The Relationship between Agreeableness and Transformational Leadership in Undergraduate Students

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
The Relationship between Agreeableness and Transformational Leadership in Undergraduate Students
Physical Description:
1 online resource (169 p.)
Language:
english
Creator:
Lamm, Kevan Warren
Publisher:
University of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date:

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Master's ( M.S.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Agricultural Education and Communication
Committee Chair:
CARTER,HANNAH S
Committee Co-Chair:
STEDMAN,NICOLE LAMEE PEREZ

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
agreeableness -- leadership -- students -- transformational -- undergraduate
Agricultural Education and Communication -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre:
Agricultural Education and Communication thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract:
Within organizations there are conflicting messages as to what constitutes effective leaders (Collins, 2001). One of the primary differentiators between effective and ineffective leadership appears the difference between self-oriented leaders, or individuals that are primarily concerned with their own needs, (Kellerman, 2004) and other-oriented leaders, or individuals that are primarily concerned with the needs of their followers(Collins, 2001). Transformational leadership is a leadership style that is primarily oriented towards the care and development of the leader’s followers (Bass &Riggio, 2006). The personality trait of agreeableness is primarily concerned with relationships with others and ability to trust others while maintaining social harmony (Costa,McCrae, & Dye, 1991). However, there is limited evidence to indicate that agreeableness and transformational leadership are related (Judge &Bono, 2000). The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between agreeableness, including the facet level (trust, straightforwardness, altruism, compliance,modesty and tender-mindedness) and transformational leadership, including specific factors (individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation,inspirational motivation, and idealized influence). Results indicate that undergraduate leadership students in the observed class had high levels of agreeableness (M = 3.84, SD = .44) and transformational leadership (M = 3.24, SD = .35). Of the agreeableness items, tender-mindedness had the strongest statistically significant correlation with transformational leadership overall. Modesty also had a statistically significant relationship in the negative direction. The factor of individualized consideration had the greatest number of statistically significant correlations with agreeableness items. Trust, straightforwardness, altruism, and tender-mindedness all had moderate positive correlations with individualized consideration at the facet level. Overall agreeableness was not found to be a statistically significant predictor of transformational leadership. The facets of agreeableness tended to be much more robust in predicting transformational leadership and transformational leadership factors. The regression model including agreeableness facets predicted 18% of the variance in transformational leadership. Recommendations include using the results to effectively teach transformational leadership to the class of undergraduate leadership students. Using differences between demographic groups (gender for example) would be an efficient way to have students engage in peer learning and hear how different personality traits can have an effect of transformational leadership factors.
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Kevan Warren Lamm.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2013.
Local:
Adviser: CARTER,HANNAH S.
Local:
Co-adviser: STEDMAN,NICOLE LAMEE PEREZ.

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
Classification:
lcc - LD1780 2013
System ID:
UFE0046336:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AGREEABLENESS AND TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP IN UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS By KEVAN WARREN LAMM A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2013

PAGE 2

2 2013 Kevan Warren Lamm

PAGE 3

3 To my wife Alexa and daughter Charlotte

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It is with sincere appreciation that I would like to thank and recognize all those that assisted me with completing this work. With an undertaking of this size it was certainly a group effort and one that I know I would not have been able to complete alone First and foremost I must thank my wife, partner, and best friend Dr. Alexa (Lex) Lamm for her support, love, and encouragement throughout this process. She was a steadfast supporter and provided me with the motivation I needed to make this dream a real ity. Furthermore, she is the most amazing mother to our daughter Charlotte who made her appearance during this process. I would also like to thank my daughter Charlotte for blessing our lives and making us a family during this process. She has shown me wha t is most important in life and why it is so important to live a life of passion pursuing your dreams. I would also like to recognize my parents Dr. Dennis Lamm and Dr. Jean Lamm, both of whom served as great role models for me growing up, and continue to do so today. My friends and family all provided an unending wellspring of support and encouragement both academically and personally, I will be forever in their debt. I would also like to thank and recognize the extraordinary efforts of my good friend and major advisor Dr. Hannah Carter. Without her assistance with this process, and encouragement to take the leap of faith and return to graduate school after 12 years in industry I would never have begun this journey. Her patience and perspective made an othe rwise stressful process very enjoyable. From helping me decide on a topic to making final edits Dr. Carter has been instrumental throughout every stage of the process.

PAGE 5

5 From my academic department I cannot thank my department chair, Dr. Edward Osborne enoug h. He was instrumental in helping to frame my study in an appropriate manner and provided support and feedback throughout the writing process. Also from my department I would like to thank Dr. Nicole Stedman who served on my committee and provided signific ant insights throughout the process. Her input was instrumental in designing my study and subsequently creating this work. I would also like to thank Dr. Anthony (Tony) Andenoro who graciously allowed me to survey his undergraduate leadership class to comp lete my study. From the Management department I would like to thank and recognize the efforts of Dr. Joyce Bono. My class and subsequent meetings with Dr. Bono served for the inspiration for this study. She provided feedback and forced me to think critical ly about the main purpose for my study. There are countless others that played a part in helping me with this process. To my fellow graduate students, especially Austen Moore and his wife Terezinha, former co workers at Accenture, family, and friends I off er a heart thank you support has meant the world to me and I will be forever grateful.

PAGE 6

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 10 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 13 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 16 Overview of the Study ................................ ................................ ............................. 16 Bad Leadership ................................ ................................ ................................ 17 Good Leadership ................................ ................................ .............................. 19 Transformational Leadership Development ................................ ...................... 21 Agreeableness ................................ ................................ ................................ 22 Problem Statement ................................ ................................ ................................ 22 Purpose and Objectives of the Study ................................ ................................ ...... 23 Significance of the Study ................................ ................................ ........................ 23 Definition of Terms ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 26 Limitations of the Study ................................ ................................ ........................... 28 Synopsis ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 29 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................................ ................................ ............ 30 Transformational Leadership ................................ ................................ .................. 30 Factors of Transformational Leadership ................................ ........................... 33 Idealized influ ence ................................ ................................ ..................... 33 Inspirational motivation ................................ ................................ .............. 34 Intellectual stimulation ................................ ................................ ................ 35 Individualized consideration ................................ ................................ ....... 36 Demographic Variables and Transformational Leadership ............................... 37 Gender and transformational leadership ................................ .................... 37 Age and transformational leadership ................................ ......................... 40 Race/e thnicity and transformational leadership ................................ ......... 40 Agreeableness ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 41 Facet Level Analysis ................................ ................................ ........................ 43 Facets of Agreeableness ................................ ................................ .................. 45 Trust ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 4 5 Straightforwardness ................................ ................................ ................... 46 Altruism ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 47 Compliance ................................ ................................ ................................ 48 Modesty ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 49

PAGE 7

7 Tender mindedness ................................ ................................ ................... 50 Incremental Validity of Facets Beyo nd Constructs ................................ ........... 51 Demographic Variables and Agreeableness ................................ .................... 53 Gender and agreeableness ................................ ................................ ........ 53 Age and agreeableness ................................ ................................ ............. 54 Race/ethnicity and agreeableness ................................ ............................. 54 Relationship between Transformational Leadership and Agreeableness ............... 55 Conceptual Model ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 56 Synopsis ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 56 3 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 58 Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 58 Research Design ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 59 Population an d Sample ................................ ................................ ........................... 61 Instrumentation ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 62 Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire ................................ ............................... 62 IPIP NEO ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 63 Data Collection ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 64 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 65 Synopsis ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 66 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 67 Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 67 Demographics ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 67 Objective 1: Describe the Levels of Agreeableness in Undergraduate Leadership Students ................................ ................................ ............................ 70 Objective 2: Describe the Levels of Transformational Leadership in Undergraduate Leadership Students ................................ ................................ ... 70 Objective 3: Identify the Relationship Between Individual Demographic Characteristics and Agreeableness ................................ ................................ ..... 71 Agreeableness and Gender ................................ ................................ .............. 72 Agreeableness and Age ................................ ................................ ................... 75 Agreeableness and Race/Ethnicit y ................................ ................................ ... 76 Objective 4: Identify the Relationship Between Individual Demographic Characteristics and Transformational Leadership ................................ ............... 79 Transformational Leadership and Gender ................................ ........................ 79 Transformational Leadership and Age ................................ ............................. 83 Transformational Leadership and Race/Ethnicity ................................ ............. 84 Objecti ve 5: Identify the Relationship Between Agreeableness and Transformational Leadership in Undergraduate Leadership Students ................. 88 Obj ective 6: Identify how Agreeableness Predicts Transformational Leadership in Undergraduate Leadership Students ................................ ............................... 92 Transformational Leadership, Agreeableness, and Demographic Characteristics ................................ ................................ .............................. 92

PAGE 8

8 Transformational Leadership, Agreeableness Facets, and Demographic Characteristics ................................ ................................ .............................. 94 Idealized Influence Attributed, Agreeableness, and Demographic Characteristics ................................ ................................ .............................. 96 Idealized Influence Attributed, Agreeableness Facets, and Demographic Characteristics ................................ ................................ .............................. 97 Idealized Influence Behavior, Agreeableness, and Demographic Characteristics ................................ ................................ .............................. 99 Idealized Influence Behavior, Agreeableness Facets, and Demographic Characteristics ................................ ................................ ............................ 100 Idealized Influence Combined, Agreeableness, and Demographic Characteristics ................................ ................................ ............................ 102 Idealized Influence Combined, Agreeableness Facets, and Demographic Characteristics ................................ ................................ ............................ 103 Inspirational Motivation, Agreeableness, and Demographic Char acteristics .. 105 Inspirational Motivation, Agreeableness Facets, and Demographic Characteristics ................................ ................................ ............................ 106 Intellectual Stimulation, Agreeableness, and Demographic Characteristics ... 108 Intellectual Stimulation, Agreeableness Facets, and Demographic Characteristics ................................ ................................ ............................ 109 Individualized Consideration, Agreeableness, and Demographic Characteristics ................................ ................................ ............................ 111 Individualized Consideration, Agreeableness Facets, and Demographic Characteristics ................................ ................................ ............................ 112 Charisma, Agreeableness, and Demographic Ch aracteristics ....................... 114 Charisma, Agreeableness Facets, and Demographic Characteristics ............ 115 Synopsis ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 117 5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ 118 Synopsis of Findings ................................ ................................ ............................. 119 Objective 1: Describe the Levels of Agreeableness in Undergraduate Leadership Students ................................ ................................ ................... 119 Objective 2: Describe the Levels of Transformational Leadership in Underg raduate Leadership Students ................................ .......................... 120 Objective 3: Identify the Relationship Between Individual Demographic Characteristics and Agreeable ness ................................ ............................. 120 Objective 4: Identify the Relationship Between Individual Demographic Characteristics and Transformational Leadership ................................ ....... 122 Objective 5: Identify the Relationship Between Agreeableness and Transformational Leadership in Undergraduate Leadership Students ........ 124 Objective 6: Identify how Agreeableness Predicts Transformational Leadership in Undergraduate Leadership Students ................................ .... 125 Conclusions ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 128 Discussions and Implications ................................ ................................ ................ 132 Recommendations ................................ ................................ ................................ 139 Recommendations for Practice ................................ ................................ 139

PAGE 9

9 Recommendations for Future Research ................................ .................. 144 Synopsis ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 146 APPENDIX: QUESTIONNAIRE ................................ ................................ .................. 147 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 149 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 166

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4 1 Number of respondents by gender ................................ ................................ ..... 69 4 2 Number of respondents by age ................................ ................................ .......... 69 4 3 N umber of respondents by class ................................ ................................ ........ 69 4 4 Number of respondents by Hispanic/Latino(a)/Chicano(a) ................................ 69 4 5 Number of respondents by race ................................ ................................ ......... 69 4 6 Agreeableness scale scores ................................ ................................ ............... 70 4 7 Leadership style scale scores ................................ ................................ ............. 71 4 8 .............................. 72 4 9 Agreeableness by gender ................................ ................................ ................... 72 4 10 Intercorrelations among agreeableness, gender, age, ethnicity, and race ......... 74 4 11 Agreeableness by age ................................ ................................ ........................ 75 4 12 Agreeableness by Hispanic/Latino(a)/Chicano(a) ................................ ............... 77 4 13 Agreeableness by race ................................ ................................ ....................... 78 4 14 Transformational leadership by gender ................................ .............................. 80 4 15 Intercorrelations among transformational leadership, gender, age, ethnicity, and race ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 82 4 16 Transformational leadership by age ................................ ................................ ... 83 4 17 Transformational lea dership by Hispanic/Latino(a)/Chicano(a) .......................... 85 4 18 Transformational leadership by race ................................ ................................ .. 86 4 19 Intercorrelations between agreeableness and transformational leadership ........ 89 4 20 Multiple regression of transformational leadership on agreeableness and demographic characteristics ................................ ................................ ............... 93 4 21 Hierarchical regression of transformational leadership on agreeableness and demographic characteristics ................................ ................................ ............... 94

PAGE 11

11 4 22 Multiple regression of transformational leadership on agreeableness facets and demographic characteristics ................................ ................................ ........ 95 4 23 Hierarchical regression of transformational leadership on agreeableness facets and demographic characteristics ................................ ............................. 95 4 24 Multiple regression of idealized influence attributed on agreeableness and demographic characteristics ................................ ................................ ............... 96 4 25 Hierarchical regression of idealized influence attributed on agreeableness and demographic characteristics ................................ ................................ ........ 97 4 26 Multiple regression of idealized influence attributed on agreeableness facets and demographic characteristics ................................ ................................ ........ 98 4 27 Hierarchical regression of idealized influence attributed on agreeableness facets and demographic characteristics ................................ ............................. 98 4 28 Multiple regression of idealized influence behavior on agreeableness and demographic characteristics ................................ ................................ ............. 100 4 29 Hierarchical regression of idealized influence behavior on agreeableness and demographic characteristics ................................ ................................ ............. 100 4 30 Multiple regression of idealized influence behavior on agreeableness facets and demographic characteristics ................................ ................................ ...... 101 4 31 Hierarchical regression of idealized influence behavior on agreeableness facets and demographic characteristics ................................ ........................... 102 4 32 Multiple regression of idealized influence combined on agreeableness and demographic characteristics ................................ ................................ ............. 103 4 33 Hierarchical regression of idealized influence combined on agreeableness and demographic characteristics ................................ ................................ ...... 103 4 34 Multiple regression of idealized influence combined on agreeableness facets and demographic characteristics ................................ ................................ ...... 104 4 35 Hierarchical regression of idealized influence combined on agreeableness facets and demographic characteristics ................................ ........................... 105 4 36 Multiple regression of inspirational motivation on agreeableness and demographic characteristics ................................ ................................ ............. 106 4 37 Hierarchical regression of inspirational motivation on agreeableness and demographic characteristics ................................ ................................ ............. 1 06

PAGE 12

12 4 38 Multiple regression of inspirational motivation on agreeableness facets and demographic characteristics ................................ ................................ ............. 107 4 39 Hierarchical regression of inspirational motivation on agreeableness facets and demographic characteristics ................................ ................................ ...... 108 4 40 Multiple regression of intellectual stimulation on agreeableness and demographic characteristics ................................ ................................ ............. 109 4 41 Hierarchical regression of intellectual stimulation on agreeableness and demographic characteristics ................................ ................................ ............. 109 4 42 Multiple regression of intellectual stimulation on agreeableness facets and demographic characteristics ................................ ................................ ............. 110 4 43 Hierarchical regression of intellectual stimulation on agreeableness facets and demographic characteristics ................................ ................................ ...... 111 4 44 Multiple regression of individualized consideration on agreeableness and demographic characteristics ................................ ................................ ............. 112 4 45 Hierarchical regression of individualized consideration on agreeableness and demographic characteristics ................................ ................................ ............. 112 4 46 Multiple regression of individualized consideration on agreeableness facets and demographic characteristics ................................ ................................ ...... 113 4 47 Hierarchical regression of individualized consideration on agreeableness facets and demographic characteristics ................................ ........................... 114 4 48 Multiple regression of charisma on agreeableness and demographic characteristics ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 115 4 49 Hierarchical regression of charisma on agreeableness and demographic characteristics ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 115 4 50 Multiple regression of charisma on agreeableness facets and demographic characteristics ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 116 4 51 Hierarchical regression of charisma on agreeableness facets and demographic characteristics ................................ ................................ ............. 117

PAGE 13

13 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 Model of relationship between agreeableness and transformational leadership ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 57

PAGE 14

14 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AGREEABLENESS AND TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP IN UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS By Kevan Warren Lamm December 2013 Chair: Hannah S. Carter Major: Agricultural Education and Communication Within organizations there are conflicting messages as to what constitutes effective leaders (Collins, 2001). One of the primary differentiators between effective and ineffective leadership appears the difference between self oriented leaders, or individua ls that are primarily concerned with their own needs, (Kellerman, 2004) and other oriented leaders, or individuals that are primarily concerned with the needs of their followers (Collins, 2001). Transformational leadership is a leadership style that is pri Riggio, 2006). The personality trait of agreeableness is primarily concerned with relationships with others and ability to trust others while maintaining social harmony ( Cos ta, McCrae, & Dye 1991 ). However, there is limited evidence to indicate that agreeableness and transformational leadership are related ( Judge & Bono, 2000) The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between agreeableness, including the fac et level (trust, straightforwardness, altruism, compliance, modesty and tender mindedness) and transformational leadership, including specific factors (individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation, and idealized influenc e).

PAGE 15

15 Results indicate that undergraduate leadership students in the observed class had high levels of agreeableness ( M = 3.84, SD = .44) and transformational leadership ( M = 3.24, SD = .35). Of the agreeableness items, tender mindedness had the strongest s tatistically significant correlation with transformational leadership overall. Modesty also had a statistically significant relationship in the negative direction. The factor of individualized consideration had the greatest number of statistically signific ant correlations with agreeableness items. Trust, straightforwardness, altruism, and tender mindedness all had moderate positive correlations with individualized consideration at the facet level. Overall agreeableness was not found to be a s tatistically s ignificant predic tor of transformational leadership. The facets of agreeableness tended to be much more robust in predicting transformational leadership and transformational leadership factors. The regression model including a greeableness facets predicted 18 % of the variance in transformational leadership Recommendations include using the results to effectively teach transformational leadership to the class of undergraduate leadership students. Using differences between demographic groups (gender for examp le) would be an efficient way to have students engage in peer learning and hear how different personality traits can have an effect of transformational leadership factors.

PAGE 16

16 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Overview of the Study Modern society has been full of cont radictions related to concepts of leadership is the creation of a human community held together by the work bond for a common However Bossidy, Charan, and Burck (2004) stated These authors have called for leaders to be primarily concerned with more functional business related skills, omitting people skills. Although functional and business oriented skills have been necessary, they have not been sufficient to adequately provide leaders with the skills needed to be successful in organizations today ( Bennis 2009 ) Functional business skill development has represent ed a trend to be more focused on individual results and actions, and as a consequence leaders have tend ed to be more se lf oriente d than other oriented ( Collins, 2001 ) T directors) to select dazzling, celebrity leaders and to deselect potential Level 5 [other oriented] leaders tendencies toward powerful speech and claiming credit, successful takers [self oriented] commanding, or pacesett ing, [self oriented] bosses create a disastrous dissonance, everyone can name a rude, hard hitting CEO who, by all appearances, epitomizes the antithesis of residence [other

PAGE 17

17 (Goleman, Boyatzis, McKee, 2002, p. 80). From one perspective concern for others has appear ed to be central to effective leadership. Simultaneously self oriented leaders have appear ed to be rewarded and judged to be successful. Bad Leadership Bad leadership has been estimated to co st the average organization $1 million annually (Blanchard, 2009). Defining what constitutes bad leadership has been a of leadership as there are persons who have attem Kellerman (2004) defined seven categories of bad leadership: incompetent, rigid, intemperate, callous, corrupt, insular, and evil. Of these seven, three have been easily attributable to self oriented leadership behavior: callous, corrupt, and insular (Kellerman, 2004) According to Kellerman (2004), callous leader s have been generally characterized as unkind or uncaring. They are not attuned to the needs of others and tend to discount the desires of those they come in con tact with. C orrupt leader s puts their own interests ahead of those of others through their willingness to lie, cheat or steal. Finally, the insular leader is one that disregards the welfare of others, especially those outside the purview (Kellerma n, 2004). S everal different theories have been proposed to describe how leadership is established ; first, humans have an evolutionary predisposition (nature) towards a specific type of behavior including leadership ( Caspi, Roberts, & Shiner, 2005 ; Kellerman, 2004). Other theories have focus ed on the environments in which individuals exist (nurture) For example, Grant (2013) stated:

PAGE 18

18 Workplaces and schools are often designed to be zero sum environments, with forced rankings and required grading cur ves that pick group members against one another in win or lose contests. In th is setting it's only natural to assume that peers will lean in the taker [sel f oriented] direction. (p. 241) Regardless of where bad leadership characteristics have derived from, whether through nature or nurture, the impact on organizations have been well documented (Kellerman, 2004) Bad leaders ha ve had a direct effect on their organizations and s. 105). In general, bad self oriented leaders have tend ed to be characterized as more they're more 191). Consequences of this approach to leadership have been pervasive and range from corporate and political scandals to revelations regarding religious organization wrongdoings (Kellerman, 2004). For example, the executive suite of Enron acted as created, indee d encouraged, an organizational culture that allowed many apples to spoil The selfish, self oriented point of view has been manifested not only in scandal at a broad corporate level but also through a m yriad of interactions experienced in organizational settings every day including activities such as workplace deviance, counterproductive work behaviors, and workplace incivility ( Grant, 2013 ) By encouraging us to expect the worst in others it brings ou t the worst in us ( Grant, 2013, p. 23)

PAGE 19

19 Bad leadership has led to a culture of mistrust (Grant, 2013) According to the ncivility and rudeness also appear to have been on the rise 78% of respondents had experienced rudeness in online settings (Edelson, 2007). T he negative consequences of self oriented leadership have been observed Fortunately, there have also been trends to indicate a greater appreciation for good, or other oriented, leaders hip (Grant, 2013) Good Leadership As organizations have recognize d the limitations associated with self oriented leaders they have been actively beginning to focus on the benefits associated with other oriented leadership ( Bass & Riggio, 2006; Blanchard, 2009; Grant, 2013) fact is that any business expecting to stay around in the new environment has to raise everal qualities that often got short shrift in the selection of These previously neglected qualities have include d a focus on individual character (Covey, 1989), mode sty (Collins, 2001), giving (Grant, 2013), trust (Bennis, 2009), and empathy (Hughes & Terrell, 2007). Subsequently t hese other oriented qualities have a direct and meaningful impact on organizations ( Bennis, 2009; Blanchard, 2009; Collins, 2001; Grant, 20 13 ) corporations tended to be modest, understated, and self effacing. This was in comparison to peer organizations led by self oriented leaders. O rganizations led by other orie nted leaders performed significantly better financially over longer periods of time. The influence these other oriented leaders had on their organizations ha s been

PAGE 20

20 profound (Collins, 2001) performance. The leader, whether by position or by influence, can establish positive p. 170). The importance of other orientation beyond organizational settings have also been made good, would be victor (as cited in Grant, 2013, p. 239). As an outcome of these interpersonal behaviors a fundamental shift in leadership have been [self oriented] lead ership into transformational [other oriented] leadership, transforming Transformational leadership has serve d as a model for good, or other oriented, leadership based on its emphasis on moti vation and follower development ( Bass & Riggio, 2006; Northouse, 2013 ) and transforms people and is concerned with emotions, values, ethics, standards, and long term goal satisfying their needs and p. 185 ). Transformational leadership has been empirically evaluated and is considered to be one of the most popular forms of cont emporary leadership. ( Northouse, 2013 ) In combination with a focus on follower development transformational leadership served as an appropriate model of good, other oriented, leadership ( Bass & Riggio, 2006; Covey, 1989 )

PAGE 21

21 Transformational Leadership Devel opment T he question has been whether leadership (as a set of observable behaviors) has been an outcome of nature (natural born ability) ( McCrae et al., 2000 ) or nurture (developed ability) ( Goleman et al., 2002; Grant, 2013 ) From a nature perspective the argument has been made that observed behaviors are a result of neuro configuration (Caspi et al. 2005; McCrae et al., 2000; Srivastava, John, Gosling, & Potter, 2003). These patterns are hardwired into our brains and are subsequently manifested in our beh avior and personality. Human brains cease to generate new neural tissue beyond the mid teen years, consequently patterns established prior to this point are biologically wired to continue to manifest throughout a lifetime (Buckingham & Clifton, 2001). To the contrary, n ew evidence has indicate d that behavioral development is possible and is the direct result of desire and intent to change (Begley, 2007). As s look at the careers of the gifted, the smaller the (p. 38). Furthermore the idea that human brains atrophy and lack any regenerative capacity has been found to be no longer valid. Laboratory studies have concluded that human bra ins can regenerate new neural tissue and that existing tissue is highly adaptable, a process known as neuroplasticity (Goleman et al., 2002). Furthermore, it has been shown that leadership development has been possible (Avolio, Reichard, Hannah, Walumbwa, & Chan, 2009; Day & Sin, 2011). ; however, building leadership skills that last, motivation and how a person feels about learning Goleman et al., 2002 p. 99).

