This document reports on research investigating whether leadership personality types influence the personality types of employees. A manager and subordinate from a national office supply company completed questionnaires assessing their personalities using the Five Factor Model and measures of individualism vs collectivism. The manager's personality was found to be moderately introverted, as was the subordinate's. This supports the hypothesis that individualistic leaders recruit employees with similar personalities. However, the small sample size limited conclusions for the second hypothesis regarding collectivistic leaders. Overall, the results suggest leadership personality can influence the types of employees recruited, though more research is needed.

1. Do Individualistic and Collectivistic
Leadership Personalities Influence
Employee Personality Types?
Word Count: 1718.
Wayne Harper – ID: 43915833
Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
Abstract:
Specific personality dimensions are investigated using the Five Factor Model and
International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) concept. The purpose was to see if leadership
personality types have any impact on the personality types of employees. The research report
used a questionnaire style format to first determine the participant’s specific personality type,
and second, to establish whether the participants were either individualistic or collectivistic.
The result from a manager’s questionnaire was then compared to that of their subordinate. It
was expected that the manager would show higher tendencies toward an extroverted
(collectivistic) personality than their subordinate. However, there appeared no real difference
between personality types. The manager returned a ‘moderate introversion’ personality
rating, as did their subordinate. This result supported hypothesis 1; in-so-far as introverted
leadership personality types could be used as a predictor into the personality types of
company employees (and possibly even vice versa).
Edgar Schein said, “an organisation’s culture begins life in the head of its founder”
(1995, pp. 221). It is the leader’s vision that is the driving force behind the culture of
any business. At the centre of an organisation’s culture are its employees. Bringing
these two issues together can be difficult. The responsibility on leaders to ensure the
business employs people that have the right ‘fit’ is high.
Discussing leadership in the context of this report requires that it first be defined.
McShane, Olekalns & Travaglione (2014, pp. 382) describe it as a “person(s) ability
to influence, motivate and enable others to contribute towards the effectiveness and
success of the organisation to which they are members”. Personality is said to play an
important part in effective leadership, as it influences their behaviour and actions.

2. Personality theory states that “everyone possesses specific traits or clusters of
thoughts, feelings and behaviours that allow us to identify, differentiate & understand
people.” (McShane et al. 2014, pp. 44). So how much influence does a leader’s
personality have on their perception of people when it comes to employment? What
criteria must potential employees meet to be successful in the eyes of their
prospective employer?
Of particular interest is the impact an individualist characteristic has, compared to a
collectivist one, on leadership decisions in recruitment? Individualist personalities are
inextricably linked to introversion (quiet, shy & cautious characteristics), whilst
collectivist personalities are more associated to extraversion (outgoing, assertive,
sociable). Costa & McCrae (cited by Judge & Bono 2000, pp.753) noted that
extraversion, or the lack of (that being introversion), is one of the Five-Factor Model
dimensions, strongly associated with leadership roles. As Parkes, Bochner
& Schneider’s (2001, pp. 95) research found, collectivists stay longer in organisations
then individualists. This is an important point because, for the vision of a leader to be
fulfilled, longer tenures would be required to help them achieve any continuity in
decision-making.
There are studies discussing how leadership has a direct impact on workplace
behaviour (Brown & Treviño, 2006), on meeting work-related outcomes (Parkes et al,
2001) and on employee motivation and values (Bruhn, 2005), all of which discuss
how leadership influences organisational culture through positive interactions with
employees, regardless of personality type. However there appears little on how much
of a direct impact particular leadership personality types have on employing particular
employee personality types.
This report will use the ‘Five Factor Model’ personality theory – due to its
“widespread acceptance” (Judge & Bono 2000, pp. 752); to help define the five basic
personality dimensions of conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism, open to
experiences and extraversion. Then, overlaying the concepts of individual versus
collective personalities and ‘value congruence’, it will test the following hypotheses
that:

