Annotated Bibliography and Outline for PhD doctorate

jtwitl

article_2.pdf

Home >Psychology homework help >Annotated Bibliography and Outline for PhD doctorate

IS S N 0 0 8 1 -2 4 6 3

253

Leadership styles and associated personality

traits: Support for the conceptualisation of

transactional and transformational leadership

René van Eeden

Departm ent of Psychology, University of South Africa, P O Box 392, Pretoria, 0003,

South Africa

veeder@ unisa.ac.za

Frans Cilliers

Departm ent of Industrial and O rganisational Psychology, University of South Africa,

Pretoria, South Africa

Vasi van Deventer

Departm ent of Psychology, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa

The full range model of leadership includes laissez-faire behaviour, transactional leadership, and transformational leadership. The model conceptualises leadership in terms of the behaviours associated with various styles and this conceptualisation has been empirically supported. In this article the personality traits of managers exercising different leadership styles are explained in terms of, and add to, the description of these styles. Members of a management team were assessed in terms of their preferred leadership styles and two groups were identified. Some of the managers relied on both transformational behaviours and active transactional behaviours with an absence of behaviours associated with passive styles. The rest of the managers used behaviours associated with all the styles. An integrated personality profile was compiled for each manager. Definite trends were observed when comparing the profiles of the managers in the two leadership groups. Transformational leadership was defined in terms of the interpersonal more than the visionary aspect of leadership with interpersonal styles and work and social ethics being empha- sised. Behaviours associated with transactional leadership as well as with more passive styles were also noted. The findings provide further support for the conceptualisation of leadership in terms of the full range model of leadership.

Keywords:16 PF; full range model; leadership; Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire; Occupational Personality Questionnaire; personality traits; Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire; transac- tional leadership; transformational leadership

T he work environment is characterised by globalisation together with accelerating rates of change

in markets, technologies, the work force, and work force expectations (Gordon-B rown & B endixen,

2002; Horwitz, Kamoche, & Chew, 2002; V an der Colff, 2003). C hanges are taking place in cultural

patterns, role definitions, structures, policies, procedures, and technologies (K rantz, 2001). Leader-

ship is central to this transformation and the full range model of leadership (with the transactional–

transformational distinction as basis) provides a framework for exploring the role of the leader in a

changing work environment. According to B ass and Avolio (1994) transformational leadership

provides an ideal of leadership, given contemporary developments in the global business world.

Research supports the use of a transformational style given the rapidly changing technology (H owell

& Higgens, 1990), shift in work force expectations (Lo we, K roeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996;

Sagie, 1997; Vroom, 2000), and need for doing business internationally and in multicultural envi-

ronments (Church & W aclawski, 1999; Gibson & M arcoulides, 1995; Rosenzweig, 1998).

T he full range model is based on the concepts of transactional and transformational leadership

René van Eeden, Frans Cilliers and Vasi van Deventer

254

as developed by Burns (1978 in B ass, 1997) and expanded by Bass (1985 in B ass, 1997). According

to B ass (1997, p. 130) the transactional–transformational d istinction views leadership ‘as either a

matter of contingent reinforcement of followers by a transactional leader or the moving of followers

beyond their self-interests for the good of the group, organization, or society by a transformational

leader’. T he full range model in addition allows for passive behaviours and it can be regarded as a

hybrid explanation (B ass, 1990; Den H artog, V an M uijen, & K oopman, 1997) incorporating aspects

of various theoretical approaches. However, despite being a relatively comprehensive model, Yukl

(1999) contends that some important leadership behaviours have been omitted and that this should

be regarded as a weakness of a model referred to as the full range model of leadership.

T he full range model includes laissez-faire b ehaviour, transactional leadership, and transfor- mational leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1994). T he conceptualisation of the leadership styles in the model is summarised in T able 1. T hese styles are regarded as separate dimensions and better leaders display each of the three styles to som e degree. As mentioned the model represents various theoretical approaches but the conceptualisation of these leadership styles primarily in terms of the behaviours associated with each, links the model to trait theories. T rait theories focus on qualities that differentiate leaders from followers. T he current perspective is that traits do not ensure leadership success but that some traits do distinguish effective leaders (Bateman & Snell, 1999). In research as well as practice personality traits are usually operationalised in terms of behavioural preferences (or exposed personality traits). It should be noted that in the case of charisma, an essential transformational leadership behaviour (Carless, W earing, & M ann, 2000), the full range model distinguishes between charismatic behaviour and attributed charisma (Avolio, B ass, & Jung, 1999; Conger & Kanungo, 1994; Kanungo & Conger, 1992).

