A broad, integrative theoretical framework for understanding the relationship between individual differences and various leader behaviors is presented; it proposes a new individual-differences construct called the motivation to lead (MTL). A large-scale study using 3 samples in different occupational and cultural contexts shows 3 factors underlying MTL, namely, affective-identity, noncalculative, and social-normative MTL. A parsimonious model of antecedents to MTL is developed through hierarchical regression modeling and is cross-validated using confirmatory latent variable modeling. MTL is shown to provide incremental validity over other predictors such as general cognitive ability, values, personality, and attitudes in the prediction of 2 behavioral measures of leadership potential. Findings are discussed with reference to the theoretical framework proposed for understanding individual differences in leader behavior.

The trait theory of leadership is advanced by a joint investigation of the mediating role of (a) leadership self-efficacy (LSE = leader's perceived capabilities to perform leader roles) in linking neuroticism, extraversion, and conscientiousness with leader effectiveness and (b) the moderating role of job demands and job autonomy in influencing the mediation. Using K. J. Preacher, D. D. Rucker, and A. F. Hayes' (2007) moderated mediation framework, the authors tested the model (over a 2-year period) with matched data from 394 military leaders and their supervisors. Results showed that LSE mediated the relationships for neuroticism, extraversion, and conscientiousness with leader effectiveness. Moderated mediation analyses further revealed that LSE mediated the relationships for (a) all 3 personality variables for only those leaders with low job demands; (b) neuroticism and conscientiousness for only those leaders with high job autonomy; and (c) extraversion, regardless of a leader's level of job autonomy. Results underscore the importance of accounting for leaders' situational contexts when examining the relationships between personality, LSE, and effectiveness.

The present study compared the fit of several IRT models to two personality assessment instruments. Data from 13,059 individuals responding to the US-English version of the Fifth Edition of the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF) and 1,770 individuals responding to Goldberg's 50 item Big Five Personality measure were analyzed. Various issues pertaining to the fit of the IRT models to personality data were considered. We examined two of the most popular parametric models designed for dichotomously scored items (i.e., the two- and three-parameter logistic models) and a parametric model for polytomous items (Samejima's graded response model). Also examined were Levine's nonparametric maximum likelihood formula scoring models for dichotomous and polytomous data, which were previously found to provide good fits to several cognitive ability tests (Drasgow, Levine, Tsien, Williams, & Mead, 1995). The two- and three-parameter logistic models fit some scales reasonably well but not others; the graded response model generally did not fit well. The nonparametric formula scoring models provided the best fit of the models considered. Several implications of these findings for personality measurement and personnel selection were described.

The study tests the distinction between typical and maximum criteria with ratings of transformational leadership performance, and examines whether the criterion‐related validities of the five factor model differ for the two types of criteria. Using an East Asian military sample (n= 1,259) where multiple ratings of typical and maximum performance were obtained from different sources, we used structural equation modeling to test the typical/maximum performance distinction. Results found that typical and maximum performance are different latent constructs and that this distinction is present even after considering rating method factors (i.e., rater source, time). The importance of this distinction is shown by the fact that validities for the personality constructs were not equally predictive of both criteria: Openness was most predictive of maximum performance, Neuroticism was most predictive of typical performance, and Extroversion was predictive of both. By distinguishing typical from maximum performance constructs, relationships between personality and transformational leadership were found to be stronger than previous research suggested.

No abstract

The effects of faking on personality test scores have been studied previously by comparing (a) experimental groups instructed to fake or answer honestly, (b) subgroups created from a single sample of applicants or nonapplicants by using impression management scores, and (c) job applicants and nonapplicants. In this investigation, the latter 2 methods were used to study the effects of faking on the functioning of the items and scales of the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. A variety of item response theory methods were used to detect differential item/test functioning, interpreted as evidence of faking. The presence of differential item/test functioning across testing situations suggests that faking adversely affects the construct validity of personality scales and that it is problematic to study faking by comparing groups defined by impression management scores.

No abstract

This study extends multisource feedback research by assessing the effects of rater source and raters' cultural value orientations on rating bias (leniency and halo). Using a motivational perspective of performance appraisal, the authors posit that subordinate raters followed by peers will exhibit more rating bias than superiors. More important, given that multisource feedback systems were premised on low power distance and individualistic cultural assumptions, the authors expect raters' power distance and individualism-collectivism orientations to moderate the effects of rater source on rating bias. Hierarchical linear modeling on data collected from 1,447 superiors, peers, and subordinates who provided developmental feedback to 172 military officers show that (a) subordinates exhibit the most rating leniency, followed by peers and superiors; (b) subordinates demonstrate more halo than superiors and peers, whereas superiors and peers do not differ; (c) the effects of power distance on leniency and halo are strongest for subordinates than for peers and superiors; (d) the effects of collectivism on leniency were stronger for subordinates and peers than for superiors; effects on halo were stronger for subordinates than superiors, but these effects did not differ for subordinates and peers. The present findings highlight the role of raters' cultural values in multisource feedback ratings.