PAGE 22

22 Agreeableness The personality trait of agreeableness has be en historically classified as a poor predictor of individual work performance (Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001). Research has shown that agreeableness ha s little to no performance predictive capacity (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Piedmont & Weinstein, 1994). Howev er, this finding has been contrary to intuition Humans are social in nature; consequently an ability to get along with others would seem to be a prerequisite for performance and happiness (Frone, 2000). Additionally, Fearrington (2004) found that agreeabl eness was directly related to Today the use of teams and interdependent work situations has never been hold a thirds of the Therefore, people have become the primary resources in most organizations today, and the value these resources bring to bear has been directly related to the quality of interpersonal relationships (Bennis, 2009). W hile individuals have been asked to work together with greater frequency, they simultaneously have had to deal with significantly more challenges to do so due to bad leadership (Grant, 2013) Problem Statement The problem addressed by this study was the proliferation of bad, self oriented, leadership within organizations. As an alternative, the development of other oriented, or transformational leaders was proposed. To assist in the effective development of transformational leaders, an investigation into the nature of the relationship between the personality trait of agreeableness and transformational leadership was undertaken. This

PAGE 23

23 course of action was proposed, as there was a lack of knowledge around the relationship between agreeableness and transformational leadersh ip characteristics. Purpose and Objectives of the Study The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between agreeableness, including the facet level (trust, straightforwardness, altruism, compliance, modesty and tender mindedness) and trans formational leadership, including specific factors (individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation, and idealized influence). The study was driven by the following research objectives : 1. Describe the levels of agreeableness in undergraduate leadership students. 2. Describe the levels of transformational leadership in undergraduate leadership students. 3. Identify the relationship between individual demographic characteristics and agreeableness. 4. Identify the relationship between ind ividual demographic characteristics and transformational leadership. 5. Identify the relationship between agreeableness and transformational leadership in undergraduate leadership students. 6. Identify how agreeableness predicts transformational leadership in un dergraduate leadership students Significance of the Study Leadership research has been extensive over the past three decades (Judge & Bono, 2000). However, a limited number of studies has been conducted that specifically looked at the relationship between personality facets and transformational leadership characteristics, especially at the most granular level ( Barrick et al., 2001; Judge & Bono, 2000) This represented a gap in the literature, as well as an issue of practical utility

PAGE 24

24 (Barrick et al., 2001) Without being able to clearly articulate the nature of the relationship between personality and transformational leadership educators and practitioners focused on leadership development have been challenged to design and provide instruction accordingly ( Judge & Bono, 2000). Although Barrick et al. (2001) called for the suspension of further personality based research until such time that a novel, or substantial, contribution could be made; an extensive review of the literature revealed a notable absence o f studies that focus ed on agreeableness. Because humans are gregarious, tend to prefer being in groups rather than alone, and tend to want to help one another the absence of existing literature was noteworthy (Cosmides, 1989; McGuire, 2003). The signific ance of this study was two fold. First, there was a gap in the existing literature examining agreeableness and its relationship with leadership. This study was intended to inform this current deficiency (Judge & Bono, 2000) Second, by examining the natu re and magnitude of the relationship between agreeableness and transformational leadership, educators may be able to better tailor instructional interventions to support the development of leadership capacities (McCormick, Dooley, Lindner, & Cummins, 2007) This research was directly supportive of the National Research Agenda for Agricultural Education priority area number four, specifically, meaningful and engaged learning in all environments (Doerfert, 2011). Leadership development has been a top priority in both academic and professional settings (McCormick et al. 2007), illuminating this important relationship will enhance the quality of subsequent educational interventions (Judge & Bono, 2000)

PAGE 25

25 Based on the absence of empirical research examining agree ableness facets and leadership characteristics the results of this study will be significant to the literature and practice (Barrick et al., 2001) Additionally, the results of the study may contribute to the broader field of personality and performance re search (Barrick et al., 2001). For example, the results may have implications for ongoing professional development investment decisions. The population of interest for this study was undergraduate leadership students. The chosen population represented the next generation of leaders and one that has been often overlooked in the literature (Senge, 2006) ignored as leaders, teenagers and young adults have a strong stake in the future, perhaps the strongest. They are also the least invested in the past, giving them a The population was also selected due to the dramatic increase in undergraduate leadership development programs, it is important to understand this population so as to provide the most effective instruction possible ( Riggio, Ciulla, & Sorenson, 2003). potential to produce future generations of transformative leaders who can devise more effective solutions to some of our most pres p. 16). There were a number of groups that will benefit from this information (Barrick et al., 2001). First, educators and leadership development practitioners have been provided a better understanding of leader ship characteristics as founded in individual personality dispositions (Barrick et al., 2001) Next, participants in leadership development programs have benefited as future programming efforts will be more

PAGE 26

26 comprehensive (Senge, 2006). Finally, organizatio ns have b enefited from the development of individuals who have completed more comprehensive transformational leadership development programs (Barrick et al., 2001; Judge & Bono, 2000; McCormick et al., 2007; Northouse, 2013) Definition of Terms For the purpose of this study, the following terms were defined: Agreeableness O ne of the Big Five traits of personality, a dimension of interpersonal behavior, specifically the quality of interaction between individuals. This trait also contributes to social at titudes, personal philosophy, and self image. The facets of Trust, Straightforwardness, Altruism, Compliance, Modesty, and Tender mindedness constitute this trait (Costa, McCrae, & Dye, 1991). In this study, agreeableness was measured by International Pers onality Item Pool (IPIP) (Goldberg et al., 2006) agreeableness inventory developed by Johnson (2011). Altruism O ne of the facets of the pe rsonality trait of agreeableness, a selflessness and concern for others (Costa, McCrae, & Dye, 1991 p. 888 ). In this study, altruism was measured by International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) (Goldberg et al., 2006) agreeableness inventory developed by Johnson (2011). Bad Leadership S elf oriented leadership, particularly callous, corrupt, and insular leadership (Keller man, 2004). Compliance O ne of the facets of the personality trait of agreeableness individuals defer to others instead of fighting when conflicts arise (Costa, McCrae, & Dye, 1991 p. 888 ). In this study, compliance was measured by International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) (Goldberg et al., 2006) agreeableness inventory developed by Johnson (2011). Follower A n individual that has a direct or indirect reporting relationship with a supervisor in a position of power, whet her through formal or informal means. Good L eadership O people. It is concerned with the emotions, values, ethics, standers, long

PAGE 27

27 Idealized Influence O ne of the factors of transformational leadership, describes leaders who act as strong role models for followers (Northouse, 2013 p. 191). In this study, idealized influence was measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire developed by Bass and Avo lio (2000). Individualized O ne of the factors of transformational leadership, describes leaders Consideration who provide a supportive climate in which they listen carefully to the individual needs of followers (Northouse, 2013 p. 193). In this study, ind ividualized consideration was measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire developed by Bass and Avolio (2000). Inspirational O ne of the factors of transformational leadership, describes leaders Motivation who communicate high expectations to fol lowers, inspiring them through motivation to become committed to and a part of the shared vision in the organization (Northouse, 2013 p. 193). In this study, inspirational motivation was measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire developed by Ba ss and Avolio (2000). Intellectual O ne of the factors of transformational leadership, describes leaders Stimulation who stimulate followers to be creative and innovative and to challenge their own beliefs and values as well as those of the leader and the organization (Northouse, 2013 p. 193). In this study, idealized influence was measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire developed by Bass and Avolio (2000). Leadership A process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achie ve a common goal (Northouse, 2013, p. 5). Modesty O ne of the facets of the personality trait of agreeableness a lack of preoccupation with oneself (Costa, McCrae, & Dye, 1991 p. 888 ). In this study, modesty was measured by International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) (Goldberg et al., 2006) agreeableness inventory developed by Johnson (2011). Race/Ethnicity S elf perceived membership in population groups that define themselves by cultural heritage, language, physical appearance, behavior, or other characte p. 26 ). In this study, race was defined as: American Indian or Alaska native; Asian or Pacific Islander; Black or African American; White; or Other. Ethnicity is defined as either Hispanic/Latino( a)/Chicano(a) or not. These categories were based on United States of America Office of Management and Budget standards for the classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity p. 29) Straight O ne of the facets of the personalit y trait of agreeableness

PAGE 28

28 forwardness frankness in dealing with others (Costa, McCrae, & Dye, 1991 p. 888 ). In this study, straightforwardness was measured by International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) (Goldberg et al., 2006) agreeableness inventory de veloped by Johnson (2011). Superior A n individual in a position of authority over a supervisor. Supervisor A n individual with at least one follower reporting to them through direct or indirect channels. Tender O ne of the facets of the personality trait of agreeableness a mindedness tendency to be guided by feelings, particularly those of sympathy, in making judgments and forming attitudes (Costa, McCrae, & Dye, 1991 p. 888 ). In this study, tender mindedness was measured by International Persona lity Item Pool (IPIP) (Goldberg et al., 2006) agreeableness inventory developed by Johnson (2011). Transformational T he process whereby a person engages with others and creates a Leadership connection that raises the level of motivation and morality in b oth followers and tries to help followers reach their ful lest potential (Northouse, 2013, p. 186). In this study, transformational leadership was measured by the Multifactor Leadership Quest ionnaire developed by Bass and Avolio (2000). Trust O ne of the facets of the personality trait of agreeableness the tendency to attribute benevolent intent to others (Costa, McCrae, & Dye, 1991 p. 888 ). In this study, trust was measured by International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) (Goldberg et al., 2006) agreeableness inventory developed by Johnson (2011). Undergraduate A n individual enrolled in an undergraduate level course. Institutional student classification is irrelevant. Limitations of the Study Due to the nature of the subject matter and proposed population a number of limitations were present Specifically the sample consisted of undergraduate students at a single southern land grant u niversity. Due to the somewhat limited nature of thi s audience the results were not generalizable to other student groups An additional limitation associated with the study was that the dependent variable of interest,

PAGE 29

29 transformational leadership, was measured through self report. An assumption was made th at all responses were accurate and truthful. Synopsis Chapter 1 provided an introduction, background, purpose, and significance of the research as it relates to the problem of the proliferation of bad, self oriented, leadership within organizations. The p urpose of this study was to examine the relationship between agreeableness, including the facet level (trust, straightforwardness, altruism, compliance, modesty and tender mindedness) and transformational leadership, including specific factors (individuali zed consideration, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation, and idealized influence). Developing individuals with transformational leadership characteristics has been shown to benefit individuals and organizations (Collins, 2001; Covey, 1990). C onsequently, informing transfor mational leadership development has been important for educators, participants, and organizations (Barrick et al., 2001; Judge & Bono, 2000; McCormick et al., 2007; Northouse, 2013). The significance of this study was two fold. A gap in the existing literature examining agreeableness and its relationship with leadership existed In addition by examining the nature and magnitude of the relationship between agreeableness and transformational leadership, educators may be able to better tailor instructional interventions to support the development of leadership capacities.

PAGE 30

30 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between the personality trait of agreeableness and transformational leadership in undergraduate leadership students. The objectives of the study were to describe levels of agreeableness, describe levels of tra nsformational leadership, identify the relationship between individual demographic characteristics and agreeableness, identify the relationship between individual demographic characteristics and transformational leadership, identify the relationship betwee n agreeableness and transformational leadership and Identify how agreeableness predicts transformational leadership in undergraduate leadership students Chapter 2 reviews the literature related to transformational leadership and agreeableness. Specifical ly, this chapter focuses on transformational leadership, the factors of transformational leadership, the five factor model of personality, agreeableness, the facets of agreeableness, and demographic variable relationship s with transformational leadership a nd agreeableness. Additionally, the theoretical frameworks of transformational leadership and the five factor model of personality are presented Lastly a conceptual framework for the stud y is presented. The chapter is divided into the following sections : transformational leadership, agreeableness, demographic relationships to transformational leadership and agreeableness relationship between transformational leadership and a greeableness Transformational Leadership Transformational leadership is focused on the individual beyond just the task (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Transformational leadership includes serving as a role model for

PAGE 31

31 followers, inspiring and motivating followers to pursue challenging goals, encourag ing fol lowers to be creative, and treating each follower as an individual (Bass & Riggio, and aspirations of followers, so that they perform their work because it is consistent with p. 118). As a consequence t ransformational leaders have been found to improve the performance of organizations, teams, and individuals (Judge & Bono, 2000) At the supervisor follower level follow ers have tend ed to view their supervisors to be more effective when they have transformational leadership characteristics ( Judge & Bono, 2000 ). This finding wa s consistent with previous research that found followers tend to identify transformational leader characteristics when asked to describe their ideal leader ( Bass, 1997 ). Transformational leaders have been shown to have a large effect on what follower s think and feel ( Avolio et al., 2009). The ability to accurately assess and respond to follower emotio nal cues is an indication of emotional intelligence (Goleman et al., 2002) H igh levels of correlation between transformational leaders and emotional intelligence have also been observed ( Bowling, 2010 ). Followers of transformational leader s have tend ed to demonstrate higher levels of satisfaction with the leader ( Fuller, Patterson, Hester & Stringer 1996 ) and work unit effectiveness ( Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1 996 ). Additionally, followers of transformational leaders have been shown to have hig her levels of affective and normative commitment ( Jackson, Meyer, & Wang, 2013 ). When conducting a meta analysis of transformational leadership Wang, Oh, Courtright, and Colbert ( 2011 ) found

PAGE 32

32 that followers of transformational leaders had higher levels of performance across a number of measures, especially in contextual versus task performance settings. At the supervisor team level teams led by transformational leaders have tend ed to report higher levels of perceived effectiveness, productivity, and learning ( Burke et al., 2006 ). In particular, leader behaviors associated with follower empowerment was the single largest predictor in team learning ( Burke et al., 2006 ). Wang et al. ( 2011 ) foun d that teams led by transformational leaders tended to have higher levels of performance, especially in contextual versus task performance settings. At the supervisor superior level superiors have been found to view supervisors with transformational leade rship characteristics as more effective ( Judge & Bono, 2000 ). From this perspectiv e, transformational leadership wa s not only positively related to follower outcomes, but also to intra individual outcomes; specifically, supervisors that exhibit transformat ional leadership behaviors were perceived to be higher performing (Derue, Nahrgang, Wellman, & Humphrey, 2011) and thus may be more prepared for promotions and greater levels of responsibility ( Shamir, Zakay, Breinin, & Popper 1998 ). Although transformat ional leadership has been related to a number of positive organizational outcomes ( Judge & Bono, 2000 ), some research findings have been inconclusive. For example, Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Bommer ( 1996 ) found that followers of transformational leaders wer e not more committed to their organization than followers of non transformational leaders. Similarly, Barling, Weber, and Kelloway ( 1996 ) found there was no difference in job satisfaction between followers of transformational and non transformational leaders. A dditionally, the universality of

PAGE 33

33 transformational leadership characteristics has not been perceived as positive in all cultural contexts in which it ha s been examined ( Chemers, 2000; Leong & Fischer, 2011 ). Avolio ( 2007 ) has called for the inclusion of context when researching the nature of relationships between leaders and followers, claiming that what is effective in one context may be ineffective in another leading to these inconclusive results As a potential solution to some of the limitations posed by context Dinh and Lord (2012) recommended event level analysis with the event aggregate serving a better representation of the true self. Factors o f Transformational Leadership According to Bass and Riggio (2006), transformational leaders are able to achieve superior results with followers by exercising one or more of four factors associated with transformational leadership (idealized influence, insp irational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration). These four core areas of transformational leadership have evolved and been refined based on a number of previous conceptualizations (Bass, 1985; Bass & Riggio, 2006 ; Burns, 1978 ). Although the independence of four factors has been questioned ( Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999; Bycio, Hackett, & Allen, 1995) additional research has demonstrated that the factors are in fact unique and possible to quantify independently through questi onnaire measures (Bono & Judge, 2004). Idealized influence Transformational leaders have been held in high regard by their followers based on their high moral standards (Bono & Judge, 2004). Through ethical and admirable behavior transformational leaders have been trusted and respected by their followers leading to a strong sense of loyalty (Bass & Riggio, 2006). F ollowers have view ed

PAGE 34

3 4 transformational leaders as having extraordinary skills and capabilities, an attributed set of qu alities that followers have project ed on to transformational leaders (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Consequently, idealized influence is composed of two sub factors : behaviors of the transformational leader and characteristics attributed to the leader by followers (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Transformational leaders with high levels of idealized influence have been likely to behave in a moral and ethical manner and are likely to be consistent and fair with their decisions (Bass & Riggio, 2006). I ndividuals with high le vels of idealized influence tend ed to be willing to take risks and demonstrate above average persistence (Bass & Riggio, 2006) and r esearch has found that followers have rated leaders higher in idealized influence when they use rational and inspirational appeals ( Charbonneau, 2004 ). This finding was consistent with research that found idealized influence is related to levels of emotional intelligence in leaders ( Clarke, 2010 ). At the sub factor level research has shown that the attributed idealized influ ence is a significant predictor of leadership effectiveness ( Sadeghi & Pihie, 2012 ). B oth attributed idealized influence and idealized influence behavior have been found to be predictive of innovative workplace behavior ( Abbas, Iqbal, Waheed, & Riaz, 2012 ) However, some follower outcomes have been contradictory at the sub factor level For example, Franke and Felfe (2011) found that attributed idealized influence was negatively related to follower perceptions of strain while idealized influence behavior wa s positively related to follower perceptions of strain. Inspirational m otivation Bono and Judge (2004) found that t ransformational leaders exercise d inspirational motivation when they articulate a vision for the future based on their

PAGE 35

35 values. Inspirational motivation provides meaning to follower work and facilitates a shared vision for an appealing future (Bass & Riggio, 2006). T ransformational leaders build team spirit and individual motivation by clearly articulating expectations, bui lding confidence and arousing enthusiasm (Bass & Rig gio, 2006; Bono & Judge, 2004). In a study of l eadership effectiveness Sadeghi and Pihie (2012) found that effectiveness has been predicted by inspirational motivation Furthermore, Charbonneau (2004) fou nd that r ational and inspirational appeals with followers pre dicted inspirational motivation Research has shown i nspirational motivation is positively related to innovative work behavior in followers ( Abbas et al., 2012 ), as well as increased group creat ivity ( Sosik et al., 1998 ). I nspirational motivation has been a positive effect in reducing both cognitive and relational conflict in teams and organizations ( Doucet, Poitras, & Chenevert, 2009 ). Additionally, research has shown successful completion of t raining activities ( Hardy et al., 2010 ) and work projects ( Elkins & Keller, 2003 ) have been directly related to levels of transformational leader inspirational motivation However, inspirational motivation has not been found to be related to levels of foll ower psychological strain, demonstrating a set of unique characteristics from idealized influence ( Franke & Felfe, 2011 ). I dealized influence and inspirational motivation have been frequently combined into a single charismatic inspirational factor (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Intellectual s timulation Transformational leaders have exercise d intellectual stimulation with followers by encouraging them to question norms as well as engage in innovative and creative thinking (Bono & Judge, 2004). Creative ideas and solutions have been solicited from followers in a criticism free env ironment (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Sadeghi and Pihie

PAGE 36

36 ( 2012 ) found that intellectual stimulation was predictive of perceptions of leadership effectiveness. Ad ditionally, intellectual stimulation was found to be predictive of transformational leaders levels of situational awareness and interpersonal influence ( Eid et al., 2004 ). Transformational leaders frequently engage d in rational persuasion when exercising intellectual stimulation with followers ( Charbonneau, 2004 ). When transformational leaders provided intellectual stimulation followers exhibited higher levels of innovative work behavior ( Abbas et al., 2012 ), organizational commitment ( Emery & Barker, 20 07; Joo, Yoon, & Jeung, 2012 ), and job satisfaction ( Emery & Barker, 2007 ). Additionally, Elkins and Keller (2003) found that intellectual stimulation was related to higher levels of leader member exchange (LMX) between leaders and followers as well as hi gher probabi lities of project team success T here have been a few examples where intellectual stimulation has not resulted in positive organizational outcomes. For example in a computer mediated environment group creativity was negatively related to int ellectual stimulation ( Sosik et al., 1998 ). Additionally, cognitive conflicts in the workplace were positively related to intellectual stimulation ( Doucet et al., 2009 ). Individualized c onsideration Transformational leaders exercise d individualized consid eration by providing individualized attention to each follower, by focusing on individual growth and achievement needs (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Providing coaching to e ach follower individually allowed goals and needs (Bono & Judge, 2004). Individualized consideration may be demonstrated in behaviors such as providing more autonomy, providing more

PAGE 37

37 constructive feedback, or providing a more formalized task structure; however, all behaviors have stem med appreciate individual differences (Bass & Roggio, 2006). Leadership effectiveness ( Sadeghi & Pihie, 2012 ), emotional intelligence ( Cl arke, 2010 ), and humble self deprecating behaviors ( Hoption, Barling, & Turner, 2013 ) have all been shown to be positively related to levels of individualized consideration Transformational leaders frequently engage d in rational persuasion when exercisin g individualized consideration with followers ( Charbonneau, 2004 ). When transformational leaders provide d individualized consideration followers respond ed positively by demonstrating more innovative workplace behavior ( Abbas et al., 2012 ) and lower level s of psychological strain ( Franke & Felfe, 2011 ) I ndividualized consideration has also been found to have a positive direct effect on follower organizational citizenship behaviors ( Cho & Dansereau, 2010 ). Nevertheless examples exist where individualized consideration was not related to positive organizatio nal outcomes. For example, individualized consideration was positively related to relational conflicts in the workplace ( Doucet et al., 2009 ). Furthermore, group creativity was negatively related to ind ividualized consideration in online environments ( Sosik et al., 1998 ). Demographic Variables and Transformational Leadership Gender and transformational leadership The relationship between gender and transformational leadership has been the subject of numerous studies (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Generally, studies have focused on whether men and women lead differently, and in particular if there are characteristics of leadership that tend to apply to one sex more frequently (Bass & Riggio, 2006). The

PAGE 38

38 analys is of gender specific leadership characteristics relative to shifts in organizational structures has also been noteworthy (Bass & Avolio, 1994). Shifts in organizations have tended to be toward team orientation and interdependency, with increased empowerme nt tend ing to favor transformational leaders (Bass & Avolio, 1994). Rosener (1990) found that t raditionally women have tended to be interactive in their leadership style, while men have shown a more transactional approach Tr ansformational leadership serve d as an effective channel for women to fill both leadership and gender roles ( Manning, 2002). However, based on organizational shifts, both men and women have equally employ ed transformational leadership behaviors effectively; the key determinant has been personal fit and effectiveness (Rosener, 1990). Previous studies have found that women generally possess and employ transformational leadership more frequently than men (e.g., Bass & Avolio, 1994, Bass, Avolio, & Atwater, 1996; Druskat, 1994; Eagly, Johann esen Schmidt, & van Engen, 2003). In addition to overall transformational leadership characteristics, women have also been found to have a more positive orientation toward particular transformational leadership factors. For example, Bass et al. (1996), and Bass and Avolio (1994), found that women tended to have higher levels of charisma (idealized influence) and individualized consideration than men. These findings have been consistent with similar studies conducted in the Roman Catholic Church (Druskat, 19 94) public school principals ( Eagly, Karau, & Johnson, 1992) undergraduate students ( Lopez Zafra, Garcia Retamero, & Martos, 2012) and managers in mid size to large size corporations ( Mandell & Pherwani, 2003 ; Brandt & Laiho 2013 ).

PAGE 39

39 However, the gender b ased results that have consistently found females to demonstrate higher transformational leadership characteristics may also have bee related to local expectations, power and status variances between men and women and the context in which the relationship s were examined ( Ayman & Korabik 2010). Specifically, recent research has shown that gender and leadership may have also been impacted by perceptions of gender stereotype ( Kark, Waismel Manor, & Shamir 2012). In a study of l eadership effectiveness Kark et al. (2012) found that effectiveness was more strongly related to femininity versus mascul inity However, men were perceived to be more effective leaders when they exhibited masculine traits while leading other men (Kark et al., 2012). The net resul t of this research indicated that both men and women are perceived as effective leaders; however, when leading teams of both men and women a combination of both masculine and feminine traits may result in the highest overall perceptions of leadership (Kar k et al., 2012). Maher (1997) found that ratings of transformational leadership were impacted by whether the follower was male or female. Findings showed stereotypical males and stereotypical female leaders were rated differently depending on whether the respondent was male or female; specifically, female respondents tended to rate leadership performance differently depending on whether the leader acted consistent with gender stereotypes (Maher, 1997). As it relates to leadership performance, Saad and Sa ckett (2002) found that in a military environment leadership performance was over predicted for women but not for men specifically because performance criteria tended to align with female leadership stereotypes

PAGE 40

40 Age and transformational leadership Little research has been conducted examining the relationship between age and transformational leadership (Zacher, Rosing, & Frese, 2011). Nonetheless, age has been shown to be negatively related to transformational leadership, including both the charisma (ideali zed influence and inspirational motivation) and intellectual stimulation factors (Zacher et al., 2011). Zacher et al. (2011) also found that follower perceptions of transformational leadership also appeared to be a function of age difference between leade r and follower. In a study of team performance Kearney ( 2008 ), found performance was positively related to transformational leadership when the team leader was older than their followers; however, the performance effect was reduced when the team leader was approximately the same age as their followers Additionally, Tucker, Turner, Barling, and McEvoy ( 2010 ) found team and individual aggression in youth sports were negatively related to the transformational leadership level of the coach Furthermore, Zac haratos, Barling, and Kelloway (2000) found that parental transformational leadership was predictive of adolescent child transformational leadership. However, somewhat contrary to the findings of Kearney (2008), Zacharatos et al. (2001) found subsequent le vels of adolescent transformational leadership was predictive of peer satisfaction, perceptions of effectiveness, and expended effort. Race/e thnicity and transformational leadership Transformational leadership has been researched in a number of cultural co ntexts; however, the majority of existing research has focused on Caucasian males in the United States (Ayman & Korabik, 2010). Nevertheless, when the behaviors associated with transformational leadership have been examined under different cultural

PAGE 41

41 context s they have been found to be universally applicable (Ayman & Korabik, 2010; Bass, 1997 ; Mohammed, Othman, & D'Silva, 2012 ). The charismatic aspect of transformational leadership has been most frequently associated with leadership effectiveness regardles s of cultural context (Gandolfi, 2012). Additionally, the charismatic leader has been generally associated with a prototypical leader regardless of culture (Gandolfi, 2012). For example, Reuver and Woerkom (2009) found that transformational leadership led to higher performance ratings of leaders in an intercultural context. However, a number of contradictory studies have found that context has been consistently a moderating variable between transformational leadership and effectiveness. For example, the cu ltural trait of uncertainty avoidance was negatively related to transformational leadership (Ergeneli, Gohar, & Temirbekova, 2007). Additionally, Lisak and Erez (2009) found that in multicultural teams transformational leadership was only associated with improved communication, team identity, and overall effectiveness when leaders were also high in global identity. Furthermore, when organizations from different co untries (Japan and the United States) entered into joint value creation agreements or alliances transformational leadership was negatively related to innovation (Osborn & Marion, 2009). Agreeableness Agreeableness has been included as part of the Five Fac tor Model (FFM) of personality (Costa & McCrae, 1992). The FFM is composed of the following primary personality constructs: Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism (Costa & McCrae, 1995). The a greeableness trait is compris ed of six facets: trust, straightforwardness, altruism, compliance, modesty and tender

PAGE 42

42 mindedness ( Costa, McCrae, & Dye 1991 ). Individuals high in agreeableness tend ed to be helpful, supportive, considerate, and honest ( 2006 ). Each of the facets has been expected to uniquely contribute to the overall personality construct, as well as evaluations of performance ( Hough & Ones, 2001 ) In particular, facet level agreeableness data has been expected to provide a more reliable performance prediction when compared to the broader FFM agreeableness construct ( Hough & Ones, 2001 ). M ultiple studies and subsequent meta analysis have shown the FFM of personality had predictive qualities related to individual performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Barrick, et al., 2001; Hurtz & Donov an, 2000; Schmidt & Hunter, 1992 ; Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991). Performance in previous studies included measures of leadership effectiveness and career success (Judge, 1999; Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002). In an attempt to better operationalize the analysis of the five constructs, taxonomies have been established (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Costa, McCrae, & Dye, 1991; Goldberg, 1981). The five constructs are each comprised of six unique facets ( Costa & McCrae, 1992). While the FFM has been widely accepted in the literature as a predictive measure of organizational performance, criticism s of the personality based approach have been made For example, Guion and Gottier (1965) found personality stu dies to have negligible relationships with observed outcomes. More recently, the FFM taxonomy has been questioned in its ability to adequately address comprehensive organizational behaviors and performance (McAdams, 1992). To address some of these concerns one must consider that the source of some of these issues may not be with

PAGE 43

43 the FFM but rather with incompatibility between independent variable (FFM) and measure of performance (Cronbach & Gleser, 1957). More simply, broad constructs better predict ed broa d criteria, and narrow facets better predict ed narrow criteria, also known as the bandwidth fidelity debate (John, Hampson, & Goldberg, 1991; Moon & important linkages at t he specific level, including several cases of cancellation (i.e. specific traits loading on the same factor in the same direction correlated with criteria in & Beauregard, 2003 p.335). Facet Level A nalysis To address th e criticism, numerous scholars have called for the investigation of facet level personality items relative to the criteria of interest (Barrick et al., 2001; Hough, 1997; Hough, Oswald, & Ployhart, 2001; Murphy & Dzieweczynski, 2005; Ones et al., 2007; Moo n, 2011; Thomason et al., 2011). Subsequent studies have shown that examining the facets has provide d supplementary value and clarity to the specific performance contributions. For example, in a study by Thomason et al. ( 2011 ) managerial performance was in crementally predicted by the facets of conscientiousness beyond the cons truct of conscientiousness Additionally, managerial performance was incrementally predicted by dominance (a facet of extraversion) beyond the construct of extraversion (Ones et al., 2 007). Finally, a comprehensive meta analysis found that performance across a number of criteria was incrementally predicted by the facets of conscientiousness beyond the construct of conscientiousness (Dudley, Orvis, Lebiecki, & Cortina, 2006). In a review of 11 previous studies Rothstein and Goffin (20 06) found that facet level personality data outperformed, or provided incremental validity, beyond construct level data in all cases. Kausel and Slaughter (2011) identified two reasons

PAGE 44

44 facet level data contri buted additional value over construct level data. First, construct scores obscure d when the predictor and the criterion are thematically linked, and specificity bolsters the advantage facets have been shown to have additional predictive validity when appropriately aligned to perform ance criteria, the use of facet level data must be grounded in robust theoretica l underpinnings otherwise results and analysis may suffer from randomness and erroneous results may be misinterpreted as significant (Dudley et al., 2006). While the FFM facets have been shown to contribute uniquely to predicting performance, these face ts may share certain characteristics. Consequently, subsequent analysis will likely identify relationships between the facets as well as agreeableness ( Dudley et al., 2006 ). From a linguistics and lexical perspective there are certain interpretations and definition limitations that have been impossible to remove completely ( Cattell, 1943 ; Moon & Livne, 2011). I t has been appropriate to acknowledge this potential concern, but also necessary to compartmentalize the issue and continue with the expectation that such relationships have been natural and expected and should not serve as an impediment to conducting facet level an alysis ( Costa & McCrae, 1995 ). Agreeableness is comprised of six facets: trust, straightforwardness, altruism, compliance, modesty and tender mindedness ( Costa et al., 1991). Driskell, Goodwin, 2006 ) found that i ndividuals that are high on agreeableness tend to be helpful, suppo rtive, considerate, and honest Each of the facets is expected to uniquely contribute to the overall personality construct, as well as evaluations of performance ( Costa et al., 1991 )

