The Myers-Briggs type indicator and transformational leadership

Verified

Added on  2022/12/30

|18
|9474
|54
AI Summary
This paper aims to study the possible relationship between elements of personality as measured by the Myers-Briggs type indicator (MBTI) and transformational leadership (TL) as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). No relationship was found between follower assessments of transformational leadership and leader personality as measured by the MBTI. Leaders did, however, perceive themselves to be significantly more transformational than did those who reported to them.

Contribute Materials

Your contribution can guide someone’s learning journey. Share your documents today.
Document Page
The Myers-Briggs type indicator
and transformational leadership
F. William Brown and Michael D.Reilly
College of Business, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, US
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to study the possible relationship between elements of personality a
measured by the Myers-Briggs type indicator(MBTI) and transformationalleadership (TL)as
measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ).
Design/methodology/approach – The study was done atthe North American manufacturing
facility of an international technology company. Utilizing the Multifactor Leadership Questionna
measure transformational leadership,over 2,000 followers provided assessments of transformational
leadership for 148 managers who had done self-assessments and had completed Form K of the
Findings – No relationship was found between follower assessments of transformational leaders
and leader personality as measured by the MBTI.Leaders did,however,perceive themselves to be
significantly more transformationalthan did those who reported to them.Leader preference for
extraversion over introversion and intuition over perception were both significantly associated
self-reports of transformational leadership.
Research limitations/implications – Studiesutilizing large samplesacrossa variety of
organizational settings are needed to confirm the results of this study.
Practical implications – This study calls into question the existence of a relationship between th
MBTI and transformational leadership. The study does not provide any support for the possible
of the MBTI for the prediction or explanation of transformational leadership behaviors. Assumin
followers’perceptions of TL are the more valid,the findings suggest that previous results linking
MBTI and TL may be measurement artifacts.
Originality/value – Utilizing a large sample,the MLQ and continuousmeasuresof MBTI
preferences the results of this study contradict previous reports of a relationship between perso
as measured by the MBTI and transformational leadership.
Keywords Transformational leadership, Personality measurement, Self assessment
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Interest in leadership and socialinfluence can be traced to earliest recorded history
(Bass,1990;Bryman,1996).However,the process of trying to understand this critical
but complex elementof human enterprise has been marked by discontinuity with
periods ofgreatexcitementinterspersed with protracted periods ofdespairand
discouragement(Hunt,1999).Greatadvancementsin social and organizational
psychology in the post-Second World War period were accompanied by the eme
of schools of management and an academic-oriented study of management wit
in the scientific method and a rigorous approach to socialscience (Drucker,1988).
Numerous theories and approaches grew out of this period of productivity only
headway during the second half of the twentieth century. By the mid-1960s the
a model of leadership that could fully describe the dynamics of the leadership p
and theinadequacy ofcurrentexplanationshad significantly discouraged both
practitioners and academics (Koontz,1961).Hunt (1999)points to the emergence of
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0262-1711.htm
JMD
28,10
916
Received 27 January 2008
Revised 10 August 2008
Accepted 02 December 2008
Journal of Management Development
Vol.28 No.10,2009
pp.916-932
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0262-1711
DOI 10.1108/02621710911000677

