Who Overrates,Who Underrates? Personality and Its Link to Self–Other Agreement of Leadership Effectiveness

Abstract

The study investigated if personality can explain why certain managers are prone to overrate or underrate their own effectiveness. Thus, the relationship between self–other agreement of effectiveness and personality was studied. In total, 214 managers completed a multisource feedback and provided personality data on the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator. Results show that more extraverted leaders overrated their effectiveness in relation to their supervisors but had more accurate perceptions when self–peer and self–subordinate ratings were compared. Leaders with an intuition preference had more accurate perceptions when comparing self and supervisor or subordinate ratings while leaders with judging preferences received lower subordinate than self-ratings. Findings show that personality partly explains why leaders overrate or underrate their effectiveness and thus can be used for understanding leaders’ careers.

Keywords

effectiveness leaders multisource feedback personality self–other rating agreement

Introduction

The context of work provides the need to present oneself in a favorable light. Job applicants present their most distinct skills to impress a prospective employer, employees discuss their best work to get promoted, and leaders display an optimistic outlook to maintain the confidence of their followers. People in organizations have a high interest in how they are perceived by others (Stevens & Kristof, 1995) and for this reason they may use methods of impression management. Although there are many strategies to manage the impression of others, there are individual differences in applying these. Past research has shown that impression management is linked to relatively stable personality traits. Kristof-Brown, Barrick, and Franke (2002) demonstrated that agreeableness and extraversion predict the use of impression management tactics that in consequence lead to better perception of performance. Moreover, self-esteem correlates negatively while internal locus of control correlates positively with the number of times individuals try to impress others (Delery & Kacmar, 1998). Finally, individuals with a high self-monitoring tendency present a more favorable self-image to colleagues than individuals with a lower tendency (Turnley & Bolino, 2001).

Building on the finding that individuals are able to manage perceptions of others, as a result of their personality, this study investigates whether personality traits provide valid explanations of why some leaders have higher or respectively lower self-perceptions of their effectiveness compared to others. More specifically, the purpose of the study is to identify whether a leader’s self-perception of effectiveness and the perceptions of others vary as a function of the leader’s personality.

The main reason for explaining why self and other perceptions of effectiveness differ is because their agreement has been linked to positive workplace outcomes. In an early study, Bass and Yammarino (1991) demonstrated that officers with high agreement between self and subordinate ratings also perceived higher supervisor ratings on their performance and promotion potential. Research on managers supported this finding (e.g., Furnham & Stringfield, 1994) and further demonstrated that self–other agreement predicts managerial and leadership performance (Atwater, Waldman, Ostroff, Robie, & Johnson, 2005; Taylor, Wang, & Zhan, 2012). Recent findings further showed that self–other agreement even moderates the relationship between leadership style and leadership outcomes (e.g., Kopperud, Martinsen, & Humborstad, 2014).

From this body of research it can be summarized that leaders are regarded as more successful if they see themselves in a similar way as they are perceived by others. The reason for this might on the one hand lie in their awareness of their own strengths and weaknesses. On the other hand, these leaders might further have the ability to accurately judge the situation they are in (Yammarino & Atwater, 1997). In contrast, leaders who either overrate or underrate their effectiveness are seen as less successful with a higher potential for derailment. For instance, Gentry, Ekelund, Hannum, and de Jong (2007) reported that overrating and underrating relates to leader derailment behavior such as relationship problems, leadership problems, and failure to adapt, a finding that was most recently replicated by Cullen, Gentry, and Yammarino (2015). Furthermore, subordinates of overrating leaders report lower job satisfaction and higher turnover intention (Amundsen & Martinsen, 2014) and perceive their leaders to be less transformational (Wang, Wilhite, & Martino, 2015). Furthermore, overrating leaders have higher absenteeism, higher turnover, and lower organizational commitment (Yammarino & Atwater, 1997). Finally, supervisors see underrating leaders to be less effective than in-agreement leaders (Yii Tang, Dai, & De Meuse, 2013). Taken together, these findings led Sturm, Taylor, Atwater, and Braddy (2014) to the conclusion that nonagreement between a leader’s self- and other-ratings has negative consequences for both the individual and the organization.

The reason for the negative impact of nonagreement seems twofold, depending on whether leaders overrate or respectively underrate their effectiveness. Overraters might ignore negative feedback from others and lack the awareness that their past behavior did not meet expected standards and see themselves in an unrealistically positive light (Yammarino & Atwater, 1997). This may stop them from developing their leadership behavior (Bass & Yammarino, 1991) and lead them to accept challenging tasks with a high risk to fail (Atwater, Ostroff, Yammarino, & Fleenor, 1998). In contrast, leaders who underrate their effectiveness may not achieve their full potential, as they avoid challenging assignments because they mistakenly assume their past behavior was unsatisfactory (Sinha, Mesmer-Magnus, & Viswesvaran, 2012). The circumstance that these leaders rather choose easy and unchallenging tasks might, in turn, result in decreased effectiveness ratings given by others (Tekleab, Sims, Yun, Tesluk, & Cox, 2008).

Personality and Self as Well as Other Perceptions of Effectiveness

Most research linking personality to effectiveness in leadership has been conducted within the framework of the Big Five personality traits that comprises the dimensions openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and emotional stability (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Meta-analytic findings show that conscientiousness, extraversion, and openness are consistent and relatively strong predictors of others’ perceptions of leadership effectiveness while the validity of agreeableness and emotional stability relies more on the investigated performance criteria and the sample itself (Bergner et al., 2010; Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002; Judge, LePine, & Rich, 2006). In general, it can be concluded that the importance of the Big Five for leadership is moderated by many contextual and methodological factors. Extraversion, for instance, is supposed to be particularly important at the beginning of a leader–coworker relationship (Cavazotte, Moreno, & Hickmann, 2012) while the importance of emotional stability, openness, and conscientiousness increases with long-lasting relationships (Deuling, Denissen, van Zalkc, Meeus, & van Aken, 2011). In addition, personality seems to be more important for lower-level leaders compared to upper-level leaders (Hoffman, Woehr, Maldagen-Youngjohn, & Lyons, 2011) and the Big Five’s validity further depends on whether the success is measured by looking at the leader’s individual performance or the performance of the group that is led by the particular leader (DeRue, Nahrgang, Wellman, & Humphrey, 2011). Furthermore, current research shows that some of the facets of the Big Five, for instance the ability to closely bond with others as a facet of extraversion, can have negative effects on leadership effectiveness even though the corresponding higher-level trait (i.e., extraversion) positively influences effectiveness (Do & Minbashian, 2014).

While the Big Five are extensively used in research, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) model continues to be the most widely used personality model in management counseling (Caplan, 2003; Diekmann, König, & Alles, 2015; Ginevra, Nota, Heppner, Heppner, & Soresi, 2014). Studying this measure clearly helps inform people on when and how to use it. The MBTI and its theoretical underpinning differentiates the four bipolar personality dimensions extraversion/introversion, sensing/intuition, thinking/feeling, and judging/perceiving (Myers & McCaulley, 1995). Research on the relationship between these four personality preferences and leadership effectiveness found that extraversion/introversion is related to other perceived effectiveness, with those scoring high on the extraversion preference receiving better effectiveness ratings from their supervisors, peers, and subordinates and being better represented in senior leadership positions (Furnham & Crump, 2015; Furnham & Stringfield, 1993; Johnson, Schneider, & Oswald, 1997). Sensing/intuition and thinking/feeling are also linked to leadership effectiveness. Sensing individuals perform better at innovative projects (Henderson & Nutt, 1980) but are less represented in top leadership positions, rate themselves worse and receive lower effectiveness ratings from their supervisors, peers, and subordinates than intuitive individuals (Carr, De La Garza, & Vorster, 2002; Furnham & Crump, 2015; Furnham & Stringfield, 1993). Leaders with a personality preference for feeling rate themselves, and are rated by their supervisors, as more effective compared to thinking individuals (Berr, Church, & Waclawski, 2000). The last of the four MBTI personality preferences, judging/perceiving, is weakly related to peer and supervisor perceptions of management as well as to other ratings of leadership development (Conway, 2000; Gomez, 2013).

Based on the findings above, it is evident that personality is directly related to the self and other perception of leadership effectiveness. In the current study, it is argued that as well as these perceptions themselves, the relationship between self and other perception is also associated with personality. Moreover, it is assumed that certain traits partly explain why self and other ratings are not always in agreement and why some leaders perceive themselves more or less effective than they are perceived.

One reason for why personality might influence self–other agreement is that there are in fact close similarities between self-ratings of personality and self-ratings of effectiveness. Both are judgments that reflect self-perceptions (Funder, 1995). In personality ratings these perceptions are reflected in their response to a number of items that are based on prior experiences or on behavior observations from different situations. In light of Bem’s (1972) self-perception theory, a similar process underlies the self-perception of effectiveness: Individuals gather information about themselves by observing their own behavior and past experience. Importantly, the perceptions themselves shape the attention, encoding, and retrieval of information relevant for effectiveness ratings (Markus, 1977). Taken together, similar assumptions underlie ratings in personality tests and self-perceptions of effectiveness.

Similar to self-perceptions, perceptions of others are also based on informative cues acquired about a person in a shared reality (Back, Schmukle, & Egloff, 2009). Social information processing theory suggests that a rater’s perception of a leader’s effectiveness is formed through communication cues observed in past interpersonal interactions that guide one’s encoding and recollection of information pertaining to the leader (Lord, De Vader, & Alliger, 1986). The cues observed are clearly influenced by the personality of the target person (Back et al., 2009). Concluding, personality is linked to both, the self and other perceptions, and in addition relates to the communication cues expressed by the leader that in turn partly define the extent to which self and other perceptions differ (Borkenau & Liebler, 1992).

