research paper of leadership qualities

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

The impact of engaging leadership on employee engagement and team effectiveness: A longitudinal, multi-level study on the mediating role of personal- and team resources

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Department of Education Studies, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy

Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations Research Unit Occupational & Organizational Psychology and Professional Learning, KU Leuven, Belgium, Department of Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

• Greta Mazzetti, 
• Wilmar B. Schaufeli

• Published: June 29, 2022
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269433
• Reader Comments

Most research on the effect of leadership behavior on employees’ well-being and organizational outcomes is based on leadership frameworks that are not rooted in sound psychological theories of motivation and are limited to either an individual or organizational levels of analysis. The current paper investigates whether individual and team resources explain the impact of engaging leadership on work engagement and team effectiveness, respectively. Data were collected at two time points on N = 1,048 employees nested within 90 work teams. The Multilevel Structural Equation Modeling results revealed that personal resources (i.e., optimism, resiliency, self-efficacy, and flexibility) partially mediated the impact of T1 individual perceptions of engaging leadership on T2 work engagement. Furthermore, joint perceptions of engaging leadership among team members at T1 resulted in greater team effectiveness at T2. This association was fully mediated by team resources (i.e., performance feedback, trust in management, communication, and participation in decision-making). Moreover, team resources had a significant cross-level effect on individual levels of engagement. In practical terms, training and supporting leaders who inspire, strengthen, and connect their subordinates could significantly improve employees’ motivation and involvement and enable teams to pursue their common goals successfully.

Citation: Mazzetti G, Schaufeli WB (2022) The impact of engaging leadership on employee engagement and team effectiveness: A longitudinal, multi-level study on the mediating role of personal- and team resources. PLoS ONE 17(6): e0269433. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269433

Editor: Ender Senel, Mugla Sitki Kocman University: Mugla Sitki Kocman Universitesi, TURKEY

Received: December 29, 2021; Accepted: May 23, 2022; Published: June 29, 2022

Copyright: © 2022 Mazzetti, Schaufeli. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: The data that support the findings of this study are available on Open Science Framework (OSF) website at the following link: https://osf.io/yfwgt/?view_only=c838730fd7694a0ba32882c666e9f973 . DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/YFWGT .

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Multiple studies suggest that work engagement, which is defined as a positive, work-related state of mind characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption [ 1 ], is related to extremely positive outcomes, particularly in terms of employees’ well-being and job performance (for a narrative overview see [ 2 ]; for a meta-analysis see [ 3 ]).

Therefore, when work engagement is arguably beneficial for employees and organizations alike, the million-dollar question (quite literally, by the way) is: how can work engagement be increased? Schaufeli [ 4 ] has argued that operational leadership is critical for enhancing follower’s work engagement. Based on the logic of the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model [ 5 ], he reasoned that team leaders may (or may not) monitor, manage, and allocate job demands and resources to increase their follower’s levels of work engagement. In doing so, team leaders boost the motivational process that is postulated in the JD-R model. This process assumes that job resources and challenging job demands are inherently motivating and will lead to a positive, affective-motivational state of fulfillment in employees known as work engagement.

The current study focuses on a specific leadership style, dubbed engaging leadership and rooted in Self-Determination Theory (SDT) [ 6 ]. Engaging leaders inspire, strengthen, and connect their followers, thereby satisfying their basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness, respectively. In line with the motivational process of the JD-R model, cross-sectional evidence suggests that engaging leaders increase job resources [ 7 ] and personal resources [ 8 ], which, in their turn, are positively associated with work engagement. So far, the evidence for this mediation is exclusively based on cross-sectional studies. Hence, the first objective of our paper is to confirm the mediation effect of resources using a longitudinal design.

Scholars have emphasized that “the study of leadership is inherently multilevel in nature” (p. 4) [ 9 ]. This statement implies that, in addition to the individual level, the team level of analysis should also be included when investigating the impact of engaging leadership.

The current study makes two notable contributions to the literature. First, it investigates the impact, over time, of a novel, specific leadership style (i.e., engaging leadership) on team- and individual outcomes (i.e., team effectiveness and work engagement). Second, it investigates the mediating role of team resources and personal resources in an attempt to explain the impact of leadership on these outcomes. The research model, which is described in greater detail below, is displayed in Fig 1 .

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269433.g001

Leadership and work engagement

Leadership is defined as the way in which particular individuals–leaders–purposefully influence other individuals–their followers–to obtain defined outcomes [ 10 ].

A systematic narrative review identified twenty articles on leadership and work engagement [ 11 ] and showed that work engagement is positively associated with various person-centered leadership styles. The most pervasively used framework was transformational leadership, whereas authentic, ethical, and charismatic leadership was used much less. The authors conclude that "most of the reviewed studies were consistent in arguing that leadership is significantly correlated with and is affecting employee’s work engagement directly or via mediation” (p. 18) [ 11 ]. Moreover, they also conclude that research findings and inferences on leadership and engagement remain narrowly focused and inconclusive due to the lack of longitudinal designs addressing this issue. A recent meta-analysis [ 12 ] identified 69 studies and found substantial positive relationships of work engagement with ethical (k = 9; ρ = .58), transformational (k = 36; ρ = .46) and servant leadership (k = 3; ρ = .43), and somewhat less strong associations with authentic (k = 17; ρ = .38) and empowering leadership (k = 4; ρ = .35). Besides, job resources (e.g., job autonomy, social support), organizational resources (e.g., organizational identification, trust), and personal resources (self-efficacy, creativity) mediated the effect of leadership on work engagement. Although transformational leadership is arguably the most popular leadership concept of the last decades [ 13 ], the validity of its conceptual definition has been heavily criticized, even to the extent that some authors suggest getting “back to the drawing board” [ 14 ]. It should be noted that three main criticisms are voiced: (1) the theoretical definition of the transformational leadership dimensions is meager (i.e., how are the four dimensions selected and how do they combine?); (2) no causal model is specified (i.e., how is each dimension related to mediating processes and outcomes?); (3) the most frequently used measurement tools are invalid (i.e., they fail to reproduce the dimensional structure and do not show empirical distinctiveness from other leadership concepts). Hence, it could be argued that the transformational leadership framework is not very well suited for exploring the impact of leadership on work engagement.

Schaufeli [ 7 ] introduced the concept of engaging leadership , which is firmly rooted in Self-Determination Theory. According to Deci and Ryan [ 6 ], three innate psychological needs are essential ‘nutrients’ for individuals to function optimally, also at the workplace: the needs for autonomy (i.e., feeling in control), competence (i.e., feeling effective), and relatedness (i.e., feeling loved and cared for). Moreover, SDT posits that employees are likely to be engaged (i.e., internalize their tasks and show high degrees of energy, concentration, and persistence) to the degree that their needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are satisfied [ 15 ]. This is in line with Bormann and Rowold [ 16 ]. Based on a systematic review on construct proliferation in leadership research, these authors recommended that leadership concepts should use SDT because this motivational theory allows a more parsimonious description of the mechanisms underlying leadership behaviors. These authors posited that the core of "narrow" leadership constructs "bases on a single pillar" (p. 163), and therefore predict narrow outcomes. In contrast to broad leadership constructs, the concept of engaging leadership is narrow because it focuses on leadership behaviors to explicitly promote work engagement.

Schaufeli [ 7 ] reasoned that leaders, who are instrumental in satisfying their followers’ basic needs, are likely to increase their engagement levels. More specifically, engaging leaders are supposed to: (1) inspire (e.g., by enthusing their followers for their vision and plans, and by making them feel that they contribute to something important); (2) strengthen (e.g., by granting their followers freedom and responsibility, and by delegating tasks); and (3) connect (e.g., by encouraging collaboration and by promoting a high team spirit among their followers). Hence, by inspiring, strengthening, and connecting their followers, leaders stimulate the fulfillment of their follower’s basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, respectively, which, in turn, will foster work engagement.

The underlying mechanisms of the relationship between engaging leadership and work engagement are a major focus of research, as the construct of engaging leadership was built upon the identification of the leadership behaviors that are capable of stimulating positive outcomes by satisfying needs. The literature on engaging leadership provides empirical evidence for its indirect impact on followers’ engagement by fulfilling followers’ basic needs. This finding is consistent across occupational sectors and cultural contexts [ 17 – 19 ]. Further, the observation of a partial mediation effect for need satisfaction suggests the presence of a direct relationship between engaging leadership and engagement [ 20 , 21 ]. In their behaviors, engaging leaders are likely to improve their job characteristics to the point of stimulating greater engagement among their employees. This assumption has been corroborated by a recent longitudinal study that delved deeper into the association between engaging leadership and needs satisfaction [ 22 ]. That study found that the relationship between engaging leadership and basic needs satisfaction is mediated by enhanced levels of job resources (among them were improved feedback and skill use and better person-job fit). The fulfilment of those needs, in turn, resulted in higher levels of work engagement. Therefore, perceived job resources seem to play a crucial role in the causal relationship between engaging leadership and basic needs satisfaction. This evidence found support in a later two-wave full panel design with a 1-year time lag, where engaging leadership promoted employees’ perception of autonomy and social support from colleagues [ 23 ]. In addition, a recent study by Van Tuin and colleagues [ 24 ] revealed that engaging leadership is associated with increased perceptions of intrinsic organizational values (e.g., providing a contribution to organizational and personal development) and satisfaction of the need for autonomy which, in turn, may boost employees’ level of engagement.

A recent study investigated the ways in which engaging leadership could boost the effects of human resource (HR) practices for promoting employees’ psychological, physical, and social well-being over time [ 25 ]. Teams led by an engaging leader reported higher levels of happiness at work and trust in leadership, combined with lower levels of burnout than their colleagues who were led by poorly engaging leaders. Happiness and trust played a key role in improving team member performance. These findings indicate that engaged leaders provide a thoughtful implementation of HR practices focused on promoting employee well-being, being constantly driven by their employees’ flourishing.

