotional Stability are more likely to express the counterproductive aspects of their dark sides.
Extreme Extensions of Bright-Side Traits
Table 2 presents the links between the bright-side dimensions of the FFM and the 11 dark-side dimensions as defined by Hogan and Hogan (2001) and contrasts the strengths, associated with short-term benefits, and weaknesses, associated with long-term costs, for each dark-side dimension
(TABLE2) Strengths and Weaknesses Associated with Dark-Side Dimensions
INEFFECTIVE LEADER BEHAVIOR
The effectiveness of leader behavior is typically conceptualised in a linear way where, for instance, more consideration, initiation, or transformational leadership is assumed to be “better”.
This may be one reason why leadership research on dark-side traits has produced inconsistent findings. In the present study, we used a measurement methodology that allowed raters to distinguish when managers do too little or too much of specific leader behaviors.
Our study used the four dimensions of the versatile leadership model: Forceful, Enabling, Strategic, and Operational (Kaiser, Overfield, & Kaplan, 2010; Kaplan & Kaiser, 2006).
INEFFECTIVE LEADER BEHAVIOR
4 dimensions.
. Forceful leadership is defined as assuming authority and using personal and position power to push for performance.
Enabling leadership is defined as creating conditions for others to contribute through empowerment, participation, and support.
Strategic leadership is defined as positioning the team for the future by setting direction, making bold moves, and supporting innovation.
Operational leadership is defined as guiding the team to execute near-term goals by specifying the details of implementation, focusing resources, and monitoring performance..
Predictions
Forceful Predictions. We predicted that high scores on Excitable would be associated with “too much” Forceful leadership. Excitable managers are easily upset and prone to emotional eruptions—yelling, throwing fits, and expressing direct anger. Co-workers see Excitable behavior as abrasive and intimidating.
Enabling Predictions. We expected that high scores on Dutiful would also be associated with “too much” Enabling leadership. The overly accommodating qualities of Dutiful managers represent a style that is too deferential, gives employees too much autonomy, and is excessively concerned about pleasing others.
Strategic Predictions. We predicted that high scores on Bold, Mischievous, Colorful, and Imaginative would be associated with “too much” Strategic leadership. Prior research indicates that these dimensions form a higher-order factor usually interpreted as the “charismatic cluster”.
Operational Predictions. We predicted that high scores on Cautious and Diligent would be associated with “too much” Operational leadership. Cautious managers are risk averse and insist on tried and true methods; their enforcement of standard operating procedures is stifling.
Predictions
In contrast with “too much” Strategic leadership, we predicted that high scores on Bold, Mischievous, Colorful, and Imaginative would be associated with “too little” Operational leadership. Bold managers are over-confident and underestimate the tactical problems with implementing their grand plans. Mischievous managers are impulsive and neglect details and follow-through. Colorful managers are easily distracted and lack the focus required to execute. Imaginative managers get lost in thought and struggle to move from idea to execution. All of the foregoing predictions are summarised in Table 3.
(TABLE 3) Predicted Relationships between Dark-Side Personality Dimensions and Leader Behaviors
Moderating Effect of FFM Emotional Stability
Earlier we proposed that managers who are low on FFM Emotional Stability are less likely to regulate their dark sides because increased threat and anxiety taxes psychological resources and triggers the extreme and exaggerated behaviors associated with dark traits (Davies, 2009; Kaiser & Kaplan, 2006; Mansi, 2007; Nelson & Hogan, 2009). Therefore, we predicted that Emotional Stability would moderate the effect of dark-side traits on excessive leader behavior, such that relationships between dark-side traits and ratings of “too much” leader behavior will be strongest for managers who are low on measures of Emotional Stability.
Method https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lt7rQvt4V1E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnirL5QAphg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZHwW8hL0zc https://www.hoganassessments.com/
The data consisted of scores on the Hogan Development Survey and Hogan Personality Inventory for 320 managers and behavior ratings from 4,906 of their co-workers on the Leadership Versatility Index version 3.1. Data were gathered for strictly developmental purposes either as part of a training program or executive coaching services. The participants were employed in American (65%) and European (35%) firms. They were mostly male (71.3%) and the mean age was 45.7 years (SD = 7.0). They reported a mean of 16.4 years of managerial experience (SD = 7.1) and mean tenure in their current job of 3.1 years (SD = 3.2). Most worked in business organisations—61.2 per cent in publicly traded companies, 28.1 per cent in privately held companies, and 8.6 per cent in government institutions (2.1% did not report their type of organisation). Participants worked primarily in upper management—41.3 per cent reported working at the Executive level, 31.6 per cent at the Director level, and 27.2 per cent in Middle Management.
