1 / 38

A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEADERS’ PSYCHOLOGICAL CAPITAL AND LEADERSHIP STYLE

A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEADERS’ PSYCHOLOGICAL CAPITAL AND LEADERSHIP STYLE. By: Wes Venters. Statement of the Problem.

khoi
Download Presentation

A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEADERS’ PSYCHOLOGICAL CAPITAL AND LEADERSHIP STYLE

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEADERS’ PSYCHOLOGICAL CAPITAL AND LEADERSHIP STYLE By: Wes Venters

  2. Statement of the Problem • Positive Psychological Capital (PsyCap) represents an elevated state in a person’s confidence and hope and helps individuals remain optimistic and persevere despite adversity. • Effective leaders seem to exemplify individuals who have positive PsyCap; however, there is insignificant empirical evidence indicating this relationship exists.

  3. Statement of Problem Part I • Based on the relationship between PsyCapand Leadership Style, how does • Intelligence, personality, age, gender, ethnicity, andspiritual focus influence the relationship?

  4. Statement of Problem Part I

  5. Statement of Problem Part I

  6. Statement of Problem Part I

  7. Statement of Problem Part II • To what degree is intelligence,personality,age, gender, ethnicity andspiritual focus related to PsyCap?

  8. Statement of Problem Part II

  9. Purpose of the Study • Explore the relationship between leaders’ PsyCap, intelligence, personality, age, gender, ethnicity, spiritual focus, and Leadership Style.

  10. Research Area One Leadership

  11. Participants • Sample consisted of graduate students in MS or Ph.D. in OLLU’s Leadership Studies program • 301 students underwent 360 degree leadership evaluations • Not all of these students completed assessments of: • Personality • Intelligence • PsyCap • Spirituality

  12. Independent Variables: PsyCap > (N = 196) Self-Confidence Hope Optimism Resiliency Intelligence > (N = 234) Inference Recognition of Assumption Evaluation of Arguments Deduction Interpretation Personality “Big Five” > (N = 120) Openness Conscientiousness extraversion Agreeableness Neuroticism Spiritual Focus > (N = 124) Religious Orientation Well-Being Quality of Life Issues Age (N = 276), Gender (N = 301), and Ethnicity (N = 301) Dependent Variables: Leadership Style (360-degree assessments; “Other-Rated”) (N = 249) Transformational Transactional Passive/Avoidant (Laissez-Faire) Research Area I Variables NOTE: Participants with scores from all 5 scales, N = 114/301.

  13. Research Area I Predictors of Leadership? • Q1: Is there a relationship between leaders’ “self-rated” psychological capital (PsyCap)and his or her leadership style? • Q2: Is there a relationship between leaders’ intelligenceand his or her leadership style? • Q3: Is there a relationship between leaders’ “self-rated” personalityand his or her leadership style? • Q4: Is there a relationship between leaders’ “self-rated” spiritual focus and his or herleadership style? • Q5: Is there a relationship between leaders’ age, gender, and ethnicity andhis or her leadership style? NOTE: Leadership scores based on 360-degree assessments

  14. Research Area Two Psychological Capital

  15. Independent Variables: Intelligence Inference Recognition of Assumption Evaluation of Arguments Deduction Interpretation Personality “Big Five” Openness Conscientiousness extraversion Agreeableness Neuroticism Spiritual Focus Religious Orientation Well-Being Quality of Life Issues Age, Gender, and Ethnicity Dependent Variables: PsyCap Self-Efficacy (Confidence) Hope Optimism Resiliency Research Area II Variables

  16. Research Area IIPredictors of Psychological Capital? • Q6: Is there a relationship between leaders’ intelligenceand PsyCap? • Q7: Is there a relationship between leaders’ personalityand PsyCap? • Q8: Is there a relationship between leaders’ spirituality andPsyCap? • Q9: Is there a relationship between leaders’ age, gender, and ethnicityandPsyCap?

  17. Review of the Literature

  18. Psychological Capital (PsyCap) • PsyCapis concerned with “who you are” and “who you are becoming.” PsyCap is ahigher-order construct consisting of four constructs: self-efficacy, hope, optimism,andresiliency. • Factors that make up PsyCap must meet the criteria of being unique to positive organizational behavior (POB). PsyCap constructs must be theory and research based, measurable, “state-like,” and related to work performance outcomes. Luthans, Avey, Avolio, & Combs (2006); Luthans, Norman, Avolio, & Avey (2008)

  19. Psychological Capital (PsyCap) • The composite construct of PsyCap is defined as an individual’s positive psychological state of development characterized by: • having confidence (self-efficacy)to take on and put in the necessary effort to succeed at challenging tasks; • making a positive attribution (optimism) about succeeding now and in the future; • persevering toward goals and, when necessary, redirecting paths to goals(hope) in order to succeed; and • When beset by problems and adversity, sustaining and bouncing back, and even beyond (resilience), to attain success. Luthans, Avolio, Avey, & Norman (2007)