Another line of studies may reveal the causality between engaging leadership and work-related outcomes. A multilevel longitudinal study provided cross-level and team-level effects of engaging leadership [ 26 ]. Engaging leadership at T1 explained team learning, innovation, and individual performance through increased teamwork engagement at T2. Interventions targeting engaging leadership created positive work outcomes for leaders (e.g., autonomy satisfaction and intrinsic motivation) and decreased employee absenteeism [ 27 ]. However, cross-lagged longitudinal analyses indicate that employees’ current level of work engagement predicts their leaders’ level of engaging leadership rather than the other way around [ 23 ]. These findings imply that the relationship between engaging leadership and work engagement cannot be narrowed to a simple unidirectional causal relationship but rather exhibits a dynamic nature, where engaging leadership and work engagement mutually influence each other. The dynamic nature of engaging leadership has also been investigated through a diary study. The results suggest that employees enacted job crafting strategies more frequently on days when leaders were more successful in satisfying their need for connectivity [ 28 ]. Hence, leaders who satisfy the need for connectedness among their followers will not only encourage higher levels of engagement among their followers but also an increased ability to proactively adapt tasks to their interests and preferences.

Since transformational leadership is currently the most frequently studied leadership style, a summary of the similarities and differences in the proposed new conceptualization of leadership proposed (i.e., engaging leadership) must be provided.

A key difference between transformational and engaging leadership originates from their foundation. Whereas transformational leadership is primarily a change-oriented style, engaging leadership encourages employees’ well-being through the promotion of supportive relationships and is defined as a relationship-oriented leadership style [ 29 ].

Further similarities entail the combination of behaviors meant to foster employees’ well-being and growth. Transformational leaders act as role models admired and emulated by followers (idealized influence), encourage a reconsideration of prevailing assumptions and work practices to promote stronger innovation (intellectual stimulation), identify and build on the unique characteristics and strengths of each follower (individualized consideration), and provides a stimulating view of the future and meaning of their work (inspirational motivation) [ 30 ]. A considerable resemblance involves the dimensions of inspirational motivation and inspiring, which are, respectively, included in transformational and engaging leadership. They both entail recognizing the leader as a guiding light to a specific mission and vision, where individual inputs are credited as essential ingredients in achieving the shared goal. Thus, they both fulfill the individual need for meaningfulness. In a similar vein, transformational and engaged leaders are both committed to promote followers’ growth in terms of innovation and creativity. In other words, the intellectual stimulation offered by transformational leadership and the strengthening component of engaging leadership are both aimed at meeting the need for competence among followers.

Alternatively, it is also possible to detect decisive differences between the dimensions underlying these leadership styles. Transformational leadership entails the provision of personal mentorship (i.e., individualized consideration), while engaging leadership is primarily focused on enhancing the interdependence and cohesion among team members (i.e., team consideration). Furthermore, engaging leadership disregards the notion of idealized influence covered by transformational leadership: an engaging leader is not merely identified as a model whose behavior is admired and mirrored, but rather proactively meets followers’ need for autonomy through the allocation of tasks and responsibilities.

Empirical results lent further support to the distinctiveness between transformational and engaging leadership. The analysis of the factor structure of both constructs revealed that measures of engaging and transformational leadership load on separate dimensions instead of being explained by a single latent factor [ 31 ]. More recently, additional research findings pointed out that engaging and transformational leadership independently account for comparable portions of variance in work engagement [ 32 ]. However, this does not alter the fact that a certain overlap exists between both leadership concepts; thus, it is not surprising that a consistent, positive relationship is found between transformational leadership and work engagement [ 11 ].

In sum: a positive link appears to exist between person-centered leadership styles and work engagement. Moreover, this relationship seems to be mediated by (job and personal) resources. However, virtually all studies used cross-sectional designs, and the causal direction remains unclear. We followed the call to go back to the drawing board by choosing an alternative, deductive approach by introducing the theory-grounded concept of engaging leadership and investigate its impact on individual and team outcomes (see Fig 1 ).

Engaging leadership, personal resources, and employee engagement (individual level)

Serrano and Reichard [ 33 ], who posit that leaders may pursue four pathways to increase their follower’s work engagement: (1) design meaningful and motivating work; (2) support and coach their employees; (3 ) facilitate rewarding and supportive coworker relations, and (4) enhancing personal resources. In the present study, we focus on the fourth pathway. Accordingly, a cross-sectional study using structural equation modeling [ 8 ] showed that psychological capital (i.e., self-efficacy, optimism, resiliency, and flexibility) fully mediated the relationship between perceived engaging leadership and follower’s work engagement. Consistent with findings on job resources, this study indicated that personal resources also mediate the relationship between engaging leadership and work engagement. In a nutshel, when employees feel autonomous, competent, and connected to their colleagues, their own personal resources benefit, and this fuels their level of engagement.

In the current study, we use the same conceptualization of psychological capital (PsyCap) as Schaufeli [ 7 , 8 ], which slightly differs from the original concept. Originally, PsyCap was defined as a higher-order construct that is based on the shared commonalities of four first-order personal resources: “(1) having confidence (self-efficacy) to take on and put in the necessary effort to succeed at challenging tasks; (2) making a positive attribution (optimism) about succeeding now and in the future; (3) persevering toward goals and, when necessary, redirecting paths to goals (hope) to succeed; and (4) when beset by problems and adversity, sustaining and bouncing back and even beyond (resiliency) to attain success” (p. 10) [ 34 ]. Instead of hope, flexibility is included; that is, the capability of employees to adapt to new, different, and changing requirements at work. Previous research showed a high correlation ( r > .70) between hope and optimism, thus increasing the risk of multicollinearity [ 35 ]. This strong relationship points at conceptual overlap: hope is defined as the perception that goals can be set and achieved, whereas optimism is the belief that one will experience good outcomes. Hence, trust in achieving goals (hope) implies optimism. Additionally, hope includes "when necessary, redirecting paths to goals", which refers to flexibility. Finally, in organizational practice, the flexibility of employees is considered an essential resource because organizations are continuously changing, which requires permanent adaption and hence employee flexibility. In short, there are psychometric, conceptual, and pragmatic arguments for replacing hope by flexibility.

According to Luthans and colleagues [ 36 ], PsyCap is a state-like resource representing an employee’s motivational propensity and perseverance towards goals. PsyCap is malleable and open to development, thus it can be enhanced through positive leadership [ 37 ]. Indeed, it was found that transformational leadership enhances PsyCap, which, in turn, increases in-role performance and organizational citizenship behavior [ 38 ]. In a similar vein, PsyCap mediates the relationships between authentic leadership and employee’s creative behavior [ 39 ].

We argue that engaging leadership may promote PsyCap as well. After all, by inspiring followers with a clear, powerful and compelling vision, engaging leaders: (1) create the belief in their ability to perform tasks that tie in with that vision successfully, thereby fostering follower’s self-efficacy ; (2) generate a positive appraisal of the future, thereby fostering follower’s optimism ; (3) trigger the ability to bounce back from adversity because a favorable future is within reach, thereby fostering follower’s resiliency ; (4) set goals and induce the belief that these can be achieved, if necessary by redirecting paths to those goals, thereby fostering follower’s flexibility [ 38 ].

Furthermore, engaging leaders strengthen their followers and unleash their potential by setting challenging goals. This helps to build followers’ confidence in task-specific skills, thereby increasing their self-efficacy levels, mainly via mastery experiences that occur after challenging goals have been achieved [ 40 ]. Setting high-performance expectations also elevates follower’s sense of self-worth, thereby leading to a positive appraisal of their current and future circumstances (i.e., optimism ). Moreover, a strengthening leader acts as a powerful contextual resource that augments followers’ self-confidence and, hence, increases their ability to bounce back from adversity (i.e., resiliency ) and adapt to changing requirements at work (i.e., flexibility ).

Finally, by connecting their followers, engaging leaders promote good interpersonal relationships and build a supportive team climate characterized by collaboration and psychological safety. Connecting leaders also foster commitment to team goals by inducing a sense of purpose, which energizes team members to contribute toward the same, shared goal. This means that in tightly knit, supportive and collaborative teams, followers: (1) experience positive emotions when team goals are met, which, in turn, fosters their level of self-efficacy [ 40 ]; (2) feel valued and acknowledged by others, which increases their self-worth and promotes a positive and optimistic outlook; (3) can draw upon their colleagues for help and support, which enables to face problems and adversities with resiliency ; (4) can use the abilities, skills, and knowledge of their teammates to adapt to changing job and team requirements (i.e., flexibility ).

In sum, when perceived as such by followers, engaging leadership acts as a sturdy contextual condition that enhances their PsyCap. We continue to argue that, in its turn, high levels of PsyCap are predictive for work engagement; or in other words, PsyCap mediates the relationship between engaging leadership and work engagement.

How to explain the relationship between PsyCap and work engagement? Sweetman and Luthans [ 41 ] presented a conceptual model, which relates PsyCap to work engagement through positive emotions. They argue that all four elements of PsyCap may have a direct and state-like relationship with each of the three dimensions of work engagement (vigor, dedication, and absorption). Furthermore, an upward spiral of PsyCap and work engagement may be a source of positive emotion and subsequently broaden an employee’s growth mindset, leading to higher energy and engagement [ 42 , 43 ]. In short, PsyCap prompts and maintains a motivational process that leads to higher work engagement and may ultimately result in positive outcomes, such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment [ 44 ].

Psychological capital is a valuable resource to individuals [ 45 ] that fosters work engagement, as demonstrated in past research [ 46 ]. Hence, following the reasoning above, we formulate the following hypothesis:

• Hypothesis 1: Psychological capital (self-efficacy , optimism , resiliency , and flexibility) mediates the relationship between T1 employee’s perceptions of engaging leadership and T2 work engagement .

Engaging leadership, team resources, and work team effectiveness (team level)

So far, we focused on individual-level mediation, but an equivalent mediation process is expected at the aggregated team level as well. We assume that leaders display a comparable leadership style toward the entire team, resulting in a similar relationship with each of the team members. This model of leader-follower interactions is known as the average leadership style (ALS) [ 47 ]. This means that homogeneous leader-follower interactions exist within teams, but relationships of leaders with followers may differ between teams. The relationships between leadership and team effectiveness might be based on an analogous, team-based ALS-approach as well [ 48 ]. Following this lead, we posit that team members share their perceptions of engaging leadership, while this shared perception differs across teams. Moreover, we assume that these shared perceptions are positively related to team effectiveness.

An essential role for leaders is to build team resources, which motivate team members and enable them to perform. Indeed, the influence of leader behaviors on team mediators and outcomes has been extensively documented [ 49 , 50 ].