Research on the personality traits associated with transactional and transformational leadership supports the conceptualisation of the leadership styles in terms of leadership behaviours and the nature of the influencing process, the latter consisting of a visionary and an interpersonal component. A focus on organisational change, a greater degree of risk taking, a tendency to be proactive, the use of more planning (futurity), and innovative problem solving characterise the transformational leader (Church & W aclawski, 1998; H owell & H iggens, 1990; M iller, Kets de Vries, & T oulouse, 1982; V an Rensburg & Crous, 2000). T his corresponds with the definition of the transformational leader

as being innovative and less likely to support the current situation, seeking opportunities in the face of risk, and attempting to shape and create rather than react to environmental circumstances (Lowe et al., 1996). However, R oss and Offermann (1997) did not find a need for change to be a significant predictor of transformational leadership. Interpersonal factors explained most of the variance in their study. Articulating a vision was found to be another distinguishing characteristic of transformational leadership, especially as a means for inspiring others (Church & W aclawski, 1998; Hogan, 1994; H owell & Higgens, 1990; W offord, Goodwin, & W hittington, 1998). T he setting of long-term goals reflects the need for achievement referred to by H owell and H iggens (1990) and V an Rensburg and Crous (2000).

H ogan (1994) emphasises social and interpersonal skills as present in transformational leaders.

T hese skills are reflected in personality traits such as adjustment (e.g., being self-confident and able

to handle pressure), social impact (e.g., being outgoing and assertive), and agreeableness (e.g., being

warm and friendly). Ross and O ffermann (1997) found support for the presence of self-confidence

and Van Rensburg and Crous (2000) found that transformational leaders showed a need for

affiliation and that their interpersonal relationships were warm, accepting, and supportive while they

also showed an enjoyment of attention from others. Ross and Offermann (1997) found personality

attributes associated with the functions of intellectual stimulation and individualised consideration

to be the more consistent predictors of transformational leadership. A factor representing an enabling

style of leadership characterised by practical support and concern for subordinate development

explained most of the variance in their study.

Leadership styles and associated personality traits

255

Table 1. Conceptualisation of the leadership styles in the full range model

Transformational leadership Idealised influence implies that followers respect, admire, and trust the leader and emulate his or her behaviour, assume his or her values, and are committed to achieving his or her vision and making sacrifices in this regard. The leader shows dedication, a strong sense of purpose and perseverance, and confidence in the purpose and the actions of the group that helps to ensure the success of the group and gives followers a sense of empowerment and ownership. He or she behaves morally and ethically. Inspirational motivation refers to the leader(s enthusiasm and optimism in creating a vision of the future, thus stimulating similar feelings with followers. The leader is seen to commit to the vision, specific goals and expectations are clearly communicated, and confidence is expressed in followers’ ability to achieve these expectations. Intellectual stimulation implies a leader who values the intellectual ability of followers and who encourages innovation and develops creativity. Others are encouraged to reframe problems, use a holistic perspective in understanding problems, question the status quo, and approach problems from different angles, thus creating readiness for change and developing the ability to solve current and future problems. Individualised consideration implies that the leader considers the ability of followers and their level of maturity to determine their need for further development. He or she acts as a mentor giving personal attention, listening to others' concerns, and providing feedback, advice, support, and encouragement. The leader furthermore designs appropriate strategies to develop individual followers to achieve higher levels of motivation, potential, and performance. Support is provided and progress monitored.

Transactional leadership Transactional leadership involves a social exchange process where the leader clarifies what the followers need to do as their part of a transaction (successfully complete the task) to receive a reward or avoidance of punishment (satisfaction of the followers’ needs) that is contingent on the fulfilment of the transaction (satisfying the leader's needs). In the case of active management by exception, the leader looks for mistakes, irregularities, exceptions, deviations from standards, complaints, infractions of rules and regulations, and failures and he or she takes corrective action before or when these occur. Passive management by exception implies that the leader is reactive and waits to be informed about errors and deviances before taking action.

Laissez-faire style or passive leadership This style implies avoidance or absence of leadership. The leader leaves responsibility for the work to followers and avoids setting goals and clarifying expectations, organising priorities, becoming involved when important issues arise, taking a stand on issues and making decisions. If this style is used as a component of other leadership styles it allows for the possibility of self-management.

Based on Bass (1990, 1997) and Bass and Avolio (1994, 1995)

T he present discussion contributes to the personality–leadership literature by using holistic

profiles of individuals as the source of information rather than following the example of prior work

and comparing groups that differ in leadership style in terms of their mean performance on separate

personality traits. M ean scores could obscure the variation between members of a group as well as

the preferences of the majority versus the exceptions. T he same result on a specific trait, furthermore,

has different interpretations depending on the way in which it is combined with other traits. In

practice, the evaluation for placement and development of individuals in leadership positions

includes an integrated personality profile that considers performance on all related traits. It was

expected that the use of integrated profiles would add to the understanding of the full range model

in terms of the personality traits associated with the leadership styles defined in this model.

René van Eeden, Frans Cilliers and Vasi van Deventer

256

M ET HO D

An intervention was co nducted at management level at one of the plants of a South African pro-

duction company that had been engaged in a process of transformation. In response to continuous

changes in technology and customer demands, the organisation had been adapting at operational

level and in terms of the composition and structuring of personnel. One of the aspects that had to be

ad dressed was perceived differences in management styles between members of the management

team and the impact thereof. M embers of the management team were to be sensitised in terms of

individual and group functioning, and assessment of and feedback on leadership styles and per-

sonality characteristics formed part of this process.