3. H1: Individualistic (introvert) leaders recruit similar personality types in employees.
H2: Collectivistic (extrovert) leaders recruit similar personality types in employees.
Method:
Participants:
The participants involved in this research were one male senior manager of a national
office supply company with an Australian background and one female subordinate
with a Portuguese background who had been directly employed by the first
participant. They were chosen from this author’s personal network of business
acquaintances. These candidates were selected because they worked for a company
that, through the normal course of its multifaceted business, would be exposed to
various experiences, issues, people & cultures. Furthermore, their working
relationship ties in directly with the hypotheses mentioned – that being the leader had
directly recruited the subordinate. The participants are aged 36 and 37 respectively,
giving a mean age of 36.5.
Materials:
This report undertook a questionnaire style interview that was divided into two parts.
Questions one & two were used to establish their personality type using the ‘Big-5’ or
‘Five Factor Model’ (FFM). The context of question 2 would change depending on
the participant. If the participant was a subordinate the question would ask ‘what they
looked for in a manager’, whereas, if the participant was a manager it would then ask
them ‘what they looked for in a subordinate’. Question 3 borrows from Goldberg’s
(1999) freely available International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) works. It questions
& scoring key are sourced from McShane et al. (2014, pp. 62, 63 & 545), to
determine whether participants were of an introverted (individualistic) personality, or
an extroverted (collectivistic) personality.
Procedure:
Answers were collected from all participants during a face-to-face interview style
questionnaire (see appendix ‘a’ and ‘b’), on the 24th
January 2015 and the 14th
February 2015, respectively. The first respondent (manager) took a little over 12

4. minutes to complete the questions, whilst the second respondent (subordinate) took
closer to 20 minutes.
Results:
The results from the ‘managers’ questionnaire found that based on FFM modelling in
part 1, he had mid to high tendency towards all dimensions with exception of
‘Neuroticism’, where he returned a low score. In part 2 using the International
Personality Item Pool (IPIP) scale, he sat in the ‘Between extroversion &
introversion’ range. The ‘subordinate’ results for the FFM portion were similar to the
manager’s, also scoring mid to high on all bar personality dimensions. In part 2, her
results placed her in the ‘Moderate extroversion’ range. On face value, the results
appear to support the premise that a certain leadership personality type does attract the
same type of subordinate.
Hypothesis 1, which stated, “Individualistic (introvert) leaders recruit similar
personality types in employees could be tested, as these results show both participants
tending towards introversion. The results seem to support the 1st
hypothesis. Part 2 of
the questionnaire was designed to identify whether the participant’s personality was
introverted – thereby individualistic; or extroverted – thereby collectivistic. As no
participant was identified as an extrovert, hypothesis 2 could not be tested and should
be noted as inconclusive.
Discussion:
On face value, the data gained from this research seems to support the first hypothesis
that ‘Individualistic (introvert) leaders recruit similar personality types in employees’.
As both participants were ‘moderately introverted’, a conclusion could be drawn
supporting the theory that leadership personality types seem to exhort influence on
employee personality types. With no extroverted personalities in the research data, no
conclusions could be made on hypothesis 2, which stated ‘Collectivistic (extrovert)
leaders recruit similar personality types in employees’. Whilst the list of participants
was not extensive, some meaningful comparisons can still be extracted.

5. Referencing the FFM graphical data below (also see appendix ‘c’), you can see that
with both the manager & subordinate, there is a positive relationship between
emotional stability versus work motivation and performance. The manager’s
emotional stability was comparable to his subordinate’s. The same can be said for
work motivation and performance. Again similar readings are shown. Interestingly,
the manager’s expectation of subordinates in emotional stability plus motivation and
performance match, not only his own readings but also that of his subordinates and
their own expectations of managers.
Graph 1 -Manager (OWN):
Graph 2 – Subordinate (OWN):
a/c b/d c/e Interpretation
Manager (OWN) 2 1 3 6
Manager (SUBORDINATE) 2 3 3 8
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Rating
Emotional Stability
a/c b/d c/e Interpretation
Subordinate (OWN) 2 3 2 7
Subordinate (MANAGER) 2 3 3 8
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Rating
Emotional Stability