Most studies use the heuristic input-process-output (IPO) framework [ 51 ] to explain the relationship between leadership (input) and team effectiveness (output), whereby the intermediate processes describe how team inputs are transformed into outputs. It is widely acknowledged that two types of team processes play a significant role: “taskwork” (i.e., functions that team members must perform to achieve the team’s task) and “teamwork” (i.e., the interaction between team members, necessary to achieve the team’s task). Taskwork is encouraged by task-oriented leadership behaviors that focus on task accomplishment. In contrast, teamwork is encouraged by person-oriented leadership behaviors that focus on developing team members and promoting interactions between them [ 49 ]. The current paper focuses on teamwork and person-oriented (i.e., engaging) leadership.

Collectively, team resources such as performance feedback, trust in management, communication between team members, and participation in decision-making constitute a supportive team climate that is conducive for employee growth and development, and hence fosters team effectiveness, as well as individual work engagement. This also meshes with Serrano and Reichard [ 33 ], who argue that for employees to flourish, leaders should design meaningful and motivating work (e.g., through feedback and participation in decision making) and facilitate rewarding and supportive coworker relations (e.g., through communication and trust in management).

To date, engaging leadership has not been studied at the team level and concerning team resources and team effectiveness. How should the association between engaging leadership and team resources be conceived? By strengthening, engaging leaders provide their team members with performance feedback; by inspiring, they grant their team members participate in decision making; and by connecting, they foster communication between team members and install trust. Please note that team resources refer to shared, individual perceptions of team members, which are indicated by within-team consensus. Therefore, taken as a whole, the team-level resources that are included in the present study constitute a supportive team climate that is characterized by receiving feedback, trust in management, communication amongst team members, and participating in decision-making. We have seen above that engaging leaders foster team resources, but how are these resources, in their turn, related to team effectiveness?

The multi-goal, multi-level model of feedback effects of DeShon and colleagues [ 52 ] posits that individual and team regulatory processes govern the allocation of effort invested in achieving individual and team goals, resulting in individual and team effectiveness. We posit that the shared experience of receiving the team leader’s feedback prompts team members to invest efforts in achieving team tasks, presumably through team regulatory processes, as postulated in the multi-goal, multi-level model.

Trust has been defined as: “the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other party will perform a particular action to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party” (p. 712) [ 53 ]. Using a multilevel mediation model, Braun and colleagues [ 54 ] showed that trust mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and performance at the team level. They reasoned that transformational leaders take into account a team member’s needs, goals, and interests, making them more willing to be vulnerable to their supervisor. This would apply even more for engaging leaders, which is defined in terms of satisfying basic follower’s needs. It is plausible that a team’s shared trust in its leader enhances the trust of team members in each other. That means that team members interact and communicate trustfully and rely on each other’s abilities, which, in turn, is conducive for team effectiveness [ 55 ].

Communication is a crucial element of effective teamwork [ 56 ]. Team members must exchange information to ascertain other members’ competence and intentions, and they must engage in communication to develop a strategy and plan their work. Several studies have shown that effectively gathering and exchanging information is essential for team effectiveness [ 57 , 58 ]. Furthermore, participation in decision-making is defined as joint decision-making [ 59 ] and involves sharing influence between team leaders and team members. By participating in decision-making, team members create work situations that are more favorable to their effectiveness. Team members utilize participating in decision-making for achieving what they desire for themselves and their team. Generally speaking, shared mental models are defined as organized knowledge structures that allow employees to interact successfully with their environment, and therefore lead to superior team performance [ 60 ]. That is, team members with a shared mental model about decision-making are ‘in sync’ and will easily coordinate their actions, whereas the absence of a shared mental model will result in process loss and ineffective team processes.

Taken together and based on the previous reasoning, we formulate the second hypothesis as follows:

• Hypothesis 2: Team resources (performance feedback , trust in management , team communication , and participation in decision-making) mediate the relationship between T1 team member’s shared perceptions of engaging leadership and T2 team effectiveness .

Engaging leadership, team resources, and work engagement (cross-level)

Engaging leaders build team resources (see above). Or put differently, the team member’s shared perceptions of engaging leadership are positively related to team resources. Besides, we also assume that these team resources positively impact work engagement at the individual level. A plethora of research has shown that various job resources are positively related to work engagement, including feedback, trust, communication, and participation in decision- making (for a narrative overview see [ 61 ]; for a meta-analysis see [ 62 , 63 ]). Most research that found this positive relationship between job resources and work engagement used the Job-Demands Resources model [ 5 ] that assumes that job resources are inherently motivating because they enhance personal growth and development and are instrumental in achieving work goals. Typically, these resources are assessed as perceived by the individual employee. Yet, as we have seen above, perceptions of resources might also be shared amongst team members. It is plausible that these shared resources, which collectively constitute a supportive, collaborative team climate, positively impact employee’s individual work engagement. Teams that receive feedback, have trust in management, whose members amply interact and communicate, and participate in decision-making are likely to produce work engagement. This reasoning agrees with Schaufeli [ 64 ], who showed that organizational growth climate is positively associated with work engagement, also after controlling for personality. When employee growth is deemed relevant by the organization this is likely to translate, via engaging leaders, into a supportive team environment, which provides feedback, trust, communication, and participative decision-making. Hence, we formulate:

• Hypothesis 3: Team resources (performance feedback , trust in management , team communication , and participation in decision-making) mediate the relationship between team shared perceptions of engaging leadership at T1 and individual team member’s work engagement at T2 .

Sample and procedure

In collaboration with the HR department, data were collected among all employees of a business unit of a large Dutch public service agency. This agency is responsible for the administration of unemployment benefits and work incapacitation claims, as well as for the rehabilitation and return to work of unemployed and incapacitated employees. A one-year time-lagged design was applied to minimize the likelihood of common method variance effects and to explore causal relationships among the study variables [ 65 ]. The questionnaire included a cover letter reporting the aims and contents of the study. The letter also stated that participation in the study was completely voluntary, and that one can withdraw from the study at any time without having to give explanations and without this involving any disadvantage or prejudice. Participants’ consent was concluded by conduct, through ticking the consent checkbox as a prerequisite to access the questionnaire. This research was conducted in 2015, thus before the publication of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and complied with the latest version of the Declaration of Helsinki. Thus, ethics approval was not compulsory, as per applicable institutional and national Dutch guidelines. Additionally, the current study did not involve any treatment, medical diagnostics, or procedures generating psychological or social discomfort among participants.

In the first survey at Time 1 ( N = 2,304; response rate 63%), employees were asked about their socio-demographic background, engaging leadership, team resources (i.e., performance feedback, trust in management, communication, and participation in decision-making), team effectiveness, personal resources (i.e., resiliency, optimism, and flexibility), and work engagement. At Time 2 ( N = 2,183; response rate 51%), participants filled out the same survey, which included an additional self-efficacy scale. At both measurement points, participants received an email from the HR department containing a link that allowed them to fill out the online survey. This introductory email provided background information about the study’s general aim and guaranteed that participants’ responses would be treated confidentiality. A sample of N = 1,048 employees filled out the questionnaire twice, with an interval of one year between T1 and T2.

The estimation of multilevel models with at least 50 teams of at least 5 members per group is strongly recommended to avoid underestimating standard errors and variances for random effects [ 66 , 67 ]. Therefore, participants being part of teams with less than 5 employees were excluded from the analyses. Accordingly, the data of 1,048 participants, who completed both questionnaires, could be linked and constitute the current study sample. Employees were nested within 90 work teams, with an average of 13.7 ( SD = 5.72) employees per team. Slightly more women (51.8%) as men were included (48.2%), the average age of the sample was 49.70 years ( SD = 7.46), and the mean organization tenure was 12.02 years ( SD = 9.56).

All measures described below were rated using five-point scales that either ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5), or from never (1) to always (5). The internal consistencies (Cronbach’s α) of the measures are displayed on the diagonal of Table 2 .

Engaging Leadership was measured using a scale developed by Schaufeli [ 64 ] including nine items. This questionnaire contains three subscales of three items each: Inspiring, Strengthening, and Connecting. Sample items are: “My supervisor is able to enthuse others for his/her plans” (inspiring); “My supervisor delegates tasks and responsibilities” (strengthening); and “My supervisor encourages team members to cooperate” (connecting).

Individual-level measures.

Optimism was measured with three items from the Optimism scale of the PsyCap Questionnaire developed by Luthans and colleagues [ 36 ], which is aimed at assessing employees’ expectations about future success at work because of a positive view of their job. A sample item is: “I always look on the bright side of things regarding my job”.

Resiliency was assessed using three items from the Resiliency scale of the PsyCap Questionnaire [ 36 ]. These items refer to employees’ beliefs about their ability to recover from uncertainty and failure and to react successfully to setbacks that can occur at work. A sample item is: "I usually take stressful things at work in stride”.

Self-efficacy referred to the perceived capability to efficiently plan and implement courses of action required to attain a specific work goal and was measured using three items from Mazzetti, Schaufeli, and Guglielmi [ 68 ]. A sample item is: "At work, I reach my goal even when unexpected situations arise".

Flexibility refers to the individual ability to adapt to changes in the workplace and to modify one’s schedules and plans to meet job requirements. It was assessed by using three items: "If the job requires, I am willing to change my schedule”; “I do not have problems changing the way I work” and “I adapt easily to changes at work”.

Work engagement was assessed using a three-item scale developed by Schaufeli and colleagues [ 69 ]. This ultra-short version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale has similar psychometric properties as the nine-item version. A sample item is: "At my work, I feel bursting with energy”.

Team-level measures.

Performance feedback was assessed by the three-item scale from the Questionnaire on the Experience and Evaluation of Work (QEEW) [ 70 ]. A sample item is: “Do you get enough information about the result of your work?”.

Trust in Management of team members was assessed using two items from Schaufeli [ 7 ]: “I trust the way my organization is managed”, and “I have confidence in my immediate supervisor”. Following the recommendations from Eisinga and colleagues [ 71 ] we computed the Spearman-Brown coefficient, since it represents the most appropriate reliability coefficient for a two-item scale ( r s = .43, p < .001).

Communication , meaning the perception of an efficient and prompt circulation of information at the team level was measured using the three-item Communication scale taken from the QEEW [ 70 ]. A sample item is: "I am sufficiently informed about the developments within my team”.