PAGE 45

45 Facets of Agreeableness Trus t Trust is one of the classic personality variables (Erikson, 1950) and has been Norman assigne d t rust as the first descriptive adjective to the agreeableness construct (Costa et al., 1991). Trustworthy individuals have been shown to be predisposed to believe that others have positive motives and are honest about those motives (Costa et al., 1991) cognitive resources necessary to focus on their tasks, versus focusing on self protective behaviors (Mayer & Gavin, 2005). Trust viewed as a set of positive expectations has been examined extensively in the literature (Cook & Wall, 1980; Lewicki & Bunker, 1995; McAllister, 1995). McAllister ( 1995 ) found that e ffective organizational operations relied on the coordinated efforts of independent individuals working together as social networks S ocial networks of individuals were found to be the driver behind organizational activity (Bradach & Eccles, 1989; Fichman & Levinthal, 1991; Larson, 1992). Trust between individuals within social networks has been shown to be a determining factor in organizational success (Pennings & Woiceshyn, 1987; Seabright, Leventhal, & Finchman, 1992). Dirks and Ferrin (1999) found that groups with high levels of trust had higher motivation, increased cooperation, and better performance than groups with lower levels of trust. Intra team trust, or the shared perceptions of trust the individual team members have towards their teammates, has been found to be fundamental to the effective performance of teams (De Jong & Elfring, 2010). De Jong and Elfring ( 2010 )

PAGE 46

46 found that a lthough trust resides within the individual, team performance was affected by team monitoring and effort at the generalized intra team trust level ; consequently, i ntra team trust positively impacted team performance. Similarly, Zaheer, McEvily, and Perrone, ( 1998 ) found performance of inter organizational relationships was positively related to trust Straightforwardness Straightforwardness has been defined as frankness and directness when interacting with others (Costa et al., 1991). Low straightforwardness wa s highly correlated with admissions of dishonesty (Paunonen & Nicol, 2001). However, in combination with high extraversion, low straightforwardness has been perceived as leadership, a typically positive perception (Piedmont & Weinstein, 1994). Based on these contradictory findings the importance of the straightforwardness facet has been unclear. As indicated, Paunonen and Nicol ( 2001 ) found that individuals high in straightforwardness were more likely to be honest than tho se low in straightforwardn ess; a positive characteristic The opposite pole of straightforwardness has been characterized as Machiavellianism, or a willingness to engage in duplicitous or dishonest acts (Costa et al., 1991). Paulhus and Williams (2002) fou nd that Machiavellianism was negatively correlated to agreeableness. However, facet level analysis was not conducted leaving an unexplored avenue for further investigation. Although generally considered to be negative, Machiavellian tendencies of both man agers and subordinates have not been shown to provide additional predictive validity to perceptions of control in either task or relationship dimensions (Durand & Nord, 1976). From a contradictory perspective Drory and Gluskinos ( 1980 ) found

PAGE 47

47 evidence to suggest that the Machiavellian characteristic manifest ed in a negati ve manner depending on context For example, when individuals with a strong disposition for Machiavellianism were placed in a group situation they tended to give more orders and to be less concerned with reducing group tension ( Drory & Gluskinos, 1980). Altruism Altruism has been defined as selflessness and a concern for others, especially in a considerate and courteous manner, as opposed to more obvious self sacrifice (Costa et al., 1991) Altruism motivation has been initiated desire to work for the benefit of others, without expectation of external rewards sufficient to justify the As such, certain individuals will be more or less motiva ted to perform for altruistic motives, rather than extrinsic or pay based ones (Deckop, 1995 ) Jaros, Jermier, Kowhler, and Sincich ( 1993 ) found that i ndividuals high in dispositional altruism establish ed higher levels of moral commitment that appea led to their altruism motivation. Moral commitments have been which an individual is psychologically attached to an employing organization through 1993 p.955). High levels of moral commitment link ed altruism motivation to pro social organization behavior (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986) and organizational citizenship behavior (Organ, 1988). Organizational citizenship behavior s directed at the individual l evel have been more likely to be observed and appreciated by co workers or peers, with observations by supervisors or evaluating managers occurring less frequently (Thomason et al., 2011). However, found that altruism, and in role

PAGE 48

48 behavior, were significant predictors of overall performance and therefore recognized by supervisors Compliance Individuals with a disposition towards compliance tend ed to defer to others and are willing to cooperate rather than being confrontational when conflict occurs (Costa et al., 1991). Costa et al. ( 1991 ) found that t he opposite of compliance is aggression. Individuals high in aggression tend to be antagonisti c, vindictive, and quarrelsome (Costa et al., 1991). Driskell et al. ( 2 006 ) found that when an individual had a disposition towards compliance and compliant behaviors they tend ed to be willing to follow the directives of supervisors and were generally seen as cooperative Subsequently, when individuals were more compliant and follow ed directives thoroughly they tend ed to perform their charged duties with greater accuracy (Greene, 1972). Drawing on the theory of planned behavior, Elliot, Armitage, and Baughan (2003) found that when individuals intended to comply with a direct ive and felt that they had the perceived control necessary to comply, they were much more likely to demonstrate compliant behavior. Ellio t et al. (2003) found that intentionality (from an externally applied stimulus or predisposition) along with an environ ment, or context, that did not include perceived barriers resulted in a higher occurrence of the desired behavior. Individuals with a tendency towards compliance have also been viewed as more cooperative (Driskell et al., 2006). Individuals low in complian ce, or cooperation, have been co nsidered to be more competitive, and competitive individuals have been shown to draw competitive behavior out in others (Kelley & Stahelski, 1970). In a study of organizations, Kelley and Stahelski ( 1970 ) found that when com petitive individuals were placed in an interdependent team they influence d the team in a negative manner.

PAGE 49

49 Furthermore, Driskell et al. ( 2006 ) found that t hrough competitive nature individuals did not always act in a manner that was best for the group and also elicit ed competitive behavior from o therwise cooperative teammates Modesty M odest, or humble, individuals have tended not to be preoccupied with themselves (Costa et al., 1991). Modesty one that produces been identified as a core organizational virtue (Owens & Hekman, 2012), one that leads to exceptional performance, altruistic behaviors, and prosocial behaviors (Cameron & Caza, 2004). From a historical perspective the idea that modesty has been foundational to leading a virtuous life has been well established (Morris, Brotherridge, & principle: Some things p.3). Morris et al. ( 2005 ) found that modesty or humility was not a lack of confidence or ability, but rather a persistent orientation towards objectively appraising o and limi tations Individuals that were modest and being competitive with others in a zero sum game and to avoid disrespectful behaviors such as ridiculing, interrupting, or coercing others, they are more likely to form support The importance of modesty has been further illustrated in research that shows individuals high in the modesty characteristic are less likely to exploit or harm others (Lee, Gizzarone, & Ashton, 2003). Lee, Gizzarone, and Ashton (2003) found that individuals that were high in modesty were more likely to be aware of the ir own strengths and weaknesses, more supportive and less likely to abuse coworkers.

PAGE 50

50 Tender mindedness Tender mindedness has been related to feelings (Costa et al., 1991). Costa et al. ( 1991 ) found that i ndividuals high in tender mindedness were concerned with others and were capable of expressing sympathy Based on concern tender minded individuals ten d ed to emphasize the human side of policies (Thomason et al., 2011). From an organizational perspective Costa and McCrae ( 1992 ) found that tender minded individuals were good team players with strong cooperative tendencies Organizationally, tender minded traits were frequently observed and appreciated by peers or coworkers, the individuals that were direct beneficiaries of such behaviors (Thomason et al., 2011) Given these positive collegial actions, peers tend ed to evaluate tender minded individuals as higher performing, with the potential for future performance (Thomason et al., 2011). In a study of supervisors Thomason et al. ( 2011 ) found that s upervisors were less likely to observe tender minded behaviors, or to be the direct recipient of them, and were subsequently less likely to consider these behaviors when making perf ormance or potential judgments Empirically, the value tender minded or sympathetic individuals bring to groups has been observed. Baron (198 4) conducted a laboratory study where a group was manipulated through the use of an actor introducing conflict into a team environment. When the actor explained his actions through the use of sympathetic statements the group reported a significant increas e to their positive mood. In the control group no sympathetic explanation for the conflict was provided. Subjects in this environment reported a stronger dislike for the actor and were more likely to attempt to avoid working in situations where conflict ma y arise in the future.

PAGE 51

51 Individuals that are low in tender mindedness have been shown to have a predisposition towards being competitive (Fletcher & Nusbaum, 2008). Although competitiveness (composed of self aggrandizement and interpersonal success) has be en shown to be negatively correlated to several facets of agreeableness, it is specifically related to tender mindedness of others and lack of social concern (Houston, McIntire, Kinnie, & Terry, 2002). In a stu dy of organizations Fletcher and Nusbaum ( 2008 ) found that in organizational situations where group ach ievement and team success trumped individual accomplishment, a lack of sympathy and awar eness was counterproductive Incremental Validity of Facets Bey ond Constructs Numerous studies have examined the relationship between FFM traits, or constructs, and constituent facets. Researchers have found that facets of FFM traits are highly correlated with the FFM trait. For example, Costa and McCrae (1995) found that each of the six agreeableness facets were correlated with the overall agreeableness construct between 0 .44 and 0 .69. However, contradictory studies found modest or limited correlations between these facets and the FFM trait. Specifically, Hough and On es (2001) found that the FFM is an inadequate taxonomy because each of the constructs consists of facets that are individually valid based on criteria. These conflicting findings have indicate d that no consensus within the field existed and further, more structured measurement and analysis were required (Piedmont & Weinstein, 1993). The simplicity and ease with which the FFM has been employed at the construct level in research has been shown to come at the expense of performance and behavior specificity (Tett et al., 1991). This acknowledgment em phasized the need to make

PAGE 52

52 appropriate trait performance linkages, thus mitigating the potential for erroneous results as a consequence of construct level application to situations that would benefit from facet lev el analysis (Tett et al., 1991). The congruence of trait to performance measurement has been a consistent theme in the literature (Ones & Viswesvaran, 1996) H owever, the ability to appropriately gauge and align items has been shown to be challenging and o ften inaccurate (Tett & Christiansen, 2007). Instead of attempting to align items at an aggregate or broad level Rothestein and Goffin ( 2006 ) found evidence indicating that facet level data better predicted performance This predication was due in large pa rt to the multidimensionality of the main FFM constructs (Rothestein & Goffin, 2006). Facets level analysis has been shown to add significant incremental validity to broader trait constructs (Dudley et al., 2006; Mershon & Gorsuch, 1988; Stewart, 1999). Dudley et al. (2006) found that facets provided incremental performance prediction above and beyond the overall conscientiousness construct. Paunonen and Nicol (2001) demonstrated that, of the FFM constructs, dishonesty was best predicted by agreea bleness. However, of the constituent facets only straightforwardness accounted for the majority of the agreeableness predictive power (Dudley et al., 2006) The other facets were negligible in their contributions (for example tender mindedness was only cor related at 0 .13). Dudley et al. ( 2006 ) found that t he trend in the literature has been to move beyond bivariate correlations has been supported by the proposal to examine the incremental validity of facets on performance beyond construct correlations

PAGE 53

53 De mographic Variables and Agreeableness Gender and a greeableness In general research has shown personality differences are relatively small between men and women (Costa, Terracciano, & McCrae, 2001). However, in a meta analysis of all personality related r esearch conducted between 1940 and 1992, Feingold (1994) found statistically significant diff erences between men and women, especially at the facet level. Specifically, women tend ed to be more trusting and have higher levels of tender mindedness (Feingold, 1994). Costa et al. (2001) found that women tend ed to exhibit a stronger tendency toward being agreeable in general Eysenck E ysenck, and B arrett ( 1995 ) found men tend ed to be more aggressive and less empathetic Furthermore, levels of agreeableness have been shown to have differential effects between men and women related to counterproductive work behaviors (Gonzalez Mul, DeGeest, Kiersch, & Mount, 2013) S pecifically, agreeableness negatively predicted counterp roductive work behaviors for men, but not for women ( Gonzalez Mul et al. 2013). The tendency for men and women to have behave d in this manner may be due to gender stereotypes of socially desirable and undesirable traits ( Gerber, 2009 ; Woods & Hampson, 20 10). In particular research has shown that women typically exhibit ed expressive traits (agreeableness) behaviors that are interpersonally oriented focusing on harmony and the needs of oth ers (Gerber, 2009). M en tend ed to act in a more instrumental assert ive manner, focusing more on tasks and less on relationships (Gerber, 2009). Gerber (2009) found that f or both men and women these findings were due to social constructs and stereotypes in addition to pure psychol ogical personality disposition

PAGE 54

54 Age and a greeableness Extensive research has found that personality and age appear to be related (Terracciano, McCrae, & Costa, 2010). For example, Chan et al. (2012) found that older members of a community were consistently perceived to have higher levels of agree ableness, regardless of culture. Similarly, agreeableness was found to increase, regardless of age, starting from middle teen years beyond age 70 (Allemand, Zimprich, & Hertzog, 2007; Allemand, Zimprich, & Hendriks, 2008; Lucas & Donnellan 2009). This fin ding was consistent with research that found agreeableness increased from adolescence (13 to 17 years old) to early adulthood (19 to 23 years old) (Ryan, 2009) Other studies have found that personality stabilizes during middle adulthood, at approximately 30 years old, with very little inter individual variation over time (Terracciano, McCrae, & Costa, 2010). Nonetheless, during the developmental period from adolescence to middle adulthood the personality trait of agreeableness tended to increase ( McCrae et al., 1999). Race/e thnicity and a greeableness Personality has been described as a direct consequence of culture, specifically, personality has been developed based on social interactions, social interactions have been generally determined by social norms, and social norms have been dictated by culture ( Hofstede & McCrae, 2004). Consequently, culture has been found to have a relationship to personality (Hofstede & McCrae, 2004). To the contrary, other researches have fo und that differences in persona lity based on culture have been more subtle when measured using an alternate personality measures ( Allik, 2005). Nonetheless, the personality trait of agreeableness as measured by the NEO PI R has been found to negatively p redict uncertainty avoidance ( Hofstede & McCrae,

PAGE 55

55 2004). I n cultures that tolerate more uncertainty, individuals tend ed to rate themselves as more agreeable ( Hofstede & McCrae, 2004). Additional studies have found agreeableness to be related to a numbe r of other cultural dimensions including lower power distance between superiors and subordinates, lower conservatism, higher levels of individualism, and higher levels of affective autonomy ( McCrae & Terracciano, 2005 ). Relationship between Transformational L eadership and Agreeableness The relationship between transformational leadership and agreeableness has been investigated previously. Judge and Bono (2000) analyzed the relationship between the FFM and transformational leadership in a population of communit y leadership program participants (2000). The researchers found that agreeableness was positively related to all four factors of transformational leadership: idealized influence inspirational motivation intellectual stimulation and individualized consid eration Additionally, agreeableness was positively predictive of overall transformational leadership Furthermore, four of the agreeableness facets were also found to be correlated with transformational leadership: trust straightforwardness altruism and tender mindedness (Judge and Bono, 2000). A meta analysis of 26 personality and transformational leadership studies reported relationships between agreeableness and transformational leadership ( Bono & Judge, 2004). Specifically, agreeableness was posi tively related to transformational leadership as well as transformational leadership factors: charisma (combined idealized influence and inspirational motivation) intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration (Bono & Judge, 2004). These find ings were consistent with those of Judge, Bono, Ilies, and Gerhardt (2002) who found that agreeableness was weakly correlated to leadership Based on the generally weak relationships found between

PAGE 56

56 transformational leadership and trait level agreeableness, Bono and Judge (2004) identified the importance of future research to focus on both narrower personality traits and non (p. 901). Conceptual Model Based on the review of the exi sting literature a conceptual model of the relationship between agreeableness and transformational leadership has been proposed (Fig ur e 2 1). The model synthesized transformational leadership, including the four constituent factors (idealized influence, i nspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration) (Bass, 1985) with the personality trait of agreeableness including the six facets (trust, straightforwardness, altruism, compliance, modesty, and tender mindedness) (Cos ta & McCrae, 1992) Additionally, the role of gender, ethnicity, and age have been included as demographic variables. Synopsis Chapter 2 reviewed the existing research on transformational leadership, including the factors of transformational leadership including idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. Additionally, the existing research on the personality trait of agreeableness was reviewed, including the facets of agreeableness including trust, straightforwardness, altruism, compliance, modesty, and tender mindedness, as well as the incremental validity of facets b eyond the broader constructs. Furthermore, gender differences in transformational leadership and agreeableness, race/ethnicity differences in transformational leadership and agreeableness, age differences in transformational leadership and agreeableness, a nd the relationship between transformational

PAGE 57

57 leadership and agreeableness were reviewed. Additionally, a conceptual model was proposed as the basis for the study. Figure 2 1 Model of relationship between agreeableness and tr ansformational l eadership

PAGE 58

58 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Overview The purpose of this quantitative study was to examine the relationship between the personality trait of agreeableness and transformational leadership in undergraduate leadership students. This research study addressed the following research objectives: 1. Describe the levels of agreeableness in undergraduate leadership students. 2. Describe the levels of transformational leadership in undergraduate leadership students. 3. Identify the relationship between individual demographic characteristics and agreeableness. 4. Identify the relationship between individual demographic characteristics and transformational leadership. 5. Identify the relationship between agreeableness and transformational leadership in u ndergraduate leadership students. 6. Identify how agreeableness predicts transformational leadership in undergraduate leadership students Chapter 3 describes the methods used to investigate the research objec tives identified. Furthermore, C hapter 3 will addr ess the research design, population and sample, instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis The research perspective, or epistemology, of this study was based on positivism Positivism is based on the belief that ordered and observable laws govern the social science s and that observation is the primary mechanism through which to identify and quantify such laws (Ary, Jacobs, Sorensen, Razavieh, 2010). Positivism is the s ource of quantitative resear ch. Quantitative research is appropriate when the variables are represented as numbers or measured values (Ary et al., 2010);

PAGE 59

59 consequently, a quantitative method was identified as most appropriate to investigate the research objectives identified. Research Design A descriptive correlational research design was utilized for this study. i ncludes: identifying variables of interest, a population of interest, appropriate measures of variables, and data analysis (Ary et al., 2010). The first step in a correlational study is identifying of variables of interest and the nature of the relationshi p between the variables. Generally, hypotheses related to the relationship between variables are grounded in theory to avoid the misinterpretation of relationships based on random chance (Ary et al., 2010). In this case the variables of interest were trans formational leadership and agreeableness. After variables of interest are identified the population of interest is determined, specifically, the group of individuals in which the variables will be measured and analyzed (Ary et al., 2010). The population of interest for this study was undergraduate leadership students. Once variables and the population are identified the instruments through which the variables of interest will be measured are determined (Ary et al., 2010). In quantitative research the vali dity and reliability of instrumentation is critical (Ary et al., 2010). To minimize limitations associated with findings, two previously established measures were employed. Transformational leadership was measured using the Multifactor Leadership Questionn aire (MLQ) developed by Bass and Avolio (1995).

PAGE 60

60 Agreeableness was measured using the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP NEO) instrument developed by Johnson (2011). Based on the research design the researcher identified potential threats to measure ment, sampling, internal validity and non response error In particular selection bias and confounding were identified as the two primary threats to internal validity. The threat of selection bias was addressed through the use of an entire class included i n the research (Ary et al., 2010) Because the research was conducted with a convenience sample results are not generalizable beyond the sampled population. Consequently, any selection bias related to students in a leadership class versus those not in a l eadership class was not applicable. The second threat to internal validity was confounding. Based on the dynamic nature of human personality (Costa & McCrae, 1992) multiple independent variables may have interacted and influenced observations on the depend ent variable (Ary et al., 2010). To minimize confounding the researcher employed pre existing measures of agreeableness and transformational leadership. After data were collected appropriate statistical techniques were used to analyze and interpret the re sults (Ary et al., 2010). The correlation between transformational leadership and agreeableness was calcu lated using the Pearson product moment (Ary et al., 2010, p. 353). Correlations require a number of assumptions to be satisfied for results to be interpretable (Agresti & Finlay, 2009). First, a simple random sample is required. This assumption was addressed by including all individuals in class on a particular day in the sample. Next, a quantitative response is required. This assumption was addressed by the use of a five point Likert type scale, resulting in quantitative

PAGE 61

61 linear relationship between the two variables and a minimum of interval data responses. R eg ression analysis was performed to determine the magnitude and directionality of the relationship (Ary et al., 2010) between transformational leadership and agreeableness. Regression analysis also requires a number of assumptions to be satisfied prior to in terpretation of results (Agresti & Finlay, 2009). The first two assumptions, a simple random sample and a quantitative response, were addressed previously. Additionally, assumptions around the normality of the distribution of error terms and of the respon se (dependent) variable must be addressed. These assumptions were addressed by analyzing plots of the error terms and response variable, both sets of data were found to satisfy the assumptions regarding normality of distribution. Population and Sample The population for this study was undergraduate leadership students. A convenience sample was employed and included students enrolled in the leadership development course in the spring semester of 2013 The sample was limited to those students attending class on April 17, 2013 ( n = 65 ). The course selected was AEC3414, Leadership Development, which was a requirement for the university wide leadership minor. The selection of a single core class within the population of interest ensured the researcher was able to access the population without the risk of respondent duplication. Convenience sampling of college students is frequently used in psych ology research (Peterson, 2001) and was appropriate given the population of interest. Ideally a census or comprehensive sample would have been employed with all undergraduate leadership students (Ary et al., 2010); however, based on the time associated with this approach this approach was determined to be impractical for the purposes of this study. U sing an alpha value of .05 and a moderate correlation value of

PAGE 62

62 a minimum of 47 respondents was necessary to calculate the Pearson product moment correlation ( Agresti & Finlay, 2009 ). A single class with 60 respondents was determined to b e sufficient to run the proposed inferential statistics. Instrumentation The study employed two primary questionnaires to gather respondent levels of transformational leadership and agreeableness. The use of previously established measures significantly im proves data validity and reliability (Ary et al, 2010). Demographic data were obtained through participant self report. Multifactor Leadership Q uestionnaire Participants self reported their transformational leadership characteristics using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 5X Short (MLQ) (Avolio & Bass, 1995). The 45 item instrument included questions for each transformational leadership factor: eight idealized influence items ( four attributed items and four behavior items), four inspirational moti vation items four intellectual stimulation items and four individual consideration items Additionally, the MLQ measures contingent reward, management by exception (active), management by exception (passive) and Laissez faire leadership. Only those items specifically related to transformational leadership factors were analyzed. Questions were established on a five point Likert type scale and included the following options: 0 Not at all, 1 Once in a while, 2 Sometimes, 3 Fairly often, 4 Frequently, if not always The MLQ was identified as the preferred measure to gather transformation al leadership data due to its frequency of use in the empirical literature to measure transformational leadership, as well as its high validity and reliability characteristics (Bass & Riggio, 2006). For example, Antonakis, Avolio,

PAGE 63

63 and Sivasubramaniam (200 3) found that model fit of the MLQ was adequate with root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) values below .08 and comparative fit index ( CFI ) values above .90 regardless of context. Furthermore, Avolio, Bass, and Jung (1999) found coefficient alph a values ranging from .78 to .92 for each of the MLQ factors. Both studies were conducted using pooled responses with over 3000 respondents each. A limitation of using the MLQ with undergraduate students is that findings have been inconsistent (e.g. Mahar, 2004; Schriesheim, C.; Wu, J.; Scandura, T. 2009). The MLQ is typically administered to an audience with experience in leadership roles, undergraduates may have very limited job or leadership experience to draw upon when responding to the questionnaire ( Mahar, 2004). Nonetheless, for instructional purposes with undergraduate students, the MLQ has been shown to be an appropriate tool for gathering results and discussing implications (Bass & Riggio, 2006). IPIP NEO Agreeableness was measured using the IPIP NEO, specifically the version developed by Johnson (2011). Individuals responded to four statements per agreeableness facet, or 24 statements total. Individuals indicated their response on a five point Likert type scale. Possible responses to each item in cluded: 1 Strongly Disagree 2 Disagree 3 Neutral 4 Agree 5 Strongly Agree The measure was based on the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) established by Goldberg et al. (2006). The measure was selected based on reliability characteri stics with coefficient alpha values greater than .70 previously observed for each facet construct (Johnson, 2011). Based on established social science research standards, a alpha of .70 or greater is considered sufficient ( Cortina, 1993; Schmitt, 1996; Streiner, 2003).

PAGE 64

64 Data Collection Before data were collected the researcher submitted a proposal to conduct the research with the University of Florida Institutional Review Board (IRB). A research proposal and informed consent document were submitted to the IRB 02 (UF Campus/Non Medical) o ffice for review. Approval was obtained for protocol U 924 2012 on January 31, 2013. Following IRB approval the researcher contacted the instructor of a large undergraduate leadership course to assess the potential to conduct research during a regularly s cheduled class period. The instructor agreed to allow the research to occur and a date for administering the questionnaire was scheduled April 17, 2013. Individuals receive d no compensation or course credit for participating in the stud y. On April 17, 2 013 the researcher attended the class and verbally introduced himself, the questionnaire and reason fo r the research. The researcher then i dentified the informed consent form and alerted the class that if they chose to participate in the study they would need to read and sign the form. The researcher asked the participants to respond to the questions based on their typical interactions with others. No specific limitations were placed on whether the interaction was professional, academic, or social. The res earcher then distributed a paper based questionnaires to all individuals in the class that day ( n = 65) 61 questionnaires were returned for a 94% response rate one response was incomplete resulting in a total of 60 usable questionnaires and an effective response rate of 92% The researcher requested that the instructor enquire about the four missing questionnaires during the next class. No additional questionnaires were returned to the researcher after April 17, 2013. The que stionnaire took approximately 20 minutes to complete.

PAGE 65

65 Data Analysis Data were manually entered from the paper based surveys into an online survey tool Qualtrics. Once data were entered into the online tool results were run and subsequently analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 21 Descriptive statistics were calculated to determine the level of agreeableness and transformational leadership in undergraduate leadership students (Ary et al., 2010) Next, a Pearson product moment correlation coeffi cient was calculated to determine the magnitude of the relationship between transformational leadership, agreeableness and respondent demographic characteristics. The Pearson product moment correlation was also used to determine whether there was a statis tically significant difference in level of transformational leadership or level of agreeableness based on respondent gender, race/ethnicity, or age (Agresti & Finlay, 2009) Similarly, factors of transformational leadership and facets of agreeableness were analyzed to determine if a correlation existed ( Agresti & Finlay, 2009 ) Finally, regression analysis was completed to determine if any agreeableness or demographic characteristics accounted for any of the variation in transformational leadership ( Agresti & Finlay, 2009 ) Specifically, sequential multiple regression using block entry techniques were employed (Keith, 2006) The purpose of the regression was to determine whether agreeableness had an effect of transformational leadership after controlling for the effects of demographic characteristics. To accomplish this purpose respondent scores on transformational leadership were regressed on demographic variables in block one to control for demographics overall agreeableness or the six facets of agreeable ness were then included in block two.

PAGE 66

66 Synopsis Chapter 3 described the methodology employed to study the relationship between transformational leadership and agreeableness in undergraduate leadership students. The research was conducted using a descriptiv e correlational design. The population of interest was undergraduate leadership students and a convenience sample of students in a single undergraduate leadership course w as utilized. Instruments that have been previously established as valid and reliable were used to collect data on transformational leadership and agreeableness. Data were collected through a paper based questionnaire that the research er distributed during a regularly scheduled class period. Data obtained were subsequently analyzed using a ppropriate statistical techniques.