  20. PsyCap and Leadership • Based on the literature, there is no empirical evidence indicating whether or not leaders’ PsyCap is indicative of leadership style • 1st empirical study of PsyCap 2005, evidence predicts that leadership style impacts follower’sPsyCap. • The higher followers’ PsyCap, the higher their performance indicators, and the more they perceived their leaders to be transformational (r = .77, p < .05). • Whether a leader’s PsyCap is indicative of his or her leadership style using a 360-degree instrument is empirically questionable. Gooty, Gavin, Johnson, Frazier, & Snow (2009)

  21. Personality and Leadership • A meta-analysis from 60 independent studies was conducted between the Big Five personality traits and criterion that coded studies as indicated by leadership emergence and leadership effectiveness both separately and pooled together (leadership composite). • The meta-analysis of the relationship between the Big Five personality traitsand leadership composite consisting of emergence and effectiveness indicated: • Openness rc = .24 • Conscientiousness rc = .28 • Extraversion rc = .31 • Agreeableness rc = .08 • Neuroticism rc= -.24 Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt (2002)

  22. Personality and Leadership • Regression analysis of leadership on the Big Five Traits indicated relatively strong multiple correlations for leadership effectiveness (R = .39) and leadership emergence ( R = .53) suggesting that the Big Five typology is a fruitful basis for examining the dispositional predictors of leadership. • Leadership composite of effectiveness and emergence regressed on the Big Five indicated a relatively medium-strong correlation (R = .48). • Extraversionemerged as the strongest and most consistent correlate • Leadership Emergence (R = .30, t = 5.90*, p < .01) • Leadership Effectiveness (R = .18, t = 2.00*, p < .01) • Leadership Composite (R = .27, t = 4.30*, p < .01) suggesting that extraversion is the most important trait of leaders and effective leadership. Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt (2002)

  23. Personality and Leadership • A meta-analysis from 26 independent studies was conducted between the Big Five personality traits and transformational leadership (TFL) and transactional leadership (TAL) styles. • The Big Five personality traits were related to a composite of the three TFL dimensions: Idealized Influence/inspirational motivation (Charisma), Intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration as follows: • Openness rc = .15 • Conscientiousness rc = .13 • Extraversion rc = .24 • Agreeableness rc = .14 • Neuroticism rc= -.17 • Effects of Big Five on TFL: • Charisma was most related to personality(R2= .12, p < . 01) Bono & Judge (2004)

  24. Personality and Intelligence • Over the past decade, there has been an increase in the literature on the relationship between “normal” personality traits (measured by preference tests of typical performance) and intelligence assessments. • Meta-analyses studies have indicated that: • Neuroticism and Conscientiousness tend to be negatively correlated with intelligence • Openness is positively correlated with intelligence test scores. (Positive correlations are modest ranging from r = .10 to r = .30) Furnham (2006)

  25. Personality and PsyCap • PsyCap uses the inclusion criterion of being “state-like” which is the biggest differentiator • Personality traits meet the criterion of being “trait-like – having individual differences with demonstrable generality and stability” Conscientiousness Self-Efficacy Hope Extraversion Openness Optimism Resiliency Agreeableness Neuroticism Luthans, Avolio, Avey, & Norman (2007)

  26. Personality and PsyCap • “Trait” verses “State” • Definitions are arbitrary…what defines a trait or state depends on how a question is asked. Ex: dispositional hope; “I energetically pursue my goals” vs. state hope; “At the present time, I energetically pursue my goals.” • State versions should have a low retest reliability…“State Scales” should vary over days. Snyder et al. (1996) found that correlations across any 2 days in a 4-week period ranged from .48 to .93. Dispositional Hope Scale has shown test-retest correlations in the .80 range over periods of up to 10 weeks. • Empirical evidence for the other three “state-scales” are indicated for optimism(Carver & Scheier , 2005; Shifren & Hooker, 1995; and Seligman, 1998), for resilience(Masten & Reed, 2002 and Wagnild & Young, 1993), and for self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). Allen & Potkay (1981); Zuckerman (1983); Snyder et al., (1991); Snyder et al., (1996)

  27. Intelligence & Leadership • In a 1986 study, Lord et al. conducted a meta-analysis over 24 studies that included the following traits: intelligence, masculinity-femininity, adjustment, dominance, extraversion-introversion, and conservatism and found that intelligence had the strongest correlation with leadership emergence (rc = .50, p < .05). • In a 2004 study, Judge et al. conducted a meta-analysis of the relationship of intelligence with leadership (priori definitions for leadership emergence and effectiveness)to find that intelligence was moderately correlated with leadership (rc1= .21; rc2 = .27) - rc1= est. true score correlation corrected for unreliability in the predictor and criterion - rc2= the previous + range restriction) Lord, De Vader, & Alliger (1986); Judge, Colbert, & Ilies (2004)

  28. Age & Leadership • Many research studies have assessed the impact of leaders and age based mostly on self-rated leadership assessments • Sessa et al. (2008) conducted an epic study on the relationship betweenageandleadership style analyzing data based on 79,866 direct report ratings (other-rated) of leaders from more than 6,000 North American companies in 23 industries across 48 states. Older Leaders Calm and steady Considerate approach Draws on skills & abilities of others Younger Leaders Energizing presence Focused on short-term results More self-focused Sessa, Kabacoff, Deal, & Brown, 2007

  29. Gender & Leadership • In a 2003 study, Eagly et al. conducted a meta-analysis of gender and leadership in 45 studies which compared men and woman on measures of TFL, TAL, and LF (passive/avoidant) leadership styles. • Results indicated that: • female leaders were more transformationalas compared to their male counterparts(p < .01) • female leaders scored higher on contingent reward than male leaders; however, males scored higher on the subscales of management-by-exception-active (p < .05) and management-by-exception-passive • Women surpassed men in areas of leadership styles that were positively related to effectiveness (d = -.22, with a 95% confidence level between -0.27 and -0.18), while men’sleadership styles tended to have a negative relationship with follower effectiveness. Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, & van Engen (2003)

  30. Ethnicity & Leadership • Ospina and Foldy (2009) conducted a critical review of 15 quantitative studies on the effects of race/ethnicity on perceptions of leadership. • Results indicated that Hispanic leaders were often rated slightly less positively than non-Hispanics • White leaders were often rated higher than Black leaders • Asian leaders were rated higher than both Black and Hispanic leaders when participants compared profiles of a successful manager to stereotypical profiles of managers of different races. • Corona (2010) found that Hispanics scored higher than the MLQ-5X normative data for all five dimensions of transformational leadership (t-test revealed significance levels at p < .05). Corona (2010); Ospina & Foldy (2009)

  31. Spirituality & Leadership • Hartsfield (2003) found that spiritualityhad a positive relationship with transformational leadership (TFL) (r = .36, p < .01). • Twigg and Parayitam (2007) conducted a study of 186 senior execs and found spirituality to have a positive relationship with TFL. • Gehrke (2008) administered the RevisedSociallyResponsibleLeadershipScale (SRLS-R2; Tyree, 1998) that measures 8 leadership levels and 3 spirituality scales that measure spirituality, equanimity, and spiritual quest (HERI, 2005) to 449 students at a liberal arts college. Correlational calculations revealed : • Leadership and equanimity (r = .24 to r = .43, p < .01) • Leadership and spiritual quest (r = .10 to r = .30, p < .01) • Leadership and spirituality(r = .09, p < .05 to r = .30, p < .01) Hartsfield (2003); Twigg & Parayitam (2007); and Gehrke (2008)

  32. Methodology

  33. Methodology: Leadership • Multiple Regression • Beta Weights & Partial Correlations • PsyCap (self-efficacy, hope, resiliency, and optimism) • Personality (openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism) • Intelligence (inference, recognition of assumption, evaluation of arguments, deduction, interpretation) • Spiritual Focus • Age • t-tests • Gender • ANOVA • Ethnicity (dummy variables)

  34. Methodology: PsyCap • Multiple Regression • Beta Weights & Partial Correlations • Personality (openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism) • Intelligence (inference, recognition of assumption, evaluation of arguments, deduction, interpretation) • Spiritual Focus • Age • t-tests • Gender • ANOVA • Ethnicity (dummy variables)

  35. Instruments • Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ 5x) - transformational Leadership, transactional Leadership, and passive/avoidant leadership • Psychological Capital Questionnaire (PCQ-24) - self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resiliency • Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (WGCTA) Form B (assess general cognitive ability) - inference, recognition of assumption, evaluation of arguments, deduction, and interpretation • Neuroticism-Extraversion-Openness Personality Inventory-Revised Form S (NEO-PI-R) • openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism Avolio & Bass (1995); Luthans, Avolio, & Avey (2007), Watson & Glaser (1980), and Costa & McCrae (1992)

  36. Instruments Cont… • Religious Orientation Scale (ROS) • ROS Intrinsic: religious beliefs strongly internalized; seek truth • ROS Extrinsic:largely utilitarian; focus on individual needs, status, etc • Spiritual Well-Being Scale (SWBS) • Religious Well-Being:self-assessment of one’s relationship with God • Existential Well-Being: adjustment to self; sense of life purpose and satisfaction • Daily Spiritual Experiences Scale (DSES) • Sense of connection with God; desired closeness to God Allport, Allport, & Ross (1967); Ellison & Paloutzian (1982); Underwood & Teresi (2002)

  37. Sample Respondents consisted of 301 working adult graduate students in MS and PhD Leadership Studies program at Our Lady of the Lake University (OLLU). Researcher contacted selected faculty and received permission to survey students.

  38. Ethical Considerations • Collected new PsyCap data • Voluntary, no sensitive questions asked, no cost • All other data were existing data • Committee chair merged collected PsyCap data and removed identifying information for participant’s following scores & info: • Leadership scores • Personality scores • Intelligence scores • Spirituality scores • Demographics

More Related