Secure Best Marks with AI Grader

Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
Document Page
transformationalleadership theory asthe forcethat reenergized thefield and
stimulated a great leap forward in the understanding of the leadership process.
Traditionally,most studies of leadership concentrate on the behavior of the leader
and the impact of that behavior on organizationaland individualoutcomes.As the
study of transformationalleadership developed and matured,the end of the century
marked a general agreement on both the nature and the efficacy of transformational
leadership behaviors (Lowe et al., 1996; Bass and Avolio, 1990; Bass, 1999). Invigorated
by the availability ofa comprehensive theory and enjoying unusualunanimity in
regard to the behavioral dynamics of transformational leadership (Table I), researchers
have sought a more complete understanding of the leadership process by directing
their attention beyond the observable behaviors of leaders to leader’s dispositional
qualities and characteristics in an effort to expand and enlarge their understanding of
the social influence process.
Generally following an established lineof research regarding theimpactof
personality on transformational leadership (e.g.Schyns and Sanders,2007;Felfe and
Schyns,2006;Judge and Bono,2000) and specifically informed by Hautala (2006),the
essential question in all of these studies is: to what extent are differences in personality
(in this case as measured by the MBTI)associated with perceived differences in
leadership behaviors characteristic of transformational leadership? In a study of 439
Finnish leaders and their 380 subordinates,Hautala (2006) concluded that there was a
relationship between personality,as measured by the MBTI,and transformational
leadership,as measured by Kouzesand Posner’s(1998)Leadership Personality
Inventory (LPI).Specifically,the results of the cited study indicated that personality
Psychological typesFocus and preference
Extraversion-introversion: where you focus your attention
Extraversion People who prefer extraversion tend to focus their attention on the outer world of
people and things
Introversion People who prefer introversion tend to focus their attention on the inner world of
ideas and impressions
Sensing-intuition: the way you take in information
Sensing People who prefer sensing tend to take in information through the five senses
and focus on the here and now
Intuition People who prefer intuition tend to take in information from patterns and the big
picture and focus on future possibilities
Thinking-feeling: the way you make decisions
Thinking People who prefer thinking tend to make decisions based primarily on logic and
on objective analysis of cause and effect
Feeling People who prefer feeling tend to make decisions based primarily on values and
on subjective evaluation of person-centered concerns
Judging-perceiving: how you dealwith the outer world
Judging People who prefer judging tend to like a planned and organized approach to life
and prefer to have things settled
Perceiving People who prefer perceiving tend to like a flexible and spontaneous approach to
life and prefer to keep their options open
Source: Adapted from MBTI Report Profile,available at:www.cpp.com/products/mbti/index.asp
Table I.
Elements of the
Myers-Briggs type
indicator
MBTI and
transformational
leadership
917
Document Page
preferences for extroversion,intuition, and perceiving were positively associated with
self-reports of transformational leadership and that a perception by subordinate
sensing preference among leaders was associated with transformationalleadership
behaviors by their manager.
Our study examines the same conceptual relationships, using a considerably
sample,continuous measures of MBTI preferences,and a different and much more
widely accepted measure oftransformationalleadership,in the North American
manufacturing facility of an international technology company. Following a revie
the literature and a description of hypotheses,theoretical framework,and the method
for testing,an extensive examination of similarities and differences between the t
studies is provided along with potentialexplanations and conclusions aboutthe
relationship between these personality measures and transformationalleadership
behaviors.
The theoreticalframeworkfor this study begins with recognitionof
transformationalleadership’swell establishedpositiverelationshipto desired
organizationaloutcomes.To the extent that transformationalleadership is based on
and delivered through inborn enduring personaldifferences,it seems logicalthat
personality preferences measured by the widely used Myers-Briggs Type Indicat
have the potential to illuminate important dispositional factors which are associ
with transformationalleadership behaviors.An improved understanding ofthis
heretoforelargely unexaminedrelationshipwill contributeto an increased
understanding ofthe socialinfluence process and offer pathways for professional
and personal development.
Myers-Briggs type indicator
Described by its authors as one of the world’s mostwidely used tools to describe
personality, (Myers and McCaulley, 1985; Myers et al., 1998) the MBTI has its ro
Jungian psychology.Carl Gustav Jung was a Swiss psychiatrist,active in the early to
mid-twentieth century,who developed a theory ofpsychologicalarchetypes which
asserts that individuals have distinctive, unlearned tendencies to experience th
in particular ways (Jung,1971).Jung’s occasionally dense and impenetrable theories
attracted the attention of a mother and daughter team,Katharine Cook Briggs and
Isabel Briggs Myers, who believed that a knowledge of personality preferences w
help women who were entering the industrial workforce for the first time during
Second World War to identify the sort of wartime jobs where they would be mos
comfortable and effective (Myers and Myers,1995).Extending Jung’s conceptof
psychologicalarchetypes and Katherine Briggs’s long-time interest in psychologica
type, Myers and Briggs developed a personality typology which became known
Myers-Briggs type indicator (MBTI).In its currentform,as utilized in this study,
individualscomplete93 forced-choicequestionswhich when scored producesa
measurementof three personalitydimensionssuggestedby Jung i.e.
extraversion-introversion,sensing-intuition,thinking-feeling – as wellas a fourth –
i.e.judgment-perception – added by Briggs and Myers to identify the dominant
function (Myers and Myers, 1995). Respondents are provided with a report indic
preference for behaviors typified by one of the letters in each of the four letter p
Each of the dimensions is briefly described in Table I. Each combination of four l
creates one of 16 different psychological types.
JMD
28,10
918
Document Page
As previously noted,the MBTI has been extensively used for over 50 years in an
extraordinarilywide variety of managementand interpersonaldevelopment
applications (Gardner and Martinko,1996).Along with this commercialsuccess has
come considerable criticism,primarily from academic psychologists.Not surprisingly
much of the controversy centers on validity issues.Among the concerns raised has
been the use of a typology to describe personality (Mendelsohn et al., 1982),the use of
dichotomous scores (Cohen,1983),the fact that the data are self-reported (Podsakoff
and Organ, 1986), and more general construct validity issues (McCrae and Costa, 1989;
Sipps and Alexander,1987;Sipps and DiCaudo,1988).These concerns mustbe
weighed againstgenerally supportive validity studies (e.g.Carlyn,1977;Carlson,
1989). Perhaps most persuasive in terms of this study is the extensive review of the use
of the MBTI to study managers by Gardnerand Martinko (1996)in which they
concluded thatthere is sufficientvalidity to warrantadditionalresearch into the
relationship between the MBTI and management.
Transformational leadership
In 1978 a book on politicalleadership was published which would have a profound
effecton the study ofleadership and managementin contemporary society.James
MacGregor Burns’s book Leadership (Burns,1978)is a study of effective leaders of
large political systems. Having studied leaders such as Franklin D. Roosevelt, Nikolai
Lenin,Louis XVI,and John F.Kennedy,Burns developed a taxonomy of leadership
which characterized leaders as eithertransactional” or “transformational”.Burns
(1978)described transactionalleadersas occurring when “oneperson takesthe
initiative in making contact with others for the purpose of an exchange of value things”
(p.19).On the other hand,transformationalleadership occurs “when one or more
persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another
to higherlevels ofmotivation and morality” (p.20).While Burns recognized the
efficacy of both forms of leadership he concluded that transformationalleadership,
with a strong moraldimension,was associated with effective leadership in times of
instability and destabilizing changeand was moreenduring than transactional
leadership.
Burns’s work attracted the attention of management researchers mired in a period
characterized by frustration and a lack ofprogress in regard to leadership theory
(Hunt,1999).Bass and his colleagues furtherdeveloped and operationalized the
concept of transformational leadership and created an instrument for its measurement,
the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) (Bass, 1985a; Bass and Avolio, 1990).
Utilizing factoranalysis,Bass and Avolio (1990)extracted the fourcategories of
transformationalleadership behavior described in Table II.An overallmeasure of
transformationalleadership consists of the aggregate of the four subscale measures.
These measures are partof the MLQ which has been determined to be a reliable
instrumentfor the measurementof transformationalleadership (Bass and Avolio,
1990; Lowe et al., 1996). Although there have been alternative operational definitions of
transformationalleadership (Kouzes and Posner,1988;Tichy and Devanna,1990;
Podsakoff et al., 1990) none of them have gained the level of utilization of the MLQ nor
have they been subjected to equivalent levels of validly or reliability test as has the
MLQ (Cole et al.,2006).
MBTI and
transformational
leadership
919

Secure Best Marks with AI Grader

Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
Document Page
Transformational leadership and organizational outcomes
Numerousstudiessoon appeared in theacademicliterature,the overwhelming
majority utilizing the MLQ,affirming the efficacy oftransformationalleadership
across an extremely wide variety of organizationaland culturalsettings (e.g.Bass,
1985b;Bass etal.,1987;Avolio etal.,1988;Haterand Bass,1988;Atwaterand
Yammarino,1993;Howelland Avolio,1993;Yammarino etal.,1993;Sosik,1997).
These results have been affirmed in studies limited to European settings and sa
(Den Hartog et al.,1997;Kuchinke,1999).
The individual cited studies,as well as meta-evaluations (Fuller et al.,1996;Lowe
et al., 1996) have consistently supported the notion that the extent to which lea
managers engage in transformationalleadership behaviors can predictor explain
various measures of desired organizational outcomes.This foundational case for the
positive impact of transformational leadership was established in studies that u
both follower self-reports and organizationaloutcomes as dependent variables.The
self-perceptionmeasureshave frequentlyincludedthe followerself-reportsof
perceptions ofunit effectiveness,satisfaction with supervision and willingness to
expend extra effort embedded in the MLQ (e.g.Bass,1985a;Bass and Avolio,1990).
Examples of organizationaloutcomes measured in the studies included in the cited
meta-evaluations ranged from performance appraisals (e.g.Haterand Bass,1988;
Waldman etal.,1987);financialperformance on a classroom computer simulation
(Avolio etal.,1988);sales performance (Yammarino and Dublinsky,1994)to R&D
project quality (Keller,1992).Lowe et al.(1996) found no significant differences in the
supportfor the efficacy oftransformationalleadership acrossstudiesutilizing
self-perception or organizational measures as criterion variables.
As the study of the relationshipbetweentransformationalleadershipon
organizational outcomes has continued,additional studies,albeit not in large numbers,
utilizing hard objective and financialmeasures as criterion variables have appeared.
Using data from 48 Fortune 500 firms, Waldman et al. (2001) found that during
of uncertainty therewas a positiverelationship between CEO transformational
leadership and financial performance. Howell et al. (2005) measured the transfo
leadership behaviors of101 senior banking managers and found thatit positively
predicted theirunit performance as measured by profit,revenue and productivity.
Utilizing a quasi-experimental research design, Barling et al. (1996) reported th
which resultedin increasedleadertransformationalleadershipbehaviorswas
significantly and positively associated with the branch-levelfinancialperformance of
Factor Description
Individualized considerationGives personal attention to others,making each individual feel
uniquely valued
Intellectual stimulation Actively encourages a new look at old methods, stimulates creativity,
encourages others to look at problems and issues in a new way
Inspirational motivation Increases optimism and enthusiasm, communicates high expectation
points out possibilities not previously considered
Idealized influence Provides vision and a sense of purpose.Elicits respect,trust,and
confidence from followers
Table II.
The four Is of
transformational
leadership
JMD
28,10
920
Document Page
those leaders.In a study of smalland medium sized enterprises Matzler et al.(2008)
found that transformationalleadership behaviors by top management had a positive
impacton innovation,firm growth,and profitability.Using datafrom 94 top
management teams,Colbert et al.(2008)found that at the organizationallevel,CEO
transformationalleadership was positively related to within-team goalimportance
congruence,which in turn was positively related to organizationalperformance to
include returns on financial assets.
A key theoretical foundation of this study is that transformational leadership has
considerable and broad potential benefit to organizations.
Transformational leadership and the MBTI
Over time there has been enormous flux in opinions regarding the possibility ofa
relationship between personality and leadership.With roots in the Great Man theories,
which reached back into earliest recorded history, the notion that personal qualities and
characteristicswerethe key determinantsof leadership effectivenessdominated
leadership theory well into the 1940s (Bass,1990).A seminal review by Stogdill (1948)
cast the first considerable doubt on trait theory on the grounds that leadership requires
action and the mere possession of a trait or characteristic does not necessarily signal
leadership capability.Stodgill’s work engendered something of a paradigm shift and
provided impetus which launched leadership theorists onto consideration of situational
factors and leader behaviors. Nevertheless, an interest in the role of traits in determining
leadership effectiveness has never completely disappeared. In the early 1960s Tupes and
Christal(1961),along with Norman (1963),did the foundational work for what would
eventually be known as the “Big Five” model of the most salient aspects of personality.
The five-factor modelstimulated a resurgence of interest in the role of traits in
leadership,albeit as more of a complimentary rather than comprehensive model.In
most of the results, the most predictive of the big five factors is extraversion, although
there are some conflicting findings.Judge and Bono (2000) used the five-factor model
and found extraversion to be a marginalpredictor of TL behaviors.Ployhart et al.
(2001), using a sophisticated structural equation modeling analysis, found extraversion
to be a strong predictor of both typical and maximum performance, after correction for
methods error and measurement error attenuation. Rubin et al. (2005) tested for, but did
not find, a relationship between extraversion and TL behaviors, although they did find
that extraversion moderated the relationship between emotional recognition and TL.
In a meta-evaluation Judge et al.(2002)found strong support for the leader trait
perspectivewhen traits are organizedaccordingto the five-factormodel.A
meta-analysis of the specific relationship between personality and transformational
leadership done by Bono and Judge (2004) found “generally weak associations” (p. 908).
The generalized interest in the possibility of personality or dispositionalfactors has
extended to other personality factors to include the previously described MBTI.In a
comprehensive study of the relationship between the MBTI and leadership Gardner
and Martinko (1996) found various relationships between elements of the MBTI and
leadership butconcluded thatlinkages between type preferences and managerial
effectiveness were disappointing” (p.77).
Atwater and Roush (1992)investigated the relationship among leadership style,
MBTI, and organizational outcomes using a sample of student leaders at the US Naval
Academy.Using both follower reports and self-reports ofTL they found leaders
MBTI and
transformational
leadership
921
Document Page
viewed themselves as more transformational than did the midshipmen who repo
those leaders. Using a median split on the follower-reported TL subscales, Atwa
Roush (1992) found relationships between the MBTI sensing/intuition and two o
four TL subscales.Further,they found relationships between the thinking/feeling
MBTI dimension and allfour of the TL subscales.Although actualdata is not
presented,one might infer from thef coefficients and the discussion that the sensing
preference was negatively correlated with follower perceptions of TL and feeling
positivelycorrelatedwith follower TL perceptions.Relationshipsfor leader
self-reported TL are notdescribed.As is typical,leaderperceptions ofTL were
higher than follower perceptions.
This study follows Hautala (2006) who also found a relationship between sens
preference from the MBTIand follower reported transformationalleadership in a
Finnish sample. When leader self-reports of TL were used, extraversion, intuition
perception were related to TL. She also found leaders reporting more TL than di
followers.
Hypotheses
Given the well established positive relationship between transformational leade
and desired organizationaloutcomes a confirmation and extension of a relationship
with the MBTI would illuminatean importantdispositionalfactorand lay the
groundwork for further understanding of leadership dynamics with implications
personal and professional development.This gives rise to the first hypothesis of the
study.
H1. Transformational leadership (TL) positively predicts desirable organizatio
outcomes (DO).
This hypothesis seeks to determine if the well-established relationship between
DO can be confirmed in this study.The objective is notso much to add to the
understandingof this is alreadywell-establishedrelationship,but to provide
reassurance that the sample is non-idiosyncratic and to lay the groundwork for
examination as to how MBTI might impact the leadership influence process.
There have been several lines of research indicating that the degree of agree
between leaders and followers regarding the dynamics ofa leadership situation is
associated with leadership effectiveness. Leaders who are in agreement with fo
and those underestimate theircapabilities have generally been found to be more
effective than over-estimators (Atwater and Yammarino,1993,1997;Moshaviet al.,
2003;Sosik,1997).Although Hautala (2006) found no agreement between subordin
and leader assessments the concept will be further examined in the second hyp
H2. Leaders will evaluatethemselvesas more transformationalthan
subordinates.
Hautala (2006)found thatleaders’self-reports oftransformationalleadership were
positively associated with extraversion,intuitiveness,and perceiving preferences.In
this study this dimension will be examined as follows:
H3. The elements ofpersonality measured by the MBTIare associated with
self-reported transformational leadership.
JMD
28,10
922

Paraphrase This Document

Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
Document Page
H3a.A measure of extraversion/Introversion is significantly associated with self
perceptions of transformational leadership behaviors.
H3b.A measure of Intuition/Sensingis significantly associatedwith
self-perceptions of transformational leadership behaviors.
H3c. A measure of thinking/feeling is significantly associated with self perceptions
of transformational leadership behaviors.
H3d.A measure of judging/perceivingis significantlyassociated with self
perceptions of transformational leadership behaviors.
Hautala (2006) reports that sensing is the only element of the MBTI associated with
subordinate ratings ofleadertransformationalleadership.In this study we will
examine all combinations as follows:
H4. The elements ofpersonality measured by the MBTIare associated with
follower reports of transformational leadership.
H4a.A measureof extraversion/introversion issignificantly associated with
follower reports of transformational leadership.
H4b.A measureof intuition/sensing issignificantly associated with follower
reports of transformational leadership.
H4c. A measure of thinking/feeling is significantly associated with follower reports
of transformational leadership.
H4d.A measure ofjudging/perceiving is significantly associated with follower
reports of transformational leadership.
Method
Hypotheses from this study were tested at a large North American telecommunications
manufacturing facility which is a part of an internationaltechnology company.The
data utilized in this study was collected as a part of a management development project
conducted at the facility.
Leadership measures
The mostwidely used measureof transformationalleadership,the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ),was developed by Bass and Avolio (1990) and has
been shown to be a valid and reliable instrument for the measurement of the behaviors
associated with transformational leadership (Antonakis et al., 2003; Tepper and Percy,
1994). Both the Rater and Leader forms of Version 5X of the MLQ were utilized in this
study.This Rater form solicits the opinion of subjects regarding the extent to which
their supervisor or managers engage in the behaviors which are characteristic of each
of the elements of transformational leadership. The Leader version of the MLQ solicits
self-reports as to the extent to which the individualcompleting the report that they
engage in transformational leadership behaviors.The scales of interest in this study
are the four elements ofTL described in Table II.A single measure ofTL was
computed by aggregating the four sub-scale measures.
MBTI and
transformational
leadership
923
Document Page
Desirable organizationaloutcome measures
The MLQ also containsquestionsthat solicitrespondentopinionsas to their
perceptions of unit effectiveness, satisfaction with supervision, and their willing
expend extra effort.Each of these outcome measures is the product of three or fou
questions that are averaged together to form a single scale.
MBTI personality measures
MBTI Form K was used to assess personality preferences of the subjects in this s
As previously noted,the MBTI is a typology thattypically relies on dichotomous
scores when reporting results.However,the use of Form K also permits the use of
continuousscores.Continuousscoresare suggested by theMBTI manualfor
correlational research (Myers and McCaulley, 1985). The use of continuous scor
helps to overcome bimodality (Hicks,1985;Wiggins,1992),and improves statistical
power (Cohen,1983).
Sample and survey administration
As a part of the managementdevelopmentprogram all employeesat the
manufacturing facility attended one ofseveraldata collection sessions held over a
ten-day period.At thesesessionsthe purposeof the managementdevelopment
initiative was explained by a senior manager. After receiving assurances of anon
each individualwas asked to complete the rater form of the MLQ.During the same
period allprofessionalemployees,managers and supervisors attended an additional
data collection session in which they completed Form K of the MBTI.Managers and
supervisors also completed the Leader version of the MLQ.
A totalof 408 managers,supervisors,engineers and professionalstaff members
completed the MBTI Form K and a self-report of transformational leadership beh
(MLQ Leader form).Two thousand four hundred and twenty-five Rater forms of the
MLQ were completed,of which 2,411 were usable for the purposes of the study.A
minimum of three follower reports were available for 148 managers and superv
who had also completed MBTIand the Leader version ofthe MLQ.The average
number of follower responses for each of the 148 leader was 16. Managers/supe
in the study had an average of 178 months of longevity in the company,28 percent
identified themselves as female,and 72 percent as male.
Thus,at the end of the data collection period, demographic data,MBTI continuous
scores,and self-assessmentsof TL behaviors,assessments ofunit effectiveness,
satisfaction with supervision, and willingness to expend extra effort were availa
408 managers and professionalstaffmembers.Of those 408 individuals 148 were
working manager/supervisors for whom all of the aforementioned data was avai
in addition to the follower assessments of TL behaviors from over 2,000 individu
who reported to them.Thesedata elementswereutilized to testeach of the
hypothesized relationships.
Results
The first hypothesis examines the relationship between TL and DO. Table III con
the results of a regression analysis where each of the four components and the
summary scores were used to predict the three Desirable Organizational Outcom
JMD
28,10
924
Document Page
every case there was a statistically significant positive relationship,indicating strong
support for H1.
The second hypothesis examines the relationship between how transformational
leaders perceive themselves to be compared with how transformational their subordinates
perceive them to be.In past research,it has generally been found that leaders are more
likely to perceive themselves as transformationalwhile subordinates perceive them as
less so.Table IV compares the mean self-assessment TL scores to the mean follower
assessment TL scores.Using a paired comparison t-test,it is clear that H2 is strongly
supported. For the TL scale overall and for each of the four components, the leaders rated
themselves as significantly more transformational as did those leaders’subordinates.
H3 and H4 examine the relationship between the MBTI dimensions and self and
followerreported transformationalleadership.Table V presentsthe correlations
between the various TL dimensions and the overall TL scale – as the leaders assess
themselves – and the four MBTIdimensions.These results partially confirm H3.
Specifically,therewerestatistically significantpositivecorrelationsbetween the
extraversion/introversion dimension and self-reports of TL.There were statistically
significant negative correlations between the sensing/intuition dimension and three of
the four component parts of TL and the overall TL scale – again as self-reported. Thus
H3a and H3b are confirmed.
When TL assessment is based on the followers’ reports, the results are substantially
different. In Table VI, similar correlations are assembled, the only difference being that
Scale
Mean leader
self-assessment
Mean
follower
self-assessmentDifference
Student’s
t” value df
Significance
of t
Transformational
leadership 3.13 2.41 0.712 12.3 145 0.000
Individual
consideration 3.18 2.30 0.889 13.4 145 0.000
Intellectual
stimulation 3.05 2.34 0.705 11.6 145 0.000
Inspirational
motivation 3.17 2.59 0.588 9.5 145 0.000
Idealized influence 3.13 2.46 0.673 10.8 145 0.000
Table IV.
Mean differences between
leader perceptions of TL
and follower perceptions
of TL
Extra effort Organizational effectivenessLeader satisfaction
Transformational leadership 0.93* 0.93* 0.91*
Individual consideration 0.88* 0.90* 0.89*
Intellectual stimulation 0.90* 0.89* 0.88*
Inspirational motivation 0.86* 0.87* 0.84*
Idealized influence 0.91* 0.92* 0.89*
Notes: Values reported arebvalues from simple regressions using TL (or component) as IV and DO
as DV.*p # 0:001
Table III.
Regression of
organizational outcomes
on TL
MBTI and
transformational
leadership
925

Secure Best Marks with AI Grader

Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
Document Page
in this case the TL scores are based on follower reports. The pattern is very diffe
None ofthe correlations are statistically significant.NeitherH4 nor any of the
sub-hypotheses are supported.
Discussion
TL and Desirable Outcomes
Although it is not a new finding,the results clearly indicate a strong link between
follower perceptions ofa leader’s use oftransformationalleadership style and the
organizationally desirable outcomes measured by the MLQ. In fact, thebvalues, which
approach 1, suggest that there is likely some common method variance that ex
least some of the observed fit. In any case, the results are reassuring that this d
similar to virtually allreported results observing TL and these outcome measures.
Thus we can be confidentthatthe restof the results come from a setting thatis
comparable to prior research.
Self-reported TL versus follower-reported TL
As was the case with previous research, leaders rated themselves as significant
transformational as did their followers. There are several possible explanations
finding.Perhaps there is a social desirability bias in the MLQ scale such that leade
are able to perceive that the TL responses are more socially acceptable. Alterna
biases in self-perceptions may cause these same leaders to actually view thems
more transformational than their subordinates’perceptions.
TL and MBTI
The results here are largely similar to those reported by Hautala (2006).When she
compared self-reports of TL to MBTI measures in a Finnish sample,she found that
self-reported TL was related to extraversion and intuition – which is the same in
MBTI dimension
Transformational
leadership
Individual
consideration
Intellectual
stimulation
Inspirational
motivation
Idealized
influence
Extraversion to introversion 0.207* 0.122 0.140* * 0.269* 0.171*
Sensing to intuition 2 0.196* 2 0.133 2 0.236* 2 0.165* 2 0.146* *
Thinking to feeling 0.016 2 0.021 0.059 0.029 2 0.012
Judging to perceiving 0.010 0.020 2 0.025 0.028 0.056
Notes: Values reported are point biserial correlations;*p # 0:001;* *p # 0:01
Table V.
Correlations of MBTI
dimensions with leader
perceptions of TL
MBTI dimension
Transformational
leadership
Individual
consideration
Intellectual
stimulation
Inspirational
motivation
Idealized
influence
Extraversion to introversion 2 0.078 2 0.073 2 0.105 2 0.039 2 0.083
Sensing to intuition 2 0.069 20.08 2 0.075 2 0.036 2 0.081
Thinking to feeling 2 0.020 2 0.022 2 0.022 2 0.036 2 0.003
Judging to perceiving 2 0.020 2 0.046 2 0.046 0.019 2 0.006
Note: Values reported are point biserial correlations
Table VI.
Correlations of MBTI
dimensions with follower
perceptions of TL
JMD
28,10
926
Document Page
results.She also found that self reported TL was related to perceiving,a finding that
our research did notreplicate.It should be noted thather study used a different
measure of TL – specifically a Finnish version of the Leadership Practices Inventory
(Posner and Kouzes,1990).
When follower reported TL is considered, our findings are much less congruent. We
found no relationship between any of the MBTI dimensions and TL.Hautala (2006)
reports a relationship between sensing preference and TL.
Significance of the study
The results of the study clearly callinto question any studies that have examined
relationshipsbetween transformationalleadership and personality,whereTL is
measured using the leaders’ self reports. Our findings showed significant relationships
between two of the MBTI dimensions and self-reported TL.When follower reports of
TL were used, there were no significant relationships of any kind. Followers are likely
less biased raters of a leader’s use of transformational-style leadership. In point of fact,
the components of the TL scale are all based on the followers’reaction to the leader,
specificallythe degreeto which the leaderprovidesindividualconsideration,
intellectually stimulation,motivationalinspiration and idealized influenceto the
followers.TL is necessarily in the eye of the follower.When leaders rate their own
behavior they are undoubtedly impacted by egocentric bias, where we are usually the
kindest judges of our own actions, and social desirability biases, where respondents are
likely to respond more positively to scale items that are perceived as more socially
acceptable.
A key use ofMBTI in managementdevelopmentis thatit informs individuals
regarding their innate preferences for interaction,but also that those preferences are
not irresistible. Each preference dimension represents both opportunity and liability in
a given situation.No one should be held responsible or rewarded for their preference,
for instance in selection,but ratherfor the effectiveness oftheirbehaviors.The
usefulness ofthe MBTI lies in helping individuals to understanding theirinnate
preferred behavioral styles. Individuals can be encouraged to consider when behaving
in accordance with innate preference is helpful as well as to develop and appropriately
deploy effective behavioral repertories in opposition to preferences. On the issue of the
relationship between TL and personality,our study fits with other research that has
shown personality variables to have very limited utility for explaining TL.More
significantly the findings of this study are in contrast to the findings of Atwater and
Roush (1992) and Hautala (2006) regarding the specific positive utility of the MBTI to
explain transformationalleadership behaviors.In this study follower perception of
leadership effectiveness was independent of the focal leader’s psychological type.It is
really not possible to conclude whether that independence is a function of personal
development or irrelevance.
Limitations
As noted previously, this study was conducted in a US manufacturing facility,giving
rise to the possibility thatthe results mightbe bound to those unique culturalor
organizational circumstances, a circumstance shared by most field research. However,
it is reasonable to presume that the relatively large sample in this study would provide
psychologicaland culturaldiversity.Although the examination ofthe relationship
MBTI and
transformational
leadership
927
Document Page
between transformational leadership and desired organizational outcomes is tan
to the core objectives of the study, the fact that the dependent variables were c
in the same manneras leadership measures in thatpart of the study raises the
possibility orpreviously mentioned common method variance.A more compete
understanding ofthe relationship between personality,dispositionalfactorsand
leadership will be advanced through well-designed studies of these elements in
number of cultural and organizational settings.
MBTI measures cognitive preferences of respondents. The MLQ measures per
of behavior.Just because a respondent has a preference for a particular cognitive
does necessarily mean that they willactually report that style.As we have seen,one
potentialexplanation for some ofthe results ofprevious research is thatmanagers
overstatetheiruse of transformationalstyleswhen compared with subordinates’
perceptions.It may wellbe that choices among MBTI preferences may be subject to
similar biases.Further misclassification of the actualMBTI preferences might occur,
although using strength of preference measures would seem to reduce this risk
Future research directions
Echoing the standard plea in most leadership research,these topics deserve further
attention in high-quality samples from other types of organizational settings,ideally
from other cultural milieus. In this case, there is a special urgency to the need t
explore these relationships, since now there are two studies with different popu
from different cultures and using different TL measures, that have somewhat di
results arriving at substantially different conclusions.
A second opportunity is to further explore the relationship between self-repor
and other personality measures and some standard socialdesirability measures.It
would be interesting to know ifthe positive bias in leaderreports ofTL were
explainableby personality differencesor differencesin susceptibility tosocial
desirability biases. Past research (Atwater and Roush, 1992; Atwater and Yamm
1993; Moshavi et al., 2003) has shown that those leaders whose TL ratings are m
agreement with those of their followers are better liked and more effective.Humility
and modesty might be desirable traits in a leader. Alternatively, it might be that
leaders are in fact more cognizant of how their actions are perceived by their re
References
Antonakis,J., Avolio, B. and Sivasubramaniam,N. (2003),Contextand leadership:an
examination ofthe nine-factorfull-rangeleadership theory using theMultifactor
Leadership Questionnaire”,Leadership Quarterly,Vol.14 No.3,pp.261-96.
Atwater,L. and Roush,P. (1992),Using the MBTI to understand transformational leadership
and self-perception accuracy”,Military Psychology,Vol.4 No.1,pp.17-34.
Atwater,L. and Yammarino,F. (1993),Personalattributes as predictors ofsuperiors’and
subordinates’ perceptions of military academy leadership”, Human Relations, Vol. 4
pp.645-68.
Atwater,L.E. and Yammarino,F.J. (1997),Self-other rating agreement:a review and model”,
Research in Personneland Human Resources Management,Vol.15,pp.121-74.
Avolio, B., Waldman, D. and Einstein, W. (1988), “Transformational leadership in a mana
game simulation:impacting the bottom line”,Group and Organization Studies,Vol.13
No.1,pp.59-80.
JMD
28,10
928