6. Graph 3 -Manager (OWN):
Graph 4 -Subordinate (OWN):
As stated earlier, little research could be found covering both hypotheses holistically.
Whilst both participants are individualistic by nature, their results seem to support
research undertaken by Hofmann & Jones, which states that “as individuals in a
collective work together, they begin to develop shared expectations that, in turn, lead
to the emergence of observable behavioural regularities” (2005, pp. 510). This was
not a theory mentioned earlier but is warranted mentioning here in light of the results.
However, as participants in this report were found to be individualistic, solid
comparisons could not be made with research by Hofmann & Jones (2005), which
only investigated collectivistic personality types.
Perhaps there is a reason why companies develop a values hierarchy? In some form,
companies look to homogenise cultural values to ensure a best ‘person – organisation
a/c b/d c/e Interpretation
Manager (OWN) 3 2 2 7
Manager (SUBORDINATE) 3 2 2 7
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Rating
Work Motivation & Performance
a/c b/d c/e Interpretation
Subordinate (OWN) 2 3 3 8
Subordinate (MANAGER) 3 2 2 7
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Rating
Work Motivation & Performance

7. fit’ scenario. Value congruence by way of employment selection criteria – e.g.
managers recruiting employees with same personalities and values; seems a logical
way to ensure employees are compatible with the organisation. As raised by McShane
et al., this does “contribute to higher job satisfaction, loyalty and organisational
citizenship, as well as lower stress and employee turnover.” (2014, pp. 51).
It does raise some further questions which both highlight the limitations of this report,
as well as grounds for future study. Firstly, how can one be sure that individualistic
subordinate personalities eventually adopt behaviour of the collective (their leaders)?
Secondly, why exactly is there little deviation between the participant’s own
personality compared with their expectation of others? Can it simply be stated that it
is a result of the individual’s need to avoid conflict by seeking similar personality
traits? Or possibly Hofmann & Jones’s research on individuals working in a collective
(2005, pp. 510) has the answer. Further investigation is required.
The relationship between manager and subordinate is one that echoes throughout all
industries and sectors. The implications of this research are not limited to the scope of
this report. For example, the ‘manager – v – subordinate’ paradigm investigated here,
could easily be overlayed on the ‘customer – v – service provider’ relationship (and
vice versa), to see whether either customer or service provider personality/culture
types, influence who they choose to do business with.
In order to expand and improve on this research, the following recommendations are
made that may help shed some light on these issues. Firstly, a more in-depth
questioning method like a ‘multifactor leadership questionnaire’ or (MLQ) could be
used that may allow for more detailed analysis of leadership types. Of most
importance to any research endeavour, would be to ensure a large participant pool is
involved. This allows for a greater coverage of potential answers lending itself to a
more comprehensive survey result.

8. References:
Brown, ME & Treviño, LK 2006, ‘Socialized Charismatic Leadership, Values
Congruence, and Deviance in Work Groups’, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol.91 (4), pp.954-962, viewed 29 January 2015, EBSCOhost database.
Bruhn, JG 2005, ‘Looking good, but behaving badly: leader accountability and
ethics failure’, The health care manager, Vol.24 (3), pp.191-9, viewed 29
January 2015, EBSCOhost database.
Goldberg, LR 1999, ‘International Personality Item Pool: A Scientific Collaboratory
for the Development of Advanced Measures of Personality Traits and Other
Individual Differences’, viewed 8th
February 2015, <http://ipip.ori.org/>
Hofmann, DA, Jones, LM 2005, ‘Leadership, Collective Personality, and
Performance’, Journal Of Applied Psychology, Vol.90 (3), pp.509-522,
viewed 31 January 2015, EBSCOhost database.
Judge, TA, Bono, JE, 2000, ‘Five-Factor Model of Personality and Transformational
Leadership’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.85 (5), pp.751-765, viewed
06 February 2015, EBSCOhost database.
McShane, SL, Olekalns, M & Travaglione, A 2013, Organisational Behaviour:
Emerging Knowledge’, Global Insights, McGraw-Hill Education (Aust) Pty
Ltd, NSW.
Parkes, L, Bochner, S & Schneider, S 2001, ‘Person–Organisation Fit Across
Cultures: An Empirical Investigation of Individualism and Collectivism’,
Applied Psychology, Vol.50 (1), pp.81-108, viewed 22 December 2014,
EBSCOhost database.
Schein, EH 1995, ‘Organizational culture and leadership’, Family Business Review,
Vol.8 (3), pp.221-238, viewed 28 January 2015, Sage Journals database.

9. Appendix a:
QUESTIONNAIRE TRANSCRIPT (Manager):
Describe yourself as you generally are now, not as you wish to be in the future. Describe
yourself as you honestly see yourself, in relation to other people you know of the same sex as
you are, and roughly your same age. So that you can describe yourself in an honest manner,
your responses will be kept in absolute confidence.
PART 1: Five Factor Model Personality Dimensions
(Source: McShane et al. 2014, pp. 44).
1. Answer the following as honestly as you can about how you perceive yourself. Give a rating
of between 1 (low), 2 (medium) or 3 (high) for the following:
a. Do you think you are agreeable (courteous, good-natured, empathic, caring)?
1 / 2 / 3
b. Do you feel you are without neurotic tendencies (anxious, hostile, depressed)?
1 / 2 / 3
c. Do you think you are conscientious (careful, dependable, self-disciplined)?
1 / 2 / 3
d. Do you feel you are open to experiences (imaginative, creative, curious, sensitive)?
1 / 2 / 3
e. Do you believe you are extroverted (outgoing, talkative, sociable, assertive)?
1 / 2 / 3
2. Answer the following as honestly as you can about what you look for in manager/subordinate.
Give a rating of between 1 (low), 2 (medium) or 3 (high) for the following:
a. How important is agreeableness (courteous, good-natured, empathic, caring)?
1 / 2 / 3
b. What level of neurotic tendencies (anxious, hostile, depressed) would impact your
interaction with manager/subordinate?
1 / 2 / 3
c. How important is conscientiousness in manager/subordinate (careful, dependable,
self-disciplined)?
1 / 2 / 3
d. How important is employing/working with people who are open to experiences
(imaginative, creative, curious, sensitive)?
1 / 2 / 3
e. Do you value extroversion in manager/subordinate (outgoing, talkative, sociable,
assertive)?
1 / 2 / 3
FFM scores for questions a, b & c Interpretation:
OWN SUBORDINATE OWN SUBORDINATE
0-3 0-3 Low Emotional Stability Low Emotional Stability
4-6 4-6 Medium Emotional Stability Medium Emotional Stability
7-9 7-9 High Emotional Stability High Emotional Stability
FFM scores for questions c, d & e Interpretation:
OWN SUBORDINATE OWN SUBORDINATE
0-3 0-3 Low Work Motivation & Performance Low Work Motivation &
Performance
4-6 4-6 Medium Work Motivation &
Performance
Medium Work Motivation &
Performance
7-9 7-9 High Work Motivation & Performance High Work Motivation &
Performance
Emotional
Stability –
Getting Along.
See scoring key
below
Motivation &
Performance –
Getting Ahead.
See scoring key
below
Emotional
Stability –
Getting Along.
See scoring key
below
Motivation &
Performance –
Getting Ahead.
See scoring key
below

10. PART 2: International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) Introversion-Extraversion scale
(Source: Goldberg, LR 1999, <http://ipip.ori.org/>).
3. Indicate for each statement whether it is 1. Very Inaccurate, 2. Moderately Inaccurate,
3. Neither Accurate Nor Inaccurate, 4. Moderately Accurate, or 5. Very Accurate as a
description of you.
For statements 1, 2, 6, 8, 9: "Very Inaccurate" = 0, "Moderately Inaccurate" = 1, "Neither
Inaccurate nor Accurate" = 2, "Moderately Accurate" = 3, and "Very Accurate" = 4.
For statements 3, 4, 5, 7, 10: "Very Inaccurate" = 4, "Moderately Inaccurate" = 3, "Neither
Inaccurate nor Accurate" = 2, "Moderately Accurate" = 1, and "Very Accurate" = 0.
IPIP Introversion-Extroversion score: Interpretation:
35-40 High extroversion
28-34 Moderate extroversion
21-27 Between extroversion & introversion
7-20 Moderate introversion
0-6 High introversion
Date: ___24.01.2015__________ Start: _11:00am___ Finish: _11:12am___
Very
Inaccurate
Moderately
Inaccurate
Neither
Accurate
Nor
Inaccurate
Moderately
Accurate
Very
Accurate
1. Am the life of the
party.
О О О О О
2. Feel little concern for
others.
О О О О О
3. Am always prepared. О О О О О
4. Get stressed out easily. О О О О О
5. Have a rich
vocabulary.
О О О О О
6. Don't talk a lot. О О О О О
7. Am interested in
people.
О О О О О
8. Leave my belongings
around.
О О О О О
9. Am relaxed most of
the time.
О О О О О
10. Have difficulty
understanding abstract
ideas.
О О О О О

11. Appendix b:
QUESTIONNAIRE TRANSCRIPT (Subordinate):
Describe yourself as you generally are now, not as you wish to be in the future. Describe
yourself as you honestly see yourself, in relation to other people you know of the same sex as
you are, and roughly your same age. So that you can describe yourself in an honest manner,
your responses will be kept in absolute confidence.
PART 1: Five Factor Model Personality Dimensions
(Source: McShane et al. 2014, pp. 44).
1. Answer the following as honestly as you can about how you perceive yourself. Give a rating
of between 1 (low), 2 (medium) or 3 (high) for the following:
a. Do you think you are agreeable (courteous, good-natured, empathic, caring)?
1 / 2 / 3
b. Do you feel you are without neurotic tendencies (anxious, hostile, depressed)?
1 / 2 / 3
c. Do you think you are conscientious (careful, dependable, self-disciplined)?
1 / 2 / 3
d. Do you feel you are open to experiences (imaginative, creative, curious, sensitive)?
1 / 2 / 3
e. Do you believe you are extroverted (outgoing, talkative, sociable, assertive)?
1 / 2 / 3
2. Answer the following as honestly as you can about what you look for in manager/subordinate.
Give a rating of between 1 (low), 2 (medium) or 3 (high) for the following:
a. How important is agreeableness (courteous, good-natured, empathic, caring)?
1 / 2 / 3
b. What level of neurotic tendencies (anxious, hostile, depressed) would impact your
interaction with manager/subordinate?
1 / 2 / 3
c. How important is conscientiousness in manager/subordinate (careful, dependable,
self-disciplined)?
1 / 2 / 3
d. How important is employing/working with people who are open to experiences
(imaginative, creative, curious, sensitive)?
1 / 2 / 3
e. Do you value extroversion in manager/subordinate (outgoing, talkative, sociable,
assertive)?
1 / 2 / 3
FFM scores for questions a, b & c Interpretation:
OWN SUBORDINATE OWN SUBORDINATE
0-3 0-3 Low Emotional Stability Low Emotional Stability
4-6 4-6 Medium Emotional Stability Medium Emotional Stability
7-9 7-9 High Emotional Stability High Emotional Stability
FFM scores for questions c, d & e Interpretation:
OWN SUBORDINATE OWN SUBORDINATE
0-3 0-3 Low Work Motivation & Performance Low Work Motivation &
Performance
4-6 4-6 Medium Work Motivation &
Performance
Medium Work Motivation &
Performance
7-9 7-9 High Work Motivation & Performance High Work Motivation &
Performance
Emotional
Stability –
Getting Along.
See scoring key
below
Motivation &
Performance –
Getting Ahead.
See scoring key
below
Emotional
Stability –
Getting Along.
See scoring key
below
Motivation &
Performance –
Getting Ahead.
See scoring key
below

12. PART 2: International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) Introversion-Extraversion scale
(Source: Goldberg, LR 1999, <http://ipip.ori.org/>).
3. Indicate for each statement whether it is 1. Very Inaccurate, 2. Moderately Inaccurate,
3. Neither Accurate Nor Inaccurate, 4. Moderately Accurate, or 5. Very Accurate as a
description of you.
For statements 1, 2, 6, 8, 9: "Very Inaccurate" = 0, "Moderately Inaccurate" = 1, "Neither
Inaccurate nor Accurate" = 2, "Moderately Accurate" = 3, and "Very Accurate" = 4.
For statements 3, 4, 5, 7, 10: "Very Inaccurate" = 4, "Moderately Inaccurate" = 3, "Neither
Inaccurate nor Accurate" = 2, "Moderately Accurate" = 1, and "Very Accurate" = 0.
IPIP Introversion-Extroversion score: Interpretation:
35-40 High extroversion
28-34 Moderate extroversion
21-27 Between extroversion & introversion
7-20 Moderate introversion
0-6 High introversion
Date: ___14.02.2015__________ Start: _10:30am___ Finish: _10:48am___
Very
Inaccurate
Moderately
Inaccurate
Neither
Accurate
Nor
Inaccurate
Moderately
Accurate
Very
Accurate
1. Am the life of the
party.
О О О О О
2. Feel little concern for
others.
О О О О О
3. Am always prepared. О О О О О
4. Get stressed out easily. О О О О О
5. Have a rich
vocabulary.
О О О О О
6. Don't talk a lot. О О О О О
7. Am interested in
people.
О О О О О
8. Leave my belongings
around.
О О О О О
9. Am relaxed most of
the time.
О О О О О
10. Have difficulty
understanding abstract
ideas.
О О О О О

13. Appendix c:
PART 1: Five Factor Model Personality
Dimensions
Emotional
Stability:
Emotional
Stability:
Manager
(OWN)
Manager
(SUBORDINATE)
Subordinate
(OWN)
Subordinate
(MANAGER)
2 1 3 6 2 3 3 8 2 3 2 7 2 3 3 8
a/c b/d c/e Interpretation a/c b/d c/e Interpretation a/c b/d c/e Interpretation a/c b/d c/e Interpretation
FFM scores for
questions a, b & c
Interpretation:
0-3 Low Emotional Stability
4-6 Medium Emotional Stability
7-9 High Emotional Stability
a/c b/d c/e Interpretation
Manager (OWN) 2 1 3 6
Manager (SUBORDINATE) 2 3 3 8
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Rating
Emotional Stability
a/c b/d c/e Interpretation
Subordinate (OWN) 2 3 2 7
Subordinate (MANAGER) 2 3 3 8
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Rating
Emotional Stability

14. Work Motivation &
Performance
Work Motivation &
Performance
Manager
(OWN)
Manager
(SUBORDINATE)
Subordinate
(OWN)
Subordinate
(MANAGER)
3 2 2 7 3 2 2 7 2 3 3 8 3 2 2 7
a/c b/d c/e Interpretation a/c b/d c/e Interpretation a/c b/d c/e Interpretation a/c b/d c/e Interpretation
FFM scores for
questions c, d & e
Interpretation:
0-3 Low Emotional Stability
4-6 Medium Emotional Stability
7-9 High Emotional Stability
a/c b/d c/e Interpretation
Manager (OWN) 3 2 2 7
Manager (SUBORDINATE) 3 2 2 7
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Rating
Work Motivation & Performance
a/c b/d c/e Interpretation
Subordinate (OWN) 2 3 3 8
Subordinate (MANAGER) 3 2 2 7
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Rating
Work Motivation & Performance