Participation in decision-making was measured by a single item (i.e., “Can you participate in decision making about work-related issues?”) from the QEEW [ 70 ].

Team effectiveness . The team-level criterion variable was assessed with a three-item scale [ 8 ]. A sample item is: “Do you cooperate effectively with others in your team?”.

In order to check for systematic dropout, the social-demographic background, as well as the scores on the study variables were compared of those employees in the panel who filled out the questionnaire twice at T1 and T2 ( N = 1,142) and those who dropped out and filled out the questionnaire only once at T1 ( N = 1,161). It appeared that compared to the group who dropped out, the panel group was slightly younger (t (2301) = -2.21; p < .05) and had less organizational tenure (t (2301) = -4.05; p < .001). No gender differences were observed between both groups (χ 2 = .88; n . s .). A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) that included all study variables revealed a significant between-groups effect: F (12,2291) = 3.54, p < .001. Subsequent univariate tests showed that compared to the dropouts, the panel group scored higher on inspiring (F (1,2302) = 14.90, p < .001), strengthening (F (1,2302) = 9.39, p < .01), and connecting leadership (F (1,2302) = 14.90, p < .05), as well as on optimism (F (1,2302) = 5.59, p < .05), flexibility (F (1,2302) = 12.56, p < .001), work engagement (F (1,2302) = 9.16, p < .05), performance feedback (F (1,2302) = 11.68, p < .01), and participation in decision making (F (1,2302) = 8.83, p < .05). No significant differences were found for resiliency, trust in management, communication, and team effectiveness.

It seems that, taken together, the panel group is slightly younger and less tenured, and scores more favorable than the dropouts on most study variables. However, the differences between both groups are relatively small and vary between 0 and .13 on a 5-point scale. Therefore, it is not likely that systematic dropout has influenced the results of the current study.

Control variables.

At the individual level, we controlled for the potential confounding effects of gender, age, and tenure by including these variables as covariates in our analyses. More specifically, the impact of age was controlled for because previous research suggested that older employees report higher levels of personal resources [ 72 ] and work engagement [ 73 ]. Gender was also included as a control variable because previous research suggested that compared to women, men score lower on work engagement [ 74 ] and higher on personal resources, such as optimism and self-efficacy [ 75 ]. Finally, previous investigations also revealed that job tenure may affect employees’ level and stability of work engagement, with tenured employees reporting higher and more stable levels of work engagement compared to newcomers [ 76 ]. Besides, Barbier and colleagues [ 77 ] suggested that job tenure might affect employees’ personal resources (i.e., self-esteem and optimism). Considering this empirical evidence, job tenure was also included as a covariate in our model.

Data aggregation.

Our research model includes the three dimensions of engaging leadership (i.e., inspiring, strengthening, and connecting) three team resources (i.e., performance feedback, trust in management, communication and participation in decision-making), and one outcome (i.e., team effectiveness) at the team level of analysis. To check the reliability and validity of aggregated scores at the team level, four indices were computed [ 78 ]: (1) ICC [1] , which indicates the proportion of variance in ratings due to team membership; (2) ICC [2] , representing the reliability of between-groups differences; (3) r wg(j) , that measures the level of agreement within work teams; (4) deff , that measures the effect of independence violations on the estimation of standard errors through the formula 1+(average cluster size-1)*ICC [ 79 ]. Generally speaking, values greater than .05 for ICC [1] [ 80 ] and .40 for ICC [2] [ 81 ] an r wg(j) higher than .70, and a deff- index exceeding 2 are considered a prerequisite for aggregating data [ 78 ]. Moreover, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to explore whether participants’ scores on the Level 2 constructs differed significantly among work teams. The results of the aggregation tests are displayed in Table 1 . Taken together, these results justify the aggregation of the team-level variables.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269433.t001

Strategy of analysis

To test our hypotheses, a multilevel structural equation modeling (MSEM) was tested using the Mplus 7 statistical modeling software [ 82 ]. The application of this procedure allows the inclusion of latent variables that take measurement errors into account and permits the simultaneous estimation of mediation effects at the individual and team levels; therefore, it is superior to stepwise approaches [ 83 ]. As suggested by Zhang and colleagues [ 84 ], predictors at the individual level (i.e., engaging leadership dimensions and personal resources) were team-mean centered using a centering within context – CWC approach [ 85 ]. This procedure was aimed at preventing the confounding effect of mediation within and between work teams. In other words, predictors at the individual level for subject i were centered around the mean of the cluster j to which case i belongs (i.e., predictor ij —M predictor j ). Accordingly, the latent engaging leadership factor at within-level was indicated by the CWC means of the three dimensions of engaging leadership (i.e., inspiring cwc , strengthening cwc , and connecting cwc ) at T1. In a similar vein, personal resources were included as a latent variable indicated by the observed levels of optimism cwc , reisliency cwc , self-efficacy cwc , and flexibility cwc at T2. Finally, T2 work engagement was included as an observed variable equal to the mean score of the corresponding scale. As previously stated, gender, age, and organizational tenure were included as covariates at the individual level of the MSEM model.

At the team level, the latent measure of engaging leadership at T1 was assessed through the observed scores on the three dimensions of inspiring, strengthening, and connecting leadership. T2 team resources were modeled as a single latent factor indicated by the observed scores on performance feedback, trust in management, communication, and participation in decision-making. The observed mean score on T2 team effectiveness was modeled as the team level criterion variable.

At the individual level, the mediation was tested by considering path a , from T1 individual perceptions of engaging leadership (X) to T2 personal resources (M) and path b , from T2 personal resources to T2 work engagement (Y), controlling for X → Y. At the team level, the same procedure was applied considering path c , linking team perceptions of T1 engaging leadership (X) and T2 team resources (M) and path d , from T2 team resources to T2 team effectiveness (Y).

The individual and team-level perceptions of engaging leadership were assessed at T1. In contrast, the mediating variables (i.e., psychological capital and team resources), and the outcomes (i.e., work engagement and team effectiveness) were measured at T2.

Preliminary analysis

Before testing our hypotheses, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed using the maximum likelihood method of estimation using the software package AMOS 21.0 [ 86 ]. This preliminary analysis was aimed at assessing redundancy between the constructs under investigation. For the team level, engaging leadership was included as a latent factor indicated by the observed team levels of inspiring, strengthening, and connecting leadership dimensions. The measured performance feedback levels indicated the latent team resources factor, trust in management, communication, and participation in decision-making. Team effectiveness, assessed as a criterion variable at the team level, was indicated by a single corresponding item. At the individual level, the group-mean centered scores on inspiring, strengthening, and connecting dimensions were considered indicators of the latent engaging leadership factor. Besides, optimism, resiliency, self-efficacy, and flexibility were included as indicators for the single personal resources latent factor; the observed average score on work engagement was used for assessing the corresponding latent variable. The model fit was assessed by considering the comparative fit index (CFI) and Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) ≥ .95, Root-Mean-Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) ≤ .06, and Standardized Root-Mean-Square Residual (SRMR) ≤ .08 [ 87 , 88 ]. According to these criteria, the hypothesized measurement model showed a good fit to the data, with χ 2 (91) = 465.09, CFI = .96, TLI = .95, RMSEA = .06, and SRMR = .03. Moreover, all indicators showed significant factor loadings on their respective latent factors ( p < .001) with λ values ranging from .51 to .95, thus exceeding the commonly accepted criterion of .50 [ 89 ]. Hence, these results support the assumption that the study variables were non-redundant and adequately distinct from each other.

Model testing

The means, standard deviations, correlations, and internal consistencies for all study variables are displayed in Table 2 . As expected, the constructs under investigation showed significant relationships in the hypothesized direction.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269433.t002

The hypothesized MSEM showed a good fit to data: χ 2 (60) = 155.38, CFI = .97, TLI = .96, RMSEA = .04, SRMR = 0.03 (within teams) and .08 (between teams). As displayed in Fig 2 , at the individual level the three indicators of engaging leadership loaded significantly on their intended latent factor, with λ = .83 ( p = .000, 95% CI = [.79, .87]) for inspiring, λ = .77 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.73, .81]) for strengthening, and λ = .81 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.78, .85]) for connecting. Similarly, the standardized factor loadings for the indicators of personal resources were all significant as well: λ = .74 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.68, .79]) for optimism, λ = .68 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.63, .72]) for resiliency λ = .68 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.62, .74]) for self-efficacy, and λ = .64 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.59, .69]) for flexibility.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269433.g002

The direct relationship between T1 engaging leadership and T2 work engagement was significant β = .16 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.10, .22]). Moreover, results indicated that engaging leadership at T1 had a positive impact on personal resources at T2: γ = .27 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.18, .37]). T2 personal resources, in turn, were positively associated with T2 work engagement: β = .55 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.49, .62]). The estimated indirect effect of T1 engaging leadership on T2 work engagement via personal resources (i.e., a*b) was statistically significant: B (SE) = .19 (.04), p < .001, 95% CI [.11, .27]. Hence, personal resources (i.e., optimism, resiliency, self-efficacy, and flexibility) at T2 partially mediated the impact of T1 engaging leadership on employees’ engagement within work teams at T2. These findings provide partial support for Hypothesis 1 . Among the covariates included at the individual level, only gender and age showed a significant association with work engagement, with γ = -.10 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [-.15, -.05]) and γ = .10 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.04, .16]), respectively.

At the team level, all factor loadings for the three indicators of engaging leadership on their corresponding latent variable were significant: λ = .95 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.93, .99]) for inspiring, λ = .86 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.80, .91]) for strengthening, and λ = .94 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.90, .97]) for connecting. Additionally, the observed measure of each team resource loaded significantly on its intended latent variable: λ = .69 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.56, .82]) for performance feedback, λ = .86 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.78, .94]) for trust in management, λ = .89 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.81, .97]) for communication, and λ = .71 ( p = .000, 95% CI = [.60, .82]) for participation in decision-making. Moreover, engaging leadership at T1 had a nonsignificant direct impact on team effectiveness at T2, with β = -.06 ( p = .641, 95% CI = [-.30, .19]). In contrast, team perception of engaging leadership at T1 had a positive impact on team resources at T2: γ = .59 ( p < .001, 95% CI = [.42, .75]). Team resources at T2 were, in turn, positively related to T2 team effectiveness, β = .38 ( p = .003, 95% CI = [.13, .62]). These results suggest full mediation and were supported by the estimation of the indirect effect of T1 engaging leadership on T2 team effectiveness via team resources at T2 (i.e., c*d): B (SE) = .18 (.07), p = .013, 95% CI [.04, .32]. Thus, Hypothesis 2 was fully supported.

