Predicting Transformational Leadership in Naval Cadets: Effects of Personality Hardiness and...

Predicting Transformational Leadership in Naval Cadets:Effects of Personality Hardiness and Training

Bjørn Helge Johnsen,1 Jarle Eid,and Staale Pallesen

Department of Psychosocial ScienceUniversity of Bergen

Bergen, Norway

Paul T. BartoneNational Defense University

Washington, DC

Odd A. NissestadRoyal Norwegian Naval Academy

Bergen, Norway

The present study investigated whether personality hardiness predicts peer ratings ofleadership style in Navy officer cadets. Cadets (n = 71) completed the DispositionalResiliency (hardiness) Scale, and later rated their peers using the Multifactor Lead-ership Questionnaire (full range of leadership model). Results show the hardy–commitment facet predicted peer ratings of all leadership styles covered in the model,both before and after and intensive military exercise. The challenge facet was apositive predictor of transformational and transactional leadership and was nega-tively related to passive-avoidant leadership. Transformational leadership predictedleader performance, as indexed by military development grades; and a partial media-tion effect was found for hardiness on the relation between transformational lead-ership and leader performance.jasp_522 2213..2235

Numerous attempts have been made over the years to clarify the theo-retical underpinnings of military leadership. Several dimensional approacheshave emerged in this regard. For instance, Fleishman and Harris (1962)emphasized task- versus relation-oriented leadership, while Hersey and Blan-chard (1969) described a contingency model of leadership in which leaderattributes interact in important ways with situational features.

More recent conceptualizations have focused on transformational andtransactional dimensions of leadership (Burns, 1978; Downtown, 1973). Thisview was later elaborated by Bass (1998) and Avolio (1999) into their fullrange of leadership model (FRLM). In this three-dimensional model, Bassproposed that transformational leaders can be characterized as intellectuallystimulating, considerate, idealistic, and inspiring. On the other hand,

1Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Bjørn Helge Johnsen,Department of Psychosocial Science, Christies gate 12, 5015 University of Bergen, Norway.E-mail: [email protected]

2213

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2009, 39, 9, pp. 2213–2235.© 2009 Copyright the AuthorsJournal compilation © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

transactional leaders rely basically on exchange tactics, rewards, and punish-ment. Finally, in this model, the laissez-faire leader shows a characteristicpassive and avoidant style.

In recent years, the FLRM has been applied in a variety of studies ofmilitary leadership (Bass, 1998; Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Benson, 2003). Forexample, Curphy (1992) reported that transformational and transactionalleadership in U.S. Air Force squadron leaders positively predicted motiva-tion, cohesion, and performance levels of their squadrons. In their study ofIsraeli Defense Force companies, Shamir, Zakay, Breinin, and Popper (1998)found that unit morale, cohesiveness, and potency were positively correlatedwith quality of unit leadership. In a field experiment setting, Dvir, Eden,Avolio, and Shamir (2002) demonstrated that Israeli platoon commandershigh in transformational leadership led platoons that received significantlyhigher performance scores 6 months later.

Kane and Tremble (2000) examined the effects of transformational lead-ership in more than 3,000 U.S. soldiers, and found that a transformationalleadership style was related to enhanced job motivation in subordinates.They also reported that higher ranking officers were perceived as more trans-formational, as compared to lower ranking ones. Similar findings werereported with U.S. military units that were examined by Masi and Cook(2000). These authors noted a positive correlation between transformationalleadership and motivation, while transactional leadership was negativelycorrelated with commitment to quality and organizational productivity. So,the association between transformational leadership style and a variety ofimportant outcome measures is fairly well established in military groups.However, the question of what predicts or may influence increased transfor-mational leadership is still unanswered.

Following the critical reviews of leadership and personality research byStogdill (1948) and Mann (1959), personality was largely neglected in lead-ership studies. Recently, however, personality factors seem to be a legiti-mate focus of attention again. There are several reasons for this. One is thatthe basis of the critical conclusions by Stogdill and Mann has been seri-ously questioned on several grounds, including methodological (Lord, DeVader, & Alliger, 1986).

Another reason is the emergence of transformational leadership theo-ries, largely replacing situational models that previously had dominated thefield. These newer theories are derived from a broad perspective, whichincludes personality characteristics (Nystedt, 1997). Still another reason isthe general development and advances that have occurred in personalitypsychology, including the emergence of a comprehensive model of person-ality known as the Big Five (Digman, 1990), and better measures andassessment strategies.

2214 JOHNSEN ET AL.

A promising personality dimension in the study of leadership behavior ispersonality hardiness. This concept appears to be a particularly relevantpersonality dimension for influencing the development of a transformationalleadership style. In Avolio and Bass’s (1991) model, transformational lead-ership includes the four components of idealized influence (charisma), indi-vidualized consideration (caring for others), inspirational motivation(effectively communicating some inspirational vision of the future), and intel-lectual stimulation (stimulating the thinking of followers). As a comparison,the person high in hardiness is marked by increased commitment, sense ofcontrol, and challenge. High hardy people typically interpret experience as(a) overall interesting and worthwhile; (b) something over which they canexert control; and (c) challenging, presenting opportunities to learn andgrow.

While the control dimension may indeed be important for effective lead-ership, and is emphasized in other approaches (e.g., McClelland, 1987), it isthe commitment and challenge facets of hardiness that theoretically seemmost relevant to Bass’s (1998) formulation of transformational leadership.The person high in hardiness commitment is deeply engaged and interested inthe world around him or her, including the social world. This increasedcommitment and involvement in the social world should increase the readi-ness to develop those transformational leadership tendencies summarized byBass as individualized consideration.

The hardiness facets of commitment and challenge are both relevant tothe intellectual stimulation aspect of transformational leadership. First, thehighly committed leader is likely to stimulate those around him or her withthe energy and interest brought characteristically to all activities and endeav-ours. And, because the person high in challenge hardiness tends to see changeand new experiences as a chance to learn and grow, he or she will activelypursue such opportunities and, in the process, stimulate others not onlyintellectually, but also in other ways. This relates the challenge dimension tothe inspirational as well as the motivational and charisma aspects of thetransformational leadership style. Thus, personality hardiness may well be animportant developmental precursor or readiness factor that facilitates thegrowth of transformational leadership in some individuals when placed inleadership positions.

This view has recently found some empirical support. Eid, Johnsen,Bartone, and Nissestad (2008) found that challenge and commitment acted asmoderators of the development of transformational leadership in a group ofNorwegian Navy cadets. In this group, personality hardiness exerted a sig-nificant and direct influence on the development of transformational leader-ship, and this effect increased over the 6-month period of the study. However,Eid et al.’s (2008) study was based on self-ratings of the full range of leader-

PREDICTING TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP 2215

ship model, whereas external ratings of leadership style may be more objec-tive indicators.

A significant feature in leadership training at the Royal Norwegian NavalAcademy (RNoNA) is specialized and intensive group exercises and simula-tions. In these exercises, cadets are carefully guided and observed, and laterthey are provided feedback on how they performed as leaders under stressfulconditions. This includes a continuous process of supervised learning andreflection (i.e., action learning; Pedler, 1997), and an orientation towardbuilding the capacity for better individual and collective adaptability acrossa wide range of situations. In one study of the effects of such exercises,Bartone, Johnsen, Eid, Brun, and Laberg (2002) found increased cohesionlevels in Norwegian Naval cadets following the exercise. They also found thatthis effect was more prominent in teams with high hardy leaders. Further-more, Eid et al. (2008) found a sustained increase in self-reported transfor-mational and transactional leadership, and a decrease in laissez-faireleadership tendencies after an identical leader development exercise.

The relationship between self-ratings and peer ratings has been investi-gated in several studies (for an overview, see Harris & Schaubroeck, 1988).For the present study, it was considered important to utilize peer ratings ofleadership style, since these may be more accurate in a situation in whichextensive and perhaps discrepant feedback is provided. The present studylooks at the effect of an intensive training experience in which a significantaspect consists of feedback. This feedback reflects evaluations by supervisorsas well as squad members, and is given only after completion of some keytask within the exercise. Feedback is regarded as an aid to help traineesdevelop insight into their own leadership decisions and actions, in order toadjust their behavior accordingly.

In a meta-analytic study, Kluger and DeNisi (1996) reported mixedresults on the effects of feedback on performance. Carless and Roberts-Thompson (2001) suggested that this indicated that individuals differ in theirreactions to discrepancies between their self-perceptions and the perceptionsof others. In their own study of the effects of feedback on leadership trainingof military personnel in the Royal Australian Air force, Carless and Roberts-Thompson examined the association between staff, peer, and self-ratings ona global measure of leadership after exercises. They found moderate relation-ships between self- and peer ratings. However, this leaves open the questionof the relationship between self- and peer ratings on the FRLM after aleadership training exercise in which the focus was on extensive feedback. Itis possible that following this feedback-intensive experience, self- and peerratings of leadership agree more closely than is commonly seen.

In addition, the specific tasks within the exercise are often extremelychallenging, fostering personal growth and skill development. Although feed-

2216 JOHNSEN ET AL.

back is the core element, this form of training could be looked upon as acombined program, focusing on feedback, growth, skills, and conceptualunderstanding. Such a program is the method of choice in leadership devel-opment, according to some authors (Conger & Toegel, 2003; Mintzberg,2004).

Osborn, Hunt, and Jauch (2002) emphasized the importance of feedbackin their complexity theory of leadership. In addition, they focused on theimportant role of context and especially changing context. According to theirleadership theory, a dynamic, changing context influences the fitness of theleader. Fitness is a term that replaces traditional terms such as goals, strategy,and performance. In their view, actions and interactions have consequencesfor leader behavior, and feedback loops influence leadership via fitness. Thus,interaction in terms of feedback from supervisors and peers would havestronger influence on the leader’s fitness in a dynamic situation. During thismilitary leadership training, leadership in the context of diffuse and rapidlychanging environments is emphasized, which would seem to provide thekind of context that Osborn et al. suggested is conducive to change throughfeedback.

This study has three primary aims, as stated here:

Hypothesis 1. Based on Eid et al.’s (2008) study, hardiness chal-lenge and commitment will emerge as personality factors pre-dicting peer ratings of the full range of leadership model.

Hypothesis 2. Also based on Eid et al.’s (2008) study, peerratings of transformational and transactional leadership willincrease, and passive avoidant leadership will decrease as aresult of a stressful exercise.

This hypothesis is based on the extensive feedback provided throughoutthe exercise, which could contribute to increased ratings of transformationaland other leadership styles.

Hypothesis 3. Personality hardiness and peer ratings of leader-ship style will be related to an important leader performanceoutcome; that is military development (MD) grades assigned tocadets at the end of their first year.

Because of the extensive focus on feedback, a final aim of the presentstudy is to explore the relation between self- and peer ratings on the FRLM,before and after the stressful exercise.


Method

Participants

The participants in the present study consisted of 71 Norwegian Navyofficer cadets (64 male, 7 female). Their mean age was 24.3 years (range = 19–41). All participants had a minimum of 1 year of military service beforeentering the RNoNA, and they were screened for health and mental aptitudeprior to admission.

Procedure

When they entered the Naval Academy, the cadets completed the shortform of the Dispositional Resilience Scale (DRS) to assess personality har-diness (Bartone, 1995; Johnsen, Eid, & Bartone, 2004). As part of the stan-dard leadership-training program at the RNoNA, an intensive 1-week fieldexercise is held near the end of the first year. The main objective of theexercise is to provide cadets with an opportunity to develop and demonstrateteam leadership in critical and demanding situations.

The exercise presents a simulated sustained operation, with cadets per-forming various military tasks, including naval operations and field training.Cadets are given a minimum of food, and obtain little sleep during theexercise. The cadets operate in squad-size units of 7 to 9 persons. The leaderrole is rotated within the group, until all cadets have been exposed to at leastone period of about 16–18 hr as squad leader. After each period, leaderbehavior and performance is assessed and evaluated by the team members,and a new cadet is assigned to take over the team leader role. These perfor-mance appraisals and feedback sessions are carried out in the field setting,and are facilitated by a coach from the Naval Academy staff. In this way,each cadet observes and reflects on the leader behavior of fellow cadets, inaddition to receiving feedback on his or her own performance as team leader.

A significant part of the exercise is a 24-hr prisoner-of-war simulation.This is a highly realistic simulation in which cadets experience the surprise ofcapture and blindfolded movement; lack of food and sleep; confinement in aprison yard; and intense questioning by trained interrogators. Previousresearch has confirmed that this is a highly stressful experience for Norwe-gian officer cadets (Eid, Brun, Laberg, & Johnsen, 1998). This trainingelement is followed by an extensive debriefing and feedback session (Laberg,Eid, Johnsen, Eriksen, & Zachariassen, 2000).

Self- and peer ratings of leadership style were collected just prior to, andagain 2 days following, completion of the exercise. The number of peers

2218 JOHNSEN ET AL.

rating each leader varied from 7 to 9. Since leadership rotated throughout themaneuver, each peer rated several leaders. Peer ratings in small, squad-sizeteams are of particular interest because each peer has firsthand experiencewith the rated leader, and the power distance between the rated and the ratersis small.

On each occasion, questionnaires were administered in a classroomsetting at the Academy. Peer ratings consisted of the mean of ratings pro-vided by the squad members for each rated leader. MD grades were assigned1 month after the exercise. While the exercise itself was a mandatory part ofleadership training, participation in the present study was voluntary. Allexercise participants also agreed to participate in the research study.

Measures

Leadership style was measured using a Norwegian version of the Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire–Short Version (MLQ-5X; Avolio & Bass,20022). The MLQ-5X consists of 45 questions that are rated on a 5-point scaleranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (frequently, if not always). In accordance withrecommendations from Avolio, Bass, and Jung (1999) and from Den Hartog,Van Muijen, and Koopman (1997; see also Hetland & Sandal, 2004), threemajor leadership dimensions were extracted. Those dimensions are transfor-mational leadership, transactional leadership, and passive-avoidant leader-ship. The revised definition of transactional leadership is based, in part, onempirical findings showing that performance is positively related to manage-ment by exception (MBE)–active (e.g., Atwater, Dionne, Camobreco,Avolio, & Nau, 1998).

Transformational leadership includes four subscales: idealized influence(8 items; involves inspiring visions, sharing risks and hardships, and earningtrust and confidence from subordinates), inspirational motivation (4 items;centers around leaders showing enthusiasm and optimism in ways that moti-vate those around oneself by providing meaning and challenges), intellectualstimulation (4 items; entails stimulating efforts to find new ideas and creativesolutions to problems, encouraging innovation, creativity, and newapproaches), and individual consideration (4 items; encompasses recognizingthat subordinates have different needs and desires, and acting as a coach inorder to develop their full potential). The facets of these dimensions hadCronbach’s alphas ranging from .86 to .87 (measured before the exercise),and intercorrelations (r) ranging from .53 to .80 (all ps < .01).

2Permission was obtained from the test developers to use the MLQ-5X for the purpose ofthis research.


Transactional leadership includes two subscales: contingent reward (4items; related to leaders providing positive reinforcement that is contingenton performance), and MBE–active (4 items; related to leaders monitoringfollowers and intervening when problematic behavior is identified). The sub-scales of transactional leadership showed alpha values of .60 for MBE–active, and .72 for contingent reward (before the exercise). Intercorrelationbetween the two facets in the present sample was .62 ( p < .01), measuredbefore the exercise.

The passive-avoidant leadership style consists of the subscales of MBE–passive (4 items; a = .68), which is related to the leader who responds toerrors and corrects problems only if they surface in some unavoidable way;and the laissez-faire style (a = .80), which is marked by the absence or avoid-ance of leadership responsibility. Correlation between these two negativeleadership subscales was .55 ( p < .01).

Hardiness was measured using a Norwegian translation of the short form(Bartone, 1995) of the Dispositional Resiliency Scale (DRS) that was firstreported by Bartone, Ursano, Wright, and Ingraham (1989). This 15-iteminstrument, which is rated on a 4-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all true)to 3 (completely true), measures the hardiness facets of commitment, control,and challenge and has shown good reliability and validity across a wide rangeof samples (Bartone, 2000). The 3-week test–retest reliability for this scale is.78 (Bartone, 2007). In the present sample, the Guttman split-half reliabilitycoefficient for the overall hardiness scale was .75. A split-half reliabilitycoefficient can provide a more accurate reliability estimate than Cronbach’salpha when the scale measures a heterogeneous construct (Anastasi, 1968).The 15-item DRS (DRS-15) is presented in the Appendix.

Military development (MD) grades represent a comprehensive indicatorof leadership effectiveness in Norwegian officer cadets. This is a performancerating or grade assigned to cadets at the end of each year at the NavalAcademy and is a weighted average of ratings by three to four supervisorsfrom the military and academic staff. MD–leadership grades reflect militaryperformance, military leadership, initiative, trust, and the cadet’s ability totake care of fellow cadets. Leadership–MD grades take the form of a numericpoint grade ranging from 1.0 (excellent) to 4.0 ( poor). For the present study,leadership grades from the first year at the Naval Academy were used as theprimary outcome measure. The key supervisors who assigned the leadershipgrades were blind to the naval officer cadets’ self-ratings of leadership style.

Statistics and Design

In order to investigate possible predictors of leadership style, a series ofanalyses was conducted. First, Pearson product–moment correlations were

2220 JOHNSEN ET AL.

computed between hardiness and leadership styles measured before and afterthe exercise. The correlational analyses were followed up using stepwiseregression. The three hardiness facets of commitment, control, and challengewere entered as predictor variables.

The same procedure was followed to predict MD grades. These analysesused peer rating scores on the FRLM measured after the exercise. AdjustedR2 was used to assess percentage of explained variance. To test for effects ofthe exercise itself on leadership styles, Wilks-Bartlet multivariate statisticswere followed with separate univariate analyses for the three dimensions ofthe FRLM. Repeated-measure ANOVAs were performed with time (pre vs.post) as a within-subjects factor. Only peer ratings of leadership were used inthese analyses.

To address the final question in the study, comparisons of self- versuspeer ratings were made using Pearson product–moment correlations. Also,three separate 2 (Time: before vs. after the exercise) ¥ 2 (Ratings: self vs.peer) ANOVAs were run, predicting the major FRLM leadership dimen-sions of transformational, transactional, and passive-avoidant styles.Post hoc contrasts were computed using Fisher’s least significant differencetest.

Results

Predictors of Peer Ratings of the Full Range of Leadership Model

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics for all study variables. Table 2shows the correlations between personality hardiness and peer leadershipratings. Before the exercise, the hardiness challenge facet correlated positivelywith transformational and transactional leadership style. Hardiness chal-lenge correlated negatively with the passive-avoidant style. After the exercise,the same pattern held.

The correlational analyses were followed by stepwise regressionanalyses, first predicting peer ratings of leadership before the exercise, andthen peer ratings after the exercise. The only significant associationobserved was between commitment and control (r =.46), which confirmsthat there was minimal multicollinearity within this predictor variableset.

The results show similar trends before and after the exercise, with thechallenge facet of hardiness as a consistent predictor of all of the leadershipstyles in the FRLM (see Tables 3 and 4). Challenge was a positive predictorof transformational and transactional leadership, and a negative predictor ofthe passive-avoidant leadership style.


Table 1

Means for Study Variables Before and After Stressful Training Exercise

Before After

M SD M SD

Transformational leadership stylePeer 2.29 0.29 2.33 0.29Self 2.36 0.35 2.53 0.35

Idealized influencePeer 2.25 0.29 2.30 0.33Self 2.34 0.42 2.48 0.43

Inspirational motivationPeer 2.33 0.39 2.44 0.38Self 2.47 0.46 2.70 0.56

Intellectual stimulationPeer 2.22 0.43 2.25 0.37Self 2.26 0.56 2.48 0.48

Individual considerationPeer 2.38 0.27 2.36 0.27Self 2.42 0.45 2.51 0.41

Transactional leadership stylePeer 2.15 0.29 2.23 0.37Self 2.16 0.44 2.30 0.59

Contingent rewardPeer 2.40 0.34 2.49 0.31Self 2.43 0.55 2.60 0.46

Management by exception–activePeer 1.91 0.29 1.96 0.29Self 1.88 0.53 1.99 0.52

Passive-avoidant leadership stylePeer 1.38 0.34 1.38 0.37Self 1.34 0.21 1.21 0.59

Management by exception–passivePeer 1.58 0.31 1.56 0.29Self 1.56 0.61 1.49 0.74

Laissez-fairePeer 1.17 0.45 1.20 0.50Self 1.12 0.58 0.93 0.58

Hardiness–challenge 11.94 2.79Hardiness–commitment 13.00 1.47Hardiness–control 10.49 2.10Military development grade 2.42 0.37

Note. N = 71. Leader scores reflect mean peer ratings.

2222 JOHNSEN ET AL.

Tab

le2

Cor

rela

tion

sB

etw

een

Per

sona

lity

Har

dine

ssF

acet

san

dP

eer

Rat

ings

ofL

eade

rshi

pS

tyle

Bef

ore

and

Aft

erE

xerc

ise

Bef

ore

exer

cise

Aft

erex

erci

se

Tra

nsfo

rmat

iona

lT

rans

acti

onal

Pas

sive

-av

oida

ntT

rans

form

atio

nal

Tra

nsac

tion

alP

assi

ve-

avoi

dant

Cha

lleng

e.4

7**

.49*

*-.

49**

.44*

*.3

9**

-.52

**C

omm

itm

ent

.13

.19

-.10

.13

.19

-14

Con

trol

.01

.01

.15

-.06

.07

.09

**p

<.0

1.


Table 3

Results for Three Separate Forward Stepwise Regression Models PredictingFull Range of Leadership Model With Challenge as a Predictor (Peer Ratingsof Leadership Before the Exercise)

Criterion variable BetaModel:

Adjusted R2

Transformational leadership style .47 .21Overall F(1, 69) = 19.80***

Transactional leadership style .50 .23Overall F(1, 69) = 22.38***

Passive-avoidant leadership style -.49 .23Overall F(1, 69) = 21.72***

Note. For each of the leadership styles, commitment and control did not significantlycontribute to the model.***p < .001.

Table 4

Results for Three Separate Forward Stepwise Regression Models PredictingFull Range of Leadership Model With Challenge as a Predictor (Peer Ratingsof Leadership After the Exercise)

Criterion variable BetaModel:

Adjusted R2

Transformational leadership style .44 .18Overall F(1, 69) = 16.20***

Transactional leadership style .39 .14Overall F(1, 69) = 12.71***

Passive-avoidant leadership style -.52 .26Overall F(1, 69) = 25.46***

Note. For each of the leadership styles, commitment and control did not significantlycontribute to the model.***p < .001.

