To be effective in crisis conditions, the leaders must be transformational . transforming crises into challenges p.45.

1. �To be effective in crisis conditions, the leaders must be transformational�. transforming crises into challenges (p.45).�

2. *click for slide Good morning colleagues. Thank you for coming to my presentation. I am Beng Chong Lim from Applied Behavioral Sciences Dept, Ministry of Defense Singapore. My presentation today is based on a research conducted by Rob Ployhart and myself. Due to the time constraints, I will not attempt to cover too much details, but rather to provide an overview of this research. Colleagues who are interested in finding out more about the research can drop me an email and I will be happy to send you a softcopy of the full paper, which is already in press at JAP. *click for slide *click for slide Good morning colleagues. Thank you for coming to my presentation. I am Beng Chong Lim from Applied Behavioral Sciences Dept, Ministry of Defense Singapore. My presentation today is based on a research conducted by Rob Ployhart and myself. Due to the time constraints, I will not attempt to cover too much details, but rather to provide an overview of this research. Colleagues who are interested in finding out more about the research can drop me an email and I will be happy to send you a softcopy of the full paper, which is already in press at JAP. *click for slide

3. Scope of Presentation Introduction Hypotheses Method Findings Conclusions The scope of my presentation today In the introduction, I will briefly talk about three issues First, the research on leader personality and transformational leadership. Second, the need to relate transformational leadership to team outcomes Third, the distinction between team performance in maximum and typical contexts. Next, I will present the four hypotheses tested in this study and the method Following that, I will discuss the findings and finish up with the conclusions. *clickThe scope of my presentation today In the introduction, I will briefly talk about three issues First, the research on leader personality and transformational leadership. Second, the need to relate transformational leadership to team outcomes Third, the distinction between team performance in maximum and typical contexts. Next, I will present the four hypotheses tested in this study and the method Following that, I will discuss the findings and finish up with the conclusions. *click

4. INTRODUCTION Transformational leadership (Bass, 1981) Charisma or idealized influence Inspirational motivation Intellectual stimulation Individualized consideration Questions about antecedents and consequences Five Factor Model of Personality (FFM) e.g., Judge & Bono, 2000; Ployhart, Lim & Chan, 2001) Consequences exclusively at the individual level, not at team level (Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002) *Click for point 1 Over the last 20 years, transformational leadership has become one of the dominant leadership theories in the organizational sciences. Transformational leadership is comprised of four constructs: charisma or idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration. Using these behaviors, transformational leaders concentrate their efforts on loner term goals, emphasize their vision and inspire subordinates to achieve the shared vision, and encourage the subordinates to take on greater responsibility for both their own development and the development of others. They are also receptive to innovations and are likely to promote creativity in their subordinates. Finally, they are more likely to cater to individual followers� needs and competencies. *click for point 2 Despite the importance of transformational leadership in practice and the wealth of research on the topic, there are still many questions relating to the antecedents and consequences of transformational leaders. To my best knowledge, only two studies have examined the dispositional basis of transformational leadership using the Five Factor Model of personality. Hence, more research is needed to understand how personality is manifested in transformational leadership behaviors. For instance, Judge and Bono (2000) found that two of the five personality factors � extroversion and agreeableness � positively predicted transformational leadership. Similarly, previous research examining the consequences of transformational leadership had been focused almost exclusively at the individual level (I.e., leader effectiveness). In fact, a recent meta-analysis by Judge et al. (2002) did not find a single leadership study that had used group performance as the leadership effectiveness measure. However, many researchers have argued that leadership may have its most important consequences for teams and thus a focus on the team is also important. For example, the theory predicts that transformational leaders will inspire followers to transcend their self-interests for a higher collective purpose. Theory and research must demonstrate links between transformational leadership and unit-level performance because without such empirical research, we are forced to rely on findings at the individual level. This can potentially be a dangerous practice, as research on levels of analysis has shown that findings at one level of analysis cannot automatically be assumed to exist at a higher level. *click *Click for point 1 Over the last 20 years, transformational leadership has become one of the dominant leadership theories in the organizational sciences. Transformational leadership is comprised of four constructs: charisma or idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration. Using these behaviors, transformational leaders concentrate their efforts on loner term goals, emphasize their vision and inspire subordinates to achieve the shared vision, and encourage the subordinates to take on greater responsibility for both their own development and the development of others. They are also receptive to innovations and are likely to promote creativity in their subordinates. Finally, they are more likely to cater to individual followers� needs and competencies. *click for point 2 Despite the importance of transformational leadership in practice and the wealth of research on the topic, there are still many questions relating to the antecedents and consequences of transformational leaders. To my best knowledge, only two studies have examined the dispositional basis of transformational leadership using the Five Factor Model of personality. Hence, more research is needed to understand how personality is manifested in transformational leadership behaviors. For instance, Judge and Bono (2000) found that two of the five personality factors � extroversion and agreeableness � positively predicted transformational leadership. Similarly, previous research examining the consequences of transformational leadership had been focused almost exclusively at the individual level (I.e., leader effectiveness). In fact, a recent meta-analysis by Judge et al. (2002) did not find a single leadership study that had used group performance as the leadership effectiveness measure. However, many researchers have argued that leadership may have its most important consequences for teams and thus a focus on the team is also important. For example, the theory predicts that transformational leaders will inspire followers to transcend their self-interests for a higher collective purpose. Theory and research must demonstrate links between transformational leadership and unit-level performance because without such empirical research, we are forced to rely on findings at the individual level. This can potentially be a dangerous practice, as research on levels of analysis has shown that findings at one level of analysis cannot automatically be assumed to exist at a higher level. *click