Hence, in the current study team resources at T2 (i.e., performance feedback, trust in management, communication, and participation in decision-making) fully mediated the effect of T1 engaging leadership on T2 team effectiveness across different work teams. Moreover, T2 team resources (i.e., performance feedback, trust in management, team communication, and participation in decision-making) showed a significant cross-level effect on T2 individual team member’s level of engagement: β = .57 (p < .001, 195% CI = [.27, .87]). This result provided evidence for Hypothesis 3 .

The current study aimed to explore the role of individual and collective perceptions of engaging leadership in predicting team effectivity and work engagement. To this purpose, we developed a two-level research model using a two time-point design.

Main results

At the individual level, the obtained results suggest that psychological capital (i.e., the combination of self-efficacy, optimism, resiliency, and flexibility) partly mediated the longitudinal relationship between employees’ perceptions of engaging leadership and their levels of work engagement. In other words, team leaders perceived as inspiring, strengthening, and connecting could enhance their followers’ engagement directly and indirectly through an increase in psychological capital. Thus, engaging leaders could make their followers feel more optimistic, resilient, self-efficacious, and flexible. At the team level, a shared perception of engaging leadership was associated with a greater pool of team resources (i.e., performance feedback, trust in management, communication, and participation in decision-making), which contribute to define an open and supportive team climate that is conducive for employee growth and development. In their turn, these collective resources were positively related to the perceived effectiveness of work teams.

Hence, team resources at the team level fully mediated the relationship between engaging leadership and team effectiveness. That means that teams in which the leader is considered to be inspiring, strengthening, and connecting can draw upon more team resources, and could feel, in turn, more effective. Simultaneously, a significant cross-level mediation effect was found for team resources, meaning that they mediate the relationship between engaging leadership at team level and individual level work engagement. In other words, teams with engaging leaders are not only more effective at the team level, but they also report higher levels of work engagement among their members. These leaders create a team climate that fosters employee growth and development by providing performance feedback, installing trust, and stimulating communication and participation in decision-making.

Three different contributions.

Thus, three major conclusions can be drawn for the current study, which signifies its contribution to the literature. First, engaging leadership can be considered an individual-level construct (i.e., the perception of particular leadership behaviors by individual followers) and a collective, team-level construct (i.e., the shared perception of specific leadership behaviors among team members). As far as the latter is concerned, our results support the notion of an average leadership style (ALS) [ 47 ]; namely, that homogeneous leader-follower interactions exist within teams, but relationships of leaders with followers differ between teams.

Secondly, Individual-level engaging leadership predicts individual work engagement through increasing follower’s PsyCap. Previous research suggested a positive relationship between person-focused leadership styles and follower’s work engagement, albeit that virtually all studies were cross-sectional in nature (for an overview see [ 11 , 33 ]). Our study added longitudinal evidence for that relationship and hinted at an underlying psychological process by suggesting that psychological capital might play a mediating role. As such, the current study corroborates and extends a previous cross-sectional study that obtained similar results [ 8 ]. However, it should be noted that the present study used a slightly different operationalization of PsyCap as is usually employed [ 36 ]. In addition to the three core elements of optimism, resiliency, and self-efficacy, flexibility instead of hope was used as a constituting fourth element of PsyCap. The reason was that hope and optimism overlap both theoretically as well as empirically [ 35 ] and that flexibility–defined as the ability to readapt, divert from unsuccessful paths, and tackle unpredictable conditions that hinder employees’ goal attainment [ 8 ]–was deemed particularly relevant for public service agencies that are plagued by red tape. Our results indicate that engaging leaders strengthen followers’ sense of proficiency when developing a task-specific skill to reach challenging objectives (i.e., self-efficacy). They also encourage a favorable appraisal of the prevailing conditions and future goal achievement (i.e., optimism).

Furthermore, they enhance subordinates’ abilities to recover from failures and move beyond setbacks effectively (i.e., resiliency) through supporting an increased aptitude for adaption to unfamiliar work circumstances (i.e., flexibility). These results corroborate the assumption that leaders who inspire, strengthen, and connect their followers provide a stimulating work environment that enhances employees’ personal resources. In their turn, elevated levels of PsyCap mobilize employees’ energy and intrinsic motivation to perform, expressed by a high level of work engagement. This result concurs with previous evidence that PsyCap can be framed as a critical component of the motivational process of the JD-R model, namely as a mediator of the relationship between contextual resources (i.e., engaging leadership) and work engagement [ 46 ]. However, this mediation was only partial because a direct effect of engaging leadership on follower’s work engagement was also observed in the current study. This evidence is not surprising since previous research showed that other mediating factors (which were not included in the present study) played a role in explaining the relationship between leadership and work engagement. Among them, innovative work behaviors, meaningful work, role clarity, positive emotions, identification with the organization, and psychological ownership [ 11 ]. Thus, increasing their follower’s PsyCap is not the whole story as far as the impact of engaging leadership is concerned. It is likely that engaging leaders also impact these alternative mediating factors. If this is the case, this might explain why the additional variance in follower’s work engagement is explained by engaging leadership, as indicated by the direct effect.

Thirdly, team-level engaging leadership predicts work engagement of individual team members and team effectiveness through increasing team resources. An earlier cross-sectional study found that engaging leadership, as perceived by their followers, showed an indirect, positive effect on their work engagement level through an increase in job resources [ 7 ]. However, in that study, engaging leadership and job resources, including performance feedback, trust in management, communication, and participation in decision-making, were assessed at the individual and not at the aggregated team level. This means that the current study corroborates previous findings at the aggregated team level, using a longitudinal design. It is important to note that employees’ level of work engagement not only depends on individual-level processes (through the increase in PsyCap) but also on collective processes (trough the rise in team resources). Finally, our findings concur with research on team climate, showing that leaders who endorse supportive relations between team members and create an open, empowering team climate enable employees to succeed [ 33 ]. Simultaneously, a team climate like that is also likely to foster personal growth and development, which, in turn, translates into greater work engagement [ 63 ].

Practical implications

Our study shows that engaging leadership matters, and therefore organizations are well-advised to stimulate their managers to lead by the principles of engaging leadership. To that end, organizations may implement leadership development programs [ 90 ], leadership coaching [ 91 ], or leadership workshops [ 92 ]. Previous research has shown that leadership behaviors are malleable and subject to change using professional training [ 93 – 95 ]. Furthermore, leaders may want to establish and promote an open and trusting team climate in which employees feel free to express their needs and preferences [ 96 , 97 ].

Accordingly, our study shows that this climate is conducive not only for work engagement but also for team effectiveness. Finally, our results also suggest that psychological capital is positively associated with work engagement, so that it would make sense to increase this personal resource, mainly because PsyCap is state-like and open to development through instructional programs [ 45 ]. For instance, a short PsyCap Intervention (PCI) has been developed by Luthans and colleagues, which is also available as a web-based version for employees [ 98 ]. PCI focuses on: (a) acquiring and modifying self–efficacy beliefs; (b) developing realistic, constructive, and accurate beliefs; (c) designing goals, pathway generation, and strategies for overcoming obstacles; and (d) identifying risk factors, and positively influencing processes.

Strengths, limitations, and directions for future research

A significant strength of the current study is its design that combines a multilevel investigation of engaging leadership with mediating processes at the individual and team levels. This is in line with the claim that leadership research suffers from a lack of theoretical and empirical differentiation between levels of analysis [ 99 ]. However, leadership is an inherently multilevel construct in nature [ 9 ]. Although the current findings shed light on the role of the emergent construct of engaging leadership, both regarding individuals and teams, an exciting venue for future research involves exploring its predictive validity in comparison with traditional leadership models. This concurrent validation would adhere to the recommendations accompanying the introduction of new leadership constructs in the face of the risk of construct proliferation [ 16 ].

A further strength of the current study is its large sample size, including 1,048 employees nested within 90 work teams. Moreover, data were collected at two time points with a one-year time lag that was considered long enough for the effects of engaging leadership to occur. In contrast with widespread cross-sectional studies that sometimes draw unjustified conclusions on the corollaries of leadership [ 100 ], the current research relied on a longitudinal design to better understand the consequences of engaging leadership at the individual and team level of analysis. According to our results, engaging leadership indeed shows a positive effect across time on outcomes at the individual (i.e., work engagement) and team level (i.e., team effectiveness).

Along with its strengths, the current study also has some limitations that should be acknowledged. The main weakness of the current study lies in the homogeneity of the sample, which consisted of employees working in a Dutch public service agency. This specific work setting prevents us from generalizing the findings of our research with other occupational groups. However, focusing on an organization where most activities are conducted in teams permits independent but simultaneous assessment of the impact of (engaging) leadership on the perceived pool of resources among teams and workers, as suggested by current trends in leadership literature [ 101 , 102 ].

Furthermore, the collection of data at different time points overcomes the inherent weakness of a cross-sectional design, yet a design including at least three data waves would have provided superior support for the hypothesized mediated relationships. Based on within-group diary studies [ 103 , 104 ], it can, on the one hand, be argued that leadership might impact the team and personal resources within a much shorter time frame. On the other hand, work engagement represents a persistent psychological state that is not susceptible to sudden changes in the short term [ 1 ]. Thus, the chosen one-year time lag can be considered reasonable for a between-group study to detect the impact of engaging leadership accurately. This impact needs some time to unfold. An additional limitation of this study entails measuring individual and team resources with only a few items. Nevertheless, all scales had an internal consistency value that met the threshold of .65 [ 105 ] with an average Cronbach’s alpha value equal to .81.

Concluding remark

Despite the novelty of the construct, the emerging research on engaging leadership suggests the potential value of a theoretically sound leadership model that could foster followers’ engagement. While earlier findings showed that engaging leadership is positively associated with the employee’s level of engagement [ 7 , 8 ], the current study suggested that engaging leadership could predict work engagement and team effectiveness. More specifically, being exposed to a leader who inspires, strengthens and connects team members may foster a shared perception of greater availability of team resources (i.e., performance feedback, trust in management, communication, and participation in decision-making), as well as greater psychological capital (i.e., self-efficacy, optimism, resilience, and flexibility). Hence, engaging leadership could play a significant role in the processes leading to work engagement at both the team and the individual levels.