PAGE 67

67 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Overview The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between the personality trait of agreeableness and transformational leadership in undergraduate leadership students. The research o bjectives for the study were to: 1. Describe the levels of agreeableness in undergraduate leadership students. 2. Describe the levels of transformational leadership in undergraduate leadership students. 3. Identify the relationship between individual demo graphic characteristics and agreeableness. 4. Identify the relationship between individual demographic characteristics and transformational leadership. 5. Identify the relationship between agreeableness and transformational leadership in undergraduate leadership students. 6. Identify how agreeableness predicts transformational leadership in undergraduate leadership students Chapter 4 provides the results of the research study. A review of overall response data is presented. Furthermore, results are presented based on study objectives. Demographics The population for this study was undergraduate leadership students in a southern land grant institution A convenience sample was employed and included students enrolled in the leadership development course in the sprin g semester of 2013. Convenience sampling includes selecting a sample based on access and availability (Ary et al., 2010). The sample was limited to those students attending class on April 17, 2013 ( n = 65). The sample was 36.7 % ( n = 22) male (identified wi th a value of 1) and 60 .0 % ( n = 36) female (identified with a value of 2) (Table 4 1) The average age of

PAGE 68

68 respondents was 21 ( M = 20.5, SD = 1.2) with a range of ages between 18 and 24. Respondent were grouped in to three age groups: 18 to 19 years, 20 to 21 years, and 22 to 24 years. Age categories were establis hed based on whether respondent age was less than one standard deviati on from the mean, within one standard deviation of the mean, or greater than one standard deviation from the mean. There were 13 ( 21.7% ) respondents in the 18 to 19 age category, 35 ( 58.3% ) respondents in the 20 to 21 age category, and 11 ( 18.3% ) of respondents in the 22 to 24 age category ( Table 4 2) The respondents represented all classes within the university, 8.3 % ( n = 5) f reshman 25.0 % ( n = 15) sophomore 41.7 % ( n = 25) junior 21.7 % ( n = 13) senior and 1.7 % ( n = 1) graduate student (Table 4 3) Although the population of interest was undergraduate students the single graduate student respondent was included in subsequent analysis as they were enrolled in a leadership course inten ded for undergraduate students. Respondent class was not included in subsequent analysis, this variable was collected for descriptive purposes but was not considered germane to the objectives of t he study. Fr om an ethnicity perspective 15.0 % ( n = 9) of respondents identified themselves as Hispanic/Latino (a) /Chicano (a) (Table 4 4 ). In regard to respondent race, 75.4 % ( n = 46) id entified themselves as White, 11.5 % ( n = 7) identified themselves as Black or African American, 6.6 % ( n = 4) identified themselves as Asian or Pacific Islander, and 6.6 % ( n = 4) identified themselves as Other (Table 4 5) The race question block allowed for respondents to select as many options as were applicable. One i ndividual selected two options; consequently there are 61 responses across all race categories.

PAGE 69

69 Table 4 1 Number of respondents by g ender Gender f % Male 22 36.7 0 Female 36 60 .00 Not Provided 2 3.3 0 Total 6 0 100.00 Table 4 2 Number of respondents by a ge Age f % 18 19 years 13 21.70 20 21 years 35 58.30 22 24 years 11 18.30 Not Provided 1 1.70 Total 6 0 100.00 Table 4 3. Number of respondents by c lass Age f % Freshman 5 8.30 Sophomore 15 25.00 Junior 25 41.70 Senior 13 21.70 Graduate Student 1 1.70 Not Provided 1 1.70 Total 6 0 100.00 Table 4 4. Number of r espondents by Hispanic/Latino(a)/Chicano(a) Hispanic/Latino(a)/Chicano(a) f % Yes 9 15.0 0 No 5 1 85.0 0 Total 6 0 100.00 Table 4 5. N umber of respondents by r ace Race f % American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0.00 Asian or Pacific Islander 4 6.56 Black or African American 7 11.48

PAGE 70

70 Table 4 5 Continued White 46 75.41 Other 4 6.56 Total 61 100.00 Objective 1: Describe the Levels of Agreeableness in Undergraduate Leadership S tudents Levels of agreeableness in undergraduate leadership students were calculated using the IPIP NEO scoring key. IPIP NEO agreeableness scale scores are based on a 1 to 5 scale. The facet of a ltruism had the highest mean score ( M = 4.32, SD = .51). The facet of m odesty had the lowest mean score ( M = 2.90, SD = .76). The overall agreeableness trait had a minimum score of 2.50 and a maximum score of 4.63 ( M = 3.84, SD = .44). The mean, standard deviation, minimum, and maximum scores for each facet of agreeableness (trust, straightforwardness, altruism, compliance, modesty, and tender mindedness) as well as overall trait agreeableness are presented in Tabl e 4 6. Table 4 6 Agreeableness scale s cores Agreeableness Scale Scores n M SD Min Max Altruism 60 4.32 0.51 3.00 5.00 Straightforwardness 60 4.26 0.61 2.25 5.00 Compliance 60 4.22 0.80 1.50 5.00 Tender mindedness 60 3.83 0.77 2.25 5.00 Trust 60 3.52 0.74 1.00 4.75 Modesty 60 2.90 0.76 1.25 4.75 Agreeableness Overall 60 3.84 0.44 2.50 4.63 Objective 2: Describe the Levels of Transformational Leadership in Undergraduate Leadership S tudents Levels of transformational leadership in undergraduate leadership students were calculated using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) scoring key. MLQ

PAGE 71

71 transformational leadership scale scores are based on a 0 to 4 scale. The factor of inspiration al motivation had the highest mean score ( M = 3.37, SD = .50). The factor of intellectual stimulation had the lowest mean score ( M = 3.07, SD = .55). O verall transformational leadership had a minimum score of 2.15 and a maximum score of 3.95 ( M = 3.24, SD = .35). The mean, standard deviation, minimum, and maximum scores for each factor of transformational leadership (idealized influence inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration ) as well as overall transformational leadership are presented in Table 4 7 Table 4 7 Leadership style scale s cores Leadership Style Scale Scores n M SD Min Max Inspirational Motivation 60 3.39 0.47 2.00 4.00 Idealized Influence Behavior 60 3.36 0.47 2.25 4.00 Charisma (Idealized Influence and Inspirational Motivation) 60 3.34 0.36 2.17 4.00 Idealized Influence Combined 60 3.31 0.38 2.00 4.00 Idealized Influence Attributed 60 3.26 0.46 1.75 4.00 Individualized Consideration 60 3.21 0.44 2.25 4.00 Intellectual Stimulation 60 3.08 0.55 1.50 4.00 Transformational Leadership Overall 60 3.26 0.33 2.50 3.95 Objective 3: Identify the Relationship Between Individual Demographic Characteristics and A greeableness Agreeableness scale scores were calculated based on respondent gender, age, and race/ethnicity. Additionally, relationships between respondent demographic characteristics and agreeableness were calculated using a bi variate correlational technique specific ally Pearson product moment correlation. Correlational results were correlation coefficients into six categories (Table 4 8).

PAGE 72

72 Table 4 8 interpreting c orrelations (Davis, 1971) r Description 1.0 Perfect .70 .99 Very High .50 .69 Substantial .30 .49 Moderate .10 .29 Low .01 .09 Negligible Agreeableness and Gender Levels of agreeableness were calcula ted based on respondent gender (Table 4 9). Males scored highest in altruism ( M = 4.38, SD = .38) and lowest in modesty ( M = 2.67, SD = .65). Females scored highest in compliance ( M = 4.43, SD = .58) and lowest in modesty ( M = 3.04, SD = .82) Compliance h ad the largest difference between males and females (.44), altruism had the smallest difference (.05). Females ( M = 3.92, SD = .44) scored higher than males ( M = 3.76, SD = .43) in overall agreeableness. Mean and standard deviations of all agreeableness items and g ender are provided in Table 4 9. Table 4 9. Agreeableness by g ender Gender n M SD Trust Male 22 3.70 0.77 Female 36 3.42 0.66 Straightforwardness Male 22 4.15 0.71 Female 36 4.33 0.55 Altruism Male 22 4.38 0.38 Female 36 4.33 0.54 Compliance Male 22 3.99 0.97 Female 36 4.43 0.58 Modesty Male 22 2.67 0.65 Female 36 3.04 0.82 Tender mindedness Male 22 3.68 0.86 Female 36 3.94 0.72 Agreeableness Overall Male 22 3.76 0.43 Female 36 3.92 0.44

PAGE 73

73 Compliance is the only facet where the difference between males and females is statistically significant at the p < 05 level (Table 4 13) Furthermore, compliance had the strongest correlation ( r = .28) be tween gender and agreeableness, according to Davis (1971) the magnitude of the correlation is categorized as low. The remaining correlations ranged from r = .19 to r = .23, and are not statistically significant. Pearson product moment correlation coeffici ents and statistical significance between gender and agreeableness items are prov ided in Table 4 10

PAGE 74

74 Table 4 10. Intercorrelations among agreeableness, gender, age, ethnicity, and r ace 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1. Gender 2. Age 0.11 3. Hispanic 0.14 0.18 4. Asian or Pacific Islander 0.07 0.06 0.11 5. Black or African American 0 .27* 0.02 0.15 0.10 6. White 0.32* 0.08 0.02 0.16 0.63* 7. Other 0.07 0.05 0 .45** 0.07 0.10 0 .31* 8. Trust 0.19 0.16 0.04 0.08 0.15 0 .28* 0.03 9. Straight forwardness 0.14 0.14 0.04 0.11 0.03 0.22 0 .31* 0.18 10. Altruism 0.05 0.10 0.04 0 .27* 0.13 0 .33* 0.10 0 .33* 0 .31* 11. Compliance 0 .28* 0.20 0.19 0.01 0.13 0.08 0.24 0.18 0 .54** 0 .32* 12. Modesty 0.23 0.11 0.05 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.03 0.03 0 .27* 0.20 0 .31* 13. Tender mindedness 0.16 0.10 0.02 0.21 0 .27* 0.06 0.03 0.21 0 .45** 0 .42** 0 .47** 0.07 14. Overall Agreeableness 0.17 0.21 0.06 0.16 0.03 0.19 0.19 0 .51** 0 .71** 0 .63** 0 .76** 0 .51** 0 .69** p < .05, ** p < .01

PAGE 75

75 Agreeableness and Age Levels of agreeableness were calculated bas ed on respondent age (Table 4 11 ). Respondents age 18 to 19 years scored highest in compliance ( M = 4.56 SD = .47 ) and lowest in modesty ( M = 3.00 SD = .95 ). Respondents age 20 to 21 years scored highest in altruism ( M = 4.24 SD = .55 ) and lowest in modesty ( M = 2.91 SD = .77 ). Respondents age 22 to 24 years scored highest in straightforwardness ( M = 4.34, SD = .54) and lowest in modesty ( M = 2.73, SD = .52). Trust had the largest difference between age groups, specifically 18 to 19 years and 20 to 21 years (.42) Resp ondents in the 18 to 19 years ( M = 4.09 SD = .36 ) scored highest in overall agreeableness. Respondents in the 22 to 24 years category ( M = 3.81 SD = .24 ) scored in the middle in overall agreeableness. Respondents in the 20 to 21 years category ( M = 3.76, SD = .50) scored lowest in overall agreeableness. Respondents in the 18 to 19 years category scored higher on all agreeableness items than did either of the other two age categories. Mean and standard deviations of all agreeableness items and age are prov ided in T able 4 11 Table 4 11. Agreeableness by a ge Age (years) n M SD Trust 18 19 13 3.83 0.63 20 21 35 3.41 0.75 22 24 11 3.43 0.75 Straightforwardness 18 19 13 4.50 0.52 20 21 35 4.13 0.64 22 24 11 4.34 0.54 Altruism 18 19 13 4.54 0.48 20 21 35 4.24 0.55 22 24 11 4.32 0.37 Compliance 18 19 13 4.56 0.47 20 21 35 4.15 0.88 22 24 11 4.16 0.71

PAGE 76

76 Table 4 11 Continued Modesty 18 19 13 3.00 0.95 20 21 35 2.91 0.77 22 24 11 2.73 0.52 Tender mindedness 18 19 13 4.10 0.61 20 21 35 3.74 0.88 22 24 11 3.84 0.53 Agreeableness Overall 18 19 13 4.09 0.36 20 21 35 3.76 0.50 22 24 11 3.81 0.24 There are no statistically significant correlations between age and agreeableness (Table 4 1 0 ) Age had a negative low correlation to all agreeableness items. C ompliance had the strongest correlation ( r = .20 ) between age and agreeableness at the facet level; overall agreeableness had the strongest correlation ( r = .21). The remaining correlations ranged from r = .10 to r = .16 and are not statistically significant. Pearson product moment correlation coefficients and statistical significance between age and agreeableness items are provided in Table 4 10 Agreeableness and Race/Ethnicity Levels of agreeableness were calculated based on respondent race/ethnicity (Table 4 12 and Table 4 13 ). First levels of agreeableness were calculated based on respondent ethnicity, specifically whether a respondent considered themselves to be Hispanic/Latino(a)/Chicano(a). Respondents that considered themselves Hispanic/Latino(a)/Chicano(a) scored highest in altruism ( M = 4.3 6, SD = .52 ) and lowest in modesty ( M = 2.81 SD = .69 ). The high and low items are consistent for respondents that did not considered themselves Hispanic/Latino(a)/Chicano(a) A ltruism ( M = 4.31 SD = .51 ) had the highest mean and modesty ( M = 2.92 SD = .78 ) had the lowest mean T he largest difference between ethnic groups is found in the compliance facet (.42). Respondents considering themselves to be Hispanic/Latino(a)/Chicano(a)

PAGE 77

77 ( M = 3.78 SD = .5 6) scored lower in overall agreeableness than those that did not ( M = 3.85 SD = .42 ). Mean and standard deviations of all agreeableness it ems and ethnicity are provided in Table 4 1 2 There are no statistically significant correlations between ethnicity and agreeableness (Table 4 10 ). Compliance had the strongest correlation ( r = .19 ) The remaining correlations ranged from r = .06 to r = .04 and are not statistically significant. Pearson product moment correlation coefficients and statistical significance between ethnicity and agreeableness items are provided in Table 4 10 Table 4 12 Agreeableness by Hispanic/Latino(a)/Chicano(a) Hispanic/ Latino(a)/ Chicano(a) n M SD Trust No 52 3.51 0.77 Yes 9 3.58 0.56 Straightforwardness No 52 4.27 0.57 Yes 9 4.19 0.85 Altruism No 52 4.31 0.51 Yes 9 4.36 0.52 Compliance No 52 4.28 0.71 Yes 9 3.86 1.19 Modesty No 52 2.92 0.78 Yes 9 2.81 0.69 Tender mindedness No 52 3.83 0.75 Yes 9 3.86 0.88 Agreeableness Overall No 52 3.85 0.42 Yes 9 3.78 0.56 L evels of agreeableness were also calculated based on respondent race (Table 4 13 ). Respondents indicated whether they considered themselves Asian or Pacific Islander, Black or African American, White, or Other. Respondents that considered themselves Asian or Pacific Islander scored highest in compliance ( M = 4.19 SD = .55 )

PAGE 78

78 and lowest in modesty ( M = 2.88 SD = .78 ). The high and low items are consistent for respondents that considered themselves Black or African American The compliance facet ( M = 4.50 SD = .75 ) is highest and the modesty facet ( M = 2.77 SD = .93 ) is lowest. Respondents that considered themselves White scored highest in altruism ( M = 4.41 SD = .47 ) and lowest in modesty ( M = 2.90 SD = .76 ). The high and low items are consistent for respondents that considered themselves Other with compliance highest ( M = 4.1 3 SD = .48 ) and modesty lowest ( M = 2.81 SD = .85 ). Between groups overall agreeableness mean scores ranges from 3.53 to 3.89. Mean and standard deviations of all agreeableness items and race are provided in Table 4 13 A number of statistically signific ant Pearson product moment correlations are identified (Table 4 10 ). A positive moderate correlation between the category of White and altruism ( r = .33 ) and a negative moderate correlation between the category of Other [race] and straightforwardness ( r = .31 ) are observed. A positive low correlation between the category of White and trust ( r = .28), and the category of Black or African American and tender mindedness ( r = .27) are observed. A negative low correlation between the category of Asian or Pacif ic Islander and altruism ( r = .27 ) is also observed. All statistically significant observations are made at the p < .05 level. The remaining correlations ranged from r = .24 to r = .22 and are not statistically significant. Pearson product moment correl ation coefficients and statistical significance between race and agreeableness items are provided in Table 4 10 Table 4 13 Agr eeableness by r ace Race n M SD Trust Asian or Pacific Islander 4 3.31 0.24 Black or African American 7 3.21 0.76

PAGE 79

79 Table 4 13 Continued White 46 3.64 0.66 Other 4 3.44 0.55 Straightforwardness Asian or Pacific Islander 4 4.00 0.68 Black or African American 7 4.21 0.44 White 46 4.33 0.60 Other 4 3.56 1.03 Altruism Asian or Pacific Islander 4 3.81 0.13 Black or African American 7 4.14 0.66 White 46 4.41 0.47 Other 4 4.13 0.48 Compliance Asian or Pacific Islander 4 4.19 0.55 Black or African American 7 4.50 0.75 White 46 4.25 0.80 Other 4 3.50 1.49 Modesty Asian or Pacific Islander 4 2.88 0.78 Black or African American 7 2.77 0.93 White 46 2.90 0.76 Other 4 2.81 0.85 Tender mindedness Asian or Pacific Islander 4 3.25 0.74 Black or African American 7 4.39 0.52 White 46 3.81 0.73 Other 4 3.75 1.14 Agreeableness Overall Asian or Pacific Islander 4 3.57 0.28 Black or African American 7 3.88 0.43 White 46 3.89 0.41 Other 4 3.53 0.66 Objective 4: Identify the Relationship Between Individual D emographic Characteristics and Transformational Leadership Transformational leadership scale scores were calculated based on respondent gender, age, and race/ethnicity. Additionally, relationships between respondent demographic characteristics and transformational leadership were calculated using a bivariate correlational techniqu e, specifically Pearson product moment correlation. Transformational Leadership and Gender Levels of transformational leadership were calculated based on respondent gender (Table 4 14). Males scored highest in idealized influence attributed ( M = 3.41

PAGE 80

80 SD = .33 ) and lowest in intellectual stimulation ( M = 2.96 SD = .57 ). Females scored highest in inspirational motivation ( M = 3.48 SD = .42 ) and lowest in intellectual stimulation ( M = 3.15 SD = .54 ). Idealized influence attributed had the largest differenc e between males and females (.25 ) C harisma (.01) and transformational leadership overall ( .01) h ad the smallest difference s Fem ales ( M = 3.27 SD = .34 ) scored slightly higher than males ( M = 3.26 SD = .31 ) in overall transformational leadership Mean s and standard deviations of all transformational leadership items and gender are provided in Table 4 14. Table 4 14. Transformational leadership by g ender Gender n M SD Idealized Influence Attributed Male 22 3.41 0.33 Female 36 3.16 0.51 Idealized Influence Behavior Male 22 3.38 0.52 Female 36 3.40 0.41 Idealized Influence Combined Male 22 3.39 0.35 Female 36 3.28 0.40 Inspirational Motivation Male 22 3.31 0.49 Female 36 3.48 0.42 Intellectual Stimulation Male 22 2.96 0.57 Female 36 3.15 0.54 Individualized Consideration Male 22 3.25 0.42 Female 36 3.19 0.47 Charisma (Idealized Influence and Inspirational Motivation) Male 22 3.36 0.33 Female 36 3.35 0.38 Transformational Leadership Overall Male 22 3.26 0.31 Female 36 3.27 0.34 Idealized influence attributed is the only factor of transformational leadership where the difference between males and females is statistically significant at the p < .05 level (Table 4 1 5) Idealized influence attributed had the strongest correlation ( r = .26)

PAGE 81

81 with gender, with the magnitude of the correlation categorized as low. The remaining correlations ranged from r = .07 t o r = .19, and are not statistically significant. Pearson product moment correlation coefficients and statistical significance between gender and agreeableness items are provided in Table 4 18.

PAGE 82

82 Table 4 15. Intercorrelations among transformational leadership, gender, age, ethnicity, and r ace 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1. Sex 2. Age 0.15 3. Hispanic 0.14 0.20 4. Asian or Pacific Islander 0.07 0.09 0.11 5. Black or African American 0 .27* 0.02 0.15 0.10 6. White 0 .31* 0.03 0.01 0.17 0 .66** 7. Other 0.07 0.01 0 .45** 0.07 0.10 0 .33* 8. Idealized Influence Attributed 0 .26* 0.00 0.21 0.12 0.14 0.06 0.01 9. Idealized Influence Behavior 0.02 0.06 0.02 0 .28* 0.06 0.18 0.19 0 .37** 10. Idealized Influence Combined 0.14 0.03 0.14 0.24 0.04 0.14 0.11 0 .83** 0 .83** 11. Inspirational Motivation 0.19 0.00 0.08 0.12 0.22 0.00 0.08 0 .42** 0 .48** 0 .54** 12. Intellectual Stimulation 0.16 0.15 0.10 0.07 0.00 0.15 0.09 0.21 0.22 0 .26* 0 .49** 13. Individualized Consideration 0.07 0.08 0.14 0.13 0.00 0.20 0.05 0 .34** 0.20 0 .33* 0 .33* 0 .33** 14. Charisma (Idealized Influence and Inspirational Motivation) 0.02 0.02 0.13 0.22 0.13 0.10 0.04 0 .76** 0 .79** 0 .93** 0 .81** 0 .40** 0 .37** 15. Transformational Leadership Overall 0.02 0.06 0.16 0.21 0.08 0.17 0.04 0 .67** 0 .66** 0 .80** 0 .79** 0 .69** 0 .63** 0 .90** p < .05, ** p < .01

PAGE 83

83 Transformational Leadership and Age Levels of transformational leadership were calculated bas ed on respondent age (Table 4 16 ). Respondents 18 to 19 years old scored highest in inspirational motivation ( M = 3.45 SD = .43 ) and lowest in idealized influence attributed ( M = 3.22 SD = .62 ). Respondents age 20 to 21 years scored highest in inspirational motivation ( M = 3.39 SD = .46 ) and lowest in intellectual stimulation ( M = 2.97 SD = .50 ). Respondents age 22 to 24 years scored highest in idealized influence behavior ( M = 3.48 SD = .48 ) and lowest in intellectual stimulation ( M = 3.11 SD = .64 ). Intellectual stimulation had the largest difference between age groups, specifically 18 to 19 years and 20 to 21 years (.38 ). Respondents i n the 18 to 19 years ( M = 3.35 SD = .41 ) scored highest in overall transformational leadership Respondents in the 22 to 24 years category ( M = 3.30 SD = .26 ) scored in the middle in overall transformational leadership Respondents in the 20 to 21 years category ( M = 3.22 SD = .31 ) scored lowest in overall transformational leadership Mean and standard deviations of all agreeableness items and age are provided in Tabl e 4 16 Table 4 16. Transformationa l leadership by a ge Age (years) n M SD Idealized Influence Attributed 18 19 13 3.22 0.62 20 21 35 3.29 0.44 22 24 11 3.20 0.33 Idealized Influence Behavior 18 19 13 3.38 0.49 20 21 35 3.34 0.46 22 24 11 3.48 0.48 Idealized Influence Combined 18 19 13 3.30 0.53 20 21 35 3.31 0.35 22 24 11 3.34 0.32 Inspirational Motivation 18 19 13 3.45 0.43 20 21 35 3.39 0.46 22 24 11 3.45 0.47

PAGE 84

84 Table 4 16 Continued Intellectual Stimulation 18 19 13 3.35 0.55 20 21 35 2.97 0.50 22 24 11 3.11 0.64 Individualized Consideration 18 19 13 3.37 0.39 20 21 35 3.13 0.45 22 24 11 3.27 0.47 Charisma (Idealized Influence and Inspirational Motivation) 18 19 13 3.35 0.49 20 21 35 3.34 0.32 22 24 11 3.38 0.33 Transformational Leadership Overall 18 19 13 3.35 0.41 20 21 35 3.22 0.31 22 24 11 3.30 0.26 There are no statistically significant correlations between age and transfo rmational leadership (Table 4 15 ). Intellectual stimulation had a negative low correlation ( r = .15 ) with age The remaining correlations are all negligible, are not statistically significant and ranged from r = .08 to r = .0 6 Pearson product moment correlation coefficients and statistical significance between age and transformational leadership items are provided in Table 4 15 Transformational Leadership and Race/Ethnicity Levels of transformational leadership were calculated based on respondent race/ethnicity (Table 4 17 and Table 4 18 ). First levels of transformational leadership were calculated bas ed on respondent ethnicity, specifically whether a respondent considered themselves to be Hispanic/Latino(a)/Chicano(a). Respondents that considered themselves Hispanic/Latino(a)/Chicano(a) scored highest in idealized influence attributed ( M = 3.48 SD = .34 ) and lowest in intellectual stimulation ( M = 3.20 SD = .56 ). Respondents that did not considered themselves Hispanic/Latino(a)/Chicano(a) scored highest in inspirational motivation ( M = 3.38 SD = .48 ) and lowest in intellectual stimulation ( M = 3.05 SD = .55 ). Idealized influence

PAGE 85

85 attributed had the largest diffe rence between ethnic groups ( .26 ). Respondents that considered themselves to b e Hispanic/Latino(a)/Chicano(a) ( M = 3.24 SD = .33 ) scored lower in overall transformational leadership than those that did not ( M = 3.38 SD = .31 ). Mean and standard deviations of all transformational leadership items and ethn icity are provided in T able 4 17 Table 4 17. Transformational l eadership by Hispanic/Latino(a)/Chicano(a) Hispanic/ Latino(a)/ Chicano(a) n M SD Idealized Influence Attributed No 52 3.22 0.47 Yes 9 3.48 0.34 Idealized Influence Behavior No 52 3.36 0.46 Yes 9 3.39 0.55 Idealized Influence Combined No 52 3.29 0.39 Yes 9 3.43 0.33 Inspirational Motivation No 52 3.38 0.48 Yes 9 3.48 0.38 Intellectual Stimulation No 52 3.05 0.55 Yes 9 3.20 0.56 Individualized Consideration No 52 3.19 0.46 Yes 9 3.36 0.31 Charisma (Idealized Influence and Inspirational Motivation) No 52 3.32 0.37 Yes 9 3.45 0.31 Transformational Leadership Overall No 52 3.24 0.33 Yes 9 3.38 0.31 There are no statistically significant correlations between ethnicity and transfo rmational leadership (Table 4 15 ). All correlations between ethnicity and transformational leadership are positive and low or negligible. Idealized influence attributed had the strongest correlation ( r = .21 ) between ethnicity and transformational leadership The remaining correlations ranged from r = .02 to r = .16. Pearson product

PAGE 86

86 moment correlation co efficients and statistical significance between ethnicity and transformational leadership items are provided in Table 4 15 L evels of transformational leadership were also calculated based on respondent race (Table 4 18 ). Respondents indicated whether they considered themselves Asian or Pacific Islander, Black or African American, White, or Other. Respondents that considered themselves Asian or Pacific Islander scored highest in inspirational motivation ( M = 3.19 SD = .38 ) and lowest in idealized influence behavior ( M = 2.88 SD = .32 ). Respondents that considered themselves Black or African American scored highest in inspirational motivation ( M = 3.68 SD = .43 ) and lowest in i ntellectual stimulation ( M = 3.07 SD = .31 ). Respondents that considered Whit e scored highest in idealized influence behavior ( M = 3.41 SD = .45 ) and lowest in intellectual stimulation ( M = 3.12 SD = .54 ). Respondents that considered themselves Other [race] scored highest in idealized influence behavior ( M = 3.69 SD = .31 ) and lowest in individualized consideration ( M = 3.13 SD = .60 ). Respondents that considered themselves Asian or Pacific Islander scored lower on all items of transformational leadership than respondents in the other categories. Between groups overall tr ansformational leadership mean scores ranges from 3.01 to 3. 34 Mean and standard deviations of all transformational leadership items and race are provided in Table 4 18 Table 4 18. Transformational leadership by r ace Race n M SD Idealized Influence Attributed Asian or Pacific Islander 4 3.06 0.52 Black or African American 7 3.43 0.45 White 46 3.27 0.46 Other 4 3.25 0.35 Idealized Influence Behavior Asian or Pacific Islander 4 2.88 0.32 Black or African American 7 3.29 0.51

PAGE 87

87 Table 4 18 Continued White 46 3.41 0.45 Other 4 3.69 0.31 Idealized Influence Combined Asian or Pacific Islander 4 2.97 0.41 Black or African American 7 3.36 0.44 White 46 3.34 0.37 Other 4 3.47 0.26 Inspirational Motivation Asian or Pacific Islander 4 3.19 0.38 Black or African American 7 3.68 0.43 White 46 3.39 0.44 Other 4 3.25 0.54 Intellectual Stimulation Asian or Pacific Islander 4 2.94 0.24 Black or African American 7 3.07 0.31 White 46 3.12 0.54 Other 4 3.25 0.61 Individualized Consideration Asian or Pacific Islander 4 3.00 0.29 Black or African American 7 3.21 0.51 White 46 3.26 0.40 Other 4 3.13 0.60 Charisma (Idealized Influence and Inspirational Motivation) Asian or Pacific Islander 4 3.04 0.38 Black or African American 7 3.46 0.42 White 46 3.36 0.34 Other 4 3.40 0.29 Transformational Leadership Overall Asian or Pacific Islander 4 3.01 0.29 Black or African American 7 3.34 0.30 White 46 3.29 0.30 Other 4 3.31 0.40 Idealized influence behavior is the only factor of transformational leadership where the difference between race is statistically significant at the p < .05 level (Table 4 15 ). Specifically, there is a negative low correlation between respondents that co nsidered themselv es Asian or Pacific Islander and idealized influence behavior. All other correlations are not statistically significant and are in the low to negligible categories. The remaining correlations ranged from r = .24 to r = .22. Pearson prod uct moment correlation coefficients and statistical significance between race and transformational leadership items are provided in Table 4 15

PAGE 88

88 Objective 5: Identify the Relationship Between Agreeableness and Transformational Leadership in Undergraduate Le adership Students Pearson product moment correlations between agreeableness and transformational leadership were completed to further illuminate the nature of the relationship between the two sets of variables. C orrelation coefficients and statistical sign ificance between agreeableness and transformational leadership items are provided in Table 4 19

PAGE 89

89 Table 4 19. Intercorrelations between agreeableness and transformational l eadership Variable Overall Agree ableness Trust Straight forwardness Altruism Compliance Modesty Tender mindedness Idealized Influence Attributed 0.16 0.03 0.10 0.06 0.08 0 .48** 0.03 Idealized Influence Behavior 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.20 0.09 0 .31* 0.14 Idealized Influence Combined 0.09 0.01 0.08 0.16 0.01 0 .47** 0.10 Inspirational Motivation 0.20 0.05 0.08 0.10 0 .36** 0.15 0 .30* Intellectual Stimulation 0.20 0.06 0.03 0.12 0.12 0.06 0 .35** Individualized Consideration 0 .39** 0 .38** 0 .36** 0 .33** 0.22 0.14 0 .41** Charisma (Idealized Influence and Inspirational Motivation) 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.15 0.16 0 .40** 0.20 Transformational Leadership Overall 0.19 0.14 0.09 0.23 0.21 0 .28* 0 .36** p < .05, ** p < .01

PAGE 90

90 The overall trait of agreeableness had a positive moderate correlation ( r = .39) with the transformational leadership factor of individualized consideration. The relationship is statistically significant at the p < .01 level. Agreeableness had no other statistically significant correlations. Agreeableness had a negative correlation with idealized influence attributed ( r = .16) and idealized influence combined ( r = .09). Agreeableness had positive negligible and low correlations with all other transformational leadership items with correlations rang in g from r = .01 to r = .20. Agreeableness had a positive low correlation with overall transformational leadership ( r = .19). The agreeableness facet trust had a positive moderate correlation ( r = .38) with the transformational leadership factor of individu alized consideration. The relationship is statistically significant at the p < .01 level. Trust had no other statistically significant correlations. Trust had a negative correlation with idealized influence behavior ( r = .02 ). Trust had positive negligi ble correlations with all other transformational leadership items with correlati ons rang ing from r = .01 to r = .06 Trust had a positive low correlation with overall transformational leadership ( r = .14 ). The agreeableness facet straightforwardness had a positive moderate correlation ( r = .36) with the transformational leadership factor of individualized consideration. The relationship is statistically significant at the p < .01 level. Straightforwardness had no other statistically significant correlation s. Straightforwardness had a negative correlation with idealized influence attributed ( r = .10), idealized influence combined ( r = .08) idealized influence behavior ( r = .02), and charisma ( r = .02). Straightforwardness had positive negligible co rrelations with intellectual stimulation ( r = .03 ) and inspirational

PAGE 91

91 motivation ( r = .08 ) Straightforwardness had a positive negligible correlation with overall transformational leadership ( r = .09). The agreeableness facet altruism had a positive modera te correlation ( r = .33) with the transformational leadership factor of individualized consideration. The relationship is statistically significant at the p < .01 level. Altruism had no other statistically significant correlations. Altruism had positive lo w and negligible correlations with all transformational leadership items with c orrelations rang ing from r = .06 to r = .20. Altruism had a positive low correlation with overall transformational leadership ( r = .23). The agreeableness facet compliance had a positive moderate correlation ( r = .36) with the transformational leadership factor of inspirational motivation. The relationship is statistically significant at the p < .01 level. Compliance had no other statistically significant correlations. Complianc e had a negative correlation with idealized influence attributed ( r = .08). Compliance had positive low and negligible correlations with all other transformational leadership items with correlations rang ing from r = .01 to r = .22. Compliance had a posi tive low correlation with overall transformational leadership ( r = .21). The agreeableness facet modesty had multiple negative moderate correlations with the transformational leadership items. Modesty had three correlations that are statistically signific ant at the p < .01 level: idealized influence attributed ( r = .48), idealized influence combined ( r = .47), and charisma ( r = .40). Additionally modesty had two negative moderate correlations that are statistically significant a t the p < .05 level: idealized influence behavior ( r = .31) and overall transformational leadership ( r

PAGE 92

92 = .48). Modesty had a positive correlation with intellectual stimulation ( r = .06 ). Modesty had negative low correlations with individualized consideration ( r = .14) an d inspirational motivation ( r = .15). The agreeableness facet tender mindedness had multiple positive moderate correlations with the transformational leadership items. Tender mindedness had three correlations that are statistically significant at the p < .01 level: intellectual stimulation ( r = .35), individualized consideration ( r = .41), and overall transformational leadership ( r = .36). Additionally tender mindedness had a positive moderate correlation with inspirational motivation ( r = .30) that is st atistically significant a t the p < .05 level. Tender mindedness had positive low and negligible correlations with all other transformational leadership items with correlations rang ing from r = .03 to r = .20. Objective 6 : Identify h ow Agreeableness Predicts Transformational Leadership in Undergraduate Leadership Students Multiple regression analysis was completed to determine whether a predictive relationship existed between agreeableness and transformational leadership. Transformational leadership, and each of the transformational leadership factors, were treated as dependent variable s Agreeableness, agreeableness facets and demographic characteristics were treated as independent variable s Unstandardized regression coefficients, coefficients of de termination ( R 2 ), changes in R 2 between models, changes in F statistics, and significance of F statistic changes between models are provided in Table 4 20 through Table 4 51 Transformational Leadership, Agreeableness, and Demographic Characteristics Multiple regression analysis was completed to determine whether a predictive relationship existed between overall agreeableness and transformational leadership.

PAGE 93

93 Transformational leadership was treated as the dependent variable. Overall agreeableness was tr eated as the independent variable of interest; demographic characteristics were treated as control variables. Unstandardized regression coefficients in the form of variable level effects and statistical significance are provided in Table 4 20 In Model 1 transformational leadership was regressed against the demographic control variables of age, gender, ethnicity and race. The omnibus model is not statistically significant ( R 2 = .10 F (6,51)= .95 p = .47 ). No demographic variables are statistically signific ant predictors of transformational leadership. In Model 2 overall agreeableness was included. Adding overall agreeableness as a predictor variable in the model is not associated with a statistically significant increase in R 2 R 2 = .02, F (1,50)= .82 p = .37 ). Overall agreeableness is not a statistically significant predictor of transformational leadership. Model level variance ( R 2 ), changes in R 2 between models, changes in F statistics, and significance of F statistic changes between models were calcul ate d and are provided in Table 4 21 Model 1 explained 10 % of the variance in transformational leadership. The difference between Model 1 and Model 2 is not statistically sign ificant. Model 2 accounted for 2 % of the variance in transformational leadership. Table 4 20 Multiple regression of transformational l eadership on agreeableness and d emo graphic c haracteristics Model 1 Model 2 Constant 5.20 4.66 Demographic Characteristics Gender 0.04 0.06 Age 0.04 0.03 Hispanic/Latino( a)/Chicano(a) 0.12 0.12 Asian or Pacific Islander 0.26 0.23 Black or African American 0.14 0.13

PAGE 94

94 Table 4 20 Continued Other 0.02 0.02 Agreeableness 0.10 Table 4 21 Hierarchical regression of transformational l eadership on agreeableness and demographic c haracteristics Variable Entered R 2 R 2 Change F Change Sig. of Change Demographic Characteristics 0.10 0.10 0.95 0.47 Demographic Characteristics & Agreeableness 0.12 0.00 0.82 0.37 Transformational Leadership, Agreeableness Facets, and Demographic Characteristics Multiple regression analysis was completed to determine whether a predictive relationship existed between the facets of agreeableness and transformational leadership. Transformational leadership was treated as the de pendent variable. The facets of agreeableness were treated as the independent variables of interest; demographic characteristics were treated as control variables. Unstandardized regression coefficients in the form of variable level effects and statistica l signif icance are provided in Table 4 22. In Model 1 transformational leadership was regressed against the demographic control variables of age, gender, ethnicity and race. The omnibus model is not statistically significant ( R 2 = .10 F (6,51)= .95 p = .47 ). No demographic variables are statistically significant predictors of transformational leadership. In Model 2 the facets of agreeableness were included. Adding the facets of agreeableness as predictor variables in the model is associated with a statistic ally significant increase in R 2 ( R 2 = .20 F (6,45)= 2.10 p = .06 ). Modesty

PAGE 95

95 is a statistically significant predictor of transformational leadership at an alpha level of .05. Model level variance ( R 2 ), changes in R 2 between models, changes in F statistics, and significance of F statistic changes between models were calculated and are provided in Table 4 23. Model 1 explained 10 % of the variance in transformational leadership. The difference between Model 1 and Model 2 is statistically signi fican t. Model 2 accounted for 30 % of the variance in transformational leadership. Table 4 22 Multiple regression of transformational leadership on agreeableness facets and demographic c haracteristics Model 1 Model 2 Constant 5.20 4.47 Demographic Characteristics Gender 0.04 0.00 Age 0.04 0.03 Hispanic/Latino(a)/Chicano(a) 0.12 0.11 Asian or Pacific Islander 0.26 0.17 Black or African American 0.14 0.01 Other 0.02 0.02 Agreeableness Facets Trust 0.01 Straightforwardness 0.04 Altruism 0.06 Compliance 0.08 Modesty 0.16** Tender mindedness 0.10 ** p < .01 Table 4 23. Hierarchical regression of transformational leadership on agreeableness facets and demographic c haracteristics Variable Entered R 2 R 2 Change F Change Sig. of Change Demographic Characteristics 0.1 0 0.10 0.95 0.47 Demographic Characteristics & Agreeableness Facets 0.30 0.20 2.20 0.06

PAGE 96

96 Idealized Influence Attributed, Agreeableness, and Demographic Characteristics Multiple regression analysis was completed to determine whether a predictive relationship existed between overall agreeableness and idealized influence attributed Idealized influence attributed was treated as the dependent variable. Overall agreeableness was treated as the independent variable of interest; demographic characteristics were treated as control variables. Unstandardized regression coefficients in the form of variable level effects and statistical signifi cance are provided in Table 4 24 In Mo del 1 idealized influence attributed was regressed against the demographic control variables of age, gender, ethnicity and race. The omnibus model is statistically significant ( R 2 = .22 F (6,51)= 2.36 p = .0 4 ). The demographic variable of gender is statistically significant at an alpha level of .01, the demographic variable of ethnicity is statistically significant at an alpha level of .05 In Model 2 overall agreeableness was included. Adding overall agreeableness as a predictor variable in the mode l is not associated with a statistically significant increase in R 2 R 2 = .03 F (1,5 0)= 1.64 p = .21 ). Overall agreeableness is not a statistically significant predictor of idealized influence attributed Model level variance ( R 2 ), changes in R 2 between models, changes in F statistics, and significance of F statistic changes between models were calculate d and are provided in Table 4 24. Model 1 explained 22 % of the variance in idealized influence attributed The difference between Model 1 and Mod el 2 is not statistically sign i ficant. Model 2 accounted for 24 % of the variance in idealized influence attributed Table 4 24 Multiple regression of idealized influence attributed on agreeableness and d emographic c haracteristics Model 1 Model 2

PAGE 97

97 Table 4 24. Continued Constant 5.51 6.50 Demographic Characteristics Gender 0.36** 0.34** Age 0.04 0.05 Hispanic/Latino(a)/Chicano(a) 0.40* 0.38* Asian or Pacific Islander 0.17 0.23 Black or African American 0.38 0.40* Other 0.17 0.23 Agreeableness 0.18 p < .05 * p < .01 Table 4 2 5 Hierarchical regression of idealized influence attributed on agreeableness and demographic c haracteristics Variable Entered R 2 R 2 Change F Change Sig. of Change Demographic Characteristics 0.22 0.22 2.36 0.04 Demographic Characteristics & Agreeableness 0.24 0.03 1.64 0.21 Idealized Influence Attributed, Agreeableness Facets, and Demographic Characteristics Multiple regression analysis was completed to determine whether a predictive relationship existed between the facets of agreeableness and idealized influence attributed Idealized influence attributed was treated as the dependent variable. The facets of agreeableness were treated as the independent variables of interest; demographic characteristics were treated as control variables. Unstandardized regression coefficients in the form of variable level e ffects and statistical signif icance are provided in Table 4 2 6 In Model 1 idealized influence attributed was regressed against the demographic control variables of age, gender, ethnicity and race. The omnibus model is statistically significant ( R 2 = .2 2 F (6,51 )= 2.19 p = 04 ). The demographic variable of gender was statistically significant at an alpha level of .01 In Model 2 the facets of agreeableness were included. Adding the facets of

PAGE 98

98 agreeableness as predictor variables in the model is associated wi th a statistically significant increase in R 2 ( R 2 = .19 F (6,45)= 2.41 p = .0 4 ). Modesty is a statistically significant predictor of idealized influence attributed at an alpha level of .001 Model level variance ( R 2 ), changes in R 2 between models, change s in F statistics, and significance of F statistic changes between models were calculat ed and are provided in Table 4 2 7 Model 1 explained 22 % of the variance in idealized influence attributed The difference between Model 1 and Model 2 is statistically significant. Model 2 accounted for 41 % of the variance in idealized influence attributed Table 4 26. Multiple regression of idealized influence attributed on agreeableness facets and d emograp hic c haracteristics Model 1 Model 2 Constant 5.51 5.80 Demographic Characteristics Gender 0.36 ** 0.28 Age 0.04 0.04 Hispanic/Latino(a)/Chicano(a) 0.40 0.38 Asian or Pacific Islander 0.17 0.15 Black or African American 0.38 0.28 Other 0.17 0.12 Agreeableness Facets Trust 0.05 Straightforwardness 0.06 Altruism 0.14 Compliance 0.13 Modesty 0.28 *** Tender mindedness 0.06 p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 Table 4 27. Hierarchical regression of idealized influence attributed on agreeableness facets and demographic c haracteristics Variable Entered R 2 R 2 Change F Change Sig. of Change Demographic Characteristics 0. 22 0. 22 2. 36 0.0 4

PAGE 99

99 Table 4 27. Continued Demographic Characteristics & Agreeableness Facets 0. 41 0.19 2.41 0.04 Ideali zed Influence Behavior, Agreeableness, and Demographic Characteristics Multiple regression analysis was completed to determine whether a predictive relationship existed between overall agreeableness and idealized influence behavior. Idealized influence behavior was treated as the dependent variable. Overall agreeableness was treated as the independent variable of interest; demographic characteristics were treated as control variables. Unstandardized regression coefficients in the form of variable level effects and statistical significance are provided in Table 4 28. In Model 1 idealized influence behavior was regressed against the demographic control variables of age, gender, ethnicity and race. The omnibus model is not statistically significant ( R 2 = .14 F (6,51)= 1.37 p = .25 ). The demographic variable race category of Asian or Pacific Islander is statistically significant at an alpha level of .05. In Model 2 overall agreeableness was included. Adding overall agreeableness as a predictor variable in the model is not associated with a statistically significant increase in R 2 ( R 2 = .01 F (1,50)= 0.57 p = .45 ). Overall agreeableness is not a statistically significant predictor of idealized influence behavior Model level variance ( R 2 ), changes in R 2 between models, changes in F statistics, and significance of F statistic change s between models were calculated and are provided in Table 4 29. Model 1 explained 14 % of the variance in idealized influence behavior. The difference between Model 1 and Model 2 is not statistically signi ficant. Model 2 accounted for 15 % of the variance i n idealized influence behavior.

PAGE 100

100 Table 4 28 Multiple regression of idealized influence behavior on agreeableness and demographic c haracteristics Model 1 Model 2 Constant 4.77 5.38 Demographic Characteristics Gender 0.00 0.02 Age 0.02 0.03 Hispanic/Latino(a)/Chicano(a) 0.18 0.19 Asian or Pacific Islander 0.56 0.60 Black or African American 0.01 0.00 Other 0.40 0.37 Agreeableness 0.11 p < .05 Tab le 4 29 Hierarchical regression of i dealized influence behavior on agreeableness and demographic c haracteristics Variable Entered R 2 R 2 Change F Change Sig. of Change Demographic Characteristics 0.14 0.14 1.37 0.25 Demographic Characteristics & Agreeableness 0.15 0.01 0.57 0.45 Idealized Influence Behavior, Agreeableness Facets, and Demographic Characteristics Multiple regression analysis was completed to determine whether a predictive relationship existed between the facets of agreeableness and idealized influence behavior Idealized influence beha vior was treated as the dependent variable. The facets of agreeableness were treated as the independent variables of interest; demographic characteristics were treated as control variables. Unstandardized regression coefficients in the form of variable le vel effects and statistical significance are provided in Table 4 30 In Model 1 idealized influence behavior was regressed against the demographic control variables of age, gender,

PAGE 101

101 ethnicity and race. The omnibus model is not statistically significant ( R 2 = .14 F (6,51)= 1.37 p = 25 ). The demographic race category of Asian or Pacific Islander is statistically significant at an alpha level of .05. In Model 2 the facets of agreeableness were included. Adding the facets of agreeableness as predictor variables in the model is not associated with a statistically significant increase in R 2 ( R 2 = .16 F (6,45)= 1.68 p = 15 ). Modesty is a statistically significant predictor of idealized influence behavior at an alpha level of 01. Model level variance ( R 2 ), changes in R 2 between models, changes in F statistics, and significance of F statistic changes between models were calculat ed and are provided in Table 4 31 Model 1 explained 14 % of the variance in idealized influence behavior The difference between Model 1 and Model 2 is not statistically significant. Model 2 accounted for 30 % of the variance in idealized influence behavior Table 4 30. Multiple regression of idealized influence behavior on agreeableness facets and demograph ic c haracteristics Model 1 Model 2 Constant 4.77 4.93 Demographic Characteristics Gender 0.00 0.06 Age 0.02 0.03 Hispanic/Latino(a)/Chicano(a) 0.18 0.21 Asian or Pacific Islander 0.56 0.50 Black or African American 0.01 0.13 Other 0.40 0.46 Agreeableness Facets Trust 0.09 Straightforwardness 0.01 Altruism 0.14 Compliance 0.08 Modesty 0.24 ** Tender mindedness 0.02 p < .05, ** p < .01

PAGE 102

102 Table 4 31. Hierarchical regression of idealized influence behavior on agreeableness facets and demographic c haracteristics Variable Entered R 2 R 2 Change F Change Sig. of Change Demographic Characteristics 0.14 0.14 1.37 0.25 Demographic Characteristics & Agreeableness Facets 0.30 0.16 1.68 0.15 Idealized Influence Combined, Agreeableness, and Demographic Characteristics Multiple regression analysis was completed to determine whether a predictive relationship existed between overall agreeableness and idealized influence combined. Idealized influen ce combined was treated as the dependent variable. Overall agreeableness was treated as the independent variable of interest; demographic characteristics were treated as control variables. Unstandardized regression coefficients in the form of variable lev el effects and statistical significance are provided in Table 4 32 In Model 1 idealized influence combined was regressed against the demographic control variables of age, gender, ethnicity and race. The omnibus model is not statistically significant ( R 2 = .13 F (6,51)= 1.30 p = .28 ). No demographic variable s are st atistically significant In Model 2 overall agreeableness was included. Adding overall agreeableness as a predictor variable in the model is not associated with a statistically significant increa se in R 2 R 2 = .0 3 F (1,50)= 1.39 p = .25 ). Overall agreeableness is not a statistically significant predictor of idealized influence combined. Model level variance ( R 2 ), changes in R 2 between models, changes in F statistics, and significance of F statistic changes between models were calculated and are provided in Table 4 33 Model 1 explained 13 % of the variance in idealized

PAGE 103

103 influence combined The difference between Model 1 and Model 2 is not statistically significant. Model 2 accounted for 16 % of the variance in idealized influence combined Table 4 32 Multiple regression of idealized i nfluence c ombined on agreeableness and demographic c haracteristics Model 1 Model 2 Constant 5.14 5.94 Demographic Characteristics Gender 0.18 0.16 Age 0.03 0.04 Hispanic/Latino(a)/Chicano(a) 0.11 0.10 Asian or Pacific Islander 0.36 0.41* Black or African American 0.19 0.20 Other 0.11 0.07 Agreeableness 0.15 p < .05 Table 4 33 Hierarchical regression of idealized i nfluence c ombined on agreeableness and demographic c haracteristics Variable Entered R 2 R 2 Change F Change Sig. of Change Demographic Characteristics 0.13 0.13 1.30 0.28 Demographic Characteristics & Agreeableness 0.16 0.03 1.39 0.25 Idealized Influence Combined, Agreeableness Facets, and Demographic Characteristics Multiple regression analysis was completed to determine whether a predictive relationship existed between the facets of agreeableness and idealized influence combined Idealized infl uence combined was treated as the dependent variable. The facets of agreeableness were treated as the independent variables of interest; demographic characteristics were treated as control variables. Unstandardized regression coefficients in the form of v ariable level effects and statistical significance are provided in Table 4 34 In Model 1 idealized influence

PAGE 104

104 combined was regressed against the demographic control variables of age, gender, ethnicity and race. The omnibus model is statistically not signif icant ( R 2 = .13 F (6,51)= 1.30 p = 28 ). No demographic variables are statistically significant In Model 2 the facets of agreeableness were included. Adding the facets of agreeableness as predictor variables in the model is associated with a statistically significant increase in R 2 ( R 2 = .2 4 F (6,45)= 2.87 p = .0 2 ). Modesty is a statistically signi ficant predictor of idealized influence combined at an alpha level of .001. Model level variance ( R 2 ), changes in R 2 between models, changes in F statistics, and significance of F statistic changes between models were calculated and are provided in Table 4 35 Model 1 explained 13 % of the variance in idealized influence combined The difference between Model 1 and Model 2 is statistically significant. Model 2 accounted for 37 % of the variance in idealized influence combined Table 4 34. Multiple regression of idealized influence combined on agreeableness facets and demographic c haracteristics Model 1 Model 2 Constant 5.14 5.36 Demographic Characteristics Gender 0.18 0.11 Age 0.03 0.03 Hispanic/Latino(a)/Chicano(a) 0.11 0.08 Asian or Pacific Islander 0.36 0.33 Black or African American 0.19 0.08 Other 0.11 0.17 Agreeableness Facets Trust 0.07 Straightforwardness 0.04 Altruism 0.14 Compliance 0.11 Modesty 0.26*** Tender mindedness 0.02 *** p < .001

PAGE 105

105 Table 4 35. Hierarchical regression of idealized influence combined on agreeableness facets and demographic c haracteristics Variable Entered R 2 R 2 Change F Change Sig. of Change Demographic Characteristics 0.13 0.13 1.30 0.28 Demographic Characteristics & Agreeableness Facets 0.37 0.24 2.87 0. 02 Inspirational Motivation, Agreeableness, and Demographic Characteristics Multiple regression analysis was completed to determine whether a predictive relationship existed between overall agreeableness and inspirational motivation Inspirational motivation was treated as the dependent variable. Overall agreeableness was treated as the independent variable of interest; demographic characteristics were treated as control variables. Unstandardized regression coefficients in the form of variable level effects and statistical significance are provided in Table 4 36 In Model 1 inspir ational motivation was regressed against the demographic control variables of age, gender, ethnicity and race. The omnibus model is not statistically significant ( R 2 = .13 F (6,51)= 1.23 p = .31 ). No demographic variable s are statistically significant In Model 2 overall agreeableness was included. Adding overall agreeableness as a predictor variable in the model is not associated with a statistically significant increase in R 2 R 2 = .01 F (1,50)= 0.6 3 p = .43 ). Overall agreeableness is not a statisticall y significant predictor of inspirational motivation. Model level variance ( R 2 ), changes in R 2 between models, changes in F statistics, and significance of F statistic changes between models were calculated and are provided in Table 4 37 Model 1 explained 1 3 % of the variance in inspirational

PAGE 106

106 motivation The difference between Model 1 and Model 2 is not statistically significant. Model 2 accounted for 14 % of the variance in inspirational motivation Table 4 36 Multiple r egression of inspirational m otivatio n on agreeableness and d e mographic c haracteristics Model 1 Model 2 Constant 4.97 4.34 Demographic Characteristics Gender 0.10 0.08 Age 0.04 0.03 Hispanic/Latino(a)/Chicano(a) 0.14 0.15 Asian or Pacific Islander 0.20 0.16 Black or African American 0.33 0.32 Other 0.25 0.21 Agreeableness 0.12 Table 4 37 Hierarchical r egression of inspirational m otivation on agreeableness and demographic c haracteristics Variable Entered R 2 R 2 Change F Change Sig. of Change Demographic Characteristics 0.13 0.13 1.23 0.31 Demographic Characteristics & Agreeableness 0.14 0.01 0.63 0.43 Inspirational Motivation, Agreeableness Facets, and Demographic Characteristics Multiple regression analysis was completed to determine whether a predictive relationship existed between the facets of agreeableness and inspirational motivation Inspirational motivation was treated as the dependent variable. The facets of agreeableness were treated as the independent variables of interest; demographic characteristics were treated as control variables. Unstandardized regression coefficients in the form of variable level effects and statistical signif icance are provided in Table 4 38 In Model 1 inspirational motivation

PAGE 107

107 was regressed against the demographic control variables of age, gender, ethnicity and race. The omnibus model is not statistically significant ( R 2 = .13 F (6,51)= 1.23 p = 31 ). No demographic variables are statistically si gnificant. In Model 2 the facets of agreeableness were included. Adding the facets of agreeableness as predictor variables in the model is not associated with a statistically significant increase in R 2 ( R 2 = .13 F (6,45)= 1.36 p = 25 ). No facets of agreeableness are statistically significant. Model level variance ( R 2 ), changes in R 2 between models, changes in F statistics, and significance of F statistic changes between models were calculated and are provided in Table 4 39 Model 1 explained 13 % of the variance in inspirational motivation The difference between Model 1 and Model 2 is not statistically significant. Model 2 accounted for 26 % of the variance in inspirational motivation Table 4 38. Multiple regression of ins pirational motivation on agreeableness facets and demographic c haracteristics Model 1 Model 2 Constant 4.97 4.46 Demographic Characteristics Gender 0.10 0.09 Age 0.04 0.02 Hispanic/Latino(a)/Chicano(a) 0.14 0.20 Asian or Pacific Islander 0.20 0.19 Black or African American 0.33 0.14 Other 0.25 0.25 Agreeableness Facets Trust 0.03 Straightforwardness 0.12 Altruism 0.07 Compliance 0.19 Modesty 0.13 Tender mindedness 0.10

PAGE 108

108 Table 4 39. Hierarchical regression of inspirational motivation on agreeableness facets and demographic c haracteristics Variable Entered R 2 R 2 Change F Change Sig. of Change Demographic Characteristics 0.1 3 0.1 3 1.23 0.31 Demographic Characteristics & Agreeableness Facets 0.26 0.13 1.36 0.25 Intellectual Stimulation, Agreeableness, and Demographic Characteristics Multiple regression analysis was completed to determine whether a predictive relationship existed between overall agreeableness and intellectual stimulati on Intellectual stimulation was treated as the dependent variable. Overall agreeableness was treated as the independent variable of interest; demographic characteristics were treated as control variables. Unstandardized regression coefficients in the for m of variable level effects and statistical significance are provided in Table 4 40 In Model 1 intellectual stimulation was regressed against the demographic control variables of age, gender, ethnicity and race. The omnibus model is not statistically sign ificant ( R 2 = .06 F (6,51)= 0 .54 p = .7 7 No demographic variables are statistically significant In Model 2 overall agreeableness was included. Adding overall agreeableness as a predictor variable in the model is not associated with a statistically significant increase in R 2 R 2 = .04 F (1,50)= 1.94 p = .17 ). Overall agreeableness is not a statist ically significant predictor of intellectual stimulation Model level variance ( R 2 ), changes in R 2 between models, changes in F statistics, and significance of F statistic changes between models were calculated and are provided in Table 4 41 Model 1 explained 6 % of the variance in intellectual

PAGE 109

109 stimulation The difference between Model 1 and Model 2 is not statistically significant. Model 2 accounted for 1 0 % of the variance in intellectual stimulation Table 4 4 0 Multiple r egression of intellectual s timulation on agreeableness and demographic c haracteristics Model 1 Model 2 Constant 5.15 3.74 Demographic Characteristics Gender 0.17 0.14 Age 0.07 0.04 Hispanic/Latino(a)/Chicano(a) 0.01 0.03 Asian or Pacific Islander 0.15 0.06 Black or African American 0.10 0.12 Other 0.15 0.23 Agreeableness 0.26 Table 4 4 1 Hierarchical r egression of intellectual s timulation on agreeableness and demographic c haracteristics Variable Entered R 2 R 2 Change F Change Sig. of Change Demographic Characteristics 0.06 0.06 0.54 0.77 Demographic Characteristics & Agreeableness 0.10 0.04 1.94 0.17 Intellectual Stimulation, Agreeableness Facets, and Demographic Characteristics Multiple regression analysis was completed to determine whether a predictive relationship existed between the facets of agreeableness and intellectual stimulation Intellectual stimulation was treated as the dependent variable. The facets of agreeableness were treated as the independent variables of interest; demographic characteristics were treated as control variables. Unstandardized regression coefficients in the form of variable level effects and statistical signif icance are provided in Table 4 42 In Model 1 intellectual stimulation was

PAGE 110

110 regressed against the demographic control variables of age, gender, ethnicity and race. The omnibus model is not statistically significant ( R 2 = .06 F (6,51)= 0.54 p = 7 7 ). No demographic variables are statistically significant. In Model 2 the facets of agreeableness were included. Adding the facets of agreeableness as predictor variables in the model is not associated with a statistically significant increase in R 2 ( R 2 = .1 5 F (6,45)= 1.45 p = 22 ). Tender mindedness is a statistically significant predictor of intellectual stimulation at an alpha level of .0 1. Model level variance ( R 2 ), changes in R 2 between models, changes in F statistics, and significance of F statistic changes between models were calculated and are provided in Table 4 43 Model 1 explained 6 % of the variance in intellectual stimulation The difference between Model 1 and Model 2 is not statistically significant. Model 2 accounted for 21 % of the variance in intellectual stimulation Table 4 42. Multiple regression of intellectual stimulation on a greeabl eness facets and demographic c haracteristics Model 1 Model 2 Constant 5.15 4.41 Demographic Characteristics Gender 0.17 0.18 Age 0.07 0.05 Hispanic/Latino(a)/Chicano(a) 0.01 0.01 Asian or Pacific Islander 0.15 0.03 Black or African American 0.10 0.35 Other 0.15 0.00 Agreeableness Facets Trust 0.02 Straightforwardness 0.19 Altruism 0.04 Compliance 0.03 Modesty 0.03 Tender mindedness 0.35 ** ** p < .01

PAGE 111

111 Table 4 43. Hierarchical regression of intellectual stimulation on agreeableness facets and demographic c haracteristics Variable Entered R 2 R 2 Change F Change Sig. of Change Demographic Characteristics 0.06 0.06 0.54 0.77 Demographic Characteristics & Agreeableness Facets 0.21 0.15 1.45 0.22 Individualized Consideration, Agreeableness, and Demographic Characteristics Multiple regression analysis was completed to determine whether a predictive relationship existed between overall agreeableness and individualized consideration Individualized consideration was treated as the dependent variable. Overall agreeableness was treated as the independent variable of interest; demographic characteristics were treated as control variables. Unstandardized regression coefficients in the form of variable level effects and statistical significance are provided in Table 4 44 In Model 1 individualized consideration was regressed against the demographic control variables of age, gender, ethnicity and race. The omnibus model is not statistically significant ( R 2 = .09 F (6,51)= 0.80 p = .58 ). No demographic variables are statistically sign ificant. In Model 2 overall agreeableness was included. Adding overall agreeableness as a predictor variable in the model is associated with a statistically significant increase in R 2 R 2 = .14 F (1,50)= 8.75 p = .01 ). Overall agreeableness is a statistically significant predictor of individualized consideration at an alpha level of .01. Model level variance ( R 2 ), changes in R 2 between models, changes in F statistics, and significance of F statistic changes between models were calculated and are provided in Table 4 45 Model 1 explained 9 % of the variance in individualized

PAGE 112

112 consideration The difference between Model 1 and Model 2 is statistically significant. Model 2 accounted for 22 % of th e variance in individualized consideration Table 4 44 Multiple regression of individualized consideration on agreeableness and demographic c haracteristics Model 1 Model 2 Constant 5.50 3.27 Demographic Characteristics Gender 0.12 0.17 Age 0.05 0.02 Hispanic/Latino(a)/Chicano(a) 0.23 0.27 Asian or Pacific Islander 0.22 0.08 Black or African American 0.11 0.07 Other 0.21 0.09 Agreeableness 0.41** * p < .01 Table 4 45 Hierarchical regression of individualized consideration on agreeableness and demographic c haracteristics Variable Entered R 2 R 2 Change F Change Sig. of Change Demographic Characteristics 0.09 0.09 0.80 0.58 Demographic Characteristics & Agreeableness 0.22 0.14 8.75 0.01 Individualized Consideration, Agreeableness Facets, and Demographic Characteristics Multiple regression analysis was completed to determine whether a predictive relationship existed between the facets of agreeableness and individualized consideration Indi vidualized consideration was treated as the dependent variable. The facets of agreeableness were treated as the independent variables of interest; demographic characteristics were treated as control variables.

PAGE 113

113 Unstandardized regression coefficients in the form of variable level effects and statistical significance are provided in Table 4 4 6. In Model 1 individualized consideration was regressed against the demographic control variables of age, gender, ethnicity and race. The omnibus model is not statistica lly significant ( R 2 = .09 F (6,51)= 0.80 p = 58 ). No demographic variables are statistically significant. In Model 2 the facets of agreeableness were included. Adding the facets of agreeableness as predictor variables in the model is associated with a statistically significant increase in R 2 ( R 2 = .29 F (6,45)= 3.54 p = .0 1 ). No facets of agreeableness are statistically significant. Model level variance ( R 2 ), changes in R 2 between models, changes in F statistics, and significance of F statistic changes between models were calculated and are provided in Table 4 4 7. Model 1 explained 9 % of the variance in individualized consideration The difference between Model 1 and Model 2 is statistically significant. Model 2 accounted for 38 % of the variance in individualized consideration Table 4 46. Multiple regression of individualized consideration on a greeabl eness facets and demographic c haracteristics Model 1 Model 2 Constant 5.50 2.65 Demographic Characteristics Gender 0.12 0.05 Age 0.05 0.02 Hispanic/Latino(a)/Chicano(a) 0.23 0.17 Asian or Pacific Islander 0.22 0.02 Black or African American 0.11 0.01 Other 0.21 0.01 Agreeableness Facets Trust 0.14 Straightforwardness 0.17 Altruism 0.15 Compliance 0.04 Modesty 0.16*

PAGE 114

114 Table 4 46. Continued Tender mindedness 0.10 p < .05 Table 4 47. Hierarchical r egression of individualized consideration on agreeableness facets and demographic c haracteristics Variable Entered R 2 R 2 Change F Change Sig. of Change Demographic Characteristics 0.09 0.09 0.80 0 .58 Demographic Characteristics & Agreeableness Facets 0.38 0.29 3.54 0.01 Charisma, Agreeableness, and Demographic Characteristics Multiple regression analysis was completed to determine whether a predictive relationship existed between overall agreeableness and charisma Charisma was treated as the dependent variable. Overall agreeableness was treated as the independent variable of interest; demographic characteristics were treated as control variables. Unstandardized regression coefficients in the form of variable level effects a nd statistical significance are provided in Table 4 4 8. In Model 1 charisma was regressed against the demographic control variables of age, gender, ethnicity and race. The omnibus model is not statistically significant ( R 2 = .1 1 F (6,51)= 1.06 p = .40 ). No demographic variables are statistically significant. In Model 2 overall agreeableness was included. Adding overall agreeableness as a predictor variable in the model is not associated with a statistically significant increase in R 2 R 2 = .01 F (1,50)= 0. 2 4 p = .63 ). Overall agreeableness is not a statistically significant predictor of charisma. Model level variance ( R 2 ), changes in R 2 between models, changes in F statistics, and significance of F statistic changes between models were calculated and

PAGE 115

115 are provided in Table 4 4 9. Model 1 explained 1 1 % of the variance in charisma The difference between Model 1 and Model 2 is not statistically significant. Model 2 accounted for 1 2 % of the variance in charisma Tab le 4 48 Multiple regression of charisma on agreeableness and demographic c haracteristics Model 1 Model 2 Constant 5.08 5.40 Demographic Characteristics Gender 0.09 0.08 Age 0.03 0.04 Hispanic/Latino(a)/Chicano(a) 0.12 0.11 Asian or Pacific Islander 0.31 0.33 Black or African American 0.23 0.24 Other 0.01 0.03 Agreeableness 0.06 Table 4 49 Hierarchical regression of charisma on agreeableness and demographic c haracteristics Variable Entered R 2 R 2 Change F Change Sig. of Change Demographic Characteristics 0.11 0.11 1.06 0.40 Demographic Characteristics & Agreeableness 0.12 0.01 0.24 0.63 Cha risma, Agreeableness Facets, and Demographic Characteristics Multiple regression analysis was completed to determine whether a predictive relationship existed between the facets of agreeableness and charisma Charisma was treated as the dependent variable. The facets of agreeableness were treated as the independent variables of interest; demographic characteristics were treated as control variables.

PAGE 116

116 Unstandardized regression coefficients in the form of variable level effects and statistical signif icance are provided in Table 4 50 In Model 1 charisma was regressed a gainst the demographic control variables of age, gender, ethnicity and race. The omnibus model is not statistically significant ( R 2 = .11 F (6,51)= 1.06 p = 40 ). No demographic variables are statistically significant. In Model 2 the facets of agreeableness were included. Adding the facets of agreeableness as predictor variables in the model is associated with a statistically significant increase in R 2 ( R 2 = .21 F (6,45)= 2.31 p = .0 5 ). Modesty is a statistically signi ficant predictor of charisma at an alpha level of .0 0 1. Model level variance ( R 2 ), changes in R 2 between models, changes in F statistics, and significance of F statistic changes between models were calculated and are provided in Table 4 51 Model 1 explained 11 % of the variance in charisma The difference between Model 1 and Model 2 is statistically significant. Model 2 accounted for 21 % of the variance in charisma Table 4 50 Multiple r egression of charisma on agreeableness facets and demographic c haracteristics Model 1 Model 2 Constant 5.08 5.06 Demographic Characteristics Gender 0.09 0.04 Age 0.03 0.03 Hispanic/Latino(a)/Chicano(a) 0.12 0.12 Asian or Pacific Islander 0.31 0.28 Black or African American 0.23 0.10 Other 0.01 0.03 Agreeableness Facets Trust 0.04 Straightforwardness 0.06 Altruism 0.07 Compliance 0.13

PAGE 117

117 Table 4 50. Continued Modesty 0.22*** Tender mindedness 0.02 ** p < .0 0 1 Table 4 51 Hierarchical regression of charisma on agreeableness facets and demographic c haracteristics Variable Entered R 2 R 2 Change F Change Sig. of Change Demographic Characteristics 0.11 0.11 1.06 0.40 Demographic Characteristics & Agreeableness Facets 0. 32 0.21 2.31 0.05 Synopsis Chapter 4 presented the results of the study. The results were organized according to the study objectives: 1. Describe the levels of agreeableness in undergraduate leadership students. 2. Describe the levels of transformational leadership in undergraduate leadership students. 3. Identify the relationship between individual demographic characteristics and agreeableness. 4. Identify the relationship between individual demographic characteristics and transformational leadership. 5. Identify the relationsh ip between agreeableness and transformational leadership in undergraduate leadership students. 6. Identify how agreeableness predicts transformational leadership in undergraduate leadership students Results obtained were subsequently summarized and discussed based on practical and empirical significance.

PAGE 118

118 CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS The purpose of this descriptive correlational quantitative study was to examine the relationship between the personality trait of agreeableness an d transformational leadership in undergraduate leadership students. The following research objectives were addressed: 1. Describe the levels of agreeableness in undergraduate leadership students. 2. Describe the levels of transformational leadership in undergra duate leadership students. 3. Identify the relationship between individual demographic characteristics and agreeableness. 4. Identify the relationship between individual demographic characteristics and transformational leadership. 5. Identify the relationship betwe en agreeableness and transformational leadership in undergraduate leadership students. 6. Identify how agreeableness predicts transformational leadership in undergraduate leadership students The problem addressed by this study was the proliferation of bad, s elf oriented leadership within organizations. As an alternative, the development of other oriented, or transformational leaders was proposed. To assist in the development of transformational leaders, an investigation into the nature of the relationship bet ween the personality trait of agreeableness and transformational leadership was undertaken. This course of action was proposed due to a lack of knowledge around the relationship between agreeableness and transformational leadership characteristics. A conv enience sample of 65 undergraduate leadership students was used in the study. The study participants provided a number of demographic vari ables. The study included 22 (36.7 %) males and 36 (60%) females and ranged in age from 18 to 24.

PAGE 119

119 Participants were gro uped into three a ge categories: there were 13 (21.7 %) individuals age 18 to 19, 35 (58 .3 %) individuals age 20 to 21, and 11 (18 .3 %) individuals age 22 to 24. Nine (15 .0 %) respondents indicated a Hispanic/Lati no(a)/Chicano(a) ethnicity, 51 (85.0%) responden ts indicated they did not consider themselves of Hispanic/Latino(a)/Chicano(a) ethnicity. Forty six (75 .4 %) respondents indicated a Wh ite racial background, seven (11.5 %) respondents indicated a Black or African Ame rican racial background, four (6.6 %) resp ondents indicated an Asian or Pacific Islander racial background, an d four (6.6 %) respondents indicated an Other racial background. Chapter 5 presents a summary of the study findings based on study objective s conclusions, discussions and implications, and recommendations Synopsis of Findings Objective 1 : Describe the Levels of Agreeableness in Undergraduate Leadership Students The intent of objective one was to describe the level of agreeableness in undergraduate leadership students. At the overall trait level the sample had a mean agreeableness score of 3.84 ( out of a maximum of five on a five point Likert type scale) with a standard deviation of .44. Participants scored highest on the altruism facet of agreeableness ( M = 4.32, SD = .51) Straightforward ness was the second highest scored facet of agreeableness ( M = 4.26, SD = .61), followed by compliance ( M = 4.22, SD = .80), tender mindedness ( M = 4.83, SD = .77), and trust ( M = 3.52, SD = .74). Participants scored lowest on the modesty facet of agreeabl eness ( M = 2.90, SD = .76)

PAGE 120

120 Objective 2 : Describe the Levels of Transformational Leadership in Undergraduate Leadership Students The intent of objective two was to describe the level of transformational leadership in undergraduate leadership students. At t he overall transformational leadership level the sample had a mean transformational leadership score of 3.26 (out of a maximum of four) with a standard deviation of .33. Participants scored highest on the inspirational motivation factor of transformational leadership ( M = 3.39 SD = .47 ). Idealized influence behavior was the second highest scored factor of transformational leadership ( M = 3.36, SD = .47), followed by idealized influence attributed ( M = 3.26 SD = .46 ) and individualized consideration ( M = 3.21, SD = .44). Participants scored lowest on the intellectual stimulation factor of transformational leadership ( M = 3.08 SD = .55 ). Objective 3 : Identify the Relationship Between Individual Demographic Characteristics and Agreeableness The intent of objective three was to identify the relationship between individual demographic characteristics and agreeableness. Demographic variables were collected to establish whether subsequently observed interactions between agreeableness and transfor mational leadership might be attributable to demographic controls, rather than personality variables. The intent of demographic data collection and analysis was not to identify whether individual demographic characteristics were predisposed to levels of a greeableness or transformational leadership. The literature is clear that individuals from all demographic categories are capable of personifying a full range of agreeableness (Costa et al., 2001) and leadership (Stogdill, 1948) characteristics. Neverthele ss, the literature also indicates that differences between groups are expected

PAGE 121

121 ( e.g. Bass & Riggio, 2006; Costa et al., 2001 ; McCrae et al., 2005 ) Demographic variable analysis is included for thoroughness, but should not be misinterpreted to be generaliz able beyond the scope of the sample studied. The first relationship analyzed was that of agreeableness and gender. Results indicated that females ( M = 3.92, SD = .44) scored higher than males ( M = 3.76, SD = .43) in overall agreeableness. T he difference in overall agreeableness between males and females was not statistically significant. At the facet level there were also differences between genders, m ales scored highest in altruism ( M = 4.38, SD = .38) f emales scored highest in compliance ( M = 4.43, SD = 58). Both genders scored lowest in modesty Compliance was the only facet where the difference between genders was statistically significant. The second relationship analyzed was that of agreeableness and age. Respondents in the 18 to 19 years ( M = 4.09, SD = .36) scored highest in overall agreeableness, followed by respondents in the 22 to 24 years category ( M = 3.81, SD = .24). Respondents in the 20 to 21 years category ( M = 3.76, SD = .50) scored lowest in overall agreeableness. There were no statistically significant differences between the three age groups. Nonetheless, respondents in the 18 to 19 years category scored higher on all agreeableness items than did either of the other tw o age categories. The final relationship analyzed was that of agreeableness and race/ethnicity. Based on previous findings culture has been found to be an antecedent of personality perceived membership in pop ulation germane. Respondent ethnicity was defined as either Hispanic/Latino(a)/Chicano(a) or

PAGE 122

122 not. Respondents that considered themselves to be Hispanic/Latino(a)/Chicano(a) ( M = 3.78, SD = .56) scored lower in overall agreeableness than those that did not ( M = 3.85, SD = .42). However, the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant. Next respondent race was analyzed. Respondents that identified thems elves as White ( M = 3.89 SD = .41 ) scored highest in agreeableness, respondents that identified themselves as Black or African American ( M = 3.88 SD = .43 ) followed N ext were respondents that identified themselves as Asian or Pacific Islander ( M = 3.57 SD = .28 ) with respondents that identified themselves as Other ( M = 3.53 SD = .66 ) scor ing lowest in agreeableness. However, there were no statistically significant relationships between any of the race categories and levels of agreeableness. The very l imited nature of the study is extremely pertinent when interpreting race/ethnicity results, the lack of statistical significance is most critical to acknowledge. Based on this result, differences between groups at the overall agreeableness level were not g eneralized or interpreted. Objective 4 : Identify the Relationship Between Individual Demographic Characteristics and Transformational Leadership The intent of objective four was to identify the relationship between individual demographic characteristics and transformational leadership The first relationship analyzed was that of transformational leadership and gender. Results indicated that females ( M = 3.27 SD = .3 4) scored slightly higher than males ( M = 3.26 SD = .31 ) in overall transformational lead ership At the factor level there were also differences between genders M ales scored highest in idealized influence attributed ( M = 3.41 SD = .33 ) and females scored highest in inspirational motivation ( M = 3.48 SD = .42 ). Both

PAGE 123

123 genders scored lowest i n intellectual stimulation Idealized influence attributed was the only factor where the difference between genders was statistically significant. The second relationship analyzed was that of transformational leadership and age. Respondents in the 18 to 19 years ( M = 3.35 SD = .41 ) scored highest in overall transformational leadership followed by respondents in the 22 to 24 years category ( M = 3.30 SD = .26 ). Respondents in the 20 to 21 years category ( M = 3.22 SD = .31 ) scored lowest in overall transformational leadership There were no statistically significant differences between the three age groups. The final relationship analyzed was that of transformational leadership and race/ethnicity. Respondent ethnicity was defined as either Hispanic/ Latino(a)/Chicano(a) or not. Respondents that considered themselves to be Hispanic/Latino(a)/Chicano(a) ( M = 3.38 SD = .31 ) scored higher in overall transformational leadership than those that did not ( M = 3.24 SD = .33 ) but the difference between the tw o groups was not statistically significant. Next respondent race was analyzed. Respondents that identified themselves as Black or African American ( M = 3.34 SD = .30 ) scored highest in overall transformational leadership respondents that identified the mselves as Other ( M = 3.31 SD = .40 ) followed N ext were respondents that identified themselves as White ( M = 3.29 SD = .30 ) with respondents identi fying themselves as Asian or Pacific Islander ( M = 3.01 SD = .29 ) scoring lowest in overall transformat ional leadership T here were no statistically significant relationships between any of the race categories and levels of overall transformational leadership

PAGE 124

124 L ack of statistical significance in interpreting race/ethnicity results is critical to acknowledge. D ifferences between groups should not be generalized or interpreted. Although there was a statistically significant relationship between the race category of Asian or Pacific Islander and the transformational leadership factor o f idealized influence behavior extreme caution was exercised in interpreting the result The small number of respondents in race categories limited the interpretability of the correlations. Objective 5 : Identify the Relationship Between Agreeableness a nd Transformational Leadership in Undergraduate Leadership Students The intent of objective five was to identify the relationship between agreeableness and transformational leadership in undergraduate leadership students Overall transformational leadershi p had a positive low correlation ( r = .19) with overall agreeableness When examined at the facet level transformational leadership had the strongest relationship with tender mindedness ( r = .36) and modesty ( r = .28). Idealized influence was analyzed at the attributed, behavior, and combined level. In general the three idealized influence items had consistent relationships with agreeableness items as it relates to magnitude and directionality. Idealized influence items had the strongest relationship to m odesty where negative moderate correlations ( r = .48 to r = .31 ) were observed. Idealized influence had positive low relationships with altruism and tender mindedness. Idealized influence had negative negligible relationships with trust. Both positive an d negative relationships were observed with overall agreeableness, trust, and compliance. Inspirational motivation had the strongest relationship to compliance ( r = .36 ) Inspirational motivation had positive negligible and low relationships with overall

PAGE 125

125 agreeableness, trust, straightforwardness, altruism, and tender mindedness. Inspirational motivation had negative low relationship with modesty. Intellectual stimulation had the strongest relationship to tender mindedness ( r = .35 ) Intellectual stimulati on had positive negligible and low relationships with all other agreeableness items: overall agreeableness, trust, straightforwardness, altruism, compliance and modesty. Individualized consideration had the greatest quantity of moderate positive and statis tically significant relationships with agreeableness items. Individualized consideration had the strongest relationship to tender mindedness ( r = .41 ) Additional moderate positive correlations were observed with overall agreeableness ( r = .39 ) trust ( r = .38 ) straightforwardness ( r = .36 ) and altruism ( r = .33 ) Individualized consideration had a positive low relationship with compliance and a negative low relationship with modesty. The compound factor of charisma had the strongest relationship to modesty ( r = .40 ) Charisma had positive negligible and low relationships with overall agreeableness, trust, altruism, compliance and tender mindedness. Charisma had a negative negligible r elationship with straightforwardness. Objective 6 : Identify h ow Agreeableness Predicts Transformational Leadership in Undergraduate Leadership Students The intent of objective six was to identify how agreeableness predicts transformation leadership in und ergraduate leadership students. For overall transformational leadership, as well as each factor of transformational leadership, a total of four regression models were run. In the first set of models demographic variables were controlled for Agreeableness (overall or facets) was added in the second model to

PAGE 126

126 determine incremental predictive capacity of agreeableness beyond demographic variables Models predicting overall transformational leadership ranged in predictive capacity from R 2 = .1 0 to R 2 = .30 When o verall agreeableness was added it was not found to be a significant predictor of transformational leadership. When the agreeableness facets were included m odesty had a statistically sig nificant negative effect ( .16 ). None of the omnibus models were statistically significant. Models predicting idealized influence attributed ranged in predictive capacity from R 2 = .22 to R 2 = .41 The demographic variable s of gender and ethnicity were found to be statistically significant. When overall agreeableness was added it was not found to be a significant predictor of idealized influence attributed. When the agreeableness facets were included, m odesty had a statistically s ignificant negative effect ( .28 ). The omnibus models including only demographic variable s, as well as agreeableness facets when controlling for demographic variables were statistically significant. Models predicting idealized influence behavior ranged in predictive capacity from R 2 = .14 to R 2 = .30 When overall agreeableness was added it was not found to be a significant predictor of idealized influence behavior When the agreeableness facets were included, m odesty had a statistically sig nificant negative effect ( .24 ). None of the omnibus models w ere statistically significant. Models predicting idealized influence combined ranged in predictive capacity from R 2 = .13 to R 2 = .37 None of the demographic variables were found to be statistically significant. When overall agreeableness was added it w as not found to be a significant predictor of idealized influence combined When the agree ableness facets

PAGE 127

127 were included, m odesty had a statistically sig nificant negative effect ( .26 ). T he omnibus model including agreeableness facets when controlling for d emographic variables was statistically significant. Models predicting inspirational motivation ranged in predictive capacity from R 2 = .13 to R 2 = .26 None of the demographic variables were found to be statistically significant. When overall agreeableness was added it was not found to be a significant predictor of inspirational motivation When the agreeableness facets were included none were found to be statistically significant. None of the omnibus models were statistically significant. Models predicting intellectual stimulation ranged in predictive capacity from R 2 = .06 to R 2 = .21 When overall agreeableness was added it was not found to be a significant predictor of intellectual stimulation When the agreeableness facets were included, tender mindedness had a statistically sig nificant positive effect (.35 ). None of the omnibus models were statistically significant. Models predicting individualized consideration ranged in predictive capacity from R 2 = .09 to R 2 = .38 When overall agreea bleness was added it was found to have a positive statistically significant effect on i ndividualized consideration (.41). When the agreeableness facets were included modesty was found to have a statistically significant negative effect ( .16) The omnibus models including overall agreeableness controlling for demographic variables, as well as agreeableness facets when controlling for demographic variables were statistically significant. Models predicting charisma ranged in predictive capacity from R 2 = .11 to R 2 = .32 When overall agreeableness was added it was not found to be a significant

PAGE 128

128 predictor of charisma When the agreeableness facets were included, m odesty had a statistically s ignificant negative effect ( .22 ). T he omnibus model including agreeable ness facets when controlling for demographic variables was statistically significant. Conclusions Based on the results of the study a number of conclusions were made. There were more females than males in the undergraduate leadership course studied. The highest number of respondents were in the 20 to 21 years category. T he majority of respondents indic ated they considered their race to be White. Overall respondents scored highest in altruism and lowest in modesty. Although there were differences in mean scores between gender, age, and agreeableness differences were not statistically significant. Agree ableness facet rankings from highest to lowest were somewhat similar to those found by Terracciano, McCrae, Brant, and Costa (2005). In their study Terracciano et al. (2005) found trust rated highest, followed by altruism, straightforwardness, compliance, tender mindedness, and modesty. The primary difference being Terracciano et al. (2005) found trust to be rated highest, whereas in the present study trust was found to be ranked second lowest. Mean levels of agreeableness were mea sured between males and f emales. Females had higher levels of agreeableness than did their male counterparts. These findings were consistent with those of Costa et al. (2001). Additionally, mean levels of agreeableness were measured between age groups. Study findings are inconsist ent with previous research that found that levels of agreeableness tend to increase with age (Ryan, 2009; McCrae et al., 1999). A possible explanation for the inconsistent finding is the small difference between age categories. With a minimum age of 18 and a

PAGE 129

129 maximum age of 24 perhaps there was an insufficient range of ages and developmental stages represented to identify statistically significant differences. Furthermore, it is plausible that the previous findings are more attributable to generational diffe rences as opposed to ages. There were statistically significant differences between race categories and agreeableness; however, these differences were not interpreted, as the number of respondents in the majority of categories was very low. Transformation al leadership factor rankings from highest to lowest were identical with those found by Judge and Bono (2000). However, Judge and Bono (2000) obtained lower overall mean values for each of the factors of transformational leadership, values ranged from M = 3.03 to M = 2.63. An interesting distinction between the studies is that Judge and Bono (2000) ratings of transformational leadership were provided by subordinates rather than by self report. Respondents scored highest in the inspirational motivation fact or of transformational leadership and lowest in intellectual stimulation. The only statistically significant difference between males and females was idealized influence attributed where males had a higher mean score than females. Overall, females scored slightly higher in transformational leadership than did males. This finding is consistent with Bass However, in this study the difference in transformational leadership between males and females was extremely small and not s tatistically significant. Results from this study were inconclusive as to whether transformational leadership decreased with age as Zacher, Rosing, and Frese (2011) found. The youngest group had the highest transformational leadership score which is consis tent with previous studies. However, the oldest group did not have the lowest

PAGE 130

130 transformational leadership score. The small difference between age categories may account for the inconsistent findings. Additionally, it is plausible that the previous findings are more attributable to generational differences as opposed to age differences. Previously context has been found to predict levels of transformational leadership more than culture (e.g. Ayman & Korabik, 2010). However, transformational leadership has be en related to cultural predisposition (Ergeneli et al., 2007). This study found no statistically significant differences between race or ethnic groups. Of the agreeableness items tender mindedness had the strongest statistically significant correlation w ith transformational leadership overall. Modesty also had a statistically significant relationship in the negative direction. The two facets of modesty and tender mindedness has the greatest number of statistically significant negative and positive correla tions accordingly. Modesty had moderate negative correlations with idealized influence attributed, idealized influence behavior, idealized influence combined, and charisma. Tender mindedness had moderate positive correlations with individualized consid eration, intellectual stimulation, and inspirational motivation. The strength, directionality, and statistical significance of this findings is noteworthy as it indicates the amount of variance that is shared between the variables. Based on the inverse rel ationship it would appear that modesty is strongly related to idealized influence, and that as modesty increased idealized influence decreases. The factor of individualized consideration had the greatest number of statistically significant correlations wit h agreeableness items. Trust, straightforwardness, altruism, and tender mindedness all had moderate positive correlations with individualized

PAGE 131

131 consideration at the facet level. Agreeableness overall also had a moderate positive correlation to individualized consideration. The agreeableness facet of compliance had a statistically significant moderate positive correlation with inspirational motivation. The compliance facet did not have a statist ically significant relationship with any other transformational le adership items. Regression analysis illuminated the predictive nature of agreeableness items relative to transformational leadership. Overall agreeableness was not found to be a statistically significant predicator of transformational leadership. This was consistent with the factors of transformational leadership, with the exception of individualized consideration. Overall agreeableness was a statistically significant predictor of individualized consideration and acc ounted for 14 % of the change in individualized consideration when controlling for demographic variables Only the factor of idealized influence attributed was significantly predicted by demographic variables That model accounted for 22 % of the change in idealized influence attributed. The facets of agreeableness tended to be much more robust in predicting transformational leadership and transformational leadership factors. The regression model including agreeableness facets predicted an additional 20 % of the variance in transformational leadership when controlling for demographic variables In that model only modesty had a statistically significant negative effect on transformational leadership. The agreeableness facets model also accounted for an addi tional 19% of the variance in idealized influence attributed after controlling for demographic variables Again modesty had the only statistically significant negative effect. Agreeableness facets also account ed for an additional 24 % of the variance in i dealized

PAGE 132

132 influence combined after controlling for demographic variables Modesty was again the only facet with a statistically significant negative effect. The facets of agreeableness also predicted other factors of transformational leadership. Agreeableness facets accounted for an additional 29 % of the variance in individualized consideration after controlling for demographic variables Charisma, the compoun d variable comprised of idealized influen ce and inspirational motivation, was also predicted by agreeableness facets. The agreeableness facets model accounted for an additional 2 1 % of the variance after controlling for demographic variables Modesty was th e only facet that had a statistically significant negative effect on charisma. Discussions and Implications A significant limitation of the study is that the r esults are only attributable to the sample and not generalizable In addition, the lack of ethni c and racial diversity does not allow for interpretation additionally the limited age range makes interpretation of these results difficult as well. Therefore, all discussion and implications are only relevant to the single undergraduate class used in the study. One of the most challenging aspects to effective teaching and development work, regardless of audience or content area is to ensure the content is relevant and personally meaningful to the audience. The demographic characteristics collected in thi s study provide d insights into the composition and potential differences between the different respondents. For example, results of this study are consistent with previous empirical research as it relates to gender and agreeableness (Costa et al., 2001); on average females in the class had higher levels of agreeableness than males This would imply that b ecause females tend to score higher in agreeableness spending an inordinate amount of time on the topic might lack applicability t o the female audience. If

PAGE 133

133 agreeableness interventions are planned, a more effective approach may be to pair individuals based on agreeableness scores to have peer based discussions Individuals with higher scores may be able to provide practical examples t o individuals with lower agreeableness scores without feeling the banality of lecture based intervention that is not generally applicable to them. To expedite peer pairings the data would indicate that matching males and females at random should result in a satisfactory distribution of high agreeableness individuals paired with low agreeableness individuals. A similar approach might be applicable for the agreeableness facet of compliance. Females tended to have higher mean scores than males on this partic ular facet. This would imply that pairing males and females at random to improve level s of compliance may be sufficiently effective. A strategy of this nature would be more robust if there was statistical significance between the genders related to the fac et of interest. The difference in mean levels of transformational leadership between males and females was negligible Although the existing literature indicated that females tended to demonstrate transformational leadership more frequently (Bass & Riggio 2006) the results of this study were inconclusive. This finding is noteworthy and would imply that empirical findings can be instructive, but are not always applicable. The insignificant difference in overall transformational leadership between genders would suggest that females likely score higher on certain factors than do males and vice versa. The study findings are helpful to expose the differences between genders and to identify the significant antecedents that can then be exploited for maximum effe ctiveness. Additionally, the study findings imply that undergraduate students may require unique instructional approaches based on their differences from professional audiences.

PAGE 134

134 Based on study results it would not be advisable to randomly pair respondents based on gender if the intent was pairing an individual with a high transformational leadership score with an individual with a low transformational leadership score. However, the data would indicate that the transformational leadership factor of idealized influence attributed would be a good candidate for such random pairing. Males tended to score higher than females, and the difference between the genders for this factor is statistically significant. Study findings indicate l imited differences between a ge groups as it relates to agreeableness or transformational leadership. The youngest age group, those individuals 18 to 19 years old, scored highest in agreeableness and transformational leadership; however, those results were not statistically significan t. These findings may indicate that younger respondents have fewer legacy beliefs about leadership in general and are more open to transformational leadership concepts, similar to what was reported by Zacher, Rosing, and Frese (2011). However, the highest level of agreeableness in the youngest age group is inconsistent with previous findings that stated agreeableness tends to increase over time (Allemand et al., 2007) These results imply that agreeableness and transformational leadership interventions base d on respondent age are not suggested. Beyond the identification of respondent mean levels of agreeableness and transformational lea dership reported at the overall, gender, age, and race/ethnicity levels a number of significant correlations between agreea bleness and transformational leadership were identified. Based on the findings, transformational leadership has the strongest correlation with tender mindedness and modesty. However, the directionality

PAGE 135

135 of the relationship with the two facets is opposed. Th is finding would indicate that levels of transformational leadership increase as tender mindedness increases and as modesty decreases. These findings imply that the most critical agreeableness facets to focus on are modesty and tender mindedness. To increa se levels of transformational leadership individuals should avoid being too humble. Additionally, individuals should attempt to empathize with others. Individualized consideration had the highest number of statistically significant correlations with agree ableness items. Based on these findings one can surmise that of the factor of transformational leadership most closely associated with agreeableness is individualized consideration. This finding is consistent with the primary motivations of agreeableness, to be helpful, supportive, considerate, and honest (Driskell et al., 2006). A ctions are executed at the individual level and are intended to benefit another individual These results imply that focusing on agreeableness will have the largest impact on the individualized consideration factor of transformational leadership. Conversely, an effective way to improve levels of individualized consideration is to focus on agreeableness. From an agreeableness facet perspective modesty had several negative statistic ally significant correlations with transformational leadership. Upon closer inspection the significant correlations are all within the idealized influence area. All three categories of idealized influence (attributed, behavior, and combined) are negatively correlated with modesty. These findings imply that when an individual is too humble p otential followers no longer aspire to emulate them. The negative effects of too

PAGE 136

136 much modesty flow through to the composite factor of charisma (a combination of idealized influence and inspirational motivation) as well. The other agreeableness facet with several statistically significant correlations was tender mindedness. Unlike modesty, all tender mindedness correlations were in the positive direction. Inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration all have moderate positive correlations with tender mindedness. Because tender mindedness is significantly correlated with three of the four primary factors of transformational leadership it may be surmised that the tender mindedness facet is most closely associated with tr ansformational leadership. This finding would imply that concept of empathy (tender mindedness) is highly related to transformational leadership. When directionality and causation is modeled through regression analysis the nature of the relationship betwe en transformational leadership and agreeableness is greatly transformed. Additionally the concept of bandwidth fidelity is clearly evident based on observed results. Specifically, that narrow facets of agreeableness had more predictive power on narrow fac tors of transformation leadership than did the broader trait of overall agreeableness. None of the variance of overall transformational leadership was accounted for by overall agreeableness after controlling for demographic variables However, the facets o f agreeableness accounted for an additional 18 % of the variance of overall transformational leadership after controlling for demographic variables This finding implies that the most effective way to improve transformational leadership is by focusing on th e individual facets of agreeableness, not the overall trait of transformational leadership.

PAGE 137

137 Of the facets only modesty had a significant effect. This is noteworthy as it illuminates a risk associated with assuming causation due to correlation. Specificall y, tender mindedness had the strongest correlation with transformational leadership relative to all agreeableness items; however, based on regression analysis it is clear th at tender mindedness was not a statistically significant predictor of transformatio nal leadership. The implication for instruction is that the most time should be focused on modesty, and specifically avoiding too much modesty, to improve transformational leadership. The transformational leadership factor of idealized influence also had striking results. Overa ll agreeableness accounted for 3 % of the variance in idealized influence attributed after controlling for demographic variables The facets of agreeableness accounted for 19% of the variance in idealized influence attributed afte r controlling for demographic variables Modesty was the only facet with a significant effect. Idealized influence behavior had a similar result. Overall agreeableness accounted for 1 % of the variance after controlling for demographic variables agreeabl eness facets accounted for 1 6 % of the variance after controlling for demographic variables Again, modesty was the only facet with a significant effect. Idealized influence combined followed the same pattern. Overall agreeableness accounted for 3 % of the variance after controlling for demographic variables agree ableness facets accounted for 24 % of the variance after controlling for demographic variables Modesty was the only facet with a significant effect. These findings indicate that providing instruct ion on modesty will have the greatest impact on idealized influence.

PAGE 138

138 Not surprisingly the composite trait of charisma had a similar result. As a combination of idealized influence and inspirational motivation the flow through of idealized influence was ex pected. Indeed, overall agreeableness accounted for 1% of the variance in charisma after controlling for demographic variables A gree ableness facets accounted for 21 % of the variance after controlling for demographic variables Modesty was the only facet with a statistically significant effect. This finding implies that instruction on modesty will have the greatest effect on charisma. Based on the charisma results it would be predicted that agreeableness would have a lower effect on inspirational motivati on. Overa ll agreeableness accounted for 1 % of the variance in inspirational motivation after controlling for demographic variables Agreeableness facets accounted for 13 % of variance in inspirational motivation after controlling for demographic variables However, the omnibus models including agreeableness and agreeableness facets were not statistically significant and consequently further interpretation is limited. Overal l agreeableness only predicted 4 % of the variance in intellectual stimulation after co ntrolling for demographic variables. Agreeableness facets predicted an additional 15% of the variance in intellectual stimulation after controlling for demographic variables. Of the facets tender mindedness had a statistically significant effect. However, the omnibus models including agreeableness and agreeableness facets were not statistically significant and consequently further interpretation is limited. The final transformational leadership factor, and the factor best predicted by agreeableness, was ind ividualized consideration. Ov erall agreeableness accounted 14 % of the variance in individualized consideration after controlling for demographic

PAGE 139

139 variables Agreeableness had a statistically significant positive effect on individualized consideration after controlling for demographic variables. Agreeableness facets accounted for an additional 29 % of the variance in individualized consideration after controlling for demographic variables Modesty was the only agreeableness facet that was statistically signifi cant in predicting individualized consideration. The results are interesting because in this particular situation it would appear as though overall agreeableness is a more robust predictor of individualized consideration than the individual facets; however the omnibus model that included the facets was statistically significant. For this factor the recommendation may be focus on overall agree ableness, including all facets, with slightly more time spent on modesty. Recommendations Based on the study results and discussion a number of recommendations are proposed for practice and future research. Recommendations for practice are organized bas ed on the groups identified in C hapter 1 as potential beneficiaries of the study. Recommendations for Practice The grou p most proximal to the study, and consequently best positioned to benefit in the shortest time period is the instructor of the undergraduate leadership course and the respondents of the study or the class students By having a more comprehensive understanding of the composition of the leadership class the instructor will be able to tailor learning interventions accordingly. A more customized learning environment will benefit students and encourage more meaningful a nd engaged learning in all environments. To improve the student learning experience the instructor can use the demographic, correlational, and regression results to customize teaching accordingly. It

PAGE 140

140 is appropriate to focus on overall level of transforma tional leadership first because the primary intent of the course is leadership development A dynamic iteration between result sets will result in the most customized and meaningful instruction. For example, based on demographic analysis there was a very small difference in transformational leadership between males and females. To increase transformational leadership capacity in all students the instructor could refer to the regression analysis to determine which facet of agreeableness had the most signif icant effect. For this class modesty had a statistically significant negative effect with overall transformational leadership. Given this information the instructor can then refer back to additional agreeableness data broken down by demographic categories. Based on the agreeableness by gender results males had lower levels of modesty than females. An appropriate training strategy might be to randomly pair a student low in modesty with a student high in modesty. The student low in modesty might be able to describe how they handle interpersonal interactions. Through peer interaction the student with low modesty may be able to make a personal connection w ith the student with high modesty, acting as a catalyst for the student with high modesty to internalize the concept and be more open to instruction and change. Based on the demographic results an efficient approach to random pairing would be done by pairi ng males with females. The intent of the exercise is not to encourage the exploitation of differences between genders; it is simply a suggested approach to encourage student engagement based on study results.

PAGE 141

14 1 This pairing activity can lead to a broader cl assroom discussion than more traditional lecture based instruction. The instructor can describe how modesty is related to transformational leadership and why it is necessary to have a healthy, but not over abundant, amount of humility. This instruction cou ld include references to popular literature such as Grant (2013) who specifically advises those that tend to give of themselves freely to be aware modesty. A similar approach can be used as it relates to teaching idealized influence. P revious research found that idealized influence was related to innovative workplace behavior (Abbas et al., 2012). By focusing on the agreeableness item that is most predictive of idealized influence, modesty, the instructo r can encourage the development of idealized influence, and subsequently workplace innovation in students. The instructor could introduce the composite factor of charisma following instruction on idealized influence Charisma has been referred to as the c ore transformational leadership factor (MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Rich, 2001). Because the primary predictor of charisma is modesty the instruction on idealized influence should have positive flow through effect on charisma as well. The transformational lea dership factor of intellectual stimulation has also been show n to precede a number of positive organizational outcomes. Teams led by individuals high in intellectual stimulation had higher levels of workplace innovation (Abbas et al., 2012) and greater job satisfaction (Emery & Barker, 2007). Based on results from the study it would be suggested that teaching about the subject directly might be most effective. It appeared that females in the class tended to score higher in

PAGE 142

142 this factor than their male counte rparts. However, when reviewing the regression analysis it is clear that agreeableness, and agreeableness facets, are not necessarily good predictors of the factor. To create a meaningful learning environment agile teaching techniques must be employed. Giv e n the study results a lecture based instruction al approach would be recommended Finally, individualized consideration is the transformational leadership factor that is best predicted by agreeableness. Based on regression analysis overall agreeableness be st predict individualized consideration. Given the results of the regression analysis it is the integration of all facets of agreeableness into the overall agreeableness trait that is a statistically significant predictor of individualized consideration. I t would be recommended that the instructor discuss all of the facets of agreeableness and how they are all incrementally important towards the prediction of the individualized consideration. Based on all of the results focusing on the agreeableness facet of modesty would likely have the greatest impact in teaching transformational leadership. With significant predictive relationships with several factors of transformational leadership, as well as overall transformationa l leadership focusing on the facet of modesty represents a n opportunity for significant return on learning investment. Leveraging demographic data on agreeableness and transformational leadership is supportive of instructional discretion, but should not b e misinterpreted as prescriptive. The recommendations are examples of how the data could be interpreted and used, but should not be a substitute for active learning development and instructional dexterity depending on the needs of students or classroom con text.

PAGE 143

143 It is interesting to note that the direction of the primary effect between agreeableness and transformational leadership was negative, as manifested in the modesty facet. This result was unexpected, and adds to the personality and leadership literatu re. Without examining the nature of the relationship between agreeableness and transformational leadership through this study it would be difficult to predict the outcome. However, given the results, the primary recommendation for increasing transformation al leadership capacity by modifying agreeableness items would be to not be too modest. As a result of the improved, tailored instructional approach by the instructor it is expected the students in the class will have a more efficacious learning experience Students should have a more comprehensive understanding of the concept of transformational leadership, a better understanding of the nuance and personality antecedents of overall transformational leadership, and the factors of transformational leadership Based on t he review of the literature in C hapter 2 each of the factors of transformational leadership has been found to uniquely contribute to a number of positive organizational outcomes. Using classroom trends and encouraging student engagement the o verall learning experience should be much more meaningful. Distal beneficiaries of improved transformation leadership development of the study respondents are the organizations that the students will subsequently be associated with. Increased transformati onal leadership capacity will have positive organizational outcomes ranging from increased innovation (Abbas et al., 2012) and team member job satisfaction (Emery & Barker, 2007) to improved project completion

PAGE 144

144 (Elkins & Keller, 2003) and increased team mem ber perceptions of leadership effectiveness (Sadeghi & Pihie, 2012). Recommendations for Future Research B ased on study results a number of future research areas were identified. One of the primary limitations of the study was the sample used. Without mul tiple classes of undergraduate students it is impossible to generalize result findings. It is suggested that the study be replicated with multiple undergraduate classes, ideally at different institutions, to confirm the results. Future studies are also enc ouraged to determine whether the MLQ is the most appropriate instrument to collect levels of undergraduate transformational leadership. For example, alternate instruments such as the Student Leadership Practices Inventory (Kouzes & Posner, 1998) should be included in future research. In addition to undergraduate leadership students it is also recommended that future research replicate the s tudy with non student audiences, p articularly adult learners engaged in leadership development programs. A non student audience would provide a larger range of ages against which to analyze results. Additionally, a larger audience would provide more statistical power to results and would subsequently increase levels of confidence associated with those results. Another com plimentary line of inquiry is suggested around whether observed differences between ages are more related to generational identification as opposed to numeric age. Future research is suggested to examine the nature of the relationship between agreeableness transformational leadership, and different generations. For both undergraduate and adult audiences the use of longitudinal studies would also add clarity to the value of transformational leadership development over

PAGE 145

145 time. Tracking the performance of indiv iduals that have completed transformational leadership development over time will be beneficial when describing the organizational outcomes associated with the development. Another limitation of the study was the small number of respondents that were repr esented in numerous race/ethnicity categories. Hofstede (1980) and House (2004) presented models to quantify numerous cultural characteristics, typically based on individual countries, or clusters of countries. Replication of the study in multiple undergra duate leadership courses may increase the audience size to a level necessary to interpret results. Although the sample size was small there do appear to be differences between various ethic and racial groups. These differences should be further explored wh en a sufficient level of statistical power is obtained. Additionally, it is suggested to replicate the study in countries outside of the United States. Studying undergraduate leadership students in countries outside the United States would be the preferred approach to being able to determine if there are cultural differences among aud iences that are statistically significant as it relates to agreeableness or transformational leadership. A final recommendation would be to design an experiment to test whether including agreeableness training had the expected impact on transformational leadership. Although the results for this study are clear that there is a significant amount of variance in transformational leadership that is predicted by agreeableness it is not clear that the results are causal. Specifically, it is unclear if attempts to modify the agreeableness antecedents will have the expected result on transformational

PAGE 146

146 leadership. An ex perimental design used to test this supposition would contribute additional clarity and further inform effective, engaged, and meaningful learning. Synopsis Chapter 5 presented a summary of the study results, study conclusions, study discussion and implic ations, as well as study recommendations. The objectives of the study were to describe levels of agreeableness, describe levels of transformational leadership, identify the relationship between individual demographic characteristics and agreeableness, iden tify the relationship between individual demographic characteristics and transformational leadership, identify the relationship between agreeableness and transformational leadership, and Identify how agreeableness predicts transformational leadership in un dergraduate leadership students

PAGE 147

147 APPENDIX QUESTIONNAIRE Personality & Leadership Survey (NOTE: MLQ is copyright protected and consequently is not included)

PAGE 148

148

PAGE 149

149 LIST OF REFERENCES Abbas, G., Iqbal, J., Waheed, A., & Riaz, M. N. (2012). Relationship between transformational leadership style and innovative work behavior in educational institutions. Journal of Behavioural Sciences, 22 (3), 18. Agresti, A., & Finlay, B. (2009). Statistic al methods for the social sciences Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson Prentice Hall. Allemand, M., Zimprich, D., & Hendriks, A. A. J. (2008). Age differences in five personality domains across the life span. Developmental Psychology, 44 (3), 758 770. doi:10. 1037/0012 1649.44.3.758 Allemand, M., Zimprich, D., & Hertzog, C. (2007). Cross sectional age differences and longitudinal age changes of personality in middle adulthood and old age. Journal of Personality, 75 (2), 323 358. doi:10.1111/j.1467 6494.2006.0044 1.x Allik, J. (2005). Personality dimensions across cultures. Journal of Personality Disorders, 19 (3), 212 232. doi:10.1521/pedi.2005.19.3.212 Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: An examination of the nine fa ctor full range leadership theory using the multifactor leadership questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly, 14 (3), 261 295. doi:10.1016/S1048 9843(03)00030 4 Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Sorensen, C. (2010). Introduction to research in education Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Astin, A. W., & Astin, H. S. (Eds.). (2000). Leadership reconsidered: Engaging higher education in social change Kellogg Foundation, Battle Creek, MI. Avolio, B., Bass, B., & Jung, D. (1999). Re examining the components of tran sformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72 (4), 441 462. Avolio, B. J. (2007). Promoting more integrative strategies for leadership theory building. The American Psychologist, 62 (1), 25 33. doi:10.1037/0003 066X.62.1.25 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. The Leadership Quarterly, 6 (2), 199 218. doi:10.1016/1048 9843(95)90035 7 Avolio, B. J., Reichard, R. J., Hannah, S. T., Walumbwa, F. O., & Chan, A. (2009). A meta analytic review of leadership impact research: Experimental and quasi

PAGE 150

150 experimental studies. The Leadership Quarterly, 20 (5), 764 784. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.06.006 Ayman, R., & Korabik, K. (2010). Leadership: Why gender and culture matter. The American Psychologist, 65 (3), 157 170. doi:10.1037/a0018806 Barksdale, K., & Werner, J. M. (2001). Managerial ratings of in role behaviors, organizational citizenship behaviors, and overall performance: Testing different models of their relationship. Journal of Business Research, 51 (2), 145 155. doi:10.1016/S0148 2963(99)00061 2 Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects of transformational leadership training on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81 (6), 827 832. doi:10.1037/0021 9010.81.6.827 Baron, R. A. (1984). Reducing organizational conflict: An incompatible response approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69 (2), 272 279. doi:10.1037/0021 9010.69.2.272 Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta analysis. Personnel Psychology 44 (1), 1 26. Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9 (1 2), 9 30. doi:10.1111/14 68 2389.00160 Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1993). Autonomy as a moderator of the relationships between the big five personality dimensions and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78 (1), 111 118. doi:10.1037/0021 9010.78.1.111 Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Shatter the glass ceiling women may make better managers. Human Resource Management, 33 (4), 549 560. doi:10.1002/hrm.3930330405 Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1997). Full range leadership development: Manual for the multifactor lead ership questionnaire Palo Alto, CA: Mindgarden. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations New York : London: Free Press ; Collier Macmillan. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership: Good, better, best. Organizational Dynamics, 13 (3), 26 40. doi:10.1016/0090 2616(85)90028 2 Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52 (2), 130 139. doi:10.1037/0003 066X.52.2.130

PAGE 151

151 Bass, B. M., & R iggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership New York, NY: Psychology Press. Bass, B., Avolio, B., & Atwater, L. (1996). The transformational and transactional leadership of men and women. Applied Psychology an International Review Psychologie Appliqu ee Revue Internationale, 45 (1), 5 34. doi:10.1111/j.1464 0597.1996.tb00847.x Begley, S. (2007). Train your mind, change your brain: How a new science reveals our extraordinary potential to transform ourselves New York: Ballantine Books. Bennis, W. G. (200 9). On becoming a leader New York: Basic Books. Bossidy, L., Charan, R., & Burck, C. (2002). Execution: The discipline of getting things done New York: Crown Business. Bossidy, L., Charan, R., & Burck, C. (2004). Confronting reality: Doing what matters t o get things right New York: Crown Business. Bowling, N. A. (2010). Emotional intelligence and transformational and transactional leadership: A meta analysis. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 17 (1), 5 17. doi:10.1177/1548051809350894 Bradac h, J. L., & Eccles, R. G. (1989). Price, authority, and trust: From ideal types to plural form. Annual Review of Sociology, 15 97 118. Brandt, T., & Laiho, M. (2013). Gender and personality in transformational leadership context: An examination of leader and subordinate perspectives. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 34 (1), 44. doi:10.1108/01437731311289965 Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 10 710 725. Bright, D. S., Gam eron, K. S., & Gaza, A. (2006). The amplifying and buffering effects of virtuousness in downsized organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 64 249 269. Buckingham, M., & Clifton, D. O. (2001). Now, discover your strengths New York: Free Press. Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Halpin, S. M. (2006). What type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 17 (3), 288 307. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.02.007 Burns, J. M. (1978). Lea dership New York: Harper & Row.