Personality and Its Relation to the Agreement of Self and Other Perception of Effectiveness

Research suggests that differences in self and other perception of effectiveness are far from universal. In the current study, we explore if the MBTI personality preferences extraversion/introversion (E/I), sensing/intuition (S/N), thinking/feeling (T/F), and judging/perceiving (J/P) can explain discrepancies in self–other agreement of effectiveness. The MBTI was selected for several reasons. First, the MBTI is the most popular and commonly used personality measure in coaching (Diekmann et al., 2015; Ginevra et al., 2014). Thus, its use is a clear chance because it helps inform coaches and HR managers on when and how to use the MBTI. That is certainly the main reason why the MBTI was used in this study although it is often criticized for its factorial validity, bipolar dimensions, and categorical use of information. Second, most of the traits investigated with regard to self–other rating agreement are highly correlated with the MBTI preferences, allowing specific hypotheses to be articulated. Third, the MBTI has been extensively validated in leadership settings and it is linked to both self and other ratings of leadership effectiveness (e.g., Conway, 2000). Finally, the MBTI enjoys wide acceptance and high face validity by respondents (Helmes, Schermer, & Fraboni, 2012), which in turn enhance test validity and make it easy to transfer study results to the applied setting (Schmit, Ryan, Stierwalt, & Powell, 1995).

In this study, we refer to several mechanisms that influence the agreement between self and other ratings. These mechanisms are either linked to the person providing self-ratings or to the person providing other ratings. With respect to the person giving self-ratings the following mechanisms are discussed in this study: (a) personal approachability; (b) amount of exposed behavior; (c) tendency for faking good, respectively tendency for impression management; and (d) social desirability. Overall, it is assumed that individuals who are approachable and expose themselves to others have higher in agreement ratings because they provide lots of behavioral cues to others that are needed to increase agreement between self and other ratings. Moreover, the absence of faking tendencies, impression management, or social desirability tactics should also increase self–other agreement because in the absence of these tendencies self-ratings are not artificially enhanced. With respect to persons giving other ratings likeability is the most discussed mechanism in this study. Overall, it is assumed that liking another person leads to enhanced other ratings, which in turn reduce self–other agreement. Taken together, traits that foster a person’s likeability, approachability, and amount of exposed behavior should be linked to self and other ratings that are in agreement while traits that foster the tendency for faking, impression management, social desirability, and likeability should be related to self–other disagreement.

The Link Between MBTI Personality Preferences and Self–Other Agreement

Extraversion/Introversion

Extraverted individuals tend to be actively involved with people and to be engaged in a breadth of social situations. In contrast, introverted individuals prefer ideas, thoughts, and concepts and are less socially active. Research has shown that leaders high on traits related to extraversion (i.e., self-esteem, narcissism, social dominance) have higher self compared to other ratings (Goffin & Anderson, 2007; Robins & John, 1997; Vecchio & Anderson, 2009). It is important to note that previous research did only study self–other agreement in relation to traits closely linked to extraversion, but not in relation to extraversion itself. Moreover, in earlier studies the focus was primarily set on the agreement between self and supervisors or self and subordinate ratings. Thus, it cannot be answered clearly whether extraverted leaders have in general higher self compared to supervisor, peer, and subordinate ratings.

In line with previous research, we argue that extraverted leaders have higher self compared to other ratings of effectiveness because (a) extraversion positively relates to effectiveness ratings (Judge et al., 2006) and (b) leaders high on an extraversion preference show more socially desirable ratings (Meleddu & Guicciardi, 1998). Thus, leaders with an extraverted preference ought to have higher self-ratings of effectiveness, as these are more socially desirable in leadership settings. We further specify our assumption and state that leaders high on the extraversion preference only overrate their effectiveness if their self-ratings are compared to supervisor ratings (but not to peers or subordinates). This specification is based on three findings. First, individuals with high preferences on extraversion are more motivated to get ahead in their careers (Blickle et al., 2011). Second, for getting ahead they frequently try to impress their supervisors by applying self-promotion tactics (e.g., false modesty, boasting; Bornstein, Riggs, Hill, & Calabrese, 1996; Kristof-Brown et al., 2002). Third, contrary to their expectations, self-promotion tactics negatively influence supervisor ratings (Higgins, Judge, & Ferris, 2003) and thus lead to lower supervisor compared to self-ratings. Therefore, we state the following:

Hypothesis 1a: Leaders with higher self but lower supervisor ratings have a higher preference for extraversion.

Leaders with a high extraversion preference see no need to impress peers and subordinates in order to get ahead in their careers and thus do not use self-promotion tactics when interacting with them (Yukl & Chavez, 2002). In the absence of self-promotion motives, agreement between self and peer and, respectively subordinate ratings should be higher for those with a higher extraversion preference, particularly because extraversion is linked to more favorable self as well as other ratings of effectiveness (Furnham & Stringfield, 1993). Moreover, extraverted leaders expose more of their behavior (Borkenau & Liebler, 1992) and thus provide potential raters with more valid and authentic cues on their effectiveness. This should additionally lead to more accurate peer and subordinate ratings and in turn enhance self–other agreement.

Hypothesis 1b: Leaders with greater self–peer agreement will have a higher preference for extraversion.

Hypothesis 1c: Leaders with greater self–subordinate agreement will have a higher preference for extraversion.

Sensing/Intuition

S/N is seen as the way individuals take in information. Sensing persons concentrate on objective facts, are concerned with details, and rather avoid unstructured problems while intuitive persons like working with abstract problems and uncertain situations that challenge their creativity, openness, and vision. To our knowledge there is no research studying the relation between the S/N preference and self–other agreement of leadership effectiveness although this personality preference is clearly linked to both self and other ratings of effectiveness (Brandt & Edinger, 2015; Furnham & Crump, 2015; Johnson et al., 1997).

In this study, we argue that leaders with a clear preference for intuition have higher self–other agreement. Moreover, we assume that self–other agreement will be similarly related to the intuition preference across different self–other rating dyads. Our assumptions are based on the following findings. First, it is known that individuals high on creativity and openness—two traits positively linked to the intuition pole of the S/N preference (Furnham, Moutafi, & Crump, 2003; Kaufman, 2013)—are less likely to use impression management tactics (Schwartz, Verkasalo, Antonovsky, & Sagiv, 1997; Zettler, Hilbig, Moshagen, & de Vries, 2015). This is mainly explained by the circumstance that the process of creating a particular self-perception would tie attentional and cognitive resources that intuitive persons preferably use for their creative thoughts and open-minded way of thinking. Second, intuitive leaders are less prone to provide socially desired self-ratings and thus should not have inflated self-ratings (Meleddu & Guicciardi, 1998). Third, supervisor, peer, subordinate, and self-ratings of leadership effectiveness are positively linked to a leader’s intuition preference (Vincent, Ward, & Denson, 2015; Johnson et al., 1997; Page, Roberts, & Platt, 2014) whereby the intuition preference has a similarly strong impact on self and other ratings (Brandt & Laiho, 2013; Conway, 2000). Concluding, this should lead to self and other ratings that are similar and in agreement.

Since the intuition pole of the S/N preference affects supervisor, peer, and subordinate ratings of leadership effectiveness in a comparably strong way (Conway, 2000) and since there is no evidence that the link between the S/N preference and the use of impression management tactics varies as a function of the leader’s interaction partner (i.e., supervisor, peer, subordinate), it can further be assumed that self–other agreement will be similarly related to the intuition preference across different self–other dyads.

Hypothesis 2a: Self–supervisor agreement is related to the sensing/intuition preference with leaders higher on intuition showing greater self–supervisor agreement.

Hypothesis 2b: Self–peer agreement is related to the sensing/intuition preference with leaders higher on intuition showing greater self–peer agreement.

Hypothesis 2c: Self–subordinate agreement is related to the sensing/intuition preference with leaders higher on intuition showing greater self–subordinate agreement.

Judging/Perceiving

The J/P preference refers to the way individuals deal with their environment. Individuals with a judging preference favor to live a structured life, are detail-oriented, task-focused, persistent, as well as careful while individuals with a perceiving preference prefer a more flexible way, like to go with the flow, and to have room for spontaneity. Although the judging pole of the J/P preference is clearly linked to self and other rated leadership outcomes (Berr et al., 2000; Furnham & Stringfield, 1994) no prior research focused on the relation between this personality preference and self–other agreement. In the current study, we argue that leaders with a judging preference should have more accurate self-ratings of effectiveness. Our assumption is primarily based on two findings.

First, the judging preference is closely linked to the trait detail-orientation, and detail-orientation is linked to more accurate ratings (Furnham et al., 2003; Jansen, König, Stadelmann, & Kleinmann, 2012). Detail-oriented individuals provide more accurate ratings because they are able to attend to relevant aspects of performance (Jansen et al., 2012). Moreover, managers high on detail-orientation may keep a detailed mental record of previous performance providing them with a better basis for self and other evaluations (Sinha et al., 2012). This should in turn adjust their self-perception to the perception of others.

Second, detail-oriented individuals are less likely to engage in self-enhancement because they are less prone to faking, respectively representing them in an unrealistically positive light (Barrick & Mount, 1996). Therefore, they less likely provide inflated self-ratings, which should further enhance self–other agreement (Nguyen, Seers, & Hartman, 2008). The same argumentation holds true for individuals scoring high on dutifulness, another trait closely linked to the judging preference (Barrick & Mount, 1996; Furnham et al., 2003).