2224 JOHNSEN ET AL.

Effects of the Stressful Exercise on Leadership Styles

Multivariate analyses reveal a significant effect from pre- to post-exercise,F(3, 68) = 4.75, p < .01. Follow-up ANOVAs show an increase in scores onthe transformational and the transactional dimensions, F(1, 70) = 7.65,p < .01; and F(1, 70) = 9.04, p < .01, respectively. Means and standard devia-tions for all leadership styles are presented in Table 1, for before and after theexercise.

Predictors of Military Developmental Grades

The next set of analyses addressed the question of which study variablesmight predict the external performance criterion of MD–leadership grades. Acorrelational analysis reveals that leadership grades assigned at the end of theyear were correlated with the challenge facet of hardiness (r = -.42, p < .01).It should be noted that low scores on the MD grade reflect superior perfor-mance, so this finding shows that hardiness was associated with better per-formance. Also, MD grades were associated with the transformationalleadership style (r = -.75, p < .01), as rated by peers after the exercise. All fourfacets of transformational leadership were negatively correlated with MDgrades (all rs < -.43, p < .01), again showing a positive association betweentransformational leadership facets and performance.

Transactional leadership also showed a significant negative correlation(r = -.59, p < .01). Examining the facets, both contingent reward (r = -.60,p < .01) and MBE–active (r = -.51, p < .01) were associated with better MDgrades. On the other hand, poor performance in MD grades was associatedwith the passive-avoidant leadership style (r = .69, p < .01). Both MBE–passive (r = .56, p < .02) and the laissez-faire leadership style (r = .67, p < .02)revealed an association with poorer performance.

When entering the three hardiness facets into a forward stepwise regres-sion analysis predicting MD grades, only challenge emerged as a significantpredictor, explaining approximately 18% of the variance (beta = -.42). Asimilar stepwise regression entering transformational, transactional, andpassive-avoidant leadership reveals only transformational style as significant,explaining 58% of the variance (beta = -.71), F(1, 69) = 98.40, p < .01. Whenboth challenge and transformational style were entered into the same regres-sion model, transformational leadership was the only significant predictor.We found that 57% of the variance in MD–leadership grades was accountedfor by transformational leadership style (beta = -.70).

In order to test if challenge might mediate the effects of transformationalleadership, a mediator analysis was performed. This was done in accordance


with the four-step procedure recommended by Baron and Kenny (1986),adding a multiple regression analysis in which MD grade was entered as apredictor of challenge. The results show a significant relationship in whichMD grades accounted for 17% of the variance in challenge scores(beta = -.42). This suggests a partial mediation effect for the challengedimension of hardiness on the relation between transformational leadershipand MD–leadership grades.

A final regression analysis examined just the facets of leadership as pre-dictors of MD grades. In this case, the transformational leadership facets ofidealized influence and inspirational motivation emerged as significant pre-dictors of MD grades, with idealized influence accounting for 53% of thevariance (beta = -.47), and inspirational motivation accounting for another7% (beta = -.39).

Comparison of Self- and Peer Ratings

The final set of analyses sought to explore the relations between self- andpeer ratings on the various leadership-style dimensions. Table 6 shows thecorrelations between self- and peer ratings on all three leadership styles.Overall, the results show that self- and peer ratings on the FRLM leadershipdimensions correlated significantly, with the exception of transactional stylebefore the exercise (all ps < .02; all rs > .30). It is apparent from Table 5 thatself- and peer ratings generally correlated more highly after the trainingexercise, as compared with before.

Table 5

Intercorrelations Between Self (Vertical) and Peer (Horizontal) Ratings ofLeadership Styles

1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Transformational–before .43**2. Transactional–before .27* .133. Passive-avoidant–before -.27* -.39** .36**4. Transformational–after .51** .39** -.44** .45**5. Transactional–after .44** .32** -.42** .48** .50**6. Passive-avoidant–after -.34** -.32** .32** -.36** -.42** .30**

Note. N = 71. Correlations are separated for measurement of leadership style before and after the exercise.Correlations of self with peer ratings on the same leadership dimension appear in boldface on the diagonal.*p < .05. **p < .01.

2226 JOHNSEN ET AL.

Three separate two-way ANOVAs were computed to further evaluate therelations between self- and peer ratings of leadership style, with eachANOVA predicting one of the three major FRLM leadership styles (trans-formational, transactional, or passive-avoidant). The ANOVA factors weretime (before vs. after the exercise) and rating source (self- vs. peer ratings).With regard to predicting transformational leadership style, the results showmain effects for time, F(1, 70) = 34.93, p < .001; and rating source, F(1,70) = 15.37, p < .001; as well as a significant Time ¥ Rating Source interac-tion, F(1, 70) = 9.39, p < .01. The same analyses for the transactional styleshow a main effect of time, F(1, 70) = 15.31, p < .001. Analyses of the passive-avoidant style show a main effect of time, F(1, 70) = 4.20, p < .05, as well asa significant interaction of time by rating source, F(1, 70) = 5.90, p < .05.Leadership style means and post hoc contrast effects are presented in Table 6.

As can be seen in Table 6, the ratings of transformational style were higherafter the exercise, and self-ratings were higher than were peer ratings at bothtime points. Self-reported scores on the passive-avoidant style decreased frompre- to post-exercise measurement, and higher scores were seen on peerratings, as compared to self-ratings at the post-exercise measurement period.

The results for the laissez-faire facet of the passive-avoidant style ofleadership show main effects for time, F(1, 70) = 5.86, p < .02; rating source,F(1, 70) = 5.93, p < .02; and the interaction of time by rating source, F(1,70) = 10.19, p < .01. But the pattern of results differs from what was found fortransformational and transactional styles. In the case of laissez-faire, which isa negative form of leadership, self-ratings were lower before the exercise andwere even lower afterward. On the other hand, peer ratings of the laissez-fairestyle were higher before the exercise and even higher afterward, suggesting

Table 6

Means and Post Hoc Contrasts Comparing Self and Peer Ratings Over Timefor Leadership Styles

Time 1:Before exercise

Time 2:After exercise

Self-ratings

Peerratings

Self-ratings

Peerratings

Transformational leadership style 2.36bc 2.29ac 2.53abd 2.33c

Transactional leadership style 2.16 2.15 2.30 2.23Passive-avoidant leadership style 1.34c 1.38c 1.21abd 1.38c

Note. N = 71. Subscripts indicate significant mean contrasts ( p < .01).


that individuals are particularly poor at identifying or reporting on their ownnegative leadership characteristics.