PAGE 152

152 Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D., & Allen, J. S. (1995). Further assessments of bass's (1985) conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80 (4), 468 478. doi:10.1037/0021 9010 .80.4.468 Cameron, K. S., & Caza, A. (2004). Contributions to the discipline of positive organizational scholarship. American Behavioral Scientist, 47 731 739. Caspi, A., Roberts, B. W., & Shiner, R. L. (2005). Personality development: Stability and change. Annual Review of Psychology, 56 (1), 453 484. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141913 Cattell, R. B. (1943). The description of personality: Basic traits resolved into clusters. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38 (4), 476 506. doi:10.1037/h0054116 Chan, W., Allik, J., Nakazato, K., Shimonaka, Y., Hrebckov, M., Graf, S ., . Realo, A. (2012). Stereotypes of age differences in personality traits: Universal and accurate? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103 (6), 105 0 1066. doi:10.1037/a0029712 Charbonneau, D. (2004). Influence tactics and perceptions of transformational leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25 (7), 565 576. doi:10.1108/01437730410561459 Chemers, M. M. (2000). Leadership research a nd theory: A functional integration. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4 (1), 27 43. doi:10.1037/1089 2699.4.1.27 Cho, J., & Dansereau, F. (2010). Are transformational leaders fair? A multi level study of transformational leadership, justice p erceptions, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 21 (3), 409 421. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.03.006 Clarke, N. (2010). Emotional intelligence and its relationship to transformational leadership and key project manager competenc es. Project Management Journal, 41 (2), 5 20. doi:10.1002/pmj.20162 Collins, J. C. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap -and others don't New York, NY: HarperCollins. Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, orga nizational commitment and personal need non fulfillment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53 (1), 39 52. Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? an examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78 (1), 98 104. doi:10.103 7/0021 9010.78.1.98

PAGE 153

153 Cosmides, L. (1989). The logic of social exchange: Has natural selection shaped how h umans reason? Studies with the W ason selection task. Cognition, 31 (3), 187 276. doi:10.1016/0010 0277(89)90023 1 Costa, J.,P T., Terracciano, A., & McC rae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81 (2), 322 331. doi:10.1037/0022 3514.81.2.322 Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO factor inventory professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Domains and facets: Hierarchical personality assessment using the revised NEO personality inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 64 (1), 21. Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R., & Dye, D. A. (1991). Facet scales for agreeableness and conscientiousness: A revision of the NEO personality inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 12 (1991), 887 898. Co vey, S. R. (1990). The seven habits of highly effective people : Restoring the character ethic United States: Cronbach, L., & Gleser, G. C. (1957). Psychological tests and personnel decisions Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Davis, J. A. (1971). Elementary survey analysis Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Day, D. V., & Sin, H. (2011). Longitudinal tests of an integrative model of leader development: Charting and understanding developmental trajectories. The Leadership Quarterly, 22 (3), 545 560 doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.04.011 De Jong, B. A., & Elfring, T. (2010). How does trust affect the performance of ongoing teams? the mediating role of reflexivity, monitoring, and effort. Academy of Management Journal, 53 (3), 535 549. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2010. 51468649 Deckop, J. R. (1995). Pay system effects on altruism motivation. Academy of Management Journal, 359 363. Derue, S. D., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N., & Humphrey, S. E. (2011). Trait and behavioral theories of leadership: An integration and meta ana lytic test of their relative validity. Personnel Psychology, 64 (1), 7 52. doi:10.1111/j.1744 6570.2010.01201.x Dinh, J., & Lord, R. (2012). Implications of dispositional and process views of traits for individual difference research in leadership. Leadersh ip Quarterly, 23 (4), 651 669. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.03.003

PAGE 154

154 Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization Science, 12 (4), 450 467. Doerfert, D. (2011). National research agenda for agricultural educatio n, 2011 2015 American Association of Agricultural Education. Doucet, O., Poitras, J., & Chenevert, D. (2009). The impacts of leadership on workplace conflicts. International Journal of Conflict Management, 20 (4), 340 340. doi:10.1108/10444060910991057 Dris kell, J. E., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & O'Shea, P. G. (2006). What makes a good team player? personality and team effectiveness. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 10 (4), 249 271. doi:10.1037/1089 2699.10.4.249 Drory, A., & Gluskinos, U. M. (1980). Machiavellianism and leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65 (1), 81 86. doi:10.1037/0021 9010.65.1.81 Druskat, V. U. (1994). Gender and leadership style: Transformational and transactional leadership in the roman catholic church. The Leadership Quarterly, 5 (2), 99 119. doi:10.1016/1048 9843(94)90023 X Dudley, N. M., Orvis, K. A., Lebiecki, J. E., & Cortina, J. M. (2006). A meta analytic investigation of conscientiousness in the prediction of job performance: Examining the intercorrelat ions and the incremental validity of narrow traits. Journal of Applied Psychology,91 (1), 40 57. doi:10.1037/0021 9010.91.1.40 Durand, D. E., & Nord, W. R. (1976). Perceived leader behavior as a function of personality characteristics of supervisors and sub ordinates. Academy of Management Journal, 19 (3), 427 438. doi:10.2307/255608 Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Johnson, B. T. (1992). Gender and leadership style among school principals: A meta analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 28 (1), 76 102. doi :10.1177/0013161X92028001004 Eagly, A. H., Johannesen Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. L. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez faire leadership styles: A meta analysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129 (4), 569 591. doi:10. 1037/0033 2909.129.4.569 Edelso n, S. (2013). Is cyberspace making us rude? Retrieved May 31, 2013, from http://www.app.com/article/20130513/NJNEWS/305130010/Is cyberspace making us rude ?nclick_check=1 Eid, J., Johnsen, B. H., Brun, W., Laberg, J. C., Nyhus, J. K., & Larsson, G. (2004). Situation awareness and transformational leadership in senior military leaders: An exploratory study. Military Psychology, 16 (3), 203 209. doi:10.1207/s15327876mp1603_4

PAGE 155

155 Elkins, T., & Keller, R. T. (2003). Leadership in r esearch and development organizations: A literature review and conceptual framework. The Leadership Quarterly, 14 (4), 587 606. doi:10.1016/S1048 9843(03)00053 5 Elliott, M. A., Armitage, C. J., & Baughan, C. J. (2003). Drivers' compliance with speed limits : An application of the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (5), 964 972. doi:10.1037/0021 9010.88.5.964 Emery C. R., & Barker K. J. (2007). The effect of transactional and transformational leadership styles on the organizational c ommitment and job satisfaction of customer contact personnel. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communication and Conflict,11 (1), 77. Epictetus. (1995). The art of living : The classical manual on virtue, happiness, and effectiveness (S. Lebell Trans.). N ew York: HarperOne. Ergeneli, A., Gohar, R., & Temirbekova, Z. (2007). Transformational leadership: Its relationship to culture value dimensions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31 (6), 703 724. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2007.07.003 Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society New York: Norton. Eysenck, H. J., Eysenck, S. B. J., & Barrett, P. (1995). Personality differences according to gender. Psychological Reports, 76 (3), 711 716. doi:10.2466/pr0.1995.76.3.711 Fearrington, M. E. (2004). A v alidation study on the teamwork receptiveness inventory. ( Doctoral dissertation ). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, ( Accession Order No. AAT 305134709) Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in personality a metaanalysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116 (3), 429 456. Fichman, M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1991). Honeymoons and the liability of adolescence: A new perspective on duration dependence in social and organizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 16 (2), 442 468. Fletcher, T. D., & Nusbaum, D. N. (2008). Trait competitiveness as a composite variable: Linkages with facets of the big five. Personality and Individual Differences, 45 (4), 312 317. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.04.020 Franke, F., & Felfe, J. (2011). How does t ransformational leadership impact employees' psychological strain. Leadership, 7 (3), 295 316. doi:10.1177/1742715011407387 Frone, M. R. (2000). Interpersonal conflict at work and psychological outcomes: Testing a model among young workers. Journal of Occup ational Health Psychology, 5 (2), 246 255. doi:10.1037/1076 8998.5.2.246

PAGE 156

156 Fuller, J., Patterson, C., Hester, K., & Stringer, S. (1996). A quantitative review of research on charismatic leadership. Psychological Reports, 78 (1), 271 287. doi:10.2466/pr0.1996.7 8.1.271 Gandolfi, F. (2012). A conceptual discussion of transformational leadership and intercultural competence. Revista De Management Comparat International, 13 (4), 522. Gerber, G. (2009). Status and the gender stereotyped personality traits: Toward an i ntegration. Sex Roles, 61 (5 6), 297 316. doi:10.1007/s11199 008 9529 9 Gladwell, M. (2008). Outliers: The story of success New York: Little, Brown and Co. Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Language and individual differences: The search for universals in personalit y lexicons. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (2nd ed., pp. 141 165). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H. C. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40 84 96. Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. E., & McKee, A. (2002). Primal leadership: Realizing the power of emotional intelligence Boston, Mass: Ha rvard Business School Press. Gonzalez Mul, E., DeGeest, D. S., Kiersch, C. E., & Mount, M. K. (2013). Gender differences in personality predictors of counterproductive behavior. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28 (4), 333 353. doi:10.1108/JMP 12 2012 039 7 Grant, A. M. (2013). Give and take: A revolutionary approach to success. New York, N.Y: Viking. Greene, C. N. (1972). Relationships among role accuracy, compliance, performance evaluation, and satisfaction within managerial dyads. Academy of Management Journal (Pre 1986), 15 (2), 205 215. Guion, R. M., & Gottier, R. F. (1965). Validity of personality measures in personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 18 (2), 135 164. Hardy, L., Arthur, C. A., Jones, G., Shariff, A., Munnoch, K., Isaacs, I., & Allsopp, A. J. (2010). The relationship between transformational leadership behaviors, psychological, and training outcomes in elite military recruits. The Leadership Quarterly, 21 (1), 20 32. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.10.002 Hofstede, G. (1980). Motivation, leaders hip, and organization: Do American theories apply abroad? Organizational Dynamics, 9 (1), 42 63. doi:10.1016/0090 2616(80)90013 3

PAGE 157

157 Hofstede, G., & McCrae, R. R. (2004). Personality and culture revisited: Linking traits and dimensions of culture. Cross Cultural Research, 38 (1), 52 88. doi:10.1177/1069397103259443 leadership and self deprecating humor. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 34 (1), 4 19. do i:10.1108/01437731311289947 Hough, L. M., & Ones, D. S. (2001). Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology: Vol. 1: Personnel psychology. In N. R. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), International handbook of work and organizational psychology (pp. 233 377). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. House, R. J., & Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness Research Program. (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies Thousand Oa ks, CA : Sage Publications. Houston, J. M., McIntire, S. A., Kinnie, J., & Terry, C. (2002). A factorial analysis of scales measuring competitiveness. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62 284 298. Hughes, M. M., & Terrell, J. B. (2007). The emotio nally intelligent team: Understanding and developing the behaviors of success San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The big five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 (6), 869 879. doi:10 .1037/0021 9010.85.6.869 Jackson, T. A., Meyer, J. P., & Wang, X. (. (2013). Leadership, commitment, and culture: A meta analysis. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 20 (1), 84 106. doi:10.1177/1548051812466919 Jaros, S. J., Jermier, J. M., Koe hler, J. W., & Sincich, T. (1993). Effects of continuance, affective, and moral commitment on the withdrawal process: An evaluation of eight structural equation models. Academy of Management Journal, 36 (5), 951 995. John, O. P., Hampson, S. E., & Goldberg, L. R. (1991). The basic level in personality trait hierarchies: Studies of trait use and accessibility in different contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60 (3), 348 361. doi:10.1037/0022 3514.60.3.348 Johnson, J. A. (2011). Development o f a short form of the IPIP NEO personality inventory. Poster Presented at the 2nd Biennial Meeting of the Association for Research in Personality, Riverside, CA. Joo, B., Yoon, H. J., & Jeung, C. (2012). The effects of core self evaluations and transformat ional leadership on organizational commitment. Leadership &

PAGE 158

158 Organization Development Journal, 33 (6), 564 582. doi:10.1108/01437731211253028 Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quanti tative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (4), 765 780. doi:10.1037/0021 9010.87.4.765 Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The big five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52 (3), 621 652. Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five factor model of personality and transformational leadership. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 (5), 751 765. doi:10.1037/0021 9010.85.5.751 Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (4), 765 780. doi:10.1037/0021 9010.87.4.765 Kark, R., Waismel Manor, R., & Shamir, B. (2012). Does valuing androgyny a nd femininity lead to a female advantage? the relationship between gender role, transformational leadership and identification. Leadership Quarterly, 23 (3), 620 640. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.12.012 Kausel, E. E., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Narrow personal ity traits and organizational attraction: Evidence for the complementary hypothesis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114 (1), 3 14. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.08.002 Kearney, E. (2008). Age differences between leader and followers as a m oderator of the relationship between transformational leadership and team performance. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81 (4), 803 811. doi:10.1348/096317907X256717 Keith, T. Z. (2006). Multiple regression and beyond Boston, MA: Pear son. Kellerman, B. (2004). Bad leadership: What it is, how it happens, why it matters Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Kelley, H. H., & Stahelski, A. J. (1970). Social interaction basis of cooperators' and competitors' beliefs about others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16 (1), 66 91. doi:10.1037/h0029849 Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1998). Student leadership practices inventory. student workbook Jossey Bass Publishers. Larson, A. (1992). Network dyads in entrepreneurial settings: A study of the governance of exchange relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37 (1), 76 104.

PAGE 159

159 Lee, K., Gizzarone, M., & Ashton, M. C. (2003). Personality and the likelihood to sexually harass. Sex Roles, 49 59 69. Leong, L. Y. C., & Fischer, R. (20 11). Is transformational leadership universal? A meta analytical investigation of multifactor leadership questionnaire means across cultures. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18 (2), 164 174. doi:10.1177/1548051810385003 Lewicki, R. J., & Bun ker, B. B. (1995). Trust in relationships: A model of development and decline. In B. B. Bunker, & J. Z. Rubin (Eds.), Conflict, cooperation, and justice (pp. 133 173). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Lisak, A., & Erez, M. (2009). Leaders and followers in multi cultural teams: Their effects on team communication, team identity and team effectiveness. Paper presented at the 81 88. doi:10.1145/1499224.1499238 Lopez Zafra, E., Garcia Retamero, R., & Martos, M. (2012). The relationship between transformational leade rship and emotional intelligence from a gendered approach. Psychological Record, 62 (1), 97 114. Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta analytic review of the MLQ literature. The Leadership Quarterly, 7 (3), 385 425. doi:10.1016/S1048 9843(96)90027 2 Lucas, R. E., & Donnellan, M. B (2009). Age differences in personality: Evidence from a nationally representative Australian sample. Developmental Psychology, 45 (5), 1353 1363. doi:10.1037/a0013914 MacKenzie, S., Podsakoff, P., & Rich, G. (2001). Transformational and transactional lead ership and salesperson performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29 115 134. Mahar, T. A. (2004). An examination of the MLQ and development of the transformational leadership q uestionnaire. ( Retrieved from Pr oQuest Disser tations and Theses. ( Accession Order No. AAT 305064166). Maher, K. J. (1997). Gender related stereotypes of transformational and transactional leadership. Sex Roles, 37 (3), 209 225. doi:10.1023/A:1025647811219 Mandell, B., & Pherwani, S. (2003). Relationsh ip between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style: A gender comparison. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17 (3), 387 404. doi:10.1023/A:1022816409059 Manning, T. T. (2002). Gender, managerial level, transformational leadership and w ork satisfaction. Women in Management Review, 17 (5), 207 216. doi:10.1108/09649420210433166

PAGE 160

160 Mayer, R. C., & Gavin, M. B. (2005). Trust in management and performance: Who minds the shop while the employees watch the boss? Academy of Management Journal, 48 (5 ), 874 888. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2005.18803928 McAdams, D. P. (1992). The five factor model in personality: A critical appraisal. Journal of Personality, 60 (2), 329 361. McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect and cognition based trust as foundations for interpersona l cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38 (1), 24 59. doi:10.2307/256727 McCormick, M. J., Dooley, K. E., Lindner, J. R., Cummins, R. L. (2007). Perceived growth versus actual growth in executive leadership competencies: An applicat ion of the stair step behaviorally anchored evaluation approach Journal of Agricultural Education,48 (2), 23 35. doi:10.5032/jae.2007.02023 McCrae, R. R., Woodfield, R., Saunders, P. R., Smith, P. B., Costa, J.,P T., Ostendorf, F., . Kusdil, M. E. (2 000). Nature over nurture: Temperament, personality, and life span development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78 (1), 173 186. doi:10.1037/0022 3514.78.1.173 McCrae, R. R., Barbaranelli, C., Chae, J., Piedmont, R. L., Costa, P. T., Pedroso de Lima, M., . Vittorio Caprara, G. (1999). Age differences in personality across the adult life span: Parallels in five cultures. Developmental Psychology, 35 (2), 466 477. doi:10.1037/0012 1649.35.2.466 McCrae, R. R., Terracciano, A., Personality Prof iles Cultures Pro, & Personality Profiles of Cultures Project. (2005). Personality profiles of cultures: Aggregate personality traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89 (3), 407 425. doi:10.1037/0022 3514.89.3.407 McGuire, A. (2003). "It was nothing" extending evolutionary models of altruism by two social cognitive biases in judgments of the costs and benefits of helping. Social Cognition, 21 (5), 363 394. doi:10.1521/soco.21.5.363.28685 Mershon, B., & Gorsuch, R. L. (1988). Number of factors in the personality sphere: Does increase in factors increase predictability of real life criteria? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55 (4), 675 680. doi:10.1037/0022 3514.55.4.675 Mohammed, K. A., Othman, J., & D'Silva, J. L. (2012). Social de mographic factors that influence transformational leadership styles among top management in selected organizations in malaysia. Asian Social Science, 8 (13), 51. Moon, H., & Livne, E. (2011). The past and future of personality utility: Improving predictive ability through item based precision and factor interdependence. Human Resource Management Review, 21 (4), 258 267. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.10.008

PAGE 161

161 Morris, J. M., Brotheridge, C. M., & Urbanski, J. C. (2005). Bringing humility to leadership: Antecedents and consequences of leader humility. Human Relations, 58 (10), 1323 1350. Murphy, K. R., & Dzieweczynski, J. (2005). Why don't measures of broad dimensions of personality perform better as predictors of job perf ormance? Human Performance, 18 (4), 343 357. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1804_2 Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Ones, D. S., Dilchert, S., Viswesvaran, C., & Judge, T. A. (2007). In support o f personality assessment in organizational settings. Personnel Psychology, 60 995 1027. Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1996). What do pre employment customer service scales measure? explorations in construct validity and implications for personnel select ion. Paper presented at the The 11th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA. doi:10.1037/0021 9010.78.4.679 Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior : The good soldier syndrome Lexingto n, MA: Lexington Books. Osborn, R. N., & Marion, R. (2009). Contextual leadership, transformational leadership and the performance of international innovation seeking alliances. The Leadership Quarterly, 20 (2), 191 206. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.01.010 Owe ns, B. P., & Hekman, D. R. (2012). Modeling how to grow: An inductive examination of humble leader behaviors, contingencies, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 55 (4), 787 818. doi:10.5465/amj.2010.0441 Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). Th e dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36 (6), 556 563. doi:10.1016/S0092 6566(02)00505 6 Paunonen, S. V., & Nicol, A. A. A. M. (2001). The personality hierarchy and the prediction of work behaviors. In B. W. Roberts, & R. Hogan (Eds.), Personality psychology in the workplace (pp. 161 191). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10434 007 Pennings, J. M., & Woiceshyn, J. (1987). A typology of organizational cont rol and its metaphor. In S. B. Bacharach, & S. M. Mitchell (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations (5th ed., pp. 75 104). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Peterson, R. A. (2001). On the use of college students in social science research: Insights from a second order meta analysis. The Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (3), 450 461. doi:10.1086/323732

PAGE 162

162 Pew Research Center. (2007). Americans and social trust: Who, where and why. Retrieved May 31, 2013, from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2007/02/22/americans and social trust who where and why/ Piedmont, R. L., & Weinstein, H. P. (1993). A psychometric evaluation of the new NEO -PIR facet scales for agreeableness and conscientiousness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 60 (2), 302 318. Piedmont, R. L., & Weins tein, H. P. (1994). Predicting supervisor ratings of job performance using the NEO personality inventory. The Journal of Psychology, 128 (3), 255. 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 (2), 259 298. doi:10.1177/014920639602200204 Reuver, R. S. M. d., & Woerkom, M. v. (2009). Predicting excellent m anagement performance in an intercultural context. A study of the influence of multicultural personality on transformational leadership and performance. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20 (10), 2013 2029. doi:10.1080/09585190903175589 Ri ggio, R. E., Ciulla, J. B., Sorenson, G. J. (2003). Leadership education at the undergraduate level: A liberal arts approach to leadership development. In S. E. Murphy, & R. E. Riggio (Eds.), The future of leadership development (pp. 223 236). Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Rosener, J. B. (1990). Ways women lead. Harvard Business Review, 68 (6), 119 125. Rothstein, M. G., & Goffin, R. D. (2006). The use of personality measures in personnel selection: What does current research support? Human Resou rce Management Review, 16 155 180. Ryan, R. G. (2009). Age differences in personality: Adolescents and young adults. Personality and Individual Differences, 47 (4), 331 335. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.03.023 Saad, S., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). Investigating di fferential prediction by gender in employment oriented personality measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (4), 667 674. doi:10.1037/0021 9010.87.4.667 Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1992). Development of a causal model of processes determining job pe rformance. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1 89 92.

PAGE 163

163 Schmitt, N. (1996). Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychological Assessment, 8 (4), 350 353. doi:10.1037/1040 3590.8.4.350 Seabright, M. A., Levinthal, D. A., & Fichman, M. (1992). Rol e of individual attachments in the dissolution of interorganizational relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 35 122 160. Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization New York: Doubleday/Currency. Sha mir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. (1998). Correlates of charismatic leader behavior in military units: Subordinates' attitudes, unit characteristics, and superiors' appraisals of leader performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 41 (4), 387 409. Sosik, J. J., Avolio, B. J., & Kahai, S. S. (1998). Inspiring group creativity: Comparing anonymous and identified electronic brainstorming. Small Group Research, 29 (1), 3 31. doi:10.1177/1046496498291001 Srivastava, S., John, O. P., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2003). Development of personality in early and middle adulthood: Set like plaster or persistent change? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84 (5), 1041 1053. doi:10.1037/0022 3514.84.5.1041 Standards for the classification of fe deral data on race and ethnicity. (1995). Retrieved June 13, 2013, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg_race ethnicity/ Stewart, G. L. (1999). Trait bandwidth and stages of job performance: Assessing differential effects for conscientiousness and its subtraits. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84 (6), 959 968. doi:10.1037/0021 9010.84.6.959 Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology, (25 (1948)), 35 71. Stogdill, R. M., & Bass, B. M. (1981). Stogdill's handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research New York: Free Press. Streiner, D. L. (2003). Starting at the beginning: An introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80 (1) 99 103. doi:10.1207/S15327752JPA8001_18 Strickland, L. R. (2008). Relationship between emotional intelligence and leadership style of leaders in Florida agriculture University of Florida Gainesville, FL Terracciano, A., McCrae, R. R. Brant, L. J., & Costa Jr., P. T. (2005). Hierarchical linear modeling analyses of the NEO PI R scales in the B altimore longitudinal study of aging. Psychology and Aging, 20 (3), 493 506. doi:10.1037/0882 7974.20.3.493

PAGE 164

164 Terracciano, A., McCrae, R. R., & Cos ta, P. T. (2010). Intra individual change in personality stability and age. Journal of Research in Personality, 44 (1), 31 37. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2009.09.006 Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait based interactionist model of job performa nce. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (3), 500 517. doi:10.1037/0021 9010.88.3.500 Tett, R. P., & Christiansen, N. D. (2007). Personality tests at the crossroads: A response to Morgeson, Campion, Dipboye, Hollenbeck, Murphy, & S chmitt. Personnel Psychology 60 (4), 967 993. doi:10.1111/j.1744 6570.2007.00098.x Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as predictors of job performance: A meta analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 44 (4), 703. The Ken Blanchard Companies. (2009). The high cost of doing nothing: Quantifying the impact of leadership on the bottom line. Retrieved June 13, 2013, fr om http://www.kenblanchard.com/img/pub/Blanchard_The_High_Cost_of_Doin g_Nothing.pdf Thomason, S. J., W eeks, M., Bernardin, H. J., & Kane, J. (2011). The differential focus of supervisors and peers in evaluations of managerial potential. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 19 (1), 82 97. doi:10.1111/j.1468 2389.2010.00536.x Tucker, S., Turner, N., Barling, J., & McEvoy, M. (2010). Transformational leadership and childrens' aggression in team settings: A short term longitudinal study. The Leadership Quarterly, 21 (3), 389 399. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.03.004 Wang, G., Oh, I., Courtright, S. H., & Colbert, A. E. (2011). Transformational leadership and performance across criteria and levels: A meta analytic review of 25 years of research. Group & Organization Management, 36 (2), 223 270. doi:10.1177/1059601111401017 Woods, S. A., & Hampson, S. E. (2 010). Predicting adult occupational environments from gender and childhood personality traits. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 95 (6), 1045 1057. doi:10.1037/a0020600 Wright, T. A., Cropanzano, R., & Meyer, D. G. (2004). State and trait correlates of job performance: A tale of two perspectives. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18 (3), 365 383. doi:10.1023/B:JOBU.0000016708.22925.72 Zacharatos, A., Barling, J., & Kelloway, E. K. (2000). Development and effects of transformational leadership in adolescent s. The Leadership Quarterly, 11 (2), 211 226. doi:10.1016/S1048 9843(00)00041 2

PAGE 165

165 Zacher, H., Rosing, K., & Frese, M. (2011). Age and leadership: The moderating role of legacy beliefs. The Leadership Quarterly, 22 (1), 43 50. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.006 Z aheer, A., McEvily, B., & Perrone, V. (1998). Does trust matter? exploring the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organization Science, 9 141 159.

PAGE 166

166 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Kevan Warren Lamm grew up in northern Colorado on a small Simmental cattle ranch. He participated in 4 H including projects in equine, market beef, breeding beef, and veterinary science. Following high school he attended Colorado State University (CSU) for his undergraduate degree in mechanica l e ngineering. While at CSU he was very involved in the Greek system as well as numerous student organizations. In particular he was president of his fraternity, Alpha Gamma Rho, as well as president of the Block and Bridle club. He was also a member of th e Society of Automotive Engineers and was inducted into the Order of the Engineer. Following graduation Kevan went to work for Accenture, a management consulting company with over 200,000 global professionals He began working as a business analyst helpin g a large telecom provider in the western United States roll out a customer relationship management tool set to their global workforce. During this period he had the opportunity to observe the importance of effective training for adults in the corporate en vironment. Although the tool was world class the value was realized when individuals were enabled to use the tool effectively through proper training. Enthusiasm for training and development led him to move from his consulting role to an outsourcing positi on where he could focus on developing training for companies as part of a world class development center. As and Instruction Design Analyst Kevan was responsible for developing training materials for companies in a variety of mediums. He had the opportunit y to work in Instructor Led Training (ILT), Virtual Instructor Led Training (vILT), as well as Web Based Training (WBT). He developed technical training for a telecommunications equipment manufacturer, soft skills training for a leading mortgage banking in stitution,

PAGE 167

167 sales training for a larger consumer finance organization, as well as leadership training for a large pharmaceutical manufacturer. After developing training material for several years Kevan was promoted to be an Instructional Design Lead where he oversaw the training development efforts of up to 10 analysts. This role gave him the opportunity to observe the importance of management and leadership techniques in effectively motivating a team. During this time Kevan also had the opportunity to trav el to Bangalore, India where he helped to establish and operationalize an outsourcing development center. This included sharing best practices, coaching on grammatical issues, accent neutralization, and coaching senior staff. Travelling to India and spendi ng an extended period of time gave him an appreciation for cultural context and the universality of certain leadership approaches. Kevan was then promoted into the role of operations lead for the network of development centers. His responsibilities include d managing the staffing of four centers (Denver, Chicago, Bangalore, and Brisbane) with over 300 global content development professionals. Additionally he was responsible for managing the utilization of the global workforce and ensuring organizational prod uctivity targets were met. This included the implementation of a global time tracking system and the generation of weekly status reports that were subsequently shared with senior management. This role gave Kevan the chance to observe the importance of rigo r in data collection and analysis. Based on his success with the development organization Kevan was promoted to the operational lead for the delivery organization within the Accenture Learning Services suite of offerings. This role included the implementa tion of a time tracking system and the training of over 600 global content delivery experts. Additionally Kevan and his team

PAGE 168

168 were responsible for managing a network of 1000 contract delivery professionals that provided ILT services in over 70 countries wit h annual revenue of $5 million. During this time Kevan developed three patentable data analysis architectures and received the Accenture Inventor award for 2008, 2009, and 2010. After successfully designing, implementing, and operationalizing a delivery se rvices operational approach Kevan was promoted to a contract manager. As a contract manager Kevan was responsible for negotiating master service agreements (MSA) and statements of work (SOW) with strategic vendors. Specifically he was in charge of establis hing MSAs with all of the primary Learning Management System (LMS) providers. These strategic contracts resulted in increased margin for the Accenture organization as well as volume benefits for vendors. Preferential pricing negotiated during the MSA proce ss resulted in over $10 million worth of addition al revenue benefit to Accenture. Although it was with great reluctance Kevan decided to leave Accenture to become a full time student at the University of Florida in the fall of 2012. While at the University of Florida Kevan has had the opportunity to take classes on leadership development, evaluation, motivation, and statistics. It has been exciting to have the opportunity to leverage his professional experience in an academic setting. He continues to have a strong passion for the importance of training, and leadership development in particular. He is also passionate about the need to rigorously evaluate results and to use those results as on opportunity to improve. His dream is to continue next complete his Ph.D. in leadership development and then move into a faculty role

PAGE 169

169 where he can help share his enthusiasm for leadership development with the next generation of professionals.