Moreover, we specify our assumption in so far as self–other agreement is only positively linked to the judging preference if self-ratings are compared to supervisor or peer ratings. Leaders who are detail-oriented and dutiful, respectively get their things done in time (Organ & Lingl, 1995), are effective (Judge et al., 2002), and can be counted on (Sinha et al., 2012). Supervisors and peers can rely on their work, need not to worry, and can have faith in that these leaders effectively do what they are asked for (Borman, White, & Dorsey, 1995), which in turn makes it easy to work with leaders with a judging preference (DeRue et al., 2011). Moreover, among supervisors and peers leaders high on traits related to the judging preference are extremely valued and more liked, a fact that does not necessarily hold true for subordinates (Ames & Flynn, 2007; Nguyen et al., 2008). Therefore, the following hypotheses were derived:

Hypothesis 3a: Self–supervisor agreement is related to the judging/perceiving preference with leaders higher on judging showing greater self–supervisor agreement.

Hypothesis 3b: Self–peer agreement is related to the judging/perceiving preference with leaders higher on judging showing greater self–peer agreement.

When it comes to subordinates, detail-oriented and dutiful, respectively conscientious leaders might be very critical and demanding. As demonstrated by Brandt and Laiho (2013) or Stumpf and Parker (2000), they demand more attention to small detail, neatness, and perfection than leaders with lower judging preferences. Subordinates might interpret this behavior as overbearing and nit-picky and might thus perceive their leader as less effective, a circumstance that has been suggested by Smith and Canger (2004), who reported a negative relationship between subordinates’ job satisfaction and a leader’s traits related to the judging preference. Thus, the following is assumed:

Hypothesis 3c: Self–subordinate agreement is related to the judging/perceiving preference with leaders higher on judging showing higher self but lower subordinate ratings.

Thinking/Feeling

The T/F preference indicates whether an individual takes decisions objectively based on logic (thinking) or subjectively based on values and feeling processes (feeling). Past research regarding the link between self–other agreement and the T/F preference is contradictory. Vecchio and Anderson (2009) reported that high social sensitivity, a trait related to the T/F preference (Dulewicz & Higgs, 1999), is linked to less self–supervisor agreement. Disagreeing with these findings, Korsgaard, Meglino, and Lester (2004) showed that individuals with a higher other-orientation, another characteristic known to be related to the thinking/feeling preference (Tafarodi & Walters, 1999), displayed greater self–supervisor agreement. Roush and Atwater (1992) found no link at all between the MBTI thinking/feeling preference and self–other agreement. Therefore, as it remains unclear whether the thinking/feeling dimension is linked to self–supervisor agreement, an explorative research question was derived.

Research Question 4a: Is self–supervisor agreement related to the thinking/feeling preference?

Regarding self–peer and self–subordinate agreement, we argue that both are related to the T/F preference with leaders higher on the feeling pole showing greater agreement. As shown by Furnham et al. (2003), individuals with a feeling preference tend to be more trustworthy, tender-minded, and gentle. This should make leaders with a feeling preference more approachable in the eyes of subordinates and peers, which may lead to the circumstance that they are more liked by their subordinates and peers because of the interpersonal behavior they show. Research has shown that likeability influences a rater’s processing of information about a person and the subsequent evaluations of this person (e.g., Bates, 2002). In general, likeability leads to more favorable performance evaluations (Borman et al., 1995). Since leaders with a higher feeling preference rate themselves more favorably (Conway, 2000) and are more liked by their subordinates and peers, which should lead to more favorable subordinate and peer ratings, the following hypothesis are derived:

Hypothesis 4b: Self–peer agreement is related to the thinking/feeling preference with leaders higher on the feeling preference showing greater agreement.

Hypothesis 4c: Self–subordinate agreement is related to the thinking/feeling preference with leaders higher on the feeling preference showing greater agreement.

The current study seeks to contribute to the theory enhancing self–other rating agreement. It wishes to extend the understanding on why some leaders perceive their effectiveness in line with the way others perceive it whereas other leaders have better or respectively worse impressions of their effectiveness compared to others. The current study builds on existing research by using polynomial regression, a method that is deemed more appropriate for examining self–other agreement than methods used in previous studies (e.g., difference scores; Edwards, 2002). Moreover, by applying a full multisource feedback (MSF) process we are able to offer more rating sources than previous studies. From a practical perspective, the study offers insights into whether leaders with certain personality preferences are prone to view themselves as being more effective while others view them to be less effective (or vice versa). Since this level of self–other agreement clearly affects individual and organizational performance, the results may offer information relevant for coaching, counseling, and leadership development.

Method

Procedure

Data were collected from leaders attending a development program. As part of this program they completed the MBTI personality questionnaire and took part in a MSF. With respect to the MSF, the target leaders nominated their supervisors, peers, and subordinates to complete online ratings of their effectiveness. Thus, the raters providing their perception of a leader’s effectiveness were not chosen randomly. However, since this holds true for every single target leader the potential familiarity between the leaders and their raters is equally distributed among the whole sample and should not bias the results systematically. Furthermore, it is important to mention that the purpose of the ratings was fully developmental in nature.

Participants

The sample consisted of 214 European senior leaders (167 males) with a mean age of 38.89 years (SD = 5.50). The leaders represented different companies belonging to the technical sector (e.g., energy and water supply) and the service sector (e.g., finance, insurance). All target leaders completed the MBTI, whereas only 196 provided data on the MSF.

Overall, 196 target leaders received ratings from their supervisor. Additionally, 186 target leaders obtained ratings from an average of 4.60 subordinates (SD = 2.93) and 194 received ratings from an average of 3.40 peers (SD = 1.79). In total 1.336 individuals were tested for the current study.

Material

Myers–Briggs Type Indicator

Personality was measured with the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (European English MBTI Step 1; Myers & McCaulley, 1995). The MBTI consists of 88 dichotomous forced-choice items. Individuals are classified on four bipolar dimensions due to their self-reported preferences. The four dimensions are considered as personality preferences and represent a person’s preference for consistent patterns that are used when viewing the world, collecting and interpreting information as well as making decisions. The four dimensions are (a) extraversion versus introversion, (b) sensing versus intuition, (c) thinking versus feeling, and (d) judging versus perceiving.

The extraversion/introversion (E/I) dimension indicates whether a person focuses his/her attention on the outer world of people, things, and events (E) or the inner world of ideas and impressions (I). The sensing/intuition (S/N) dimension displays whether individuals focus on facts and practical, concrete problems (S) or on abstract problems and the bigger picture (N). The thinking/feeling (T/F) dimension indicates whether an individual takes decisions objectively based on logic (T) or subjectively based on values and feeling processes (F). The judging/perceiving (J/P) dimension specifies whether a person prefers to live a structured life (J) or a more flexible one (P).

Although traditionally the MBTI is scored as a typology, continuous rather than dichotomous scores were used in the current study. This scoring method is recommended by various authors (e.g., Furnham & Crump, 2015; Furnham, Crump, Batey, & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2009; Saggino, Cooper, & Kline, 2001) and has been applied by researchers because it circumvents limitation generated by the type-based approach (Edwards, 2003; Isaksen, Lauer, & Wilson, 2003; McCrae & Costa, 1989). Moreover, the continuous scoring method allows applying polynomial regressions and response surface patterns, the preferred methods for investigating self–other agreement. To get continuous scores, first the difference between the poles for each preference was calculated. Then a constant of 100 was added to this difference to avoid negative scores. For instance, if a leader received a score of 70 on the introversion pole and a score of 20 on the extraversion pole the constant of 100 was added to the difference of 50 (70 − 20) resulting in a score of 150 for the E/I dimension. This score represents the leader’s clear preference for introversion. In contrast, if a person received a score of 30 on the introversion pole and a score of 60 on the extraversion pole the constant of 100 was added to the difference of −30 (30 − 60) leading to a score of 70 on the E/I dimension, which represents the leader’s clear preference for extraversion. Generalizing this scoring method to all MBTI dimensions, scores lower than 100 represent a clearer preference for the E, S, T, or J, whereas scores higher than 100 represent a clearer preference for the I, N, F, or P.

Addressing the MBTI’s reliability, Capraro and Capraro (2002) reported meta-analytically derived internal consistencies of .74 (T/F) to .84 (S/N) and confirmed the scores’ stability. Regarding the MBTI’s validity, various studies support the link between the four continuous preference scores and occupational outcomes, such as managerial level (Furnham & Crump, 2015; Moutafi, Furnham, & Crump, 2007), entrepreneurial status or intention (Zhao & Seibert, 2006; Zarafshani, & Rajabi, 2011), and creativity (Furnham et al., 2009). The MBTI’s construct validity is supported by Furnham and Crump (2015).

The authors would like to point out that using the MBTI—as one of the most popular and commonly used personality measures—is a clear chance because it is used for coaching and understanding leaders. Ignoring it in applied research would simply fail to acknowledge the prevalence of this measure in organizational life, increasing the gap between academic research and organizational practice. Thus, research like this study can guide people’s choices on when and how to use the MBTI. That, however, is certainly the main reason for why it has been used in the current study although the authors are well aware of the fact that the MBTI is often criticized for its factorial validity, bipolar dimensions, and categorical use of information.

Leadership Effectiveness

For this study, a leadership effectiveness questionnaire was developed. Leadership effectiveness was defined in accordance with Scullen, Mount, and Judge (2003), who referred to it as job-specific behaviors, including managerial and administrative responsibilities (e.g., accounting, planning) and nonjob-specific behaviors whose purpose is to support the broader organizational, social, and psychological environment in which the administrative tasks are executed (e.g., communicating, supporting). The questionnaire comprised 20 behavioral items that were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale (not skilled at all [1] to highly skilled [5]) and that formed a single composite score. As this is the first time the questionnaire is used for research, we posted the items in the Appendix A. Thus, the questionnaire used in this study can easily be compared to questionnaires that are more frequently used to measure leadership effectiveness.

The questionnaire was administered as an MSF. Items were completed by the target leaders who evaluated their own effectiveness. In addition, supervisors, peers, and subordinates assessed the target leaders’ effectiveness by completing the same items. A principal component analysis was performed for each rating source. The principal component analysis indicated a strong general factor for the ratings of every single rating source. The scree plots and the parallel analyses (Horn, 1965) supported the single-factor solution for every single rating source. Thus, the use of a composite score for effectiveness was justified. Since four different rating scores were available, a separate composite score for target leaders, supervisors, peers, and subordinates was used. The composite scores were computed by calculating the mean of all 20 items.

With regard to the psychometric properties of the MSF, interrater reliability for the composite scores varied between r = .11 for self–subordinate and r = .37 for peer–subordinate (see Table 1). Cronbach alpha for composite scores varied between α = .95 (self-ratings) and α = .98 (peer and subordinate ratings; see also Table 1). The average within-group agreement (James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1993) was r_wg = .82 for peers and r_wg = .91 for subordinates. The intraclass correlation coefficient was ICC(1) = .79 and ICC(2) = .88 for peers and ICC(1) = .82 and ICC(2) = .91 for subordinates. Thus, combining peer and respectively subordinate ratings was justified.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics (M, SD), Internal Consistencies, and Pearson Correlations for the MBTI Preference Scores and the Multisource Feedback Scores.

		MBTI preference scores				Leadership effectiveness (MSF)
		E/I^a (Introversion); n = 214	S/N^b (Intuition); n = 214	T/F^c (Feeling); n = 214	J/P^d (Perceiving); n = 214	Self; n = 196	Supervisor; n = 187	Peer; n = 186	Subordinate; n = 194
MBTI preference scores	M	82.84	99.30	77.47	92.42	3.35	3.49	3.68	3.89
	SD	29.82	24.07	21.69	28.02	0.44	0.44	0.47	0.55
	E/I^a (Introversion)	.88
	S/N^b (Intuition)	−.13*	.75
	T/F^c (Feeling)	−.15*	.08	.77
	J/P^d (Perceiving)	−.01	.29**	.15*	.79
Leadership effectiveness (MSF)	Self	−.25**	.15*	.03	.01	.95
	Supervisor	−.19**	.20**	.21**	−.03	.27**	.96
	Peer	−.20**	−.05	.16*	.02	.16*	.31**	.98
	Subordinate	−.04	.04	.05	−.01	.11	.15*	.37**	.98

Note. MBTI = Myers-Briggs Type Indicator; MSF = multisource feedback. Internal consistencies are in the main diagonal.

Low scores on the extraversion/introversion dimension represent a preference for extraversion. ^bLow scores on the sensing/intuition dimension represent a preference for sensing. ^cLow scores on the thinking/feeling dimension represent a preference for thinking. ^dLow scores on the judging/perceiving dimension represent a preference for judging.

p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01.

With respect to the MSF’s construct validity correlational analyses can be reported for the link between the MSF-ratings and (a) the subscales leader effectiveness, satisfaction with the leader, respectively extra effort that are embedded in the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ; Bass & Avolio, 1995); (b) the subscales expressed control, expressed affection, respectively expressed inclusion that are embedded in the Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation-Behavior questionnaire (FIRO-B; Schutz, 1958); and (c) the Cognitive Style Index (Allinson & Hayes, 1996; see results in Appendix B for detailed information).

Regarding the convergent validity, the analyses show that the MSF ratings are positively related to the MLQ ratings on leader effectiveness (correlations vary between r_{MSF_Self*MLQ_Effectiveness_Self} = .47 and r_{MSF_Supervisor*MLQ_Effectiveness_Supervisor} = .63), extra effort (r_{MSF_Self*MLQ_Extra_Effort_Self} = .38 and r_{MSF_Subordinate*MLQ_Extra_Effort_Subordinate} = .41), and satisfaction with the leader (correlations vary between r_{MSF_Self*MLQ_Satisfaction_Self} = .42 and r_{MSF_Subordinate*MLQ_Satisfaction_Subordinate} = .48). In addition, the MSF ratings were significantly related to the FIRO-B subscales expressed control (correlations vary between r_{MSF_Supervisor*FIRO-B_expressed control} = .19 and r_{MSF_Self*FIRO-B_expressed control} = .31) and expressed inclusion (correlations vary between r_{MSF_Supervisor*FIRO-B_expressed inclusion} = .16 and r_{MSF_Self*FIRO-B_expressed inclusion} = .23). These findings support the MSF’s convergent validity and show that the MSF ratings on leadership effectiveness are linked to same-source ratings on leadership effectiveness of other questionnaires, to the satisfaction with the leader, and to the leader’s ability to motivate subordinates to work beyond duty (i.e., extra effort). In addition, the findings show that the MSF ratings represent two different aspects of effectiveness—as suggested by Scullen et al. (2003)—as the ratings correlate with both, the leaders’ expressed control and interpersonal relations (i.e., expressed inclusion).

With respect to the divergent validity correlational analyses further show that the MSF ratings are neither linked to the cognitive style a leader uses to solve problems nor to the target leaders’ level of closeness with others (except for MSF-ratings of peers). As the MSF items do neither address the cognitive style of a leader nor the leaders’ closeness with others (i.e., expressed affection) the findings support the MSF’s divergent validity.

Regarding the MSF’s external validity ratings correlated with the target leader’s yearly pretax income between .19 (self-ratings) and .10 (peer-ratings) and were further linked to the leader’s number of subordinates with correlations varying between .20 (self-ratings) and .11 (subordinate-ratings). In addition, the MSF was related to the target leader’s commitment (between .25 for self-ratings and .16 for peer-ratings) and to effectiveness ratings provided by their supervisors (between .38 for supervisor-ratings and .17 for self-ratings; see also Ashridge Business School, 2010). As these findings are similar to those reported for published and intensively validated MSFs (e.g., Benchmarks; Leslie & Braddy, 2013), we argue that the questionnaire used in this study is a reliable and valid tool.

Data Analysis

Polynomial regression procedures with subsequent response surface analyses were used to test whether leaders with different self–other rating agreement had different levels of personality preferences. Following the hierarchical procedure outlined by Edwards (2002), each MBTI preference was separately regressed on self-ratings and other ratings in the first step (main effects). In a second step, the squared self-ratings, the product of self and other ratings, and the squared other ratings were added (higher order effects). A significant ΔR² between Steps 1 and 2 indicated nonlinear effects.

To clarify the nature of the relationships indicated by the regression models, response surface analyses were conducted. Therefore, four salient features of the surfaces were examined. First, the slope of the line of perfect agreement (i.e., when self equals others) was estimated by calculating a₁ = (b₁ + b₂), where b₁ was the unstandardized beta coefficient for self-ratings and b₂ was the unstandardized beta for other ratings (supervisor, peer, or subordinate). The slope of the line of perfect agreement indicates if and how self–other agreement relates to the personality preference of interest.

Second, the curvature along the line of perfect agreement was computed using the following formula: a₂ = (b₃ + b₄ + b₅), where b₃ was the unstandardized beta for the squared self-ratings, b₄ was the unstandardized beta for the cross-product of self and other ratings, and b₅ was the unstandardized beta for the squared other ratings. The curvature along the line of perfect agreement indicates whether the slope of the line of perfect agreement is linear or nonlinear (if a₁ significantly differs from zero but a₂ does not, the slope is linear; Atwater et al., 2005).

The third and fourth steps included calculating the slope and curvature along the line of disagreement, which is perpendicular to the line of perfect agreement. Both analyses help determine how the discrepancy between self-ratings and other ratings is linked to the ratees’ personality (e.g., are leaders with high self, but low subordinate ratings of effectiveness more extraverted). The slope along the line of incongruence indicates how the direction of the discrepancy relates to the personality preference (i.e., are self-ratings higher than ratings of others or vice versa). It was assessed by calculating a₃ = (b₁ − b₂). The curvature along the line of disagreement indicates how the degree of discrepancy between self-ratings and ratings of others relates to the personality preference of interest. It was assessed by calculating a₄ = (b₃ − b₄ + b₅). As recommended by Edwards (1994), all ratings were centered on the midpoint of their scale (i.e., on the value of 3) to ease interpretation.

Polynomial regression was preferred to difference scores because it overcomes the well-documented limitations of the latter (Edwards, 1994, 2002). The most serious limitation is certainly tied to the fact that difference scores confound the effect of each component measure as they combine the information of two distinct measures. The same holds true for agreement categories that are derived from difference scores. In contrast, polynomial regressions retain the independent effect of each component measure because the components are treated as distinct variables. This allows for the investigation of three-dimensional relationships between component measures and the criterion variable (Edwards & Parry, 1993). Because of the above-mentioned advantages polynomial regressions is considered one of the most appropriate ways to study self–other agreement (Fleenor, Smither, Atwater, Braddy, & Strum, 2010).

Results

Descriptive statistics, reliabilities, and correlations for all MBTI personality preferences and MSF-ratings are displayed in Table 1. As mentioned in the Method section, scores lower than 100 represent a stronger preference for the E, S, T, or J dimension, whereas scores higher than 100 represent a stronger preference for the I, N, F, or P dimension. Because of the MBTI’s bipolar nature negative MBTI-effectiveness correlations in Table 1 reflect a positive relationship between the lower-scored pole of the index (i.e., E, S, T, and J) and effectiveness ratings. In contrast, positive MBTI-effectiveness correlations reflect a positive link between the higher-scored pole of the index (i.e., I, N, F, and P) and effectiveness ratings.

Self–Other Agreement on Effectiveness and Its Relation to Personality

To examine personality differences between leaders with different self–other agreement, polynomial regressions with subsequent response surface analyses were conducted. The results for these analyses are summarized in Table 2. Figures 1 to 3 displays the results graphically.

Table 2.

Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting MBTI-Personality Preferences From Self-Ratings, Other Ratings, and the Discrepancy of Self–Other Ratings.