5. INTRODUCTION Criterion related validities of FFM differed for both typical and maximum leadership measures (Ployhart, Lim, & Chan, 2001) Typical vs Maximum contexts (Sackett, Zedeck, & Fogli (1988): One is aware he/she is being evaluated The instructions to perform maximally on the task are accepted The task is of relatively short durations so the person can maximize effort. Applicable to team contexts *click Like Judge and Bono (2000), Ployhart, Lim and Chan (2001) also found that certain personality factors were predictive of transformational behaviors in a military sample. However, what is significant about their findings is that the criterion related validities of the five factor model differed for both typical and maximum leadership performance measures. Specifically openness to experience was predictive of transformational leadership behaviors in a maximum performance condition, neuroticism was most predictive of leadership behaviors in a typical performance condition, and extroversion was predictive of both. *click As noted by Sackett et al (1988), maximum performance contexts occur when the following conditions are satisfied Individuals are aware that they are being evaluated Acceptance of instructions to exert maximum effort Short time span *click To date, the importance of this distinction has been demonstrated only at the individual level of analysis, however, we believe that such distinction is equally applicable to team level outcomes. In this study we propose that transformational leadership will be more predictive of team performance in maximum rather than typical contexts. This expectation is consistent with theory, as many of the reasons offered as requiring transformational leadership are inherently �maximum performance� unit-level phenomena. For example, maintaining unit performance during a merger, and military units in combat. Bass (1985) has repeatedly argued that the importance of transformational leadership to groups and organizations during periods of stress, crisis, instability, and turmoil. Indeed, transformational leadership makes a difference in these situations. *click *click Like Judge and Bono (2000), Ployhart, Lim and Chan (2001) also found that certain personality factors were predictive of transformational behaviors in a military sample. However, what is significant about their findings is that the criterion related validities of the five factor model differed for both typical and maximum leadership performance measures. Specifically openness to experience was predictive of transformational leadership behaviors in a maximum performance condition, neuroticism was most predictive of leadership behaviors in a typical performance condition, and extroversion was predictive of both. *click As noted by Sackett et al (1988), maximum performance contexts occur when the following conditions are satisfied Individuals are aware that they are being evaluated Acceptance of instructions to exert maximum effort Short time span *click To date, the importance of this distinction has been demonstrated only at the individual level of analysis, however, we believe that such distinction is equally applicable to team level outcomes. In this study we propose that transformational leadership will be more predictive of team performance in maximum rather than typical contexts. This expectation is consistent with theory, as many of the reasons offered as requiring transformational leadership are inherently �maximum performance� unit-level phenomena. For example, maintaining unit performance during a merger, and military units in combat. Bass (1985) has repeatedly argued that the importance of transformational leadership to groups and organizations during periods of stress, crisis, instability, and turmoil. Indeed, transformational leadership makes a difference in these situations. *click

6. PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY How leader personality, based on the five factor model, relates to followers� ratings of the leader�s transformational behaviors How transformational leadership relates to team performance assessed under typical and maximum performance contexts Whether transformational leadership fully or partially mediates the relationship between team performance and the FFM of personality The purpose of this study is to examine these neglected antecedents and consequences of transformational leadership. We first examine how leader personality, based on the five-factor model, relates to subordinate ratings of the leader�s transformational behaviors. Second, we examine how transformational leadership relates to team performance assessed under typical and maximum contexts. Third, we assess whether transformational leadership fully or partially mediates the relationship between team performance and the five factor model of personality. This study therefore integrates and simultaneously tests the findings by Judge and Bono (2000) and Ployhart et al (2001) by assessing the Five Factor Model determinants and consequences of transformational leadership. *click The purpose of this study is to examine these neglected antecedents and consequences of transformational leadership. We first examine how leader personality, based on the five-factor model, relates to subordinate ratings of the leader�s transformational behaviors. Second, we examine how transformational leadership relates to team performance assessed under typical and maximum contexts. Third, we assess whether transformational leadership fully or partially mediates the relationship between team performance and the five factor model of personality. This study therefore integrates and simultaneously tests the findings by Judge and Bono (2000) and Ployhart et al (2001) by assessing the Five Factor Model determinants and consequences of transformational leadership. *click