Design

T he intervention focused on the above mentioned management team and questionnaires were

administered to assess the leadership styles and personality traits of the members of the team. For

each manager preferences in terms of leadership behaviours were identified and an integrated

personality profile was drawn up. T he intervention required individual feedback as well as feedback

on the functioning of the group. It is the latter that forms the basis of the present discussion on the

personality traits associated with different leadership styles. Although the use of the questionnaires

imply numerical data and predetermined categories, this information was used to provide qualitative

descriptions firstly at an individual and then at a group level. An integrated personality profile

implies that performance on related traits is considered to describe functioning on a specific aspect

(e.g., interpersonal confidence). T he conclusion regarding such an aspect might be similar for indi-

viduals with different scores on the relevant traits. T rends, that would probably not have emerged

in a quantitative analysis, can thus be identified at a group level. B ased on leadership preferences

the team could furthermore be divided into two groups. T his made it possible to observe differences

in personality between a group of more effective (or more transformational) managers and managers

who could be regarded as less effective in terms of the leadership theory. D espite the small sample

the qualitative nature of the interpretation made it possible to identify clear trends.

Sam ple

T he management team co nsisted of a general manager, a technical expert, managers for the two

phases of production, and managers for planning and logistics, quality control, engineering, human

resources, finances, and marketing. Assessment results were available for eight of these managers.

T he members of the management team were primarily white, Afrikaans-speaking males. T enure

varied, with some of them having been with the company only a few years and others for more than

10 years. B ased on a confidentiality agreement, details of the primary task of the company and

biographical information on individual respondents cannot be given. T he holistic approach to inter-

pretation would only be possible with a small sample and the focus o n the personality–leadership

relationship provides some justification for the relative homogeneity of the group in terms of demo-

graphic variables. Admittedly these aspects limit the generalisability of the findings.

M easuring instrum ents

T he M ultifactor Leadership Questionnaire Form 5X (M LQ 5X ), the Occupational Personality

Q uestionnaire version 32 (O PQ 32), and the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire, SA 1992

version (16PF, SA92) were used. T he different versions of the latter questionnaires are regularly

used for personality assessment in the South African context. T he O PQ focuses on the workplace

whereas the 16PF measures somewhat different traits in a number of contexts. T he traits measured

by these questionnaires correspond with those identified in earlier research on personality charac-

teristics associated with the leadership styles of the full range model.

Leadership styles and associated personality traits

257

T he M LQ 5X consists of 36 items that measure transformational leadership, transactional

leadership, and laissez-faire leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1995). T he remaining nine items measure

outcomes of leadership. Each of the 45 items contributes to only one factor and the score for that

factor is the average of the relevant items. Each manager completes a self-assessment form on which

he or she has to rate how often the leadership behaviour in each statem ent is practised on a range

from 0 (not at all) to 4 (frequently, if not always). A rater form containing similar statements is

co m pleted by a superior, a peer, and subordinates indicating how often the behaviour is observed

in the case of the manager. An effective leader is expected to obtain a rating of 3 (fairly often) on

average for transformational leadership as well as on each of the five scales, a rating of 2 (some-

times) for contingent reward, between 1 (once in a while) and 2 (sometimes) for active management

by exception, and between 0 (not at all) and 1 (once in a while) for passive management by exception

and laissez-faire behaviour. Support for the reliability and validity of the questionnaire has been

based on a database consisting of 14 separate studies (Avolio et al., 1999). T he W estern capitalist

culture of the management team included in the present study made the questionnaire suitable despite

comparatively limited research in the South African context.

T he O PQ 32 is an updated version of the original OPQ Concept M odel developed between 1981

and 1984 in the U K (SH L, 1999). T he normative version used in this study consists of 230 state-

ments; respondents are asked to rate each statement on a scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to

strongly agree (5 ). R aw scores are transformed into scores on a sten scale for each of the 32

dim ensions (the norms for a U K general population sample were used). T he sten scores are

interpreted in terms of the description on each bipolar scale of a low score, an average score, and a

high score. T he mean of 5.5 and standard deviation of 2 are considered in determining these

categories. T he 32 dimensions measured by the O PQ 32 are grouped into four domains, namely,

relationships with people, thinking style, feelings and emotions, and dynamism. A score on a Social

D esirability scale is also obtained. Acceptable results in terms of the internal consistency reliability

and the validity of the questionnaire is reported in the manual (SH L, 1999) and elsewhere (B arrett,

K line, Paltiel, & Eysenck, 1996; M atthews & Stanton, 1994; Robertson & K inder, 1993). Swane-

velder (2003) focused specifically on the usefulness of the questionnaire in the South African context

and reports structural equivalence for black and white subgroups.

Prinsloo (1992) describes the development of the 16PF (SA92). T he SA92 version consists of

160 items/questions; each item consists of a statement with three response options scored as 0, 1, or

2. T he items are combined into 16 bipolar scales. Raw scores are transformed to a sten scale with

a mean of 5.5 and a standard deviation of 2. N orms are available for the total group and for males

and females separately (the latter tables were used in this study). T he sten scores are interpreted in

terms of the d escrip tion on each bipolar scale of a low score (range of 1 to 3), an average score

(range of 4 to 7), and a high score (range of 8 to 10). T he item s are combined into 16 primary

personality traits (Russell & Karol, 1994) that in turn are combined in groups to obtain scores on the

secondorder factors Extroversion, Anxiety, Emotional Sensitivity (Tough Poise), Independence, and

Compulsivity (Prinsloo, 1992). A score is also obtained on the M otivational Distortion Scale (M D

Scale). Reliability coefficients, the results of factor analyses, and subgroup comparisons are reported

in the manual. According to Prinsloo (1992, p. 26) ‘... the questionnaire m easures the same con-

structs, structured in the same way, in a reliable, valid and unbiased fashion among testees from any

relevant subgroup’.

Procedure

T he human resources manager arranged a session with the management team during which the

rationale of the administration was explained and the personality questionnaires were completed. T he

manager who was qualified to do so conducted the administration. T he leadership questionnaire

René van Eeden, Frans Cilliers and Vasi van Deventer

258

implies self-rating and ratings by others, and the questionnaires were distributed with instructions

for completion to the relevant individuals. Paper-and-pencil versions of the questionnaires were used,

and all the questionnaires were completed in English. T he researcher provided guidelines for the

human resources manager and also did the scoring and interpretation and gave individual and group

feedback. Confidentiality was emphasised.

Interpretation

T he members of the management team were evaluated in terms of their preferred leadership styles

based o n the ratings by others (superiors, peers, and subordinates). The average ratings for the

managers in each of the groups are reported in T able 2. T he four managers in the first group relied

on both transformational and active transactional behaviours with an absence of behaviours

associated with the passive styles. T he average for transformational leadership as well as the ratings

for four of the five scales (and the fifth in the case of two of the managers) indicated that they used

the associated behaviours ‘fairly often’ (a rating of 3). All four managers used active transactional

leadership (contingent reward and active management by exception) to the same extent as trans-

formational leadership. Passive management by exception and laissez-fa ire leadership were used

‘once in a while’ or ‘not at all’ (ratings of 1 and 0, respectively). T his group would be referred to as

the transformational group although it should be kept in mind that their reliance on active trans-

actional leadership is higher than expected for effective leadership. T he four managers in the second

group used behaviours associated with all the styles. W ith only a few exceptions, the ratings indi-

cated that they ‘sometimes’ (a rating of 2) used the various styles, implying most effective use only

of active transactional leadership.

Table 2. Average ratings for the managers of the two groups

Leadership preferences Group 1 Group 2

Transformational leadership Idealised Attributes Idealised Behaviours Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individualised Consideration Average Transactional leadership Contingent reward Management-by-exception (active) Management-by-exception (passive) Laissez-faire

3* 3 3 3 2 3

2 3

3 3 3 3 2 3

3 3

3 3 3 3 3 3

3 3

3 3 3 3 3 3

3 2

2 2 3 2 2 2

2 2

2 2 2 2 2 2

2 2

2 3 3 2 2 2

3 2

2 2 3 2 2 2

2 2

Note: * Average ratings have been rounded

B ased on the O PQ and 16PF results, an integrated personality profile was developed for each

of the managers. T he manager was described in terms of the traits and behaviours associated with

three broad categories, namely, thinking styles and problem-solving patterns, general adjustment,

and relationships and interpersonal styles. It is standard p ractice to use these categories in the

interpretation of both the questionnaires. Trends in terms of the traits and behaviours in each of these

categories were identified in each of the leadership groups and compared across the two groups. T he

Leadership styles and associated personality traits

259

criteria used were those identified in the section on the measuring instrum ents, and depending on

low, average, or high scores as well as the combination of scores it was determined if the managers

in a group showed patterns of behaviour (with or without exceptions) and how this compared across

the two groups.

T he first category deals with the individual’s cognitive style and approaches to problem-solving

as well as the manner in which he or she deals with obligations. C onceptual thinking and creativity

are evaluated together with the person’s reality-orientation, planning and organising abilities, and

sense of responsibility. T he O PQ dimensions associated with the domain of T hinking Style (grouped

as analysis, creativity and change, and structure) are considered together with the 16PF primary

factors that form part of the second-order factors T ough Poise and Compulsivity as well as the

primary factors Reasoning, Openness to Change, and Self-reliance. Details on the scales associated

with this category are presented in T able 3.

Table 3. T he O PQ and 16PF scales associated with thinking styles and problem-solving patterns

OPQ 16PF

Thinking Style Analysis Data Rational Evaluative Behavioural Creativity and change Conventional Conceptual Innovative Variety Seeking Adaptable Structure Forward Thinking Detail Conscious Conscientious Rule Following

Tough Poise Warmth Sensitivity Abstractedness Compulsivity Rule-consciousness Privateness Perfectionism Other Reasoning Openness to Change Self-reliance

T he second category deals with the individual’s emotional adjustment and resilience as well as

his or her energy and achievement-orientation. Information based on the dimensions of the domain

Feelings and Emotions (grouped as emotion and dynamism) are used together with the 16PF primary

factors associated with the second-order facto r Anxiety. D etail on the scales associated with this

category are presented in T able 4.

T he third category deals with the extent to which the individual enjoys social interaction and

what role he or she plays in such interaction, how comfortable and competent he or she is in social

situations, and the person’s approach in term s of decision-making and taking the lead. In the case

of the O PQ the dimensions of the domain Relationships with People (grouped as influence,

sociability, and empathy) and the dimensions V ariety Seeking and Adaptable are considered. T he

latter is interpreted together with results on the 16PF second-order factor Extraversion, the related

primary factors, and the primary factors Vigilance and Privateness. Detail on the scales associated

with this category are presented in T able 5.

René van Eeden, Frans Cilliers and Vasi van Deventer

260

Table 4. T he O PQ and 16PF scales associated with general adjustment

OPQ 16PF

Feelings and Emotions Emotion Relaxed Worrying Tough Minded Optimistic Trusting Emotionally Controlled Dynamism Vigorous Competitive Achieving Decisive

Anxiety Emotional Stability Vigilance Apprehension Perfectionism Tension

Table 5. T he O PQ and 16PF scales associated with relationships and interpersonal styles

OPQ 16PF

Relationships with People Influence Persuasive Controlling Outspoken Independent Minded Sociability Outgoing Affiliative Socially Confident Empathy Modest Democratic Caring Other Variety Seeking Adaptable

Extraversion Warmth Dominance Liveliness Social Boldness Self-reliance Other Vigilance Privateness

LEAD ER SH IP ST YLES AN D ASSO C IAT ED PER SO N ALIT Y T RAIT S

Expectations based on the conceptualisation of and research on the leadership styles as defined in

the full range model are described. T he trends identified in each group in the present study as well

as the differences across the two groups are then presented.

Thinking styles and problem -solving patterns

N umerous authors refer to innovativeness and entrepreneurial qualities that lead to change, as per-

sonality characteristics of the effective leader (e.g. B ass, 1990; B ass & Avolio, 1994, 1995; Church

& W aclawski, 1998; Hogan, 1994; H owell & Higgens, 1990; M iller et al., 1982; Van Rensburg &

Crous, 2000; W offord et al., 1998). Inspirational motivation implies a vision for the future that is

Leadership styles and associated personality traits

261

different and challenging. T his requires someone with a strategic approach and a willingness to

experiment and im plement change. A holistic perspective, an interest in conceptual thinking, a

creative approach as well as a willingness to question assumptions, are also requirem ents for the

function of intellectual stimulation (see T able 1).

It was expected that the above traits would be more prominent in the case of the transfor-

mational group in the present study. However, a clear distinction could not be made between the two

groups in term s of conceptual and creative thinking. T he results for the managers in both groups

ranged from a focus on practical concerns to a high interest in conceptual thinking, innovation, and

the critical evaluation of information.

Adherence to moral standards and rules furthermore reflects the ethical stance associated with

a leader who exhibits idealised behaviour and also provides associates with values with which they

can identify (B ass, 1990 ). A sense of responsibility also reflects the dedication that inspires asso-

ciates to share the leader's vision and goals. Clarity in terms of goals and the roles of associates in

achieving them are requirements for both inspirational motivation and idealised behaviours. How-

ever, a preference fo r the structure provided by guidelines and adherence to regulations are also

related to a contingent reward strategy and the use of active management by exception. Various

authors (Bass, 1997; Hogan, 1994; M iller et al., 1982) refer to the transactional leader’s focus on

task performance and use of procedures to maintain control.

T hese patterns were observed in the present study and as this is one of the aspects where a clear

distinction could be made between the two groups, detail is provided in T ables 6 and 7 to illustrate

the interpretation process. W ith one exception, the managers exercising a transformational style

indicated adherence to moral standards and rules and a sense of responsibility in both work and

social contexts. All the managers in this group furthermore showed adherence to regulations in the

work context implying a degree of rigidity. T hese traits reflected the managers’ reliance on both

transformational and active transactional behaviours. T he managers in the second group either

showed concern for moral standards and rules or strict adherence to regulations in a work context,

but did not indicate a consistent profile of commitment to social as well as work-related obligations.

T his reflected the active transactional style of this group combined with aspects of the passive styles

such as talking about getting work done but not always taking responsibility.

G eneral adjustm ent

Resilience in terms of self-confidence, self-determination, a lack of internal conflicts, and the ability

to handle pressure underlie the idealised influence practiced by the transformational leader (B ass,

1990; Hogan, 1994; Ross & Offermann, 1997). T he effective leader (who primarily relies on

transformational behaviour and only uses the other styles when appropriate) is furthermore focused

on achievement (V an R ensburg & C rous, 2000) and dedication, inner direction, and a high activity

and energy level contribute to the leader’s function as role model. Enthusiasm and optimism are also

required to create a vision of the future and effective problem solving requires self-confidence.

Although a clear distinction between the two groups in terms of general adjustment was not

possible, the trends support the expectations in terms of leadership styles. T he m anagers in both

groups seemed to be resilient, although some apprehension and emotional reactiveness were noted.

A degree of complacency was observed in the case of the second group (the managers who did not

show a preference in terms of leadership style). T he managers in both groups furthermore seemed

ambitious, with more moderate levels of energy and drive indicated in the case of the second group.

T he more placid, less active profile seen for this group probably reflects times when these managers

used a style of taking action only when things go wrong and being absent and not taking responsi-

bility for setting goals and making decisions.

René van Eeden, Frans Cilliers and Vasi van Deventer

262

Table 6. T he interpretation process in terms of social and work related obligations (group 1)

Personality traits Manager 1 Manager 2 Manager 3 Manager 4

16PF: Rule-consciousness 16PF: Perfectionism OPQ: Conscientious OPQ: Rule Following

8 8 8 8

9 7 4 8

7 7 9 7

4 6 4 7

Interpretation for manager 1 The manager is disciplined and ordered and he would strive to behave in a considerate and socially precise manner. He is furthermore a responsible and persevering person who needs to see tasks through to completion. (He probably expects the same from others.) Together with the adherence to standards and regulations this might indicate some lack of flexibility (but a high degree of reliability where deadlines and prescribed work methods are set down). Interpretation for manager 2 The manager tends to be self-disciplined and organised and he would make an effort to behave in a considerate and socially acceptable manner. He is a responsible and persevering person who could be somewhat rigid in conforming to standards and rules. He prefers the structure provided by clear guidelines and this adherence to regulations could at times be at the cost of completing a task or meeting deadlines. Interpretation for manager 3 The manager tends to be self-disciplined and seems to conform to what is generally regarded as acceptable behaviour and to show regard for moral standards and rules. He is a conscientious and persevering person with a strong emphasis on task completion and meeting deadlines. Also in a work context does he show a preference for some structure in the form of guidelines. Interpretation for manager 4 The manager seems reasonably self-disciplined and aware of and willing to adhere to what is regarded as socially approved behaviour. Nevertheless, in both a social and a work context some flexibility with regard to obligations is observed. In the latter context he shows some preference for structure and a tendency to follow rules and regulations. Trends observed for the group* With one exception, the managers exercising a transformational style indicated adherence to moral standards and rules and a sense of responsibility in both work and social contexts. All the managers in this group furthermore showed adherence to regulations in the work context implying a degree of rigidity. These traits reflected the managers’ reliance on both transformational and active transactional behaviours.

Note: * The scores on the personality traits were used to formulate the individual interpretations. Trends were based primarily on these integrated interpretations that provide more information than the scores on the specific traits or averages for traits or a combination of traits.

Relationships and interpersonal styles

According to B ass (1990), charismatic leaders have a need to influence others. T his, however, is

coupled with sensitivity to follower's needs. Social impact involves confidence and assertiveness in

social situations (H ogan, 1994; Ross & Offermann, 1997). Idealised influence implies that the leader

has to provide clear direction for the group and show confidence in their purpose and actions. One

expects the leader to be willing to influence others either through taking control and providing

direction or through negotiation and persuasion. Idealised influence, inspirational motivation, and

intellectual stimulation furthermore require an assertive and outspoken leader who voices his values

and beliefs, clearly states his vision, questions assumptions, and challenges associates in terms of

their performance and development. T hese functions of transformational leadership, however, also

Leadership styles and associated personality traits

263

Table 7. T he interpretation process in terms of social and work related obligations (group 2)

Personality traits Manager 1 Manager 2 Manager 3 Manager 4

16PF: Rule-consciousness 16PF: Perfectionism OPQ: Conscientious OPQ: Rule Following

9 9 6 6

5 7 6 8

4 6 5 8

8 6 3 4

Interpretation for manager 1 The manager is perfectionistic and would conform to what is regarded as socially approved behaviour with (rigid?) adherence to moral standards and rules. High expectations would also be set for others. However, in a work context task deadlines and rules and procedures would be approached with more flexibility (average scores were obtained). Interpretation for manager 2 The manager tends to be disciplined and he would make an effort to behave in a socially approved manner. He indicates reasonable responsibility in terms of social and work related obligations and in the latter context he would emphasise adherence to rules and procedures. Interpretation for manager 3 The manager is reasonably self-disciplined and aware of what is regarded as socially acceptable. However, he tends to be less conforming in terms of social standards and this could to some extent affect the way in which he regards his obligations in this context. He indicates moderate concern for task completion and he would in a work context adhere to regulations and procedures. Interpretation for manager 4 The manager indicates reasonable self-discipline and regard for what is seen as socially acceptable behaviour. He furthermore takes his social responsibilities seriously and would adhere to moral standards. Somewhat conflicting with this he tends to be less restricted by regulations in the workplace and he is flexible in terms of task completion and meeting deadlines. Trends observed for the group* The managers in the second group either showed concern for moral standards and rules or strict adherence to regulations in a work context, but did not indicate a consistent profile of commitment to social as well as work-related obligations. This reflected the active transactional style of this group combined with aspects of the passive styles such as talking about getting work done but not always taking responsibility.

require consultation with and active participation by associates. T hey need to feel a sense of em-

powerment and ownership (idealised influence), goals need to be in alignment with their own needs

(inspirational motivatio n), and their intellectual ability needs to be valued and their creativity

developed (intellectual stimulation).

T he managers exercising a transformational style scored average to high in terms of the traits

associated with influencing others and taking the lead. W ith one exception, these m anagers also

indicated that they were open to suggestions, involved others in decision making, and were inclined

to go with the majority decision. The managers in the other group indicated assertiveness and a

willingness to express themselves, and they scored average to high in terms of their willingness to

influence others. However, only one of the managers in this group involved associates, while the

others showed self-interest and valued their own intellect more than that of their followers reflecting

a directive transactional approach or the passive styles at times practiced by these managers.

René van Eeden, Frans Cilliers and Vasi van Deventer

264

M urphy and Ensher (1999) discuss the concept of a continuum of leader-member roles which

reflects the extent to which the leader treats followers as in- or out-group members. T he relationship

with the in-group members is based on transformational behaviours, with the leader showing a need

for affiliation and being warm, accepting, and supportive in his o r her interpersonal relationships

(Liden & M aslyn, 1998; Ross & O fferm ann, 1997; Van Rensburg & Crous, 2000). According to

B ass (1990), the charismatic leader inspires trust, confidence, acceptance, obedience, and affection

from followers. Identification and trust and inspiring and stimulating others imply active partici-

pation by the leader. Individualised co nsideration, however, provides the means for moving from

transactional to transformational leadership (Avolio & B ass, 1995). T his requires concern for

subordinate development at an individual level. T he relationship with out-group members is based

on the contract characterising the transactional style.

T he manager who preferred to make his own decisions also seemed more reserved, but the other

managers in the transformational group indicated that they were outgoing, enjoyed the company of

others, and were active in their interactions. All of them indicated trust in and tolerance towards

others and were at least reasonably caring and supportive towards and concerned about others

(average to high scores). However, being objective individuals implied greater task orientation than

people orientation. T his made sense in terms of their use of active transactional behaviour where the

interaction with associates is aimed at the delegation of tasks rather than individual issues or

problems. T he managers in the second group m ostly indicated that they were reserved and

impersonal although they were at least reasonably responsive in their interactions (with the manager

who involves others in decision making being more extroverted but with a tendency to be wary of

others). T hey were furthermore mostly selective with their support and preferred to remain detached

from others’ problems. T his non-involvement is a feature of the passive styles.

CONCLUSIONS

T he findings of the present study largely supported the conceptualisation of leadership styles in terms

of the full range model of leadership. T he leadership styles practised were associated with persona-

lity traits and behaviours relevant to the descriptions of these styles. In summary, the managers who

used a transformational style indicated personality traits associated with this type of leadership.

A verage to high scores in terms of strategic thinking, a conceptual and innovative approach, and

critical evaluation of information were coupled with moral concerns, a sense of responsibility, and

perseverance. T hese managers also showed at least reaso nable resilience as well as ambition and

motivation. Regarding the interpersonal aspect of leadership, this group indicated assertiveness and

a need to influence o thers while also allowing participation by associates and involving others in

decision making. T hese managers were characterised by a need for affiliation, responsiveness in

interaction, trust in and tolerance towards others as well as being reasonably caring. T he manifes-

tation of these traits, however, was influenced by their use of transactional leadership. T hey seemed

more task oriented than p eople oriented, and their need for structure probably also affected the

inspirational aspect of leadership. O ne of the managers in this group did not in all aspects fit the

above profile and his personality characteristics corresponded to some extent with that of the second

group. Although the people who rated him observed much of his behaviour as transformational, this

was not always supported in terms of the expected personality traits. For fear of over interpretation

only a tentative explanation is provided, namely, that his lower post level implied raters at a lower

post level who might have evaluated leadership behaviour differently.

B ecause the managers in the other group used a transformational style at times, the associated

traits were also to some extent observed in that group. T raits and behaviours associated with trans-

actional leadership as well as with the more passive styles were, however, also noted. T he managers

in this group seemed to be task oriented and probably practiced a more directive rather than partici-

Leadership styles and associated personality traits

265

pative transactional style. Passive behaviours included a placid attitude, fluctuation in commitment,

and a lack of involvement with others. Also in this group the profile of one of the managers varied

from the above. T his can be explained in terms of his emphasis on certain transactional and passive

behaviours despite an overall transformational profile.

Interpersonal styles and work and social ethics distinguished the managers practising transfor-

mational leadership and it was therefore mainly the traits and behaviours associated with idealised

influence and individualised consideration that characterised this leadership style — the inter-

personal more than the visionary aspect of leadership. T his distinction has been related to iden-

tification with the person versus identification with goals. T he findings provide valuable guidelines

on determining the profile of the effective leader, but also partly indicate perceived effectiveness

rather than an objective evaluation. T he leader is evaluated by others and it is possible that these

raters associated effective leadership with social values and interpersonal satisfaction. T he managers

in this study furthermore emphasised transactional behaviours in terms of their need for structure and

their focus on task performance. T his is probably not only necessary (given the manufacturing

environment) but also effective and shows the need for contextual considerations in applying a

theory or model.

T he small sample size and the very specific nature of the management team and of the company

imply that the generalisability of the results is limited. H owever, these factors made it possible to use

an approach that highlighted trends in the personality–leadership relationship that would probably

have been obscured in a quantitative study. As seen in the literature a quantitative replication of the

study with a more representative sample would nevertheless add to the information in this field. It

is conceded that the greatest value o f the approach used is in terms of the description of the

functioning of a specific group thus contributing to any intervention done at this level.

N O T E 1. ‘Transformational leader’ refers to a leader relying primarily on transformational behaviours with appro-

priate use of the behaviours associated with the other styles.

REFERENC ES Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1995). Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of analysis: A

multi-level framework for examining the diffusion of transformational leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 199-218.

Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 441-462.

Barrett, P., Kline, P., Paltiel, L., & Eysenck, H. J. (1996). An evaluation of the psychometric properties of the concept 5.2 Occupational Personality Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69, 1-19.

Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd edn.). New York: The Free Press/Macmillan.

Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52, 130-139.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Introduction. In B. M. Bass & B. J. Avolio (eds.), Improving organizational effectiveness (pp. 1-9). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Report. Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden.

Bateman, T. S., & Snell, S. A. (1999). Management: Building competitive advantage (4th edn.). Boston: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.

Carless, S. A., Wearing, A. J., & Mann, L. (2000). A short measure of transformational leadership. Journal of Business and Psychology, 14, 389-405.

René van Eeden, Frans Cilliers and Vasi van Deventer

266

Church, A. H., & Waclawski, J. (1998). The relationship between individual personality orientation and executive leadership behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 71, 99-125.

Church, A. H., & Waclawski, J. (1999). The impact of leadership style on global management practices. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 1416-1443.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1994). Charismatic leadership in organizations: Perceived behavioral attributes and their measurement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 439-452.

Den Hartog, D. N., Van Muijen, J. J., & Koopman, P. L. (1997). Transactional versus transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 19-34.

Gibson, C. B., & Marcoulides, G. A. (1995). The invariance of leadership styles across four countries. Journal of Managerial Issues, VII, 176-192.

Gordon-Brown, C., & Bendixen, M. (2002). Grant Thornton Feinstein Pretoria: A winning culture? (Report WBS–2002–2). Johannesburg: Wits Business School.

Hogan, R. (1994). Trouble at the top: Causes and consequences of managerial incompetence. Consulting Psychology Journal, 46, 9-15.

Horwitz, F. M., Kamoche, K., & Chew, I. K. H. (2002). Looking East: Diffusing high performance work practices in the southern Afro-Asian context. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 13, 1019-1041.

Howell, J. M., & Higgens, C. A. (1990). Champions of technological innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 317-341.

Kanungo, R. N., & Conger, J. A. (1992). Charisma: Exploring new dimensions of leadership behavior. Psychology and Developing Societies, 4, 21-38.

Krantz, J. (2001). Dilemmas of organizational change: A systems psychodynamic perspective. In L. J. Gould, L. F. Stapley, & M. Stein (eds.), The systems psychodynamics of organizations: Integrating the group relations approach, psychoanalytic, and open systems perspectives (pp. 133-156). London: Karnac.

Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24, 43-72.

Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385-425.

Matthews, G., & Stanton, N. (1994). Item and scale factor analyses of the Occupational Personality Questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 733-743.

Miller, D., Kets de Vries, M. F. R., & Toulouse, J. (1982). Top executive locus of control and its relationship to strategy-making, structure, and environment. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 237-253.

Murphy, S. E., & Ensher, E. A. (1999). The effects of leader and subordinate characteristics in the development of leader-member exchange quality. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 1371-1394.

Prinsloo, C. H. (1992). Manual for the use of the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire, South African 1992 version (16PF, SA92). Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council.

Robertson, I. T., & Kinder. A. (1993). Personality and job competences: An examination of the criterion-related validity of some personality variables. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65, 225-244.

Rosenzweig, P. (1998). Managing the new global workforce: Fostering diversity, forging consistency. European Management Journal, 16, 644-652.

Ross, S. M., & Offermann, L. R. (1997). Transformational leaders: Measurement of personality attributes and work group performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1078-1086.

Russell, M. T., & Karol, D. L. (1994). The 16PF fifth edition administrator's manual. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.

SHL. (1999). OPQ32 manual and user's guide. Surrey, SHL Group plc.

Leadership styles and associated personality traits

267

Sagie, A. (1997). Leader direction and employee participation in decision making: Contradictory or compatible practices? Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46, 387-452.

Swanevelder, C. (2003). The construct equivalence of the OPQ32n for Black and White subgroups in South Africa. Paper presented at the 6th Annual Industrial Psychology Conference, Johannesburg, South Africa.

Van der Colff, L. (2003). Leadership lessons from the African tree. Management Decision, 41, 257-261. Van Rensburg, C., & Crous, F. (2000). Die verband tussen sekere persoonlikheidseienskappe en

transformasionele leierskap (The relationship between certain personality traits and transformational leadership). Journal of Industrial Psychology, 26, 39-46.

Vroom, V. H. (2000). Leadership and the decision-making process. Organizational Dynamics, 28, 82-94. Wofford, J. C., Goodwin, V. L., & Whittington, J. L. (1998). A field study of a cognitive approach to

understanding transformational and transactional leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 9, 55-84. Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership

theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 285-305.