Self–other agreement		Personality preference				Personality preference				Personality preference				Personality preference
		Extraversion/introversion^a				Sensing/intuition^b				Thinking/feeling^c				Judging/perceiving^d
		b	(SE b)	R ²	ΔR²	b	(SE b)	R ²	ΔR²	b	(SE b)	R ²	ΔR²	b	(SE b)	R ²	ΔR²
Step 1	Self	−28.79*	(6.87)	.12**		2.59	(5.90)	.03^†		−6.27	(5.19)	.02		−4.13	(7.21)	.00
	Supervisor	7.11	(8.38)			23.01*	(8.33)			0.96	(6.99)			9.87	(9.71)
Step 2	Self²	16.70*	(7.87)	.16**	.04*	13.73*	(5.84)	.08*	.05*	−0.45	(5.87)	.03	.01	6.97	(8.16)	.03	.03
	Self × Supervisor	−7.17	(12.10)			−16.04	(10.05)			8.86	(9.06)			7.39	(12.59)
	Supervisor²	−12.32	(6.40)			−11.64	(7.15)			2.26	(5.99)			−13.98^†	(8.33)
	n = 174
Step 1	Self	−5.06	(8.71)	.08**		8.74	(7.51)	.02		−13.87*	(6.46)	.02		−3.36	(9.08)	.00
	Peer	−1.02	(7.12)			4.13	(11.13)			11.23	(9.58)			−9.10	(13.47)
Step 2	Self²	7.62	(6.37)	.12**	.04*	−1.96	(5.50)	.02	.00	3.88	(4.74)	.05	.03	4.27	(6.66)	.01	.01
	Self × Peer	−23.78**	(9.98)			0.08	(8.60)			15.03*	(7.41)			3.09	(10.41)
	Peer²	1.29	(4.66)			−4.84	(6.63)			−7.05	(5.71)			6.56	(8.03)
	n = 174
Step 1	Self	−1.51	(12.02)	.04*		8.46	(9.57)	.03^†		−4.52	(8.67)	.00		−13.95	(11.55)	.01
	Subordinate	−3.90	(10.99)			20.15*	(9.43)			−5.21	(7.93)			28.24**	(11.15)
Step 2	Self²	11.54	(9.52)	.09**	.05*	14.95*	(6.58)	.08**	.05*	−0.37	(6.87)	.01	.01	11.71	(7.82)	.08*	.07**
	Self × Subordinate	−25.79**	(9.42)			−9.83	(8.19)			6.37	(6.79)			11.93	(9.52)
	Subordinate²	8.02	(6.00)			−8.80^†	(5.14)			1.40	(4.32)			−18.93**	(6.08)
	n = 174

Low scores on extraversion/introversion represent an extraversion preference. ^bLow scores on sensing/intuition represent a sensing preference. ^cLow scores on thinking/feeling represent a thinking preference. ^dLow scores on judging/perceiving represent a judging preference.

†

p ≤ .10. *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01.

Figure 1.

Relationship between the self–other rating agreement and the extraversion/introversion preference.

Figure 2.

Relationship between the self–other rating agreement and the sensing/intuition preference.

Figure 3.

Relationship between the self–other rating agreement and the judging/perceiving preference.

Extraversion/Introversion and Self–Other Agreement

With respect to the personality preference E/I, self and supervisor ratings explained R² = 12% of its variance (F = 11.32, p ≤ .01). The analysis revealed that the squared ratings and the cross-product term accounted for 4% (p ≤ .05) additional variance. Response surface analyses for self–supervisor agreement revealed a significant slope for the line of perfect agreement (a₁ = −21.68, p ≤ .05) and a significant slope for the line of disagreement (a₃ = −35.90, p ≤ .01). Thus, self–supervisor agreement was linked to the E/I score. Since the a₁ value was significant but the a₂ value was not, there was a linear relationship between the self–supervisor agreement as it relates to extraversion/introversion. As can be seen in Figure 1a, target leaders with a low E/I score (i.e., those with a strong preference for extraversion) had relatively high self and supervisor ratings that were in agreement. In contrast, target leaders with a high E/I score (i.e., those with a preference for introversion) had relatively low self and supervisor ratings that were in agreement. Moreover, the negative a₃ value indicated that the direction of disagreement was related to the E/I score. As displayed in Figure 1a, target leaders with a strong preference for introversion had higher supervisor ratings than self-ratings whereas target leaders with a strong preference for extraversion had higher self-ratings than supervisor ratings. Thus, Hypothesis 1a was confirmed.

Self and peer ratings explained R² = 8% variance (F = 7.70, p ≤ .01) of the target leaders’ E/I score. Again, the squared ratings and the cross-product term significantly increased the amount of explained variance (ΔR² = .04, p ≤ .05). Response surface analyses revealed a significant curvature for the line of disagreement (a₄ = 32.69, p ≤ .05). Thus, the degree of disagreement between self and peer ratings was related to the E/I score. As depicted in Figure 1b, the positive curvature specified a convex surface, indicating that target leaders with high E/I scores (i.e., target leaders with a strong introversion preference) had greater disagreement between their self and peer ratings. Since Figure 1b displays a symmetrical graph, the direction of this disagreement did not matter. Target leaders with a strong preference for introversion had either very high self-ratings combined with very low peer ratings or very low self-ratings combined with high peer ratings. In contrast, leaders who were more extraverted had ratings that were in agreement. Thus, Hypothesis 1b was confirmed.

A similar pattern emerged when examining self–subordinate agreement and its relation to the E/I score. The R² from the first step of the regression model for E/I was .04 (F = 3.60, p ≤ .05). A significant increase of variance was accounted for by the squared ratings and the cross-product term (ΔR² = .05, p ≤ .05). Response surface analyses revealed a significant curvature along the line of perfect disagreement (a₄ = 45.34, p ≤ .01). The convex surface indicated that greater disagreement between self and subordinate ratings was found for target leaders with high E/I scores. Since the slope along the line of perfect disagreement (a₃) was not significant, the direction of the disagreement did not matter. Thus, results showed that more introverted leaders had either very high self-ratings combined with very low subordinate ratings or very low self-ratings combined with high subordinate ratings. In contrast, leaders who were more extraverted had in-agreement ratings. Thus, the results on self–subordinate agreement and the E/I dimension confirm Hypothesis 1c.

Sensing/Intuition and Self–Other Agreement

Referring to the personality preference S/N, self and supervisor ratings explained R² = 3% (F = 2.31, p ≤ .10) of its variance. The set of squared ratings and the interaction term increased the amount of explained variance by ΔR² = 5% (p ≤ .05). Response surface analyses yielded a significant positive slope along the line of perfect agreement (a₁ = 25.65, p ≤ .01). As shown in Figure 2a, target leaders with a preference for intuition (i.e., a high S/N score) had self-ratings and supervisor ratings that were in agreement and relatively high. In contrast, target leaders with a strong preference for sensing (i.e., a low S/N score) had self-ratings and supervisor ratings that were in agreement but relatively low. Hence, self–supervisor agreement was linked to the S/N score. However, neither the degree of disagreement (a₄) nor the direction of disagreement (a₃) was related to the sensing/intuition score. Thus, Hypothesis 2a is confirmed.

A similar pattern emerged when examining self–subordinate agreement and its relation to the personality preference S/N. Self and subordinate ratings accounted for R² = 3% variance (F = 2.50, p ≤ .10) of the target leaders’ S/N scores. The squared terms and the self–subordinate interaction lead to a significant increase of explained variance (ΔR² = .05, p ≤ .05). Examination of surface features revealed a significant slope along the line of perfect agreement (a₁ = 28.61, p ≤ .01) showing that self–subordinate agreement was linked to the S/N score. The linear relationship indicated that the S/N score was enhanced by a combination of both self-ratings and subordinate ratings. As can be seen in Figure 2b, there is a linear additive relationship meaning that leaders with a strong preference for sensing had low self and low subordinate ratings. In partial support of Hypothesis 2c target leaders with a preference for intuition had higher self and higher subordinate ratings.

Referring to the self–peer agreement, neither self nor peer ratings nor their squared or interaction terms significantly predicted the target leaders’ S/N scores. Thus, Hypothesis 2b was not confirmed.

Judging/Perceiving and Self–Other Agreement

Results indicate that the regression models for self and supervisor ratings as well as for self and peer ratings were not significant. Thus, Hypotheses 3a and 3b could not be confirmed. However, the analysis for self and subordinate ratings revealed that when the set of squared ratings and the interaction term was added in Step 2 of the regression, the amount of explained variance increased (ΔR² = .07, p ≤ .01). As can be seen in Figure 3, response surface analyses displayed that the direction of the disagreement mattered (a₃ = −42.19, p ≤ .01). The negative a₃ value indicated that target leaders with low J/P scores (i.e., a clear judging preference) had higher self than subordinate ratings. In contrast, those with high J/P scores (i.e., a clear perceiving preference) had higher subordinate than self-ratings. With respect to Hypothesis 3c, the results supported our assumptions.

Thinking/Feeling and Self–Other Agreement

With respect to the personality preference T/F, neither self-ratings nor any source of other ratings significantly explained the variance of this particular personality preference. Results in Table 2 further demonstrate that the various sets of squared terms and interaction terms did not account for additional variance. With respect to Hypotheses 4a, 4b, and 4c, it can be concluded that the T/F dimension is not related to self–other agreement of leadership effectiveness. As the results are manifold, Table 3 offers a brief summary of the main findings and relates them to the hypotheses derived in the introduction.

Table 3.

Brief Summary of All Hypotheses and the Main Results.

Hypotheses/research question	Main results	Support of hypotheses
H1a—Leaders with higher self but lower supervisor ratings are more extraverted	Leaders with higher self but lower supervisor ratings are more extraverted	+ Supported
H1b—Leaders with greater self–peer agreement are more extraverted	Yes, leaders with greater self–peer agreement are more extraverted	+ Supported
H1c—Leaders with greater self–subordinate agreement are more extraverted	Leaders with greater self–subordinate agreement are more extraverted	+ Supported
H2a—Leaders with greater self–supervisor agreement have a clearer preference for intuition	Leaders with greater self–supervisor agreement have a clearer preference for intuition if self and supervisor ratings were high to medium	+ Supported
H2b—Leaders with greater self–peer agreement have a clearer preference for intuition	Self–peer agreement is not related to the intuition preference	− Not supported
H2c—Leaders with greater self–subordinate agreement have a clearer preference for intuition	Leaders with greater self–subordinate agreement have a clearer preference for intuition if self and subordinate ratings were high to medium	+ Supported
H3a—Leaders with greater self–supervisor agreement have a clearer preference for judging	Self–supervisor agreement is not related to the judging preference	− Not supported
H3b—Leaders with greater self–peer agreement have a clearer preference for judging	Self–peer agreement is not related to the judging preference	− Not supported
H3c—Leaders with higher self but lower subordinate ratings have a clearer preference for judging	Leaders with higher self but lower subordinate ratings have a clearer preference for judging	+ Supported
RQ4a—Is self–supervisor agreement related to the T/F preference	Self–supervisor agreement is not related to the T/F preference	+ Supported
H4b—Leaders with greater self–peer agreement have a clearer preference for feeling	Self–peer agreement is not related to the feeling preference	− Not supported
H4c—Leaders with greater self–subordinate agreement have a clearer preference for feeling	Self–subordinate agreement is not related to the feeling preference	+ Supported

Discussion

The current study extends research on how personality relates to self–other agreement of leadership effectiveness. Overall, the present findings illustrate that depending on their personality, some leaders have better or respectively worse perceptions of their effectiveness compared to others, whereas other leaders see themselves as they are perceived by others. Therefore, personality differences are to a certain extent related to self–other rating agreement. However, the interplay between self-ratings, other ratings, and personality is complex and varies if self-ratings are compared to supervisors, peers, or subordinates.

Drawing on recent research it was assumed that leaders with an extraverted preference have lower self–supervisor agreement than leaders with an introverted preference. Since extraverted individuals show more socially desirable ratings (de Vries, Zettler, & Hilbig, 2014), it was expected that extraverted leaders have higher self than supervisor ratings as these are more socially desirable (Hypothesis 1a). Supporting Hypothesis 1a results demonstrated that leaders with a very strong preference for extraversion perceived themselves to be more effective, while their supervisors perceived them to be less effective. In contrast, leaders with an introverted personality preference saw themselves as less effective compared to how they were seen by their supervisors. This finding echoes results reported by Goffin and Anderson (2007) and Vecchio and Anderson (2009) who examined the relationship between self–other rating agreement and two traits related to extraversion (i.e., self-esteem and social dominance). Results further illustrated that self–supervisor disagreement was related to the extraversion preference, primarily as a function of self-ratings. This pattern suggests that more extraverted leaders tend to believe they are effective but this belief is not always shared by their supervisors. Findings illustrated by Bell and Arthur (2008) reinforce this argument. Bell and Arthur presented correlations between extraversion and self as well as other ratings of assessment center performance. While participants’ self-ratings of assessment center performance were positively linked to their extraversion, no relationship was found between assessor ratings and participants’ extraversion scores. Given that self-esteem, self-confidence, and dominance are core facets of extraversion (Caspi, Roberts, & Shiner, 2005; Watson, Suls, & Haig, 2002) it might be argued that these facets inflate the sense of self-importance and, thus, result in higher self-ratings than supervisor ratings.

Moving on, in line with Hypotheses 1b and 1c, extraverted leaders did not have inflated self-perceptions of effectiveness when compared to their peers or subordinates. In fact, results revealed a very similar pattern for both self–peer and self–subordinate agreement. More extraverted leaders had greater self–peer and self–subordinate agreement than leaders who reported to be more introverted.

The current findings on extraversion and self–peer or self–subordinate agreement contradict results reported by Roush and Atwater (1992) who found that introverted officers depicted better self–subordinate rating agreement. Based on our results it might be suggested that leaders with an extraverted personality preference expose more of their behavior to others and thus provide potential raters with more valid cues. Consequently, this may lead to more accurate other ratings and in turn enhance self–other agreement. The present argument is strengthened by findings from Hirschmüller, Egloff, Nestler, and Back (2013) who reported that self–other agreement increases with greater exposure of the ratee.

With respect to the personality preference sensing/intuition, it was assumed that leaders with higher preferences for intuition have higher self–other rating agreement (Hypotheses 2a, 2b, and 2c). The lack of impression management tactics and self-inflation should primarily affect the leaders’ self-ratings and lead to similar self and other perception. Results of the current study confirmed this assumption and showed that self–other agreement was related to the intuition pole of the S/N preference if (a) self-ratings of effectiveness were compared to supervisor and subordinate ratings and if (b) self and supervisor or subordinate ratings were both medium to high. This means that leaders with medium to high self-ratings in combination with medium to high supervisor or subordinate ratings displayed a clear intuition preference. Additionally, the results further showed that those with in-agreement but low self and other ratings have a personality preference for sensing instead of intuition.

The result that leaders with in-agreement but low self and other ratings show a personality preference for sensing might be partly explained by their personality preference. Since people with a sensing preference are fact-based and rely on detailed information, it might be argued that their behavior is predictable for others. On the one hand, predictability might enhance self–other rating agreement (just like the results showed). On the other hand, predictability might prevent leaders from increasing their effectiveness to a higher level because they may not feel comfortable making intuitive and creative adjustments to their behavior. It might be even argued that leaders need exactly the opposite of a sensing preference—an intuition preference—to be perceived as highly effective by others. This argument is supported by the current results, which show that leaders with high self and other ratings of effectiveness that are in agreement have a clearer intuition preference. However, since no causal interpretation can be drawn from the current investigation, further studies are needed to examine if leaders need to have a clearer intuition preference to be perceived as highly effective or if highly effective leaders perceive themselves to be intuitive.

With regard to the personality preference judging/perceiving, it was assumed that leaders with higher preferences for judging have greater self–supervisor and self–peer rating agreement (Hypotheses 3a and 3b). Results could not confirm these hypotheses and thus contradict findings reported by Roush and Atwater (1992). Based on the current results, it can be concluded that detail-orientation, task-focus, and carefulness—all core aspects of the judging preference (Furnham et al., 2003)—are neither linked to enhanced nor to decreased self–supervisor or self–peer agreement. In contrast, the judging pole of the J/P preference plays an important role when it comes to self and subordinate ratings. As argued in Hypothesis 3c, leaders with higher self than subordinate ratings had a clear preference for the judging pole of the J/P preference. Regression results clearly illustrated that self–subordinate disagreement was related to judging/perceiving, primarily as a function of the subordinate perception of effectiveness. As Smith and Canger (2004) showed that subordinates are less satisfied with their jobs if their leader is highly demanding, task-focused, and conscientious and as these three traits are strongly related to the judging pole of the J/P preference (Furnham et al., 2003), the following interpretation is suggested: judging leaders, who are demanding, task-focused, and conscientious, is negatively perceived by their subordinates because they may have the tendency to micro-manage their subordinates, which in turn may affect the ratings provided by subordinates.

With regard to Research Question 4a and Hypotheses 4b and 4c, results showed that neither the degree of agreement nor the degree of disagreement of any self–other rating dyad was related to the thinking/feeling preference. Hence, the findings are in line with results noted by Roush and Atwater (1992) and question those reported by Korsgaard et al. (2004) and Vecchio and Anderson (2009).

In conclusion, the findings of the current study support the notion that personality preferences are linked to a leader’s self-perception of effectiveness, to other’s perception of effectiveness, and partly to the agreement of self–other perception. The importance of personality preferences when explaining self–other agreement depends on whether self-ratings are compared to supervisor, peer, or subordinate ratings. Our results show that the tendency for inflated or understated self-ratings is not always related to personality in a strictly linear way. In fact, self-ratings, other ratings, and personality show a complex three dimensional interplay where both, the absolute level of self and other ratings as well as the level of agreement need to be considered separately.

Practical Implications and Limitations

The current findings are useful for coaches, HR managers, and business leaders. They equip coaches to handle sensitive conversations that often arise within MSF. When greater self–other disagreement is reported, our findings show that coaches should consider the leader’s personality when explaining this disagreement. Coaches might explain that the disagreement between self and other perceived effectiveness is not solely based on differences in effectiveness but it also depends on how leaders interact with others. For instance, a very extraverted leader who does a great job but who is potentially, due to his/her personality, more assertive and dominant might come across bossy. This could result in lower effectiveness ratings from the supervisor because it might be seen as a threat to the social status of this supervisor or because the supervisor simply disregards this way of social interaction. On the other hand, a highly introverted leader might also do great work but because he/she is less socially active and does not engage that much in situations with subordinates, the subordinates might simply not know how good the leader’s work is and thus underrate the leader’s effectiveness. To sum up, for coaches it might be important to consider that discrepancies in effectiveness ratings are not solely based on objective differences in effectiveness but also on the way a leader interacts with others. This way of interacting with others is influenced by the leader’s personality.

For HR managers, the current findings might be of interest when evaluating leadership development programs that focus on self-awareness or self–other agreement. Our findings suggest that any program for enhancing self–other agreement in general will have limited success. This is because—as demonstrated by this study—(a) personality differently influences self–subordinate, self–peer, and self–supervisor agreement (i.e., extraversion/introversion) and (b) personality is regarded as relatively stable and will thus influence self–other agreement always to a certain extent (as it is difficult to chance traits). Instead of trying to improve self–other agreement in general, our findings suggest focusing on a particular self–other dyad. Moreover, HR-managers could communicate that any personality preference can have a negative effect on work relationships if it is extremely high or respectively low (see, for instance, the current findings on the relation between self–other agreement and the J/P preference).

Business leaders might use the findings to reflect whether they themselves are more prone to overrate respectively underrate their effectiveness. If they knew about their scores on the MBTI they could critically reflect their past achievements and could discuss which facets of their behavior most likely lead to higher, respectively lower other ratings. If leaders, for instance, are highly extraverted and received lower supervisor than self-ratings on any performance appraisal in the past they could ask themselves whether their supervisor feels threatened by their socially active, dominant way. However, if business leaders are rather introverted and receive lower subordinate than self-ratings in their performance appraisals then they might think about strategies that help them to make their work more visible for others so that their subordinates might see how effective they are (e.g., arrange weekly face to face meetings).

As with any study, there are limitations to consider. First, in the current study there was no familiarity rating provided by the raters. Thus, it remains unclear if the relationship between personality and self–other agreement is different for individuals who are very familiar and those who are rather unfamiliar. Second, although there is growing empirical evidence that effectiveness is based on two distinct dimensions of behavior (i.e., task and contextual related behavior linked to effectiveness; Scullen et al., 2003) effectiveness in the current study was operationalized as a one-dimensional construct. Future studies should investigate if personality is differently related to self–other rating agreement on different effectiveness facets. Finally, in the current study it was assumed that the leader’s personality is linked to self–other rating agreement. Since previous work suggests that others’ perception is also a result of the raters’ individual characteristics (e.g., Felfe & Schyns, 2010; Fleenor et al., 2010), further studies need to focus on the interaction between the rater’s and the ratee’s personality when studying self–other agreement.

Despite these limitations, the current study extends existing research by using polynomial regression, a technique that allows for an extremely detailed picture on self–other agreement and its relationship with personality. Moreover, by applying a full MSF process, we were able to offer other ratings of four different sources and can further illustrate that the results on self–other agreement and personality differ depending on the nature of the work relationship.

Footnotes

Appendix A

Appendix B

Acknowledgements

Sabine Bergner conducted this study during her research stay at the Ashridge Business School.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Sabine Bergner is Assistant Professor at the Department of Leadership and Entrepreneurship at the University of Graz. Her research interests include the link between personality and leadership as well as leadership development.

Alex Davda is a Business Psychologist and member of Faculty at Ashridge Executive Education based in Dubai. His research interests include 360 degree feedbacks as well as innovative assessment and development approaches.

Vicki Culpin is Global Dean of Research at Hult International Business School, and is responsible for the research activity across the Business School, including seven research centres and five campus locations (London, Dubai, Shanghai, San Francisco and Boston).

Robert Rybnicek is Assistant Professor at the Department of Leadership and Entrepreneurship at the University of Graz. He specialized in public management and gender budgeting.

References

Allinson

Hayes

(1996). The cognitive style index. Journal of Management Studies, 33, 119-135.

Ames

D. R.

Flynn

F. J.

(2007). What breaks a leader: the curvilinear relation between assertiveness and leadership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 307-319.

Amundsen

Martinsen

Ø. L.

(2014). Self–other agreement in empowering leadership: Relationships with leader effectiveness and subordinates’ job satisfaction and turnover intention. Leadership Quarterly, 25, 784-800.

Ashridge Business School. (2010). Ashridge Inventory of Leadership Skills: Technical manual. Ashridge, England: Author.

Atwater

L. E.

Ostroff

Yammarino

F. J.

Fleenor

J. W.

(1998). Self-other agreement: Does it really matter? Personnel Psychology, 51, 577-598.

Atwater

L. E.

Waldman

Ostroff

Robie

Johnson

K. M.

(2005). Self-other agreement: Comparing its relationship with performance in the U.S. and Europe. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 13, 25-40.

Back

M. D.

Schmukle

S. C.

Egloff

(2009). Predicting actual behavior from the explicit and implicit self-concept of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 533-549.

Barrick

M. R.

Mount

M. K.

(1996). Effects of impression management and self-deception on the predictive validity of personality constructs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 261-272.

Bass

B. M.

Avolio

B. J.

(1995). MLQ multifactor leadership questionnaire. Redwood City. CA: Mind Garden.

10.

Bass

Yammarino

(1991). Congruence of self and others’ leadership ratings of naval officers for understanding successful performance. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 40, 437-454.

11.

Bates

(2002). Liking and similarity as predictors of multi-source ratings. Personnel Review, 31, 540-552.

12.

Bell

S. T.

Arthur

(2008). Feedback acceptance in developmental assessment centers: The role of feedback message, participant personality, and affective response to the feedback session. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 681-703.

13.

Bem

D. J.

(1972). Self-perception theory. In Berkowitz

(Ed.), Advances in experimental and social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1-62). New York, NY: Academic Press.

14.

Bergner

Neubauer

A. C.

Kreuzthaler

(2010). Broad and narrow personality traits for predicting managerial success. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19(2), 177-199.

15.

Berr

S. A.

Church

A. H.

Waclawski

(2000). The right relationship is everything: Linking personality preferences to managerial behaviors. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11, 133-157.

16.

Blickle

Fröhlich

J. K.

Ehlert

Pirner

Dietl

Hanes

T. J.

Ferris

G. R.

(2011). Socioanalytic theory and work behavior: Roles of work values and political skill in job performance and promotability assessment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 78, 136-148.

17.

Borkenau

Liebler

(1992). Trait inferences: Sources of validity at zero acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 645-657.

18.

Borman

White

Dorsey

(1995). Effects of ratee task performance and interpersonal factors on supervisor and peer performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 168-185.

19.

Bornstein

R. F.

Riggs

J. M.

Hill

E. L.

Calabrese

(1996), Activity, passivity, self-denigration, and self-promotion: Toward an Interactionist Model of Interpersonal Dependency. Journal of Personality, 64, 637-374.

20.

Brandt

T. M.

Edinger

(2015). Transformational leadership in teams—The effects of a team leader’s sex and personality. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 30, 53-67.

21.

Brandt

T. M.

Laiho

(2013). Gender and personality in transformational leadership context: An examination of leader and subordinate perspectives. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 34, 44-66.

22.

Caplan

(2003). Stigler–Becker versus Myers–Briggs: Why preference-based explanations are scientifically meaningful and empirically important. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 50, 391-405.

23.

Capraro

(2002). Myers-Briggs Type Indicator score reliability across studies: A meta-analytic reliability generalization study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, 590-602.

24.

Carr

P. G.

De La Garza

J. M.

Vorster

M. C.

(2002). Relationship between personality traits and performance for engineering and architectural professionals providing design services. Journal of Management in Engineering, 18(4), 158-166.

25.

Caspi

Roberts

B. W.

Shiner

R. L.

(2005). Personality development: Stability and change. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 453-484.

26.

Cavazotte

Moreno

Hickmann

(2012). Effects of leader intelligence, personality and emotional intelligence on transformational leadership and managerial performance. Leadership Quarterly, 23, 443-455.

27.

Conway

J. M.

(2000). Managerial performance development constructs and personality correlates. Human Performance, 13(1), 23-46.

28.

Costa

P. T.

McCrae

R. R.

(1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five Factor Inventory. Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

29.

Cullen

K. L.

Gentry

W. A.

Yammarino

F. J.

(2015). Biased self-perception tendencies: Self-enhancement/self-diminishment and leader derailment in individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Applied Psychology, 64, 161-207.

30.

de Vries

R. E.

Zettler

Hilbig

B. E.

(2014). Rethinking trait conceptions of Social Desirability Scales impression management as an expression of honesty-humility. Assessment, 21, 286-299.

31.

Delery

J. E.

Kacmar

K. M.

(1998). The influence of applicant and interviewer characteristics on the use of impression management. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1649-1669.

32.

DeRue

D. S.

Nahrgang

J. D.

Wellman

N. E. D.

Humphrey

S. E.

(2011). Trait and behavioral theories of leadership: An integration and meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Personnel Psychology, 64, 7-52.

33.

Deuling

J. K.

Denissen

van Zalkc

Meeus

van Aken

(2011). Perceived influence in groups over time: How associations with personality and cognitive ability can change over time. Journal of Research in Personality, 45, 576-585.

34.

Diekmann

König

C. J.

Alles

(2015). The role of neuroscience information in choosing a personality test: Not as seductive as expected. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 23, 99-108.

35.

M. H.

Minbashian

(2014). A meta-analytic examination of the effects of the agentic and affiliative aspects of extraversion on leadership outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 25, 1040-1053.

36.

Dulewicz

Higgs

(1999). Can emotional intelligence be measured and developed? Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 20, 242-252.

37.

Edwards

J. A.

(2003). The interactive effects of processing preference and motivation on information processing: Causal uncertainty and the MBTI in a persuasion context. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 89-99.

38.

Edwards

J. R.

(1994). The study of congruence in organisational behaviour research: Critique and a proposed alternative. Organisation Behaviour and Human Processes, 58, 51-100.

39.

Edwards

J. R.

(2002). Alternatives to difference score: Polynomial regression analysis and response surface methodology. In Drasgow

Schmitt

(Eds.), Measuring and analysing behaviour in organisations: Advances in measurement and data analysis (pp. 350-400). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

40.

Edwards

J. R.

Parry

M. E.

(1993). On the use of polynomial regression equations as an alternative to difference scores in organisational research. Academy of Management Journal, 6, 1577-1633.

41.

Felfe

Schyns

(2010). Followers personality and the perception of transformational leadership: Further evidence for the similarity hypothesis. British Journal of Management, 21, 393-410.

42.