Supporting information

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269433.s001

• View Article
• Google Scholar
• PubMed/NCBI
• 13. Antonakis J., Day D.V. Leadership: Past present and future. In, Antonakis J. & Day D.V.(Eds.), The nature of leadership (3rd. Ed.) London: Sage. 2017; 3–28.
• 15. Deci E.L., Ryan R.M. Self-determination theory. In Van Lange P.A.M., Kruglanski A.W., & Higgins E.T.(Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology. London: Sage. 2012; 416–436. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215.n21 .
• 17. Erasmus, A. (2018). Investigating the relationships between engaging leadership, need satisfaction, work engagement and workplace boredom within the South African mining industry (Doctoral dissertation, North-West University).
• 21. Robijn, W. (2021). “Taking care of the team member is taking care of the team: a team conflict perspective on engaging leadership,” in: Leadership and Work Engagement: A Conflict Management Perspective, ed W. Robijn (Unpublished PhD) (Belgium: KU Leuven), 79–107.
• 30. Bass B.M., Riggio R.E. Transformational leadership. In Transformational leadership . 2nd ed. Psychology Press Ltd., 2006.
• 31. Smith, D.J. (2018). The Importance of Self-Determined Leadership in Building Respectful Workplace. (Unpublished PhD thesis), University of Southern Queensland, Australia.
• 34. Luthans F., Youssef C.M., Avolio B.J. Psychological capital: Investing and developing positive organizational behaviour. In Nelson D & Cooper C. L.(Eds.), Positive organizational behaviour. London: Sage. 2007; pp. 9–24.
• 40. Bandura A. Cultivate self-efficacy for personal and organizational effectiveness. In Locke E. (Ed.), Handbook of principles of organizational behavior. Oxford: Blackwell. 2000; pp. 120–136.
• 41. Sweetman D., Luthans F. The power of positive psychology: Psychological capital and work engagement. In Bakker A.B. & Leiter M. P. (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research. New York: Psychology Press. 2010; pp. 44–68.
• 42. Fredrickson B.L. Positive emotions broaden and build. In Devine P., & Plant A. (Eds.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (ed., Vol. 47). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 2013; pp. 1–54.
• 48. Bass B.M. Leadership and performance beyond expectation. New York: Free Press; 1985.
• 51. McGrath J.E. Social psychology: A brief introduction. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston; 1964.
• 61. Schaufeli W.B. What is engagement? In Employee engagement in theory and practice. Routledge. London: Routledge. 2013; pp. 29–49.
• 66. Hox J.J. Multilevel analyses: Techniques and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2002.
• 67. Hox J.J. Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge; 2010.
• 78. Bliese P.D. Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In Klein K. J. & Kozlowski S. W. J. (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2000, pp. 349–381.
• 79. Muthén B., Satorra A. Complex sample data in structural equation modeling. In Marsden P. V. (Ed.), Sociological methodology. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association; 1995, pp. 264–316. https://doi.org/10.2307/271070
• 82. Muthén B.O., Muthén L.K. Mplus version 7 [Computer Programme]. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén; 2012.
• 86. Arbuckle J.L. Amos (Version 21.0). Chicago: IBM SPSS; 2015.
• 87. Brown T. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2006.
• 89. Hair J.F., Black W.C., Babin B.J., Anderson R.E., Tatham R.L. Multivariate Data Analysis. Uppersaddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hal Hall; 2006.
• 92. Segers J., De Prins P., Brouwers S. Leadership and engagement: A brief review of the literature, a proposed model, and practical implications. In Albrecht S. L. (Ed.), New horizons in management. Handbook of employee engagement: Perspectives, issues, research and practice. Edward Elgar Publishing; 2010, pp. 149–158.
• 105. DeVellis R.F. Scale development: Theory and applications (Vol. 26). London: Sage publications; 2016.

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

8 Essential Qualities of Successful Leaders

• Rebecca Knight

And how to cultivate them.

Becoming a great leader is a journey of continuous learning and growth. It’s a process — one that thrives on embracing challenges, seeking feedback, fostering connections, and cultivating understanding. In this article, the author outlines the eight most essential leadership qualities, according to Harvard Business School professor Linda Hill, one of the world’s top experts on leadership. Star leaders aren’t born with superhuman capabilities, Linda explains. Rather, they tend to have intentionally put themselves in situations where they have to learn, adapt, and grow — a crucible for developing the tenacity and fortitude to motivate and guide others.

Do you have what it takes to be a great leader ?

• RK Rebecca Knight is a journalist who writes about all things related to the changing nature of careers and the workplace. Her essays and reported stories have been featured in The Boston Globe, Business Insider, The New York Times, BBC, and The Christian Science Monitor. She was shortlisted as a Reuters Institute Fellow at Oxford University in 2023. Earlier in her career, she spent a decade as an editor and reporter at the Financial Times in New York, London, and Boston.

Partner Center

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Personality Profiles of Effective Leadership Performance in Assessment Centers

Alissa d. parr.

Select International

Stephanie T. Lanza

Pennsylvania State University

Paul Bernthal

Development Dimensions International

Most research examining the relationship between effective leadership and personality has focused on individual personality traits. However, profiles of personality traits more fully describe individuals, and these profiles may be important as they relate to leadership. This study used latent class analysis to examine how personality traits combine and interact to form subpopulations of leaders, and how these subpopulations relate to performance criteria. Using a sample of 2,461 executive-level leaders, six personality profiles were identified: Unpredictable Leaders with Low Diligence (7.3%); Conscientious, Backend Leaders (3.6%); Unpredictable Leaders (8.6%); Creative Communicators (20.8%); Power Players (32.4%); and Protocol Followers (27.1%). One profile performed well on all criteria in an assessment center; remaining profiles exhibited strengths and weaknesses across criteria. Implications and future directions for research are highlighted.

Moving into the twenty-first century, organizations are facing numerous challenges associated with the changing nature of work. As organizations expand their boundaries globally, rely on technology for communication, and develop knowledge workers to be adaptive in response to continually changing work demands ( Tannenbaum, 2002 ), it is apparent that organizations will need to adjust their strategies to achieve a competitive advantage. In today’s dynamic work environment, it is recognized that talented leaders can help overcome these challenges and pave the way toward achieving this goal. Talented leaders can direct and guide employees, teams, and organizations to be successful and to overcome these obstacles. Through their interaction with subordinates and stakeholders, leaders can profoundly influence followers’ behaviors and thereby create a workforce primed for success ( Barling, Christie, & Hoption, 2010 ).

Initially guided by the trait approach of leadership, several studies sought to discover characteristics that define talented leaders. Early studies produced inconsistent results (e.g., Bass, 1990 ; Mann, 1959 ; Stogdill, 1948 ), but there was renewed interest in discovering traits associated with successful leaders after the emergence of the 5-factor model of personality ( Costa & McCrae, 1992 ). For example, Judge and colleagues (2002) conducted a meta-analysis demonstrating that leadership effectiveness was related to various specific factors of personality. Their findings revealed that Extraversion and Conscientiousness are moderately and positively associated with leadership effectiveness ( Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002 ). Additionally, DeRue and colleagues (2011) conducted a meta-analysis that reiterated the importance of both leader traits and behaviors for leader effectiveness. They concluded that traits and behavior explain about one-third of the variance in leader effectiveness and that Extraversion and Conscientiousness were consistent predictors of leader effectiveness ( DeRue, Nahrgang, Wellman, & Humphrey, 2011 ).

Recent theoretical and methodological developments offer an opportunity to better understand the link between personality and effective leadership ( Antonakis, Day, & Schyns, 2012 ). Past studies have typically examined personality traits individually (e.g., Bass, 1990 ; Mann, 1959 ; Stogdill, 1948 ), despite the fact that traits do not exist in isolation. Alternatively, approaching personality as a higher-order combination, or cluster, of personality traits allows for a more holistic view of the individual ( Barrick & Mount, 2005 ). Clusters have been shown to be relevant in other areas of leadership as well. For example, Borman and Brush (1993) created a taxonomy of leadership performance by clustering critical performance dimensions, revealing a more complete picture of effective leadership performance. Furthermore, past studies have primarily focused on examining how personality relates to overall performance (see Judge et al., 2002 ). However, leadership performance contains many elements that differentially relate to aspects of personality, and certain types of leaders may excel in terms of some criteria but not in others.

The present study sought to characterize different classes of leaders based on their personality profile and to determine how these classes relate to unique performance criteria measured in an assessment center. Specifically, we used a novel, person-oriented approach, latent class analysis (LCA; Collins & Lanza, 2010 ) to identify subgroups of leaders defined by their personality profiles. We then conducted analyses to assess how membership in different personality classes relates to assessment center performance dimensions, including Defining the Strategy, Executing the Strategy, and Building Partnerships and Translating the Message. This study sought to address gaps in our understanding of the complex link between leadership personality and performance.

Trait Approach to Leadership

Beginning with the “great man” hypothesis ( Carlyle, 1907 ), several attempts have been made to characterize an extraordinary leader. The trait approach to leadership seeks to define personality characteristics that are related to leadership effectiveness. Personality traits differentiate individuals based on their tendencies to think, feel, and behave ( Ones Viswesvaran, & Dilchert, 2005 ) and therefore can help to elucidate why a leader may be more or less successful.

Prior studies examining personality traits have shown inconsistent and sometimes null findings (e.g., Bass, 1990 ; Mann, 1959 ; Stogdill, 1948 ). This has led to a perhaps false consensus that personality traits were poor predictors of leader outcomes ( Antonakis et al., 2012 ). One reason for this may be the inconsistent use of labels to identify underlying personality traits ( Judge et al., 2002 ). In an attempt to resolve these issues and synthesize across previous studies, Judge and colleagues (2002) conducted a meta-analysis examining how personality relates to leadership effectiveness using the 5-factor model of personality as a framework. Overall, Extraversion emerged as the most consistent correlate of leadership effectiveness. This is similar to other studies that demonstrated that leaders tend to be sociable and dominant (e.g., Lord, DeVader, & Alliger, 1986 ; Mann, 1959 ; Stogdill, 1948 ; Stogdill, 1974 ). Furthermore, Judge and colleagues (2002) also found that Conscientiousness and Openness to Experience were strong correlates of leadership. It follows that leadership effectiveness may result in part from a leader being organized and receptive to hearing various perspectives before making decisions.