measure
Personality Predictors. Participants completed the Hogan Development Survey (HDS; Hogan & Hogan, 2009) as the dark-side personality measure. DARK-SIDE TRAITS AND LEADERSHIP 67 © 2013 International Association of Applied Psychology. The HDS contains 11 scales with 14 items each. Items are written in the form of statements to which a respondent indicates “agree” or “disagree”. Raw scale scores range from 0 to 14, with higher scores representing more dysfunctional tendencies. The 11 scales and their descriptions appear in Tables 1 and 2. Hogan and Hogan (2001, 2009) summarise reliability and validity evidence for the HDS showing that the 11 scales have unique relationships with a range of conceptually aligned occupational criteria. Test–retest reliabilities over a three-month interval range from .64 to .75.
measure
In addition, participants completed the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI; Hogan & Hogan, 2007), from which we used the 37-item Adjustment scale in this study. The Adjustment scale is a construct-valid measure of FFM Emotional Stability (Hogan & Hogan, 2007) and was used as a moderator variable in the second wave of analyses. Hogan and Hogan (2007) and Hogan and Holland (2003) summarise reliability and validity evidence for the Adjustment scale for a broad range of theoretically relevant occupational criteria. Test–retest reliability over a three-month interval is .87.
measure
Leader Behavior Criteria. The Leadership Versatility Index version 3.1 (LVI) is a multi-rater instrument that contains four primary scales, each composed of 12 items, concerning Forceful, Enabling, Strategic, and Operational behaviors (Kaiser et al., 2010). Prior research supports the structure, reliability, and validity of the LVI as a measure of these four dimensions that shows the expected patterns of convergent and discriminant relations with other measures of leader behavior and effectiveness criteria (Kaiser et al., 2010; Staal, 2008; Vassar, 2008). Crucial to our study, the LVI behavior items are rated with a unique, “too little/too much” response format ranging from −4 to +4. Degrees of “too little” are represented from −4 to −1, “the right amount” is represented by 0, and degrees of “too much” are represented from +1 to +4 (see Figure 1)
procedures
results
Data analysis proceeded in two stages. We first tested the predictions concerning the main effects for the HDS dark-side traits on the leadership behaviors. Then, we tested the predictions concerning moderating effects for the measure of FFM Emotional Stability, HPI Adjustment.
We conducted four binary logistic regression analyses to simultaneously test relationships for the set of dark traits predicted to be associated with the four leadership behaviors. Testing all relationships with each leadership behavior in a single analysis minimises Type I error rates.
Reconsidering the Interpretation of Dark-Side Scales
limitations
At least three shortcomings to the present study may limit generalisability. First, the sample was composed mostly of upper-level managers. It is unclear how well the findings apply to lower-level managers and supervisors. It is plausible that the effect of dark-side traits at lower levels is stronger for interpersonally oriented leader behaviors and weaker for organisational change- and task-oriented behaviors.
For instance, the greater power distance in these cultures may affect the threshold for the level of dark-side traits perceived to be associated with “too little” and “too much” of various leader behaviors (House, Hanges, Ruiz-Quintanilla, Dorfman, Falkus, & Ashkanasy, 1999). It is possible that the greater obediDARK-SIDE TRAITS AND LEADERSHIP 85 © 2013 International Association of Applied Psychology. ence to authority common to more hierarchical and collectivist cultures such as those in Asia are more tolerant of personality quirks and eccentricities, in which case it may require more extreme scores on dark-side traits to be associated with ineffective ratings of leader behavior
limitations
Finally, our criterion variables were measured on a continuous scale, but in some analyses were split into binary categories because our predictions were categorical (“too little” and “too much”) rather than continuous. This procedure reduced variance in the four leader behaviors which limited statistical power and attenuated the observed relationships with the HDS dark-side traits (Cohen, 1983; MacCallum, Zhang, Preacher, & Rucker, 2002). It is possible that some of the HDS scales were erroneously rejected as nonsignificant predictors in the logistic regression analyses due to this reduction in power.