Fleenor

J. W.

Smither

J. W.

Atwater

L. E.

Braddy

P. W.

Strum

R. E.

(2010). Self-other rating agreement in leadership: A review. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 1005-1034.

43.

Funder

D. C.

(1995). On the accuracy of personality judgment: a realistic approach. Psychological Review, 102, 652-669.

44.

Furnham

Crump

(2015). Personality and management level: Traits that differentiate leadership levels. Psychology, 6, 549-559.

45.

Furnham

Crump

Batey

Chamorro-Premuzic

(2009). Personality and ability predictors of the “consequences” test of divergent thinking in a large non student sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 536-540.

46.

Furnham

Moutafi

Crump

(2003). The relationship between the revised NEO-Personality Inventory and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 31, 577-584.

47.

Furnham

Stringfield

(1993). Personality and work performance: Myers-Briggs Type Indicator correlates of managerial performance in two cultures. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 145-153.

48.

Furnham

Stringfield

(1994). Congruence of self and subordinate ratings of managerial practices as a correlate of supervisor evaluation. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 57-67.

49.

Gentry

W. A.

Ekelund

B. R. Z.

Hannum

K. M.

de Jong

(2007). A study of the discrepancy between self-and observer-ratings on managerial derailment characteristics of European managers. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16, 295-325.

50.

Ginevra

M. C.

Nota

Heppner

P. P.

Heppner

Soresi

(2014). The relationship of personality type, problem-solving appraisal, and learning strategies. Journal of Career Assessment, 13, 345-352.

51.

Goffin

R. D.

Anderson

D. W.

(2007). The self-rater’s personality and self-other disagreement in multi-source performance ratings. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 271-289.

52.

Gomez

(2013). Leadership behavior and its impact on student success and retention in online graduate education. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 17, 13-27.

53.

Helmes

Schermer

J. A.

Fraboni

(2012). Item format and social desirability: Implications for interpretation of the MBTI. Psychology Research, 2, 361-368.

54.

Henderson

J. C.

Nutt

P. C.

(1980). The influence of decision style on decision making behavior. Management Science, 26, 371-386.

55.

Hirschmüller

Egloff

Nestler

Back

M. D.

(2013). The dual lens model: A comprehensive framework for understanding self–other agreement of personality judgments at zero acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 335-353.

56.

Higgins

C. A.

Judge

T. A.

Ferris

G. R.

(2003). Influence tactics and work outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 89-106.

57.

Hoffman

B. J.

Woehr

D. J.

Maldagen-Youngjohn

Lyons

B. D.

(2011). Great man or great myth? A quantitative review of the relationship between individual differences and leader effectiveness. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84, 347-381.

58.

Horn

J. L.

(1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179-185.

59.

Isaksen

S. G.

Lauer

Wilson

G. V.

(2003). An examination of the relationship between personality type and cognitive style. Creativity Research Journal, 15, 343-354.

60.

James

L. R.

Demaree

R. G.

Wolf

(1993). Rwg: An assessment of within-group interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 306-309.

61.

Jansen

König

C. J.

Stadelmann

E. H.

Kleinmann

(2012). Applicants’ self-presentational behavior: What do recruiters expect and what do they get? Journal of Personnel Psychology, 11, 77-85.

62.

Johnson

J. W.

Schneider

R. J.

Oswald

F. L.

(1997). Toward a taxonomy of managerial performance profiles. Human Performance, 10, 227-250.

63.

Judge

T. A.

Bono

J. E.

Ilies

Gerhardt

M. W.

(2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 765-781.

64.

Judge

T. A.

LePine

J. A.

Rich

B. L.

(2006). Loving yourself abundantly: Relationship of the narcissistic personality to self- and other perceptions of workplace deviance, leadership, and task and contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 762-780.

65.

Kaufman

S. B.

(2013). Opening up openness to experience: A four-factor model and relations to creative achievement in the arts and sciences. Journal of Creative Behavior, 47, 233-255.

66.

Kopperud

K. H.

Martinsen

Ø.

Humborstad

S. I. W.

(2014). Engaging leaders in the eyes of the beholder on the relationship between transformational leadership, work engagement, service climate, and self–other agreement. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21, 29-42.

67.

Korsgaard

M. A.

Meglino

B. M.

Lester

S. W.

(2004). The effect of other-orientation on self-supervisor rating agreement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 873-891.

68.

Kristof-Brown

Barrick

M. R.

Franke

(2002). Applicant impression management: Dispositional influences and consequences for recruiter perceptions of fit and similarity. Journal of Management, 28, 27-46.

69.

Leslie

J. B.

Braddy

P. W.

(2013). Benchmarks (3rd ed.). Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

70.

Lord

R. G.

De Vader

C. L.

Alliger

G. M.

(1986). A meta-analysis of the relation between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity generalization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 402-421.

71.

Markus

(1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 63-78.

72.

Meleddu

Guicciardi

(1998). Self-knowledge and social desirability of personality traits. European Journal of Personality, 12, 151-168.

73.

McCrae

R. R.

Costa

P. T.

(1989). Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator from the perspective of the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Personality, 57, 17-40.

74.

Moutafi

Furnham

Crump

(2007). Is managerial level related to personality? British Journal of Management, 18, 272-280.

75.

Myers

I. B.

McCaulley

M. H.

(1995). Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

76.

Nguyen

N. T.

Seers

Hartman

N. S.

(2008). Putting a good face on impression management: Team citizenship and team satisfaction. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 9, 148-168.

77.

Organ

D. W.

Lingl

(1995). Personality, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Social Psychology, 135, 339-350.

78.

Page

Roberts

R. M.

Platt

R. G.

(2014). Boss/subordinate perceptions of instrumental and supportive leadership behaviors in relation to Myers-Briggs thinking type. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, 21, 105-108.

79.

Robins

R. W.

John

O. P.

(1997). Effects of visual perspective and narcissism on self-perception: Is seeing believing? Psychological Science, 8, 37-42.

80.

Roush

Atwater

L. E.

(1992). Using the MBTI to understand transformational leadership and self-perception accuracy. Military Psychology, 4, 17-34.

81.

Saggino

Cooper

Kline

(2001). A confirmatory factor analysis of the Myers Briggs Type Indicator. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 3-9.

82.

Schmit

M. J.

Ryan

A. M.

Stierwalt

S. L.

Powell

A. B.

(1995). Frame-of-reference effects on personality scale scores and criterion-related validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 607-626.

83.

Schutz

W. C.

(1958). FIRO. A three-dimensional theory of interpersonal relations. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

84.

Schwartz

S. H.

Verkasalo

Antonovsky

Sagiv

(1997). Value priorities and social desirability: Much substance, some style. British Journal of Social Psychology, 36(1), 3-18.

85.

Scullen

S. E.

Mount

M. K.

Judge

T. A.

(2003). Evidence of the construct validity of developmental ratings of managerial performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 50-66.

86.

Sinha

Mesmer-Magnus

Viswesvaran

(2012). Personality antecedents of self-other rating discrepancy. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 28, 3-14.

87.

Smith

M. A.

Canger

J. M.

(2004). Effects of supervisor “big five” personality on subordinate attitudes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18, 465-481.

88.

Stevens

C. K.

Kristof

A. L.

(1995). Making the right impression: A field study of applicant impression management during job interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 587-606.

89.

Stumpf

Parker

W. D.

(2000). A hierarchical structural analysis of perfectionism and its relation to other personality characteristics. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 837-852.

90.

Sturm

Taylor

Atwater

Braddy

(2014). Leader self-awareness: An examination and implications of women’s under-prediction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 657-677.

91.

Taylor

S. N.

Wang

Zhan

(2012). Going beyond self–other rating comparison to measure leader self-awareness. Journal of Leadership Studies, 6, 6-31.

92.

Tafarodi

R. W.

Walters

(1999). Individualism–collectivism, life events, and self-esteem: A test of two trade-offs. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 797-814.

93.

Tekleab

A. G.

Sims

H. P.

Jr. Yun

Tesluk

P. E.

Cox

(2008). Are we on the same page? Effects of self-awareness of empowering and transformational leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14, 185-201.

94.

Turnley

Bolino

(2001). Achieving desired images while avoiding undesired images: Exploring the role of self-monitoring in impression management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 351-360.

95.

Vecchio

Anderson

R. J.

(2009). Agreement in self-other ratings of leader effectiveness: The role of demographics and personality. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17, 165-179.

96.

Vincent

Ward

Denson

(2015). Promoting post-conventional consciousness in leaders: Australian community leadership programs. Leadership Quarterly, 26, 238-253.

97.

Wang

Wilhite

Martino

(2015). Understanding the relationship between school leaders’ social and emotional competence and their transformational leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 21, 217-231.

98.

Watson

Suls

Haig

(2002). Global self-esteem in relation to structural models of personality and affectivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 185-197.

99.

Yammarino

F. J.

Atwater

L. E.

(1997). Do managers see themselves as other see them? Implications of self-other rating agreement for human resources management. Organizational Dynamics, 25, 35-44.

100.

Yii Tang

Dai

De Meuse

K. P.

(2013). Assessing leadership derailment factors in 360° feedback: Differences across position levels and self-other agreement. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 34, 326-343.

101.

Yukl

Chavez

(2002). Influence tactics and leader effectiveness. In: Schriesheim

C. A.

Neider

L. L.

(Eds.), Leadership (pp. 139-165). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

102.

Zarafshani

Rajabi

(2011). Effects of personality traits on entrepreneurial intentions: An empirical study in Iran. International Journal of Management, 28, 630-647.

103.

Zhao

Seibert

S. E.

(2006). The big five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial status: A meta analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 259-271.

104.

Zettler

Hilbig

B. E.

Moshagen

de Vries

R. E.

(2015). Dishonest responding or true virtue? A behavioral test of impression management. Personality and Individual Differences, 81, 107-111.