7. HYPOTHESES H1: Personality will be related to transformational leadership H2: Transformational leadership will be more predictive of team performance in maximum rather than typical performance contexts To summarize, we have four hypotheses Hypothesis 1: personality will be related to transformational leadership Hypothesis 2: transformational leadership will be more predictive of team performance in maximum rather than typical performance contexts *clickTo summarize, we have four hypotheses Hypothesis 1: personality will be related to transformational leadership Hypothesis 2: transformational leadership will be more predictive of team performance in maximum rather than typical performance contexts *click

8. Specific hypotheses Extroversion will be positively related to TF Openness will be positively related to TF Agreeableness will be positively related to TF Neuroticism will be negatively related to TF

9. HYPOTHESES H3: Transformational leadership will fully mediate the relationship between leader personality and team performance in maximum contexts. H4: Transformational leadership will partially mediate the relationship between leader personality and team performance in typical contexts. Hypothesis 3: Transformational leadership will fully mediate the relationship between leader personality and team performance in maximum contexts. Hypothesis 4: Transformational leadership will partially mediate the relationship between leader personality and team performance in typical contexts. *clickHypothesis 3: Transformational leadership will fully mediate the relationship between leader personality and team performance in maximum contexts. Hypothesis 4: Transformational leadership will partially mediate the relationship between leader personality and team performance in typical contexts. *click

10. Hypotheses

11. METHOD Sample: 39 combat teams from Singapore Armed Forces Male; age ranged from 18 to 23 years old (M = 19.3, SD = 1.04) Predominantly chinese 20 superiors and 15 Assessment center assessors The sample comprised 39 combat teams from the Singapore Armed Forces. These participants were all males who were enlisted for compulsory national service. Their age ranged from 18 to 23 years old. The racial composition of the sample mirrored the general population, which is predominately chinese. Apart from the leaders and soldiers of these combat teams, we had 20 superiors and 15 assessment centers assessors to provide team performance ratings. *clickThe sample comprised 39 combat teams from the Singapore Armed Forces. These participants were all males who were enlisted for compulsory national service. Their age ranged from 18 to 23 years old. The racial composition of the sample mirrored the general population, which is predominately chinese. Apart from the leaders and soldiers of these combat teams, we had 20 superiors and 15 assessment centers assessors to provide team performance ratings. *click

12. METHOD *Click for point 1 Participants were team members of intact military teams undergoing military training. About 10 weeks into the training, leaders completed the Goldberg�s measure of the five factor model of personality while their subordinates rated their leaders on their transformational leadership using MLQ. *click for point 2 About three weeks later, supervisors� ratings of the team�s training performance were collected. Superiors rated the team performance over the 3 month training course. This constituted the team performance in typical contexts. About the same time, an assessment center, designed to evaluate the combat proficiency of the combat team, was used to obtain measures of the team�s performance in maximum contexts. *click*Click for point 1 Participants were team members of intact military teams undergoing military training. About 10 weeks into the training, leaders completed the Goldberg�s measure of the five factor model of personality while their subordinates rated their leaders on their transformational leadership using MLQ. *click for point 2 About three weeks later, supervisors� ratings of the team�s training performance were collected. Superiors rated the team performance over the 3 month training course. This constituted the team performance in typical contexts. About the same time, an assessment center, designed to evaluate the combat proficiency of the combat team, was used to obtain measures of the team�s performance in maximum contexts. *click

13. FINDINGS Preliminary analyses Reliabilities of Personality scales: .72 to .82 ICC(1) of MLQ is .22. Hence aggregation is statistically justified Correlation between team performance in typical and maximum contexts : r = .18, ns Power analyses: n = 39 teams; 59% chance of detecting moderate effects at p < .05 (Cohen, 1988). Hence we used p <.1 These are some of the results of the preliminary analyses Reliabilities of the Goldberg scales ranged from .72 to .82 ICC(1) of the MLQ is .22. Hence, given the high level of ICC(1), aggregating followers� transformational leadership scores to reflect the transformational leadership of the team leader is statistically justified. The low correlation between the team performance measures across the typical and maximum performance contexts suggests the ratings from these contexts were not interchangeable. In contrast to research at the individual level of analysis, the difficulty of collecting data from large samples of intact teams usually results in smaller sample sizes. For this study, p less than .1 is used for statistical significance given the low power associated with small sample size. *click for slideThese are some of the results of the preliminary analyses Reliabilities of the Goldberg scales ranged from .72 to .82 ICC(1) of the MLQ is .22. Hence, given the high level of ICC(1), aggregating followers� transformational leadership scores to reflect the transformational leadership of the team leader is statistically justified. The low correlation between the team performance measures across the typical and maximum performance contexts suggests the ratings from these contexts were not interchangeable. In contrast to research at the individual level of analysis, the difficulty of collecting data from large samples of intact teams usually results in smaller sample sizes. For this study, p less than .1 is used for statistical significance given the low power associated with small sample size. *click for slide

14. Correlations

15. FINDINGS H1: Leader personality will be related to Transformational leadership Transformational leadership was regressed on the five personality factors The personality model explained 28% of the variance in transformational leadership ratings (F[5,33] = 2.59, p <.05). Supported To test hypothesis 1, we regressed transformational leadership on the five personality factors. The model explained 28% of the variance in transformational leadership ratings. Hence hypothesis 1 is supported. *click for slideTo test hypothesis 1, we regressed transformational leadership on the five personality factors. The model explained 28% of the variance in transformational leadership ratings. Hence hypothesis 1 is supported. *click for slide

16. Regression analysis

17. FINDINGS H2:Transformational leadership will be more predictive of team performance in maximum rather than typical performance contexts correlations = .32 & .60 for typical and maximum contexts respectively Using Williams (1959) and Steiger (1980): the difference between the two correlations is significant t(36) = 1.63, p <.1) Supported For Hypothesis 2, Transformational leadership was significantly related to team performance in both typical and maximum contexts. Correlations = .32 and .60 respectively. The difference between the two correlations is significant. Hence hypothesis 2 is supported *click for slide For Hypothesis 2, Transformational leadership was significantly related to team performance in both typical and maximum contexts. Correlations = .32 and .60 respectively. The difference between the two correlations is significant. Hence hypothesis 2 is supported *click for slide

18. FINDINGS H3: Transformational leadership will fully mediate the relationship between leadership personality and team performance in maximum contexts. using Baron and Kenny (1986), The FFM did not produce a significant increment in variance for predicting team performance in maximum contexts (?R2 = .12; ?F[5, 31] = 1.42, ns). Supported. To test for mediation, we used the procedures laid by Baron and Kenny (1986). The five factor model of personality did not produce a significant increment in variance for predicting team performance in maximum contexts. Hence hypothesis 3 is supported. *click for slideTo test for mediation, we used the procedures laid by Baron and Kenny (1986). The five factor model of personality did not produce a significant increment in variance for predicting team performance in maximum contexts. Hence hypothesis 3 is supported. *click for slide

19. FINDINGS H4: Transformational leadership will partially mediate the relationship between leader personality and team performance in typical contexts. On the other hand, the FFM accounted for significant incremental variance in predicting team performance in typical contexts after controlling for transformational leadership (?R2 = .34; ?F[5, 31] = 3.87, p < .05). - Supported Again, we used the same procedure to test hypothesis 4. The five factor model of personality accounted for significant incremental variance in predicting team performance in typical contexts after controlling for transformational leadership Hence hypothesis 4 is also supported. *click for slideAgain, we used the same procedure to test hypothesis 4. The five factor model of personality accounted for significant incremental variance in predicting team performance in typical contexts after controlling for transformational leadership Hence hypothesis 4 is also supported. *click for slide

20. CONCLUSIONS *click for point In conclusion, We found that the five factor model of personality is predictive of transformational leadership. *click for point The results also show that transformational leadership has important consequences for team performance. In particular, transformational leadership appears to be more predictive of team performance in maximum contexts. *click for point In addition, we found transformational leadership fully mediated the relationship between the FFM and team performance in maximum contexts, while only partially mediated the relationship between FFM and team performance in typical contexts. Before ending the presentation, a caveat is warranted. Like any field study, there are a number of potential issues we could not control that may influence the interpretation of our findings. Hence, an important avenue for future research will be to replicate and extend this study using different samples, cultures, measures, designs,and contexts. *click*click for point In conclusion, We found that the five factor model of personality is predictive of transformational leadership. *click for point The results also show that transformational leadership has important consequences for team performance. In particular, transformational leadership appears to be more predictive of team performance in maximum contexts. *click for point In addition, we found transformational leadership fully mediated the relationship between the FFM and team performance in maximum contexts, while only partially mediated the relationship between FFM and team performance in typical contexts. Before ending the presentation, a caveat is warranted. Like any field study, there are a number of potential issues we could not control that may influence the interpretation of our findings. Hence, an important avenue for future research will be to replicate and extend this study using different samples, cultures, measures, designs,and contexts. *click

21. Thank you Comments? Thank you. I am happy to take questions. *ClickThank you. I am happy to take questions. *Click

22. �To be effective in crisis conditions, the leaders must be transformational�. transforming crises into challenges (p.45).