Abstract
The five-factor model of personality is increasingly used by scholars to predict the success and failures of leaders and followers. The present paper aims at comparing and contrasting two research articles that utilize the Big-Five personality traits. On the one hand, an experimental study by Emery, Calvard, and Pierce (2013) discusses leadership as an emerging process, which is affected by differences in personality traits of leaders and followers. On the other hand, Judge, Heller, and Mount (2002) discuss only the followers’ (employees’) personality traits and their effect on job satisfaction. While the studies have different methodological and theoretical approaches, they share common limitations due to the trait approach.
The five-factor model
Personal traits can determine various factors of human behavior and can be both beneficial and disadvantageous for leaders. Big-Five personality traits, including openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism, demonstrate the basic dimensions of human personality, which have been confirmed by numerous studies (Sims, 2017). The five-factor model is known to determine resilience (Oshio, Taku, Hirano, & Saeed, 2017) and leadership styles (Hassan, Asad, & Hoshino, 2016). Moreover, the five personality traits can predetermine tendencies towards abusive supervision (Camps, Stouten, & Euwema, 2016).
However, the majority of research focuses on the qualities of leaders, which makes the current body of knowledge one-sided. The present paper aims at reviewing the article “Leadership as an emergent group process: A social network study of personality and leadership” by Emery, Calvard, and Pierce (2013) and comparing it to the meta-analysis conducted by Judge, Heller, and Mount (2002), which utilizes a similar approach to personality traits.
Results and Discussion
The follower-centered approach is becoming increasingly popular among scholars while describing leadership processes. For instance, Syed, Rehman, and Kitchlew (2018) focus on the personality traits of employees to accept the leadership style of the manager. However, Emery et al. (2013) state that both leadership and followership are dynamic processes as they are shaped by multiple independent factors. To address the problem in its complexity, the researchers conducted a study, which aimed at simultaneously examining emergent leadership and followership (Emery et al., 2013).
The study concluded that there is a definite link between Big Five personality traits and task- and relationship-based leadership and emergent followership (Emery et al., 2013). In particular, agreeable and neurotic followers were less likely to support relationship-oriented leaders, while conscientious individuals opted for following task-oriented leaders (Emery et al., 2013). Additionally, the study concluded that “nominated leaders tended to be dissimilar in agreeableness from their corresponding followers” (Emery et al., 2013, p. 41). At the same time, relationship-oriented leaders were found similar to their followers in openness to experience (Emery et al., 2013). The results imply that there are complex correlations between leadership and followership, and the one-sided approach is prone to bias.
The study by Judge et al. (2002) employs a cardinally different methodological and theoretical approach. While Emery et al. (2013) conducted a longitudinal experimental study, Judge et al. (2002) created a meta-analysis of existing literature. Therefore, the generalizability of findings is different in favor of Judge et al.’s (2002) research. Moreover, the studies differ considerably in terms of utilized theoretical approach.
Emery et al. (2013) adopt a more sophisticated viewpoint on the matter and discuss the personal traits of both leaders (managers) and followers (employees), while Judge et al. (2002) discuss the Big Five personality traits of only employees. In other words, Judge et al. (2002) do not take into consideration the differences and similarities between the personal traits of leaders and followers. In this sense, the meta-analysis is one-sided, which can lead to biased results.
Even though the differences between the studies are considerable, there are also evident similarities in the theoretical approach. Namely, both research articles refer to the five-factor model of personality. As a trait approach, the theory has several flaws, which limit the usability of research results. First, the trait approach, in contrast to the process approach is not useful for training and development. Traits are inborn characteristics, which rarely change throughout one’s life. Moreover, the definitions of traits are highly subjective and difficult to measure, which implies that the results of the study are hardly useable for hiring purposes.
However, the approach is beneficial for pinpointing personal strengths and weaknesses to determine where employees stand within their organizations. In summary, both articles are limited by the trait approach, which is associated with negative implications to the applicability of findings; therefore, both studies can benefit from adding a process approach to address the weakness.
Conclusion
A short literature review revealed that Big-Five personality traits are often used in research articles concerning various topics. The research conducted by Emery et al. (2013) employs a dualistic approach to emerging leadership by discussing how differences between personality traits of leaders and followers affect the support for leaders. The study is different from the conducted by Judge et al. (2002) in terms of methods and theoretical framework. However, both articles utilize the five-factor model of personality, which implies that the usability of their findings is limited.
References
Camps, J., Stouten, J., & Euwema, M. (2016). The relation between supervisors’ big five personality traits and employees’ experiences of abusive supervision. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 112.
Emery, C., Calvard, T., & Pierce, M. (2013). Leadership as an emergent group process: A social network study of personality and leadership. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16(1), 28-45.
Hassan, H., Asad, S., & Hoshino, Y. (2016). Determinants of leadership style in big five personality dimensions. Universal Journal of Management, 4(4), 161-179.
Judge, T.A., Heller, D., & Mount, M.K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 530-541.
Oshio, A., Taku, K., Hirano, M., & Saeed, G. (2018). Resilience and Big Five personality traits: A meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 127, 54-60.
Sims, C. M. (2017). Do the big-five personality traits predict empathic listening and assertive communication? International journal of listening, 31(3), 163-188.
Syed, A. R., Rehman, K. U., & Kitchlew, N. (2018). Impact of Perceived Leadership Style on Employees’ Work Stress: Moderating and Mediating Role Big 5 Personality Traits. Paradigms, 12(1), 6-15.