Paraphrase This Document

Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
Document Page
Barling, J., Weber, T. and Kelloway, E.K. (1996), “Effects of transformational leadership training
on attitudinaland fiscaloutcomes:a field experiment”,Journalof Applied Psychology,
Vol.81,pp.827-32.
Bass, B.M. (1985a), Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations, The Free Press, New York,
NY.
Bass,B.M.(1985b),Leadership:good,better,best”,OrganizationalDynamics,Vol. 13 No.3,
pp.26-40.
Bass, B.M. (1990), Bass and Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of Theory and Research,
The Free Press,New York,NY.
Bass,B. (1999),Two decades of research and developmentin transformationalleadership”,
European Journalof Work and OrganizationalPsychology,Vol.8 No.1,pp.9-32.
Bass,B. and Avolio,B. (1990),TransformationalLeadership Development:Manualfor the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire,Consulting Psychologists Press,Palo Alto,CA.
Bass,B.,Waldman,D.,Avolio,B. and Bebb,M. (1987),Transformationalleadership and the
falling dominoes effect”,Group and Organization Studies,Vol.12 No.1,pp.73-87.
Bono,J.E. and Judge,T.A. (2004),Personality and transformationaland transactional
leadership:a meta-analysis”,Journalof Applied Psychology,Vol.89,pp.901-10.
Bryman, A. (1996), “Leadership in organizations”, in Clagg, S.P., Hardy, C. and Nord, W.R. (Eds),
Handbook of Organization Studies,Sage Publications,Thousand Oaks,CA, pp.276-92.
Burns,J.M.(1978),Leadership,Harper and Row,New York,NY.
Carlson,J.G.(1989),Affirmative:in support of researching the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator”,
Journalof Counseling and Development,Vol.67,pp.484-6.
Carlyn,M. (1977),An assessment of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator”,Journalof Personality
Assessment,Vol.41,pp.461-73.
Cohen,J. (1983),The costof dichotomization”,Applied PsychologicalMeasurement,Vol. 7,
pp.249-53.
Colbert,A., Kristof-Brown,A., Bradley,B. and Barrick,M. (2008),CEO transformational
leadership: the role of goal importance congruence in top management teams”, Academy of
Management Journal,Vol.51 No.1,pp.81-96.
Cole,M., Bedeian,A. and Field,H. (2006),The measurement equivalence of web-based and
paper-and-pencilmeasuresof transformationalleadership:a multinationaltest”,
OrganizationalResearch Methods,Vol.9 No.3,pp.339-68.
Den Hartog,D.N., Van Muijen,J.J. and Koopman,P.L. (1997),Transactionalversus
transformationalleadership:an analysisof the MLQ”, Journalof Occupationaland
OrganizationalPsychology,Vol.70,pp.19-34.
Drucker,P.F. (1988),Management and the world’s work”,Harvard Business Review,Vol.66
No.5,pp.65-76.
Felfe, J. and Schyns, B. (2006), “Personality and the perception of transformational leadership: the
impactof extraversion,neuroticism,personalneed forstructure,and occupational
self-efficacy”,Journalof Applied SocialPsychology,Vol.36,pp.708-41.
Fuller,J.,Patterson,C.,Hester,K. and Stringer,D.(1996),A quantitative review of research on
charismatic leadership”,PsychologicalReports,Vol.78,pp.271-87.
Gardner,W. and Martinko,M. (1996),Using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicatorto study
managers: a literature review and research agenda”, Journal of Management, Vol. 22 No. 1,
pp.45-83.
MBTI and
transformational
leadership
929
Document Page
Hater,J. and Bass,B. (1988),Superiors’evaluationsand subordinates’perceptionsof
transformationaland transactionalleadership”,Journalof Applied Psychology,Vol. 73
No.4,pp.695-702.
Hautala,T.M. (2006),The relationship between personality and transformational leadership
Journalof Management Development,Vol.25 No.8,pp.777-94.
Hicks, L.E. (1985), “Is there a disposition to avoid the fundamental attribution error?”, Jo
Research in Personality,Vol.19,pp.436-56.
Howell,J.M. and Avolio,B.J. (1993),Transformationalleadership,transactionalleadership,
locus of control,and support for innovation:key predictors of consolidated-business-unit
performance”,Journalof Applied Psychology,Vol.78 No.6,pp.891-902.
Howell, J.M., Neufeld, D.J. and Avolio, B.J. (2005), “Examining the relationship of leadersh
physicaldistancewith businessunit performance”,Leadership Quarterly,Vol. 16,
pp.273-85.
Hunt,J.G. (1999),Transformational/charismatic leadership’s transformation ofthe field:an
historical essay”,Leadership Quarterly,Vol.10 No.2,pp.129-44.
Judge,T.A. and Bono,J.E. (2000),Five-factormodelof personality and transformational
leadership”,Journalof Applied Psychology,Vol.85,pp.751-65.
Judge,T.A., Bono,J.E., Ilies,R. and Gerhardt,M.W. (2002),Personality and leadership:a
qualitative and quantitative review”,Journalof Applied Psychology,Vol.87,pp.765-80.
Jung, C.G. (1971), “Psychological types”, in Baynes, H.G. (Ed.), The Collected Works of C
Vol. 6, Princeton University Press,Princeton,NJ, (revised by Hull,R.F., originally
published 1921).
Keller,R.T. (1992),Transformationalleadership and theperformanceof research and
development project groups”,Journalof Management,Vol.18 No.3,pp.489-501.
Koontz, H. (1961), “The management leadership jungle”, Journal of the Academy of Man
Vol.4 No.3,pp.174-88.
Kouzes,J. and Posner,B. (1988),The Leadership Challenge,6th ed.,Jossey-Bass,San Francisco,
CA.
Kuchinke, K.P. (1999), “Leadership and culture: work-related values and leadership style
one company’sUS and German telecommunicationemployees”,Human Resource
Development Quarterly,Vol.10,pp.135-54.
Lowe, K.B., Kroeck,K.G. and Sivasubramaniam,N. (1996),Effectivenesscorrelatesof
transformationaland transactionalleadership:a meta-analyticreview ofthe MLQ