Additionally, DeRue and colleagues (2011) reiterated the importance of individual differences in predicting leader effectiveness. In a meta-analysis, they found that variability in leader characteristics, including gender, intelligence, and the “Big Five,” accounted for 22 percent of the variance in leader effectiveness. The majority of this variance was attributed to Extraversion and Conscientiousness thereby highlighting the importance of these personality factors ( DeRue et al., 2011 ).

While the majority of research has focused on how personality traits relate to positive outcomes, it is often the case that leaders derail on the job by not living up to their full potential. It has been estimated that approximately 47 percent of leaders end up derailing ( Hogan, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2010 ). Across several studies, personality defects have been shown to be related to leader derailment including being low on Extraversion, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience and exhibiting a lack of integrity and honesty, egotism, and arrogance ( Hogan, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2010 ; Kaiser & Hogan, 2011 ; Lipman-Blumen, 2006 ). These studies help to provide perspective that leaders are not always successful, but that personality can be a good mechanism to determine the likelihood of success in the role.

While these recent meta-analyses and studies brought to the forefront the importance of focusing on how personality relates to leadership, personality researchers have begun to stress the need to examine not only traits individually but also personality from a more holistic perspective ( Barrick & Mount, 2005 ). Furthermore, several leadership researchers have called for future studies to be more integrative and methodologically rigorous in their approaches to studying leadership (e.g., Antonakis et al., 2012 ; Avolio, 2007 ; Bennis, 1959 ; DeRue et al., 2011 ; Hernandez, Eberly, Avolio, & Johnson, 2011 ). The following section details how this study meets this call to action.

Personality Profiles and Leadership Effectiveness: A Novel Approach

One method that can be used to identify personality profiles is LCA, which categorizes individuals into latent subgroups based on multiple observed scores ( Collins & Lanza, 2010 ). Unlike more traditional variable-oriented approaches (e.g., multiple regression), LCA recognizes heterogeneity in the population and accounts for that heterogeneity by identifying a set of underlying subgroups of individuals who share common characteristics ( Lanza, Collins, Lemmon, & Schafer 2007 ). LCA has been highlighted as a sophisticated and robust tool appropriate for organizational research. The benefits of LCA include its flexibility, its ability to be used for confirmatory or exploratory purposes, and its ability to accommodate measurement error ( Wang & Hanges, 2011 ). Overall, LCA was noted as a very promising method to apply in a wide range of questions in organizational research ( Wang & Hanges, 2011 ). In the current study, we used LCA to identify a set of personality profiles in a sample of leaders and estimated the association between these profiles and effectiveness in an assessment center.

Research Questions

The research questions guiding the study were as follows: (1) What different personality profiles can be identified in a sample of leaders? (2) What is the prevalence rate for each leadership profile? (3) How do these leadership profiles relate to various performance criteria measured in an assessment center? This study was primarily descriptive and investigative, therefore specific hypotheses were not stated.

Participants & Procedures

Data used in this study were collected by an external consulting firm. Participants were 2,461 executive-level leaders from various organizations across the United States. All participants were identified as being at least second- or third-level leaders (e.g., directors, vice presidents) and reported an average of 14 years of experience in leadership roles. The majority of the sample was male (75%) and White (80%). The average age was 44 ( SD = 7).

In addition to this core sample, an independent sample was used to validate the latent class structure. Participants in this sample were 5,997 leaders from organizations across different types of industries. This sample comprised both lower- and higher-level leaders. As such, this sample included a broader array of leaders and offered an adequate test of the identified latent classes.

Participants completed a personality inventory. Subsequently, everyone participated in a day-in-the-life assessment center. Throughout the assessment, participants assumed the role of an executive in a fictitious organization to enact simulated work performance. They engaged in a series of visual and written exercises, including role plays, presentations, and in-baskets. Trained assessors rated participants on various performance competencies after the participants performed all of the activities over the course of a full day. The trained assessors made independent ratings and then had an integration session to finalize all the competency ratings.

Personality

The Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI; Hogan & Hogan, 2007 ) was used to assess personality. The HPI contains 206 items that are scored as true or false. The HPI results in seven primary scales: Adjustment, Ambition, Sociability, Interpersonal Sensitivity, Prudence, Inquisitiveness, and Learning Orientation. The HPI is often used in personnel selection and places an emphasis on constructs relevant to job, career, and occupational performance ( Hogan & Hogan, 2007 ). Thus, this personality inventory is appropriate to use in work settings and leadership research. Due to the proprietary nature of the test, we were not able to calculate the internal consistency of the factors, but the HPI manual reports alpha coefficients of .89, .86, .83, .71, .78, .78, and .75 for Adjustment, Ambition, Sociability, Interpersonal Sensitivity, Prudence, Inquisitiveness, and Learning Orientation, respectively ( Hogan & Hogan, 1995 ).

Performance

Work performance (i.e., leadership effectiveness) was simulated by having participants engage in a series of real-life activities that are common to leaders. Eleven performance competencies were rated as part of the standard assessment procedure used by the external consulting company implementing the assessment center. The performance competencies are related to dimensions that are necessary for effective leadership, including gaining influence, coaching subordinates, making decisions, developing business strategies and understanding financial data. Experienced assessors rated each competency on a scale from 1 ( highly ineffective ) to 3 ( highly effective ).

The performance competencies were subjected to a factor analysis using promax rotation. Results suggested a three-factor solution with 45 percent of the variance explained. Based on the factor loadings, the three factors were labeled Defining the Strategy, Executing the Strategy, and Building Partnerships and Translating the Message. Defining the Strategy is composed of competencies related to understanding financial information and business trends as well as selecting strategies to drive organizational growth. Executing the Strategy contains competencies related to making day-to-day decisions, driving plans to achieve goals, initiating change, and building an environment in which change can occur. Finally, Building Partnerships and Translating the Message is composed of competencies related to communicating effectively, persuading others, coaching others, and networking. Performance factor scores were computed by taking the average of each performance competency measured in the assessment center. All competencies were equally weighted when calculating the overall performance factor. Reliabilities for the three factors ranged from .50 to .55.

Data Preparation and Analyses

The first step in data analysis involved cleaning and preparing the personality data. First, we chose to base analyses on the 5-factor model of personality because this is widely used throughout personality and industrial/organizational psychology research. The HPI parallels the 5-factor model of personality ( Digman, 1990 ; Hogan & Holland, 2003 ), with the exception that in the HPI, Extraversion is broken down into Ambition and Sociability, and Openness to Experience is broken down into Inquisitiveness and Learning Orientation. There is both empirical as well as conceptual support for creating both factors ( Hogan & Hogan, 1995 ). Furthermore, extensive research has been conducted to demonstrate the relationship between the HPI and the 5-factor model of personality as measured by various inventories (e.g., Goldberg’s Big Five factor markers, the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised, the Interpersonal Adjective Scales; as reported by Hogan & Holland, 2003 ). More recently, Salgado, Moscoso, and Alonso (2013) showed that the factor structure of the HPI resembles the 5-factor model. Thus, we felt it was appropriate to use the 5-factor model terminology for consistency. Ambition and Sociability scales were combined to form an Extraversion scale, and Inquisitiveness and Learning Orientation scales were combined to form an Openness to Experience scale. The reliabilities for the composite scales were .56 and .49 for Extraversion and Openness to Experience, respectively.

Second, in order to prepare the data for LCA, personality scale scores were transformed into three-level indicators. Transforming the personality scale scores into categories facilitates interpretation of the profiles and enables a more meaningful way to examine differences between profiles. Using the HPI user manual as a guide, scores were categorized as high (above the 65 th percentile), moderate (between the 36 th and 64 th percentiles), or low (below the 35 th percentile). This categorization provides more differentiation, especially when comparing those scoring high and low on the personality variables.

Following data preparation, analyses were run in SAS 9.3 . Latent class models with one through seven classes were run using SAS PROC LCA ( Lanza Dziak, Huang, Wagner, & Collins, 2013 ). For each model, we used 100 random sets of starting values to ensure that the model was identified. Selection was conducted using fit statistics (e.g., G 2 , AIC, BIC ) as well as interpretability of the latent classes. Furthermore, to ensure the stability and validity of our latent class structure, a validation analysis was performed using a separate sample of leaders. Similar procedures were used to find this solution. Finally, using the selected latent class model for our core sample, each performance factor was examined as a distal outcome in the latent class model to determine how personality latent class membership predicted performance. The LCA_distal SAS macro ( Lanza, Tan, & Bray, 2013 ), was used for this part of the analysis.

Descriptive statistics for the personality traits and performance factors are shown in Tables 1 , ​ ,2, 2 , and ​ and3, 3 , respectively. Table 1 presents means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among all the personality traits and performance competencies. The intercorrelations among the personality traits are low to moderate, which is typical ( Schmitt, 2014 , Van der Linden, te Nijenhuis, & Bakker, 2010 ). Table 2 shows the proportion of individuals coded as low, moderate, and high on each personality trait. A majority of the sample was identified as high on both Extraversion and Conscientiousness, which have been shown to be important for leadership (e.g., DeRue et al., 2011 ; Judge et al., 2002 ). Table 3 presents the means and intercorrelations among the performance factors. On average, individuals were rated as moderately effective or less than effective (range 1.86 — 2.00; see Table 2 ), which is typical of assessment center scores because the majority of assessment centers are geared towards development. Furthermore, the correlations among factors ranged from 0.11 to 0.34 (see Table 3 ), indicating that these are mostly distinct performance factors.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations for Personality and Performance Criteria (N=2461)

Descriptive Statistics for Personality Traits (N=2461)

Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations for Performance Indicators (N=2461)

Internal consistency values (Cronbach’s alphas) appear in bold along the diagonal.