Discussion

The present study found that the personality hardiness facet of challengewas a consistent predictor of the various leadership styles contained withinthe full range of leadership model, and transformational leadership was theonly predictor of military development grades. Furthermore, peer-ratedtransformational and transactional leadership styles both increased follow-ing the stressful exercise (see Table 5). The results also reveal higher scores ontransformational and transactional leadership styles and lower scores on thelaissez-faire style for self-ratings, as compared to peer ratings. However, self-and peer ratings correlated quite well for most leadership dimensions.

The first aim of this study was to investigate if personality factors wouldpredict the FRLM leadership dimensions. The results show that hardinesschallenge was a consistent predictor of leadership styles. Challenge showed apositive relation to transformational leadership, as well as to the MBE–activeand contingent reward dimensions of transactional leadership. In addition, anegative relation was found between challenge and the MBE–passive andlaissez-faire leadership styles. These results are in agreement with the findingsof Eid et al. (2008), who examined personality in relation to predictions ofleadership style self-ratings under similar stressful conditions. These authorsfound that hardiness challenge, together with commitment negatively pre-dicted laissez-faire leadership; while hardiness commitment and control pre-dicted self-rated transformational leadership.

Challenge represents a personality style that emphasizes learning andgrowth in demanding situations. In the present study, hardiness dimensions,especially challenge, were related to peer ratings of leadership styles. A highsense of challenge was related to the positive style of transformational lead-ership, and also to the transactional style, including contingent reward andMBE–active. Similarly, challenge was negatively related to the undesirableleadership styles of MBE–passive and laissez-faire.

A number of studies have found that transformational leadership is relatedto increased productivity and job motivation (Bass, 1998; Yukl, 1999), whiletransactional leadership is negatively related to commitment to quality andorganizational productivity (Masi & Cook, 2000). This proposed effect oftransformational leadership is known as the augmentation hypothesis(Waldman, Bass, & Yammarino, 1990). It includes an active transactionalstyle as positively related to outcome measures and has been supported by anumber of studies indicating a strong, positive relationship between subordi-nates’ perceptions of transformational leadership and outcomes of leader

2228 JOHNSEN ET AL.

effectiveness (for an overview, see Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996).Studies assessing both methodological (Avolio et al., 1999) and theoreticalissues have supported the augmentation hypothesis in civilian (Bass, 1998) andmilitary organizations (Kane & Tremble, 2000). Thus, transformational lead-ership has been linked to successful military leadership performance (Basset al., 2003) and increased situational awareness and interpersonal influenceamong senior officers in a joint military staff (Eid et al., 2004).

Although a growing number of studies have indicated that the leadershipstyles embodied in the full range of leadership model are linked to positiveoutcome measures, little empirical research has shed light on the making ofleaders characterized by this model. The present study contributes in this areaby pointing to personality hardiness—especially hardiness challenge—as apersonality dimension that may be an important developmental precursor forpositive leadership styles.

The second aim of the present study was to test the effects of a stressfultraining exercise on FRLM leadership styles. The results show an increase inpeer ratings of transformational and transactional leadership, findings thatare in accord with those of Eid et al. (2008), who utilized self-ratings ofleadership style. It has been suggested that life histories (Avolio & Gibbons,1998; Bass, 1998), parental influence (Popper & Mayseless, 2003), and per-sonality factors (Johnsen et al., 2009) could account for individual differ-ences in transformational leadership skills.

The present findings suggest another important possibility. It appears thateven relatively time-limited, but carefully designed and sequenced traininginterventions may promote the development of certain problem-solving andsystems skills that are important for transformational leadership (Bass &Avolio, 1994; Streufert, Nogami, Swezey, Pogash, & Piasecki, 1988). In thedesign of this type of training, the emphasis is placed on feedback whenengaged in challenging situations. These findings also correspond with Day’s(2001) suggestion that leadership development is enhanced when structuredopportunities for individual and group reflection are included as part of anaction learning process.

Another aim of the present study was to identify predictors of an impor-tant external performance indicator, military development grades. Here,transformational leadership style (rated by peers) emerged as the only sig-nificant predictor of MD grades, accounting for 57% of the variance. Again,these results are similar to those reported by Eid et al. (2008), who found thatself-rated transformational and transactional leadership styles predicted MDgrades. However, the results from the present study underscore that it isthe transformational leadership style (as rated by peers) that is the moreimportant predictor of MD grades, explaining more than half of the variancein leadership grades.


Military development grades represent a more objective performanceoutcome measure than is often found in studies such as this, since thesegrades represent superiors’ ratings of leadership behaviors. It is important tonote that fellow cadets (i.e., peers) did not have input into this grade. Thus,observed transformational leadership is a strong predictor of military lead-ership behavior, as indexed by the more objective performance criterion ofsupervisor performance evaluations. In addition, the challenge dimension ofhardiness emerged as a partial mediating variable in the relation betweentransformational leadership style and military leadership behavior.

The present study also reveals somewhat more positive scores overall onself-ratings, as compared to peer ratings, which was expected (Avolio & Bass,2002; Avolio et al., 1999). Some inflation of self-ratings has been attributedto individual factors, such as defensiveness in self-perception (Steele &Ovalle, 1984), maintenance of self-esteem (Gioia & Sims, 1985), and funda-mental attribution error (Kosslyn & Rosenberg, 2001), as well as contextualfactors such as different frames of references (Hauenstein & Foli, 1989) andsituational control (Alimo-Metcalfe, 1998). This could also be the case in thepresent study. However, the correlational analyses show consistent andsizable positive correlations between self- and peer ratings. This suggests thatself-ratings of FRLM leadership styles are valid indicators for research pur-poses, but should probably be used with caution when the purpose is tocompare levels of leadership style.

Considering that feedback is a frequent and crucial part of leadershiptraining at the Royal Norwegian Naval Academy (RNoNA), this couldpartly explain the relatively high correlations found between self- and peerratings in the present study. While the leadership training exercise itselfprovides an opportunity for even more extensive feedback from peers andsupervisors, the entire training program at the RNoNA emphasizes regularfeedback to cadets on their leadership performance. Since the leadershipexercise takes place near the end of the first year, the cadets have alreadyhad extensive feedback on their leadership performance at that point. Thus,we would expect their own self-evaluations of leadership should reflectappraisals that are in close correspondence with how they are seen byothers.

In summary, the present study has shown that significant positive changecan occur in transformational and transactional leadership styles, and thatthis happens when cadets are exposed to a stressful training exercise thatprovides the opportunity to practice leadership in an environment emphasiz-ing regular constructive feedback. Transformational leadership style, in turn,was a significant predictor of leadership performance, as measured by super-visor ratings (MD grades). Finally, the personality dimension of hardiness—particularly the challenge facet of hardiness—predicted transformational

2230 JOHNSEN ET AL.

leadership and may be an important developmental precursor for transfor-mational leadership style.

Future work should seek to identify additional factors related to trans-formational leadership and to specify further the conditions under whichchange or growth can occur in leadership styles. Longitudinal studies areneeded in this area to determine if short-term gains in positive leadershipstyles represent lasting changes, as opposed to transitory effects.

References

Alimo-Metcalfe, B. (1998). 360-degree feedback and leadership development.International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 6, 35–44.

Anastasi, A. (1968). Psychological testing. New York: Macmillan.Atwater, L. E., Dionne, S. D., Camobreco, J. F., Avolio, B. J., & Nau, A.

(1998). Individual attributes and leadership style: Predicting the use ofpunishment and its effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 559–576.

Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces inorganizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1991). The full range leadership developmentprograms: Basic and advanced manuals. Binghamton, NY: Bass, Avolio, &Associates.

Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2002). Manual for the Multifactor LeadershipQuestionnaire (Form 5X). Redwood City, CA: Mindgarden.

Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the compo-nents of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational andOrganizational Psychology, 72, 441–462.

Avolio, B. J., & Gibbons, T. C. (1998). Developing transformational leaders:A lifespan approach. In J. A. Conger, R. N. Kanungo, & Associates(Eds.). Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effec-tiveness (pp. 276–308). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variabledistinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, andstatistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,51, 1173–1182.

Bartone, P. T. (1995, July). A short hardiness scale. Paper presented at theannual convention of the American Psychological Society, New York, NY.

Bartone, P. T. (2000). Hardiness as a resiliency factor for United States forcesin the Gulf War. In J. M. Violanti, D. Paton, & C. Dunning (Eds.),Posttraumatic stress intervention: Challenges, issues, and perspectives (pp.115–133). Springfield, IL: C. Thomas.


Bartone, P. T. (2007). Test–retest reliability of the Dispositional ResilienceScale-15: A brief hardiness scale. Psychological Reports, 101, 943–944.

Bartone, P. T., Johnsen, B. H., Eid, J., Brun, W., & Laberg, J. C. (2002).Factors influencing small-unit cohesion in Norwegian Navy officercadets. Military Psychology, 14, 1–22.

Bartone, P. T., Ursano, R. J., Wright, K. M., & Ingraham, L. H. (1989). Theimpact of a military air disaster on the health of assistance workers: Aprospective study. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 177, 317–328.

Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, andeducational impact. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Transformational leadership and orga-nizational culture. International Journal of Public Administration, 17, 541–554.

Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Benson, Y. (2003). Predicting unitperformance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership.Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 207–218.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.Carless, S. A., & Roberts-Thompson, G. P. (2001). Self-ratings in training

programs: An examination of level of performance and the effects offeedback. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 217–225.

Conger, J., & Toegel, G. (2003). Action learning and multi-rater feedback asleader development interventions: Popular but poorly deployed. Journalof Change Management, 3, 332–348.

Curphy, G. J. (1992). An empirical investigation of the effects of transfor-mational and transactional leadership on organizational climate, attri-tion, and performance. In K. E. Clark, M. B. Clark, & D. R. Campbell(Eds.), Impact of leadership (pp. 177–187). Greensboro, NC: Center forCreative Leadership.

Day, D. V. (2001). Leadership development: A review in context. LeadershipQuarterly, 11, 581–613.

Den Hartog, D. N., Van Muijen, J. J., & Koopman, P. L. (1997). Transac-tional versus transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ.Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 19–34.

Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factormodel. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417–440.

Downtown, J. W. (1973). Rebel leadership: Commitment and charisma in therevolutionary process. New York: Free Press.

Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transfor-mational leadership on follower development and performance: A fieldexperiment. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 735–744.

Eid, J., Brun, W., Laberg, J. C., & Johnsen, B. H. (1998, May). Participatingin a prisoner-of-war exercise: Stress reactions and coping. In Proceedings

2232 JOHNSEN ET AL.

from the International Applied Military Psychology Meeting (pp. 121–126). Paris: Department of Defense.

Eid, J., Johnsen, B. H., Bartone, P., & Nissestad, O. A. (2008). Growingtransformational leaders: Exploring the role of personality hardiness.Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 29, 4–23.

Eid, J., Johnsen, B. H., Brun, W., Laberg, J. C., Larsson, G., & Nyhus, J. K.(2004). Situational awareness and transformational leadership: Anexploratory study. Military Psychology, 16, 203–209.

Fleishman, E. A., & Harris, E. F. (1962). Patterns of leadership behaviorrelated to employee grievances and turnover. Personnel Psychology, 15,43–56.

Gioia, D. A., & Sims, H. P. (1985). Self-serving bias and actor–observerdifferences in organizations: An empirical analysis. Journal of AppliedSocial Psychology, 15, 547–563.

Harris, M. M., & Schaubroeck, J. (1988). A meta-analysis of self–supervisor,self–peer, and peer–supervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology, 41, 43–62.

Hauenstein, N. M., & Foli, R. J. (1989). From laboratory to practice:Neglected issues in implementing frame-of-reference rater training. Per-sonnel Psychology, 41, 43–62.

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1969). Management of organizational behav-ior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hetland, H., & Sandal, G. M. (2004). Transformational leadership inNorway: Outcomes and personality correlates. European Journal of Workand Organizational Psychology, 12, 147–170.

Johnsen, B. H., Eid, J., & Bartone, P. T. (2004). Psykologisk “hardforhet”:Kortversjonen av The Short Hardiness Scale [Psychological “hardiness”:The shor Hardiness Scale]. Tidsskrift For Norsk Psykologforening, 41,476–477.

Johnsen, B. H., Eid, J., Larsson, G., Brun, W., Laberg, J. C., & Barlaug, D.G. (2009). Predicting transformational leadership: The effects of Big Fivepersonality traits. Manuscript in preparation.

Kane, T. D., & Tremble, T. R., Jr. (2000). Transformational leadershipeffects at different levels of the army. Military Psychology, 12, 137–160.

Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions onperformance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminaryfeedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254–284.

Kosslyn, S. M., & Rosenberg, R. S. (2001). Psychology: The brain, the person,the world. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Laberg, J. C., Eid, J., Johnsen, B. H., Eriksen, B. S., & Zachariassen, K. K.(2000). Coping with interrogations. In C. McCann & R. Pigeau (Eds.),The human in command: Exploring issues in military social science (pp.333–334). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.


Lord, R. G., De Vader, C. L., & Alliger, G. M. (1986). A meta-analysis of therelation between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An appli-cation of validity generalization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 71, 402–410.

Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectivenesscorrelates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385–425.

Mann, R. D. (1959). A review of the relationship between personality andperformance in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 241–270.

Masi, R. J., & Cook, R. A. (2000). Effects of transformational leadership onsubordinate motivation, empowering, norms, and organizational produc-tivity. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 8, 16–47.

McClelland, D. (1987). Human motivation. New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Mintzberg, H. (2004). Managers, not MBAs: A hard look at the soft practiceof management development. London: Prentice Hall.

Nystedt, L. (1997). Who should rule? Does personality matter? EuropeanJournal of Personality, 11, 1–14.

Osborn, R. N., Hunt, J. G., & Jauch, L. R. (2002). Toward a contextualtheory of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 797–837.

Pedler, M. (1997). Interpreting action learning. In J. Burgoyne & M.Reynolds (Eds.), Management learning: Integrating perspective in theoryand practice (pp. 248–264). London: Sage.

Popper, M., & Mayseless, O. (2003). Back to basics: Applying a parentingperspective to transformational leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 14,41–65.

Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. (1998). Correlates ofcharismatic leader behavior in military units: Subordinates’ attitudes, unitcharacteristics, and superiors’ appraisals of leader performance. Academyof Management Journal, 41, 384–409.

Steele, R. P., & Ovalle, N. K. (1984). Self-appraisal based on supervisoryfeedback. Personnel Psychology, 37, 347–351.

Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A surveyof the literature. The Journal of Psychology, 25, 35–71.

Streufert, S., Nogami, G., Swezey, R. W., Pogash, R. M., & Piasecki, T.(1988). Computer-assisted training on complex managerial performance.Computers in Human Behavior, 4, 77–88.

Waldman, D. A., Bass, B. M., & Yammarino, F. J. (1990). Adding tocontingent reward behavior: The augmenting effect of charismatic lead-ership. Group and Organizational Studies, 15, 381–394.

Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformationaland charismatic leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 285–305.

2234 JOHNSEN ET AL.

Appendix

Dispositional Resilience Scale (DRS-15) Items

Hardiness

Below are statements about life that people often feel differently about.Please show how much you think each one is true. Give your own honestopinions. . . . There are no right or wrong answers.

Response options are 0 = not at all true; 1 = a little true; 2 = quite true; and3 = completely true.

KEY ITEM

CM 1. Most of my life gets spent doing things that are worthwhile.CO 2. Planning ahead can help avoid most future problems.CH* 3. I don’t like to make changes in my everyday schedule.CM* 4. Working hard doesn’t matter, since only the bosses profit by it.CH 5. Changes in routine are interesting to me.CO 6. By working hard, you can always achieve your goals.CM 7. I really look forward to my work.CO 8. If I’m working on a difficult task, I know when to seek help.CO 9. Most of the time, people listen carefully to what I say.CM 10. Trying your best at work really pays off in the end.CH* 11. It bothers me when my daily routine gets interrupted.CM 12. Most days, life is really interesting and exciting for me.CH 13. I enjoy the challenge when I have to do more than one thing

at a time.CH* 14. I like having a daily schedule that doesn’t change very much.CO 15. When I make plans, I’m certain I can make them work.

CM = commitment; CO = control; CH = challenge*Items are negatively keyed, so scores must be reversed before summing (i.e., 0 = 3;1 = 2; 2 = 1; 3 = 0).Scoring Instructions: After reversing the scoring for negatively keyed items (Items 3,4, 11, and 14), sum responses for all 15 items to obtain a total DRS–hardiness score.Subscale or facet scores can be created by summing the relevant five items for eachfacet.©2005 by Paul T. Bartone.


Predicting Transformational Leadership in Naval Cadets: Effects of Personality Hardiness and...

Documents

Transcript of Predicting Transformational Leadership in Naval Cadets: Effects of Personality Hardiness and...