literature”,Leadership Quarterly,Vol.7 No.3,pp.385-425.
McCrae,R. and Costa,P. Jr (1989),Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator from the
perspective of the five-factor model of personality”, Journal of Personality, Vol. 57,
Matzler,K., Schwarz,E., Deutinger,N. and Harms,R. (2008),The relationship between
transformationalleadership,product innovation and performance in SMEs”,Journalof
SmallBusiness and Entrepreneurship,Vol.21 No.2,pp.139-51.
Mendelsohn, G.A., Weiss, D.S. and Feimer, N.R. (1982), “Conceptual and empirical analy
typological implications of patterns of socialization and femininity”, Journal of Perso
and SocialPsychology,Vol.42,pp.1157-70.
Moshavi,D.,Brown,F.W.and Dodd,N.G.(2003),Leader self-awareness and its relationship to
subordinate attitudes and performance”,Leadership and OrganizationalDevelopment
Journal,Vol.24 No.7,pp.407-18.
Myers,I. and McCaulley,M. (1985),Manual:A Guide to the Developmentand Use ofthe
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator,Consulting Psychologists Press,Palo Alto,CA.
JMD
28,10
930
Document Page
Myers,I. and Myers,P. (1995),Gifts Differing:Understanding Personality Type,Davies-Black
Publishing,Mountain View,CA.
Myers,I., McCaulley,M., Quenk,N.L. and Hammer,A.L. (1998),Manual:A Guide to the
Developmentand Use of the Myers-BriggsType Indicator,3rd ed., Consulting
Psychologists Press,Palo Alto,CA.
Norman, W.T. (1963), “Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: replicated factor
structure in peer nomination personality ratings”, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol. 66,
pp.574-83.
Ployhart,R.E.,Lim, B. and Chan,K. (2001),Exploring the relations between typicaland
maximum performance ratings and the five factormodelof personality”,Personnel
Psychology,Vol.54,pp.809-53.
Podsakoff,P. and Organ,D. (1986),Self-reports in organizationalresearch:problems and
prospects”,Journalof Management,Vol.12,pp.531-44.
Podsakoff,P., MacKenzie,S., Moorman,R. and Fetter,R. (1990),Transformationalleader
behaviors and their effects on followers’trust in leader,satisfaction,and organizational
citizenship behaviors”,Leadership Quarterly,Vol.1,pp.107-42.
Posner,B. and Kouzes,J. (1990),Leadership practices:an alternative to the psychological
perspective”,in Clark,K.E. and Clark,M.B.(Eds),Measures of Leadership,Leadership
Library of America,West Orange,NJ, pp.151-69.
Rubin,R.S.,Munz,D.C.and Bomner,W.H.(2005),Leading from within:the effects of emotion
recognition and personality on transformationalleadership behavior”,Academyof
Management Journal,Vol.48,pp.845-58.
Schyns,B. and Sanders,K. (2007),In the eye of the beholder:personality and the perception of
leadership”,Journalof Applied SocialPsychology,Vol.37,pp.2345-63.
Sipps, G. and Alexander, R. (1987), “The multifactorial nature of extraversion-introversion in the
Myers-BriggsType Indicatorand Eysenck Personality Inventory”,Educationaland
PsychologicalMeasurement,Vol.47,pp.543-52.
Sipps,G. and DiCaudo,J. (1988),Convergent and discriminant validity of the Myers-Briggs
Type Indicator as a measure of sociability and impulsivity”, Educational and Psychological
Measurement,Vol.48,pp.445-51.
Sosik,J. (1997),Effectof transformationalleadership and anonymity on idea generation in
computer-mediated groups”,Group and Organization Management,Vol. 22 No. 4,
pp.460-87.
Stogdill,R. (1948),Personalfactors associated with leadership:a survey ofthe literature”,
Journalof Psychology,Vol.25,pp.35-71.
Tepper,B.J. and Percy,P.M. (1994),Structuralvalidity of the MultifactorLeadership
Questionnaire”,Educationaland PsychologicalMeasurement,Vol.54 No.3,pp.734-44.
Tichy, N. and Devanna,M. (1990),The TransformationalLeader:The Key to Global
Competitiveness,Wiley,New York,NY.
Tupes,E.C.and Christal,R.E. (1961),Recurrentpersonality factors based on traitratings”,
Technical Report ASD-TR-61-97,US Air Force,Lackland Air Force Base,TX.
Waldman, D.A., Bass, B.M. and Einstein, W.O. (1987), “Leadership and outcomes of performance
appraisal processes”,Journalof OccupationalPsychology,Vol.60,pp.177-86.
Waldman,D.A.,Ramirez,G.G.,House,R.J.and Puranam,P. (2001),Does leadership matter?
CEO leadership attributes and profitability under conditions of perceived environmental
uncertainty”,Academy of Management Journal,Vol.44,pp.134-43.
MBTI and
transformational
leadership
931

Secure Best Marks with AI Grader

Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
Document Page
Wiggins,J.S.(1992),Review of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator”,in Kramer,J.J.and Conoley,
J.C. (Eds),MentalMeasurementsYearbook,11th ed.,University ofNebraska Press,
Lincoln,NE, pp.537-9.
Yammarino, F.J. and Dublinsky, A.J. (1994), “Transformational leadership theory: using le
analysis to determine boundary conditions”,PersonnelPsychology,Vol.47,pp.787-811.
Yammarino,F.J., Spangler,W.D. and Bass,B.M. (1993),Transformationalleadership and
performance:a longitudinal investigation”,Leadership Quarterly,Vol.4 No. 1,pp. 81-102.
Corresponding author
F. William Brown can be contacted at:billbrown@montana.edu
JMD
28,10
932
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail:reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details:www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Document Page
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
1 out of 18
circle_padding
hide_on_mobile
zoom_out_icon
[object Object]

Your All-in-One AI-Powered Toolkit for Academic Success.

Available 24*7 on WhatsApp / Email

[object Object]