Model Selection

Model fit information for the models with one through seven latent classes are shown in Table 4 . The AIC was smallest, indicating an optimal balance between fit and parsimony, for seven classes, whereas the BIC was smallest for four classes. After careful inspection of models with four to seven classes, we selected the six-class solution, which had low fit statistics and good model interpretability ( G 2 = 160.95; AIC = 290.95; BIC = 668.49; df = 177).

Comparison of Baseline Models

Note. Boldface type indicates the selected model. Solution % is the percentage of times solution was selected out of 100 random sets of starting values.

AIC = Akaike’s Information Criterion; BIC = Bayesian Information Criterion. N =2461

Table 5 shows the prevalence of each latent class and, for each latent class, the probability of having low, moderate, or high levels of each personality trait. Latent classes were interpreted and labeled based on these item-response probabilities. Individuals in the first latent class were characterized by low Emotional Stability, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness (0.76, 0.83, and 0.98, respectively) and this class was therefore labeled as Unpredictable Leaders with Low Diligence. Approximately 7.3% of individuals belonged to this class. Individuals in the second class, labeled Conscientious, Backend Leaders (3.6%), were likely to be high on Conscientiousness (0.95) but low on Agreeableness (0.66) and Extraversion (0.86). Latent class three (8.6%) was labeled Unpredictable Leaders because they had high probabilities of low Emotional Stability and Agreeableness (0.51 and 0.61, respectively). Individuals in the fourth latent class (20.8%), labeled Creative Communicators, had high probabilities of high Extraversion (0.74) and Openness to Experience (0.60) but low Conscientiousness (0.56). Latent class five (32.4%) was labeled Power Players because members of this class had high probabilities for high scores on all five personality traits. This was the most common personality profile among the leaders. Finally, latent class six (27.1%), Protocol Followers, comprised individuals who were likely to be high on Emotional Stability and Conscientiousness (0.71 and 0.74, respectively).

Item-Response Probabilities for Six-Class Model: Probability of Endorsing Item Given Latent Class (N=2461)

Note . 1 = Unpredictable leader with Low Diligence; 2 = Conscientious, Backend Leader; 3 = Unpredictable Leader; 4 = Creative Communicator; 5 = Power Player; 6 = Protocol Follower; Probabilities greater than .50 in bold to facilitate interpretation

In order to validate the six-class solution, we replicated this analytic procedure using an independent sample of leaders. LCA results using the validation sample also suggested a six-class solution ( G 2 = 238.50; AIC = 368.50; BIC = 803.94; df = 177). Despite the fact that class prevalences were slightly different across samples, the characteristics of the classes remained essentially the same (see Table 6 ). Thus, we felt confident that our six-class solution was valid and could generalize to a broader population of leaders.

Validation Results: Item-Response Probabilities and Class Membership Probabilities for Six-Class Model (N=5997)

Note . Probabilities greater than .50 in bold to facilitate interpretation

Class Membership and Performance

In order to test whether and how class membership predicts performance, each performance factor was separately included in the latent class model as a distal outcome. Omnibus tests revealed that class membership was significantly associated with all three performance factors ( p <0.001 for each). Table 7 shows the standardized mean differences of performance outcomes conditional on personality latent class membership. To compute the standardized mean differences, we subtracted the lowest average score on each performance factor to the other scores within that factor. For the performance factors Defining the Strategy and Executing the Strategy, Conscientious, Backend Leaders and Power Players had the highest means, and Protocol Followers and Unpredictable Leaders had the lowest means. Thus, Conscientious, Backend Leaders and Power Players showed high performance on defining and implementing strategies. For the performance factor, Building Partnerships and Translating the Message, Creative Communicators and Power Players had highest means whereas Conscientious, Backend Leaders and Unpredictable Leaders with Low Diligence had the lowest means. As such, Creative Communicators and Power Players demonstrated relatively high performance in terms of communicating with others and building networks.

Results Showing Performance Outcomes Conditional on Personality Latent Class Membership (N=2461)

Note . Standardize means were computed based on subtracting the lowest mean score from the other scores within each performance factor.

We then examined the data from a different perspective by looking at performance within each personality profile to elucidate strengths and weaknesses of each type of leader. For example, Power Players scored relatively high on all performance factors. In comparison to their peers, they either had the highest or second highest performance score on each factor. Alternatively, Unpredictable Leaders performed more poorly in Defining the Strategy and Executing the Strategy and moderately in Building Partnerships and Translating the Message, relative to their peers. Other classes tend to have more complex relationships. For example, Conscientious, Backend Leaders, exceled in Defining the Strategy and Executing the Strategy but showed the worst performance in Building Partnerships and Translating the Message. Additionally, Creative Communicators performed well on Building Partnerships and Translating the Message but only scored moderately on the other performance factors.

The purpose of this study was to characterize different profiles of leaders based on their composite personality structure using a novel, person-oriented statistical approach and to determine how individuals with these leader profiles perform on competencies important for leadership as measured in an assessment center. The results of the current study offer some unique contributions in a few areas. First, results demonstrated that there are six different profiles of leaders when examining their personality composite. While previous research has examined individual personality factors of leaders, this study is one of the first to examine personality holistically. Furthermore, this exemplifies that there is not a “one size fits all” personality model for leadership; rather, there are several different subpopulations of leaders based on their composite personality structure.

Another contribution is that our results showed how these different profiles of leaders perform on competencies necessary for leadership. Much can be gained by examining these classes and their performance. The most prevalent class, Power Players, on average performed well on all performance factors. Members of this class also tend to be emotionally stable, agreeable, conscientious, social, and open to new ideas and therefore are likely to appeal to a broad audience. Given their charismatic nature and business savvy skills, they may excel in a wide range of situations. Because Power Players tended to be high on all the personality dimensions, there may be some concern as to whether participants were responding in a socially desirable manner. However, research has demonstrated that social desirability is not a great concern in real-life work settings and that relationships between personality and job performance do not appear to be suppressed by social desirability ( Hough, 1998 ; Hough, Eaton, Dunnette, Kamp, & McCloy, 1990 ; Hough & Oswald, 2008 ; Hough & Oswald, 2011; Ones, Viswesvaran, & Reiss, 1996 ). Furthermore, it is possible that these individuals may be better at impression management, which is important for effective leadership.

Protocol Followers, the second most prevalent class, tended to be emotionally stable and conscientious yet performed lower on Defining the Strategy and Executing the Strategy. This class of leaders, on average, was moderately good at forging interpersonal relationships and developing others, but they do not have the skills needed to identify future directions for the organization and drive those changes.

The third most prevalent class, Creative Communicators, tended to be very social and open to new ideas but somewhat less diligent in their actions. Their personality tendencies come across in their performance as they exceled in Building Partnerships and Translating the Message but were less skilled in developing and implementing strategies. Thus, this class of leaders may be instrumental in gaining appeal from followers for new innovations but because they are less diligent, they may not do as well in strategy formation and implementation.

The final three classes demonstrated more complex relationships with the performance factors. Unpredictable Leaders, who tended to be less stable and agreeable, did not perform as well in formulating and implementing strategies. Additionally, Conscientious, Backend Leaders, who tended to be stable and diligent yet less agreeable and social, were adept at developing and acting on strategies but did not excel at conveying the message or gaining mass appeal. These leaders are much more pragmatic and less likely to come across as charismatic and persuasive. Finally, Unpredictable Leaders with Low Diligence lacked skills in networking and communication and also tended to be less emotionally stable, agreeable, and conscientious. In turn, they may not be perceived as appealing and therefore may be unable to win relationships and persuade others.

Despite the sample being executive leaders and having several years of experience in management positions, the six profiles varied in the degree to which they were effective in the three performance factors. The magnitude between the performance factors varied relative to each other suggesting leaders can be effective in one area, but not necessarily another area. All of these leaders have learned how to be at least minimally effective in their roles in order to advance in their careers. Therefore, it is quite possible these leaders may have learned how to successfully leverage their strengths and downplay their weaknesses. Additionally, leadership is not only about the individual. Rather, leaders are a part of a broader team and organization. Leaders who are able to surround themselves by individuals who can make up for their limitations may be more successful on the job.

Implications

The results from this study have several theoretical and practical implications for leadership and personality research. Regarding theoretical implications, this study helped to elucidate how personality, when examined holistically, relates to assessment center-based leadership. There have been several calls to examine combinations of personality traits, as opposed to studying traits individually ( Barrick & Mount, 2005 ); this study answers this call. Furthermore, this research found that there is not one profile of a leader. Rather, many different personality compositions make up leaders, some of which are more effective than others. Each profile has different strengths and weaknesses across a range of performance criteria. Examining personality holistically, and how personality profiles relate to multiple performance criteria, helped to tease apart this complex relationship.

Regarding practical implications, this study highlights some of the important personality patterns of leaders and their resulting performance. These combinations can then be used as a supplement for personnel selection. While the use of personality for selection has been met with some controversy, if personality is matched for the purposes of the specific situation, then it may add value to the selection system (e.g., Morgeson et al., 2007a ; Morgeson et al., 2007b ; Murphy & Dzieweczynski, 2005 ; Ones, Dilchert Viswesvaran & Judge, 2007 ). For example, if an organization is seeking a leader who can build networks and gain acceptance from employees on new changes occurring, then it may be important to focus on finding Creative Communicators. Alternatively, if an organization is seeking a leader who can develop a new vision for the future and execute that vision, then an organization may be better suited to identify Conscientious, Backend Leaders.

Some organizations might be tempted to use personality profiles to screen out leaders who do not seem to fit the ideal personality profile for a specific position. While there is some merit to this approach, a more balanced approach combines data from measures of personality, behavior, experience, and motivation ( Barrick & Mount, 2005 ). This holistic view recognizes that high levels of motivation or practice can overcome natural tendencies inherent in personality styles. A good example would be a Conscientious Backend leader who is introverted, but pushes oneself to network with others in an effort to further one’s career. While many organizations seek streamlined and low-cost selection methods, they will likely miss out on strong candidates if they rely too much on personality measures to drive their decisions.

This study also questions the conventional belief that one leader is best suited to perform all job duties. While one leadership class, Power Players, excelled in all performance factors, the remainder of the classes displayed both strengths and weaknesses across the criteria. This highlights the notion that one leader may not always be appropriate. Rather, dual leadership may be more instrumental for the success of the organization. Although the importance of dual leadership has been acknowledged when leading for innovation ( Hunter, Cushenbery, