娀 Academy of Management Journal 2005, Vol. 48, No. 5, 845–858.
LEADING FROM WITHIN: THE EFFECTS OF EMOTION RECOGNITION AND PERSONALITY ON TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR ROBERT S. RUBIN DePaul University DAVID C. MUNZ Saint Louis University WILLIAM H. BOMMER Cleveland State University This study of 145 managers of a large biotechnology/agricultural company examined how leaders’ emotion recognition ability and personality characteristics influenced performance of transformational leadership behavior. Emotion recognition, positive affectivity, and agreeableness positively predicted such behavior. In addition, extraversion moderated the relationship between emotion recognition and transformational leadership. We also provided construct validity evidence for transformational leadership behavior by showing differing effects of these antecedents on contingent reward behavior. The study provides empirical support for the contribution of emotion and personality to transformational leadership behavior.
can be both constructive and corrective. Corrective exchanges involve leader behavior whereby leaders actively seek to correct mistakes before or after they occur. Constructive exchanges take the form of contingent rewards whereby leaders promise rewards for satisfactory performance and deliver the rewards when performance is achieved. Transformational leadership behavior represents the most active/effective form of leadership, a form in which leaders are closely engaged with followers, motivating them to perform beyond their transactional agreements. Podsakoff and colleagues extensively reviewed seven conceptualizations of transformational leadership behavior and found that it included articulating a vision of the future, fostering group-oriented work, setting high expectations, challenging followers’ thinking, supporting followers’ individual needs, and acting as a role model (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990). As Avolio (1999) noted, every leader displays behavior that can be characterized as transformational, transactional, and nontransactional; however, effective leaders more often display transformational leadership behavior and contingent reward behavior and less frequently display more passive and ineffective behaviors. In order to demonstrate transformational leadership behavior’s relative effectiveness among leadership behaviors, much research has been concerned with outcomes of transformational leadership be-
The past two decades have witnessed a great deal of scholarly attention to transformational leadership behavior, which is currently the most widely accepted leadership paradigm (Tejeda, 2001). Interest in transformational leadership behavior continues, largely bolstered by Avolio and Bass’s “full range leadership theory” (Bass, 1998; Avolio, 1999). In this theory, leader behavior has three broad categories: transformational, transactional, and nontransactional (laissez-faire). These categories describe leader behavior ranging from, at the best, the active and effective, to—at the worst— passive and ineffective (Avolio, 1999). The most passive and ineffective form of leadership, laissezfaire, is characterized by a complete abdication or avoidance of leadership. The transactional form of leadership is characterized by leaders’ engaging in an exchange process with followers whereby the leader rewards or punishes followers on the basis of follower performance. This exchange process
A previous version of this manuscript was presented at the 2003 Academy of Management meeting in Seattle. The authors would like to thank Tom Lee and three anonymous reviewers for their guidance and collegiality. In addition, we would like to thank Cathy Daus, Jill Kickul, and Ray Coye for their helpful comments on drafts. Special recognition goes to Pam Carrafa and Leslie O’Brien for their assistance in data collection and site coordination. 845
846
Academy of Management Journal
havior (e.g., employee attitudes, performance, and so forth). Indeed, to say that transformational leadership behavior is predictive of positive individual and organizational outcomes is somewhat axiomatic (Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996). One unintended consequence of the literature’s rather primary focus on transformational leadership’s outcomes has been a relative lack of emphasis concerning the underlying basis of this leadership behavior (Bommer, Rubin, & Baldwin, 2004; Ployhart, Lim, & Chan, 2001). Put simply, researchers know very little about why some leaders engage in transformational leadership behavior and others do not. Although little is known about transformational leadership behavior antecedents, they have not been totally neglected in the literature. More specifically, some conceptual work suggests that certain macro-organizational work contexts (e.g., organizational structure) will be more conducive to this behavior than others (Pawar & Eastman, 1997). Further, empirical research has examined leaders’ biographies (Avolio, 1994) and personal characteristics (Atwater & Yammarino, 1993; Judge & Bono, 2000; Pillai, Williams, Lowe, & Jung, 2003). The vast majority of transformational leadership behavior research, however, focuses upon mediation (Podsakoff et al., 1990) or moderation (Howell & Hall-Merenda, 1999) of leader effectiveness. Recently, many have called for greater consideration of individual and contextual antecedents of transformational leadership behavior (Bass, 1998; Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003; Bommer et al., 2004; Pawar & Eastman, 1997). As Bass astutely asked, “Can the tendency to be more transformational be accurately predicted? If so how?” (1998: 117). The purpose of this study was to investigate this question. Undoubtedly, this question can be approached from many angles. In order to conduct a focused investigation, we began with the influence of individual differences, since we could draw on both theoretical and empirical support for such influence. The impact of individual differences on behavior has been a core area of study in organizational science. As Murphy remarked, “[individual differences] profoundly affect our behavior; an examination of the role of individual differences provides an important starting point for understanding human behavior in organizations” (1996: xvi). Given the extensive literature, we narrowed our investigation to two important individual differences domains, namely, emotional intelligence and personality traits, thereby contributing directly to
October
recent calls to incorporate both emotion (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995; George, 2000) and personality (Pillai et al., 2003) into studies of leadership and transformational behavior. Beyond exploring these two antecedent domains, we wanted to address some recent concerns regarding transformational leadership behavior research. Specifically, some have argued that conceptual ambiguity exists among the components of transformational and transactional leadership (Yukl, 1999). Theoretically, these two forms of leader behavior are linked, as transactional exchanges form the basis upon which transformational leadership behavior is performed (Avolio, 1999: 42). Empirically, the two constructs tend to be highly correlated and to predict similar outcomes (Bycio, Hackett, & Allen, 1995), indicating that, indeed, little may distinguish the two forms of behavior. Bass (1999) articulated a need for research that could contribute to this discussion, noting that little is known about the differences in the perceptions of transformational and transactional leaders. From an antecedent perspective, it is unclear whether the genesis of transformational leadership behavior differs significantly from that of transactional behavior. Avolio argued that “such exchanges [transactional leadership] are only the base to build on, however, rather than the ceiling for the leader’s efforts” (1999: 42). Thus, it would be reasonable to assume that while the antecedents of transformational and transactional behavior are likely to be somewhat similar, transformational leadership behavior may require additional or unique antecedents. However, research has yet to fully explore how antecedents might differently affect transformational and transactional leader behavior. Although the primary focus of our hypothesis development is on transformational leadership behavior, we include in our study the prototypical and constructive form of transactional leadership— contingent reward behavior—to provide construct validity data and contribute to the nomological network for future antecedent work.
HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT Though multiple perspectives exist on the nature of emotions, it seems clear that emotions play an important role in organizational research and practice. Recent research suggests that a focus on emotion and transformational leadership behavior would be productive (Ashkanasy, Ha¨rtel, & Daus, 2002). Huy (1999) argued that emotion at the individual level is critical in creating radical change (i.e., paradigm shifts). Huy’s arguments are highly
2005
Rubin, Munz, and Bommer
consistent with descriptions of transformational leadership behavior whereby leaders attempt to evoke change by appealing to followers’ emotional states to motivate personal adaptation. Similarly, Fox and Amichai-Hamburger (2001) argued that persuasion of employees to support organizational change is most successful through affective rather than cognitive appeals. Supporting this view, Ashkanasy and Tse (2000) described transformational leadership behavior as the management of leader and follower emotion, suggesting that emotional abilities are critical in accomplishing this task.
Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Behavior Many of the connections between transformational leadership behavior and emotion are predicated on the notion that individuals differ considerably in their ability to understand and utilize emotional stimuli in productive ways. More recently, theories of emotional intelligence have begun to more fully explicate these differences. According to Mayer, Caruso, and Salovey, “Emotional intelligence refers to an ability to recognize the meanings of emotions and their relationships, and to reason and problem-solve on the basis of them” (1999: 267). Thus, emotional intelligence describes differences among individuals with regard to understanding and solving problems with and about emotions. Specifically, Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, and Sitarenios (2003) proposed that emotional intelligence consists of four skill dimensions: (1) perceiving emotion (i.e., ability to identify emotions in faces, pictures, music, etc.), (2) facilitating thought with emotion (i.e., ability to harness emotional information in one’s thinking), (3) understanding emotion (i.e., ability to comprehend emotional information), and (4) managing emotion (i.e., ability to manage emotions for personal and interpersonal growth). These skills are hierarchically arranged in such a way that perceiving emotion correctly is primary to facilitating thought, understanding emotion, and managing emotion (Mayer et al., 2003). Ashkanasy and his colleagues (2002) argued that the components of emotional intelligence are highly consistent with transformational leadership behavior. Within emotional intelligence, perceiving emotions may be particularly important for the performance of transformational leadership behavior. As Ashkanasy and Tse commented, “Transformational leaders are sensitive to followers’ needs. . .they show empathy to followers, making them understand how others feel” (2000: 232). Bass argued that transformational leaders “meet the emotional
847
needs of each employee” (1990: 21). George (2000) contended that creation of follower excitement and enthusiasm stems from appraisal of followers’ authentic feelings. A prerequisite for meeting followers’ emotional needs, then, is accurate assessment of how followers feel. According to the literature on emotional intelligence, these authentic feelings are primarily communicated through facial expressions and nonverbal behavior (Ekman & Friesen, 1974; Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, & Sitarenios, 2001). Thus, a leader’s ability to accurately recognize emotions in followers opens as a window to followers’ authentic feelings. Emotion recognition involves the ability to accurately decode others’ expressions of emotions communicated through nonverbal channels (i.e., the face, body, and voice). This ability is positively linked to social competence and interaction since nonverbal behavior is a dependable source of information on others’ emotional states (Nowicki & Duke, 2001). Elfenbein and Ambady commented that emotion recognition is the most “reliably validated component of emotional intelligence” and linked to a variety of positive organizational outcomes (2002: 963; for an extensive review, see Elfenbein, Marsh, and Ambady [2002]). Caruso, Mayer, and Salovey (2002) argued that accurately recognizing emotion in others is critical to leaders’ capacity to inspire and build relationships. Indeed, prior research in the area of emotion recognition has demonstrated that facial recognition ability is integral to maintaining successful social and work interactions, including successful marriages, managerial status, and strong clinical and leadership skills (Carney & Harrigan, 2003; Elfenbein & Ambady, 2002). Within the context of leadership, successful interpersonal interactions are not trivial matters. For instance, some research has shown that managerial derailment is heavily influenced by managers’ inability to understand others’ perspectives, a limitation that makes them insensitive to others (Lombardo, Ruderman, & McCauley, 1987). Further, leaders who engage more frequently in transformational leadership behavior are often found to have higher-quality leader-member relationships than those engaging more frequently in transactional forms of leadership (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Since leader-follower relationships are critical to successful leadership, and the ability to recognize emotion is important for building strong leaderfollower relationships, it stands to reason that transformational leaders who build strong relationships do so in part through understanding followers’ emotions. The ability to accurately recognize
848
Academy of Management Journal
emotions via nonverbal expressions is, then, critical to this relationship-building process. Further, if emotional appeals are an effective means of challenging the status quo (Fox & Amichai-Hamburger, 2001), then transformational leaders must be highly attuned to the emotional feedback they receive when delivering appeals. In view of the above research, we contribute to the literature by offering a direct test of the emotion recognition and transformational leadership behavior relationship. Hypothesis 1. Leader emotion recognition ability is positively associated with leader transformational leadership behavior. Personality Traits and Transformational Leadership Behavior With respect to personality traits and transformational leadership behavior, Bass remarked, “When it comes to predicting transformational leadership and its components, there is no shortage of personality expectations. However, the empirical support has been spotty” (1998: 122). One possible explanation for this mottled support may be the employment of multiple personality frameworks within transformational leadership behavior research. Utilizing the well-known five-factor model (FFM) as a framework for examining personality and transformational leadership behavior may reduce the inconsistent findings. Ployhart and colleagues noted this: “Organizing this literature [on transformational leadership behavior] around the FFM of personality provides some structure to this process” (2001: 814). Although the jury is still out, a growing consensus that the FFM traits encapsulate many of the important aspects of personality exists (Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gehardt, 2002). Recent research has demonstrated that certain traits of the FFM may be more relevant than others. Specifically, Judge and Bono (2000) found that of the five traits, only agreeableness was a strong and consistent predictor of transformational leadership behavior. Extraversion and openness to experience did show a significant correlation with the focal behavior, and extraversion was marginally predictive. In another recent study, Ployhart and colleagues (2001) found a strong relationship between extraversion and transformational leadership behavior in both typical and maximum performance situations. Conscientiousness, though predictive of leader emergence (Judge et al., 2002) and in some cases leader effectiveness, does not seem to be predictive of transformational leadership behavior (Judge & Bono, 2000). Similarly, mixed results for the trait of openness exist (Judge & Bono, 2000;
October
Ployhart et al., 2001). Bass (1998) noted, for instance, that emotional stability is often shown to be more predictive of lower forms of leader behavior, such as laissez-faire leadership. The extant studies indicate that narrowing the FFM to agreeableness and extraversion may be most useful, while other FFM traits may play a less important role. We do not mean to imply however, that other FFM traits are unequivocally unimportant for transformational leadership behavior, but rather, that agreeableness and extraversion seem to be traits that play a unique role in transformational leadership behavior. Extraversion and agreeableness are viewed as key traits enabling an individual to engage others and to allow for others to engage him or her. For example, behaviors often identified as being “transformational” (e.g., articulating a vision, providing intellectual stimulation) all require a leader to communicate values and ideas and to engage followers in social interactions. Extraversion allows for the requisite assertiveness and gregariousness needed to perform such transformational leadership behavior. For example, Thomas, Dickson, and Bliese (2001) found that extraversion significantly predicted human relations aspects of military cadet leader performance. Transformational leadership behavior also requires leaders to build trusting, warm relationships with employees through honest engagement, the hallmark of an agreeable personality. Keller (1999) found that agreeableness was significantly related to ratings of leader sensitivity. Atwater and Yammarino (1993) found that warmth was a significant predictor of transformational leadership behavior. In view of the available research and above logic, we offer the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 2a. Leader agreeableness is positively associated with leader transformational leadership behavior. Hypothesis 2b. Leader extraversion is positively associated with leader transformational leadership behavior. Another important personality trait likely to strongly influence transformational leadership behavior is positive affectivity (PA). Individuals with high PA are likely to experience positive emotion and moods. George commented that these individuals “tend to have an overall sense of well-being and to be positively engaged in the world around them, in terms of both achievement and interpersonal relations” (1996: 146). Positive affectivity has been associated with prosocial behavior (George, 1991), performance (Wong & Law, 2002), work
2005
Rubin, Munz, and Bommer
achievement (Staw, Sutton, & Pelled, 1994), indicators of leader effectiveness (George, 1995), and the ability to develop and maintain workplace relationships (Staw et al., 1994). These findings are in line with the view that PA could be an antecedent of transformational leadership behavior. Transformational leaders are described as champions of change and as likely to manifest important social values (Bass et al., 2003). These leaders are also likely to utilize emotion to communicate vision and motivation to followers (Lewis, 2000). Individuals with high PA search for and get pleasure from social relations (George, 1996). Since affect may be strongly tied to social perceptions in organizations (Lord & Maher, 1991), it follows that PA would be an important component of eliciting positive social interaction and change. Further, individuals considered high in PA often perceive positive events as more likely to occur (Mayer & Salovey, 1993). Thus, leaders who are characterized by a high degree of PA may be more willing to perform transformational leadership behavior as a change mechanism since they are likely to believe change is possible. Some research has supported this link. For example, Howell and Frost (1989) found that effective visions are tied to emotional expression and nonverbal communication. Fox and Spector (2000) found that PA was positively related to leader-follower liking and perceived similarity. Further, Newcombe and Ashkanasy (2002) showed that leader positive affect resulted in higher leadership ratings. Given the above research and logic, we propose: Hypothesis 3. Leader positive affectivity is positively associated with leader transformational leadership behavior. Communication from leader to follower is often laden with emotional content (George, 2000). For example, Ashforth and Humphrey (1995) contended that leadership necessarily involves displaying and arousing emotion in others. Similarly, Conger and Kanungo (1987) argued that leaders utilize emotions to arouse certain feelings and motivation in followers. Thus, leadership naturally involves recognition of others’ emotions and expressiveness. Leaders who can more effectively direct these two abilities toward productive transformational leadership behavior should be effective in influencing employees (Dasborough & Ashkanasy, 2002). Therefore, in addition to the associations hypothesized above, an interaction between emotion recognition and extraversion is also likely. Specifically, extraversion may strengthen the relationship between emotion recognition and transformational leadership behavior. According to the
849
emotional intelligence literature, accurate recognition of follower emotion plays an important role in directing leaders’ attention toward the most productive courses of action. In the case of transformational leadership behavior, recognizing emotion and appropriately responding to followers’ emotion is essential for effective influence and maintaining the leader-follower relationship (Caruso et al., 2002; George, 2000). For example, it is one ability for a leader to recognize a follower is angry; it is entirely another ability for the leader to express recognition of that emotion to the follower, thereby recognizing the employee’s needs and worth (e.g., “Bob, I see you are angry about this decision, perhaps you would like to talk specifically about how it impacts you?”). Extraverted individuals have a strong inclination toward this expressiveness (Judge & Bono, 2000). Thus, extraversion may allow a leader to utilize his or her emotion recognition ability more effectively. Much as highly intelligent individuals who lack requisite social skills are perceived as relatively ineffective in social situations (i.e., as solely “book smart”; Ferris, Witt, and Hochwarter [2001]), leaders who possess strong emotion recognition ability but lack expressiveness may not profit from their emotion recognition ability in terms of performing transformational leadership behavior. Consequently, we tested this premise via the following: Hypothesis 4. Leader extraversion moderates the relationship between leader emotion recognition and transformational leadership behavior. Specifically, increased levels of leader extraversion will strengthen the relationship between leader emotion recognition and transformational leadership behavior.
METHODS Participants and Procedures A large, Midwest-based, global biotechnology/ agricultural company agreed to provide access to 234 managers and their 1,400 subordinates from five organizational units. We use the term “leader” to refer to these managers, who were the focus of this study. In addition, the term “subordinate” is used to refer to a leader’s “direct report.” As an incentive to participate, leaders were informed that they would receive a timely feedback report on their leadership behavior consistent with the company’s ongoing efforts to develop self-aware leaders. A total of 177 leaders (76 percent of the total) volunteered to take part in the study.
850
Academy of Management Journal
To be included in the study, a leader had to satisfy three criteria: (1) the leader had to have two or more subordinates rate his or her leadership behavior, (2) at least two subordinates who completed the leadership measures had to have reported directly to the leader for at least three months, and (3) the leader him-/herself had to complete measures assessing the variables examined in this study. Of the 177 participating leaders, 145 met the above inclusion criteria. The leaders averaged 43.3 years of age and 12.9 years of company tenure. Over three-fifths (62%) were male, and all had at least a college degree (64% held graduate degrees). A total of 480 subordinates (of a possible 1,078) provided responses for an average of 3.31 respondents per leader (min. ⫽ 2; max. ⫽ 11) and a 45 percent subordinate participation rate. Leaders attended a 75-minute survey session to complete all surveys. Multiple levels of leaders were recruited to participate in the study; thus, only the subordinates reporting to first-line leaders were not themselves also leaders. These nonleader subordinates who volunteered attended a 30minute survey session solely to rate their direct leaders’ leadership behavior. To avoid leaders and subordinates being in the same survey session room, we had leaders attend sessions with other leaders at similar hierarchical levels. The first author conducted all survey sessions and reiterated the purpose, confidentiality, and voluntary nature of the study. Paper-and-pencil surveys were used to collect the data.
Measures The measure of transformational leadership behavior used in this study was developed by Podsakoff and colleagues (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer, 1996; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990) and was rated by focal leaders’ subordinates. That is, each subordinate rated his or her direct leader only. The measure consisted of 22 items pertaining to six dimensions: articulating a vision, providing a role model, communicating high performance expectations, providing individualized support, fostering the acceptance of group goals, and providing intellectual stimulation. This measure was soundly developed via appropriate classical test theory construction. Further, it represents a shared conceptualization of transformational leadership behavior since it is explicitly a collection of behaviors used by other theories to capture the behaviors expressed by “transformational” leaders. However, this measure excludes
October
ratings of charisma, which are found in Bass’s widely used Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, and focuses directly on leader behavior, rather than on behaviors and attributions of leadership. Previous research has shown a correlation between charisma and aspects of the FFM (Keller, 1999). Thus, we believed the Podsakoff et al. (1996) measure would provide a less biased assessment of transformational leadership behavior, given our study’s intent. Podsakoff and his colleagues (1996) found internal consistencies ranging from .82 to .90. The prototypical constructive transactional behavior, contingent reward behavior, was measured with five items from Podsakoff and colleagues’ contingent reward scale (Podsakoff, Todor, Grover, & Huber, 1984). Podsakoff et al. (1984) reported a high coefficient alpha for this scale (␣ ⫽ .93). Leaders’ agreeableness and extraversion were measured with items from Goldberg’s (1999) Big Five Inventory. Both scales contain five items and utilize a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“not at all descriptive of me”) to 5 (“very descriptive of me”). Goldberg (1999) reported average scale reliabilities between .75 and .85 and high correlations with other known measures of the five-factor model (.94 with NEO-PI-R). The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) was used to measure leader positive and negative affect. Negative affect was included in the analyses as a control and for purposes of construct validity. Both scales contain ten adjectives assessing positive and negative trait affect. Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they they generally experienced each feeling on a five-point scale (1, “not at all”; 5, “extremely”). The PANAS is widely used in organizational research, and the PA (␣ ⫽ .88) and NA (␣ ⫽ .87) scales have shown acceptable internal consistency (Watson et al., 1988). The Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy (DANVA) was used to measure leaders’ emotion recognition. The DANVA is a performance-based measure that assesses individuals’ ability to correctly identify the basic emotions of happiness, sadness, anger, and fear in 24 photographs of adult facial expressions at an equal number of high and low intensities (Nowicki & Duke, 2001). Specifically, the DANVA tests stimuli that both children and adults would recognize at least 80 percent of the time as a particular emotion. Nowicki and Duke (2001) reported an internal consistency of .78 for the facial recognition test. The DANVA has been widely used in clinical/social psychological and organizational studies (Elfenbein & Ambady, 2002).
2005
Rubin, Munz, and Bommer
Although the DANVA is scored as the number incorrect, we recoded to reflect more conventional scoring, so that a score of 24 (not 0) represents a perfect score in our results. As an additional control variable, we measured leaders’ span of control. Since larger spans of control can diminish a leader’s ability to influence, it is likely that a wide span of control would lead to fewer resources allocated across employees. Similar arguments have been made with respect to employee performance ratings (e.g., Judge & Ferris, 1993). Much as professors who teach large sections have less time to devote to individual student needs, leaders with wider spans of control also have less time to engage employees with transformational leadership behavior such as providing individualized support or intellectual stimulation. During the survey session, leaders indicated the number of subordinates they managed directly. Wide-ranging spans of control were reported by leaders (range ⫽ 2–56); the average was 7.3 subordinates per leader.
851
and contingent reward behavior score. Following George’s (1990) suggestion and previous transformational leadership behavior research (e.g., Bass et al., 2003; Bommer et al., 2004), we computed a measure of within-group agreement (rwg) taken from James, Demaree, and Wolf (1984) for each leader’s group. For each leader’s transformational leadership behavior and contingent reward behavior ratings, the mean rwg’s were .93 and .94 respectively. In both cases less than 4 percent (contingent reward behavior) and 1 percent (transformational leadership behavior) of the rwg calculations fell below the acceptable .70 cutoff. On the basis of these data, we aggregated subordinate ratings.
Hypothesis Testing Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations for all study variables. As expected, wider spans of control were significantly associated with less transformational leadership behavior (r ⫽ ⫺.25, p ⬍ .01) and contingent reward behavior (r ⫽ ⫺.27, p ⬍ .01). Negative affectivity was not significantly related to either transformational leadership behavior or contingent reward behavior. To ensure the appropriateness of regression analysis, we examined the data with respect to the underlying assumptions of regression. A thorough analysis of the data suggested that all of the assumptions of ordinary least squares regression were met. As the regression results in Table 2 indicate, the four predictor and two control variables included in this study accounted for 26 percent of the variance in transformational leadership behavior and 17 percent of the variance in contingent reward behavior. A closer examination of the rela-
RESULTS Because our hypotheses are concerned with transformational leadership behavior in a general sense, and not its specific manifestations, we collapsed the measure into a single construct. This procedure appears to have been empirically justified by the single measure’s high reliability (␣ ⫽ .92) and the correlations among the dimensions (i.e., the average correlation was .43). In addition, we wanted to aggregate subordinate ratings for each leader. Previous research suggests that a measure of within-group agreement provides sufficient justification for aggregating subordinates’ ratings into a single leader transformational leadership behavior
TABLE 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for all Study Variablesa Variable
Mean
s.d.
1
2
3
Transformational leadership 1. Behavior 2. Contingent reward behavior 3. Span of control 4. Agreeableness 5. Extraversion 6. Positive affectivity 7. Negative affectivity 8. Emotion recognitionb
3.69 3.77 7.32 3.91 3.14 3.92 1.83 18.92
0.41 0.62 6.98 0.49 0.83 0.45 0.37 2.70
(.92) .58** ⫺.24** .30** .07 .29** .00 .17*
(.91) ⫺.29** .25** .04 .12 ⫺.03 .17*
⫺.12 ⫺.07 .11 ⫺.06 ⫺.15
a b
4
(.67) .32** .24** ⫺.10 .11
n ⫽ 145. Alpha coefficients appear on the diagonal in parentheses. A K-R 20 reliability assessment was used to calculate alpha for emotion recognition. * p ⬍ .05 ** p ⬍ .01
5
6
7
8
(.78) .40** ⫺.29** .03
(.84) ⫺.18* ⫺.13
(.75) ⫺.03
(.68)
852
Academy of Management Journal
October
TABLE 2 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Transformational Leadership Behavior and Contingent Reward Behavior Transformational Leadership Behavior Variable Step 1 Constant Span of control Negative affectivity R2 Step 2 Constant Span of control Negative affectivity Agreeableness Extraversion Positive affectivity Emotion recognition R2 ⌬R2 Step 3 Constant Span of control Negative Affectivity Agreeableness Extraversion Positive affectivity Emotion recognition Emotion recognition ⫻ extraversion R2 ⌬R2
b
s.e.b

3.79*** ⫺.02 ⫺.04
.18 .01 .10
⫺.26* .01
Contingent Reward Behavior b
s.e.b

4.12*** ⫺.03 ⫺.09
.27 .01 .15
⫺.29*** ⫺.05
.06 1.47*** ⫺.02 .05 .19 ⫺.07 .32 .03
.46 .01 .09 .07 .04 .08 .01
.09
⫺.25** .04 .23** ⫺.14 .36*** .18*
1.88** ⫺.02 ⫺.06 .26 ⫺.08 .22 .03
.75 .01 .15 .11 .07 .12 .02
.26 .20*** 1.36*** ⫺.02 .06 .21 ⫺.08 .33 .02 .04
.45 .00 .09 .07 .04 .07 .01 .01
⫺.27*** ⫺.03 .20* ⫺.11 .16 .13 .17 .08*
⫺.29*** .06 .26** ⫺.16 .37*** .17* .19* .29 .03*
1.78** ⫺.03 ⫺.04 .28 ⫺.08 .23 .03 .03
.75 .01 .15 .11 .07 .12 .02 .02
⫺.29*** ⫺.02 .22* ⫺.11 .17 .13 .12
.18 .01
* p ⬍ .05 ** p ⬍ .01 *** p ⬍ .001
tionships and specific tests of hypotheses are discussed below, and results are presented in Table 2. With respect to emotion recognition, Hypothesis 1 posits that leader emotion recognition ability is positively associated with leader transformational leadership behavior. Results supported Hypothesis 1. Leaders who accurately identified emotions from facial expressions were more likely to engage in transformational leadership behavior ( ⫽ .18, p ⬍ .05). Emotion recognition was not a significant predictor of contingent reward behavior. Regarding leader personality traits, Hypotheses 2a and 2b suggest that agreeableness and extraversion, respectively, are positively associated with transformational leadership behavior. As seen in Table 2, only agreeableness ( ⫽ .23, p ⬍ .01) was a significant predictor, showing support for Hypothesis 2a but not for 2b. Similarly, agreeableness was also significantly related to contingent reward behavior ( ⫽ .20, p ⬍ .01), while extraversion was not. Thus, leaders who reported being more agree-
able were likely to be rated as engaging in transformational leadership behavior and contingent reward behavior. Hypothesis 3 states that PA is positively associated with transformational leadership behavior. Results showed support for Hypothesis 3 in that leaders with high positive affectivity were more likely to be rated as performing transformational leadership behavior ( ⫽ .36, p ⬍ .001). In contrast, PA was not a significant predictor of contingent reward behavior. Beyond positing simple “main effects,” Hypothesis 4 asserts that extraversion moderates the relationship between emotion recognition and transformational leadership behavior; according to our hypothesis, increased levels of extraversion positively strengthen the relationship between emotion recognition and transformational leadership behavior. To test Hypothesis 4, we created mean-centered interaction terms for extraversion and emotion recognition and multiplied them to create a single interaction term. The interaction term was then
2005
Rubin, Munz, and Bommer
added to step 3 in the hierarchical regression analysis. Results showed that the interaction was significant for transformational leadership behavior ( ⫽ .19, p ⬍ .05), but not for contingent reward behavior. Following the recommendations of Aiken and West (1991), we subjected the interaction to a split-plot analysis to better understand its form. The form in Figure 1 supports Hypothesis 4, as the regression for high emotion recognition is significant (p ⬍ .05), whereas the regression for low emotion recognition is nonsignificant. Specifically, leaders high in extraversion and with emotion recognition ability were rated more highly on transformational leadership behavior than leaders high in extraversion and low in emotion recognition ability. For leaders who were low in extraversion, emotion recognition ability made no statistically significant difference in their transformational leadership behavior ratings.1 DISCUSSION The goal of the present study was to examine the influence of emotional intelligence and personality traits on transformational leadership behavior.
1
To assess whether a nonlinear relationship was present, we tested whether the squared terms of emotion recognition or extraversion added unique variance. In neither case was a nonlinear relationship found.
853
Broadly speaking, the results showed that personality traits and emotional recognition were positively linked to transformational leadership behavior. Overall, over one-quarter of the variance in transformational leadership behavior could be explained by a relatively few trait, ability, and control variables. Although some of the findings reinforce previous research, others represent more novel discoveries. Moreover, the study results are encouraging as they are free of same-source variance inflation. With respect to personality traits, this study replicated previous findings, added new data, and extended research by including contingent reward behavior. First, leaders with high positive affect were more likely to perform transformational leadership behavior but not more or less likely to engage in contingent reward behavior. Second, results showed that agreeableness, but not extraversion, predicted transformational leadership behavior and contingent reward behavior. Our findings are consistent with Judge and Bono’s (2000) demonstration that agreeableness was the strongest predictor of transformational leadership behavior. This convergence of findings is encouraging since the present study and Judge and Bono’s (2000) study utilized different measures of transformational leadership behavior and personality. Much has been written recently regarding the potential influence of emotional intelligence and
FIGURE 1 Split-Plot Analysis of the Interactive Effects of Emotion Recognition and Extraversion on Transformational Leadership Behavior
854
Academy of Management Journal
its role in organizational leadership, but little empirical work exists on the topic. This study contributes much-needed empirical evidence in support of one aspect of emotional intelligence and its relationship to transformational leadership behavior. Leaders in this study who were better able to recognize emotion accurately in others were rated more highly on transformational leadership behavior. Additionally, emotion recognition was not predictive of contingent reward behavior in the present study. These results support theoretical arguments that leaders who perform transformational leadership behavior are more interpersonally sensitive than leaders who might engage in solely contingent reward behavior. Thus, emotion recognition could represent an important point of divergence for understanding and predicting transformational leadership behavior as opposed to other forms of leader behavior. Perhaps the most important contribution is that leader emotion recognition can interact with extraversion in a way that significantly and positively influences leader performance of transformational leadership behavior. High extraversion provided a clear benefit to leaders who also possessed the ability to accurately recognize emotion. Conversely, leaders who possessed low extraversion and high emotion recognition abilities did not seem to reap the benefits of their emotion recognition ability. In fact, leaders high in extraversion and low in emotion recognition ability may be at a greater disadvantage than those low in extraversion but high in emotion recognition ability. For example, high-extraversion/low-emotion-recognition leaders may be perceived as “all talk” and as insensitive, lacking the ability to read employees’ emotional cues indicating their needs. Thus, although extraversion does not seem to have a direct effect on transformational leadership behavior, it does have an indirect effect and should not be discounted as an important leadership trait. Further, transformational leadership behavior by nature is focused on substance, such as providing a clear vision, setting group goals, and setting high performance expectations. Berson, Shamir, Avolio, and Popper (2001) found that transformational leadership behavior was related to the overall strength of a leader’s vision and noted that personality characteristics might play a role. Our results suggest that emotion recognition may be a necessary but insufficient ability involved in the performance of transformational leadership behavior. Together, emotion recognition, strong substance (e.g., vision content), and expressiveness may very well differentiate leaders’ performance of transformational leader-
October
ship behavior. Future researchers may want to consider the use of constructs that tap this behavior more directly than extraversion; emotional expressivity (e.g., Gross & John, 1997; King & Emmons, 1990) may be one such construct. As mentioned above, although we focused primarily on transformational leadership behavior, we wanted to heed calls to study antecedents of transformational leadership behavior, but not to the exclusion of transactional behavior. The present study showed that transformational leadership behavior and contingent reward behavior (the prototypical transactional behavior) were correlated at a moderately high level (r ⫽ .58), suggesting overlapping constructs. Yet a comparison of the regression results showed that only agreeableness was a significant predictor of contingent reward behavior. Thus, although contingent reward behavior and transformational leadership behavior may often produce similar outcomes, the pathways to, or genesis of, contingent reward behavior may be quite different from that of transformational leadership behavior. For example, our findings for an interaction between emotion recognition and extraversion support previous theory contending that performance of transformational leadership behavior requires management of emotion, which in turn produces employee empowerment, growth, and change. Contingent reward behavior, which produces order and stability, may not require such management of emotion. Although this study has promising results and some positive methodological strengths (e.g., multiple data sources, a large organizational sample, multiple raters of behavior), a few limitations deserve specific mention. First, this study employed a cross-sectional design and, thus, the direction of causality is impossible to decipher. Second, the leaders were selected from a single organization. In addition, participation was voluntary, making it quite possible that selection effects were present in leader ratings. Although the subordinate participation rate was less than ideal, it is consistent with rates in previous transformational leadership behavior research (Bono & Judge, 2003) and is not necessarily an indication of nonresponse error (Krosnick, 1999). Further, the descriptive statistics for transformational leadership behavior closely approximated previous research, with good variability, indicating that systematic biases were not likely present in subordinate ratings. Third, our model contained only a small number of predictors, which may have increased the chances for model misspecification. These factors may threaten
2005
Rubin, Munz, and Bommer
both the internal and external validity of the study. Important to future research is an attempt to understand the full process— both individual differences and contextual circumstances—leading to the performance of transformational leadership behavior. At the individual level, further inquiry into interactions between emotion and personality would be productive. These include explanations of the mechanism for how these antecedents contribute to transformational leadership behavior. For example, emotional regulation may be an important means by which leaders are able to adjust their emotions to be situationally appropriate. Further, explorations are needed to understand how a leader’s context influences transformational leadership behavior. These types of studies may ultimately provide support to organizations looking to increase the prevalence of transformational leadership behavior.
REFERENCES Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. 1991. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. 1995. Emotion in the workplace: A reappraisal. Human Relations, 48: 97– 126. Ashkanasy, N. M., & Tse, B. 2000. Transformational leadership as management of emotion: A conceptual review. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. E. J. Ha¨rtel, & W. J. Zerbe (Eds.), Emotions in the workplace: Research, theory, and practice: 221–235. Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Ashkanasy, N. M., & Ha¨rtel, C. E. J., & Daus, C. S. 2002. Diversity and emotion: The new frontiers in organizational behavior research. Journal of Management, 28: 307–338. Atwater, L. E., & Yammarino, F. J. 1993. Personal attributes as predictors of superiors’ and subordinates’ perceptions of military academy leadership. Human Relations, 46: 645– 656. Avolio, B. J. 1994. The “natural”: Some antecedents to transformational leadership. International Journal of Public Administration, 17: 1559 –1581. Avolio, B. J. 1999. Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bass, B. M. 1990. From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3): 19 –31. Bass, B. M. 1998. Transformational leadership. Industrial, military and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
855
Bass, B. M. 1999. Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8: 9 –32. Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. 2003. Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 207–218. Berson, Y., Shamir, B., Avolio, B. J., & Popper, M. 2001. The relationship between vision strength, leadership style, and context. Leadership Quarterly, 12: 53–73. Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. 2003. Self-concordance at work: toward understanding the motivational effects of transformational leaders. Academy of Management Journal, 46: 554 –571. Bommer, W. H., Rubin, R. S., & Baldwin, T. T. 2004. Setting the stage for effective leadership: Antecedents of transformational leadership behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 15: 195–210. Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D., & Allen, J. S. 1995. Further assessments of the Bass (1985) conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80: 468 – 478. Carney, D. R., & Harrigan, J. A. 2003. It takes one to know one: Interpersonal sensitivity is related to accurate assessments of others’ interpersonal sensitivity. Emotion, 3: 194 –200. Caruso, D. R., Mayer, J. D. & Salovey, P. 2002. Emotional intelligence and emotional leadership. In R. E. Riggio, S. E. Murphy, & F. J. Pirozzolo (Eds.), Multiple intelligences and leadership: 54 –74. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Conger, J., & Kanungo, R. 1987. Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12: 637– 647. Dasborough, M. T., & Ashkanasy, N. M. 2002. Emotion and attribution of intentionality in leader-member relationships. Leadership Quarterly, 13: 615– 634. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. 1974. Detecting deception from the body or face. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29: 288 –298. Elfenbein, H. A., & Ambady, N. 2002. Predicting workplace outcomes from the ability to eavesdrop on feelings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 963– 971. Elfenbein, H. A., Marsh, A. A. & Ambady, N. 2002. Emotional intelligence and the recognition of emotion from facial expressions. In L. F. Barrett & P. Salovey (Eds.), The wisdom of feeling: Psychological processes in emotional intelligence—Emotions and social behavior: 37–59. New York: Guildford Press. Ferris, G. L., Witt, L. A. & Hochwarter, W. A. 2001. Interaction of social skill and general mental ability on job performance and salary. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 1075–1082.
856
Academy of Management Journal
Fox, S., & Amichai-Hamburger, Y. 2001. The power of emotional appeals in promoting organizational change programs. Academy of Management Executive, 15(4): 84 –95. Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. 2000. Relationship of emotional intelligence, practical intelligence, general intelligence, and trait affectivity with interview outcomes: It’s not all just “g.” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21: 203–220 George, J. M. 1990. Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 107– 116. George, J. M. 1991. State or trait: Effects of positive mood on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 299 –307. George, J. M. 1995. Leader positive mood and group performance. The case of customer service. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25: 778 –794. George, J. M. 1996. Trait and state affect. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.). Individual differences and behavior in organizations:145–171. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. George, J. M. 2000. Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence. Human Relations, 53: 1027– 1055. Goldberg, L. R. 1999. A broad-bandwith, public-domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe, vol. 7: 7–28. Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press. Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. 1995. Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leadermember exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6: 219 –247. Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. 1997. Revealing feelings: facets of emotional expressivity in self-reports, peer ratings, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72: 435– 448. Howell, J. M., & Frost, P. J. 1989. A laboratory study of charismatic leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43: 243–269. Howell, J. M., & Hall-Merenda, K. E. 1999. The ties that bind: The impact of leader-member exchange, transformational and transactional leadership, and distance on predicting follower performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 680 – 694.
October
Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. 1993. Social context of performance evaluation decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 80 –105. Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. 2000. Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 751–765. Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. 2002. Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 765–780. Keller, T. 1999. Images of the familiar: Individual differences and implicit leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10: 589 – 607. King, L. A., & Emmons, R. A. 1990. Conflict over emotional expression: Psychological and physical correlates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58: 864 – 877. Krosnick, J. A. 1999. Survey research. In J. T. Spence, J. M. Darley, & J. Foss (Eds.), Annual review of psychology, vol. 50: 537–567. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews. Lewis, K. M. 2000. When leaders display emotion: How followers respond to negative emotional expression of male and female leaders. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21: 221–234. Lombardo, M. M., Ruderman, M. N., & McCauley, C. D. 1987. Explanations of success and derailment in upper-level management positions. Journal of Business & Psychology, 2: 199 –216. Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. 1991. Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions and performance. Boston: Unwin Hyman. 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. Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (1999). Emotional intelligence meets traditional standards for an intelligence. Intelligence, 27: 267–298. Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. 1993. The intelligence of emotional intelligence. Intelligence, 17: 433– 442. Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D. R., & Sitarenios, G. 2001. Emotional intelligence as a standard intelligence. Emotion, 1: 232–242. Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D. R., & Sitarenios, G. 2003. Measuring emotional intelligence with the MSCEIT V2.0. Emotion, 3: 97–105.
Huy, Q. N. 1999. Emotional capability, emotional intelligence, and radical change. Academy of Management Review, 24: 325–345.
Murphy, K. R. (Ed). 1996. Individual differences and behavior in organizations. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. 1984. Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69: 85–98.
Newcombe, M. J., & Ashkanasy, N. M. 2002. The role of affect and affective congruence in perceptions of leaders: An experimental study. Leadership Quarterly, 13: 601– 614.
2005
Rubin, Munz, and Bommer
Nowicki, S., & Duke, M. P. 2001. Nonverbal receptivity: The diagnostic analysis of nonverbal accuracy (DANVA). In J. A Hall & F. J. Bernieri (Eds.), Interpersonal sensitivity theory and measurement: 183–198. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Pawar, B., & Eastman, K. K. 1997. The nature and implications of contextual influences on transformational leadership: A conceptual examination. Academy of Management Review, 22: 80 –109. Pillai, R., Williams, E. A., Lowe, K. B., & Jung, D. I. 2003. Personality, transformational leadership, trust, and the 2000 U.S. presidential vote. Leadership Quarterly, 14: 161–192. Ployhart, R. E., Lim, B. C., & Chan, K. Y. 2001. Exploring relations between typical and maximum performance ratings and the five factor model of personality. Personnel Psychology, 54: 809 – 843. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. 1996. Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 22: 259 –298. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. 1990. Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1: 107–142. Podsakoff, P. M., Todor, W. D., Grover, R. A., & Huber, V. L. 1984. Situational moderators of leader reward and punishment behaviors: Fact or fiction? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34: 21– 63. Staw, B. M., Sutton, R. I., & Pelled, L. H. 1994. Employee positive emotion and favorable outcomes at the workplace. Organization Science, 5: 51–71. Tejeda, M. J. 2001. The MLQ revisited: Psychometric properties and recommendations. Leadership Quarterly, 12: 31–52. Thomas, J. L., Dickson, M. W., & Bliese, P. D. 2001. Values predicting leader performance in the U.S. army reserve officer training corps assessment center: Evidence for a personality-mediated model. Leadership Quarterly, 12: 181–196. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. 1988. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54: 1063–1070. Wong, C. S., & Law, K. S. 2002. The effects of leader and follower emotional intelligence on performance and attitude: An exploratory study. Leadership Quarterly, 13: 243–274. Yukl, G. 1999. An evaluation of the conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10: 285–305.
857
APPENDIX Scale Items of Study Variables Transformational Leadership Behavior 1. Is always seeking new opportunities for the unit/ department/organization. 2. Paints an interesting picture of the future for our group. 3. Has a clear understanding of where we are going. 4. Inspires others with his/her plans for the future. 5. Is able to get others committed to his/her dream of the future. 6. Fosters collaboration among work groups. 7. Encourages employees to be “team players.” 8. Gets the group to work together for the same goal. 9. Develops a team attitude and spirit among his/her employees. 10. Acts without considering my feelings. 11. Shows respect for my personal feelings. 12. Behaves in a manner that is thoughtful of my personal needs. 13. Treats me without considering my personal feelings. 14. Shows us that he/she expects a lot from us. 15. Insists on only the best performance. 16. Will not settle for second best. 17. Leads by “doing” rather than simply by “telling.” 18. Provides a good model to follow. 19. Leads by example. 20. Has provided me with new ways of looking at things which used to be a puzzle for me. 21. Has ideas that have forced me to rethink some of my own ideas I have never questioned before. 22. Has stimulated me to think about old problems in new ways. Contingent Reward Behavior 1. Always gives me positive feedback when I perform well. 2. Gives me special recognition when my work is very good. 3. Commends me when I do a better than average job. 4. Personally complements me when I do outstanding work. 5. Frequently does not acknowledge my good performance. Agreeableness 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
I I I I I
have a soft heart. take time out for others. feel others’ emotions. am not interested in other people’s problems. make people feel at ease.
Extraversion 1. I don’t like to draw attention to myself. 2. I am quiet around strangers.
858
Academy of Management Journal
3. I start conversations. 4. I talk to a lot of different people at parties. 5. I do not mind being the center of attention. Positive Affectivity “Indicate to what extent you generally feel this way, that is, how you feel on average:” 1. Interested 2. Excited 3. Strong 4. Enthusiastic 5. Proud 6. Alert 7. Inspired 8. Determined 9. Attentive 10. Active Negative Affectivity 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
Distressed Upset Guilty Scared Hostile Irritable Ashamed Nervous Jittery Afraid
October
Robert S. Rubin (
[email protected]) is an assistant professor in the Management Department at DePaul University’s Kellstadt Graduate School of Business. He received his Ph.D. in organizational psychology from Saint Louis University. His current research interests include transformational/transactional leadership, leadership cynicism, social and emotional individual differences, and management pedagogy. David C. Munz (
[email protected]) is a professor of psychology at Saint Louis University. He received his Ph.D. in industrial-organizational psychology from the University of Oklahoma. His research interests include workplace affect, stress, and the design and evaluation of workplace interventions. He has published and presented extensively and is a Fellow of APA and a charter member of APS. William H. Bommer (
[email protected]) is an associate professor in the Management and Labor Relations Department at Cleveland State University’s Nance College of Business. He received his Ph.D. in organizational behavior from Indiana University. His research interests include transformational/transactional leadership, organizational citizenship, leadership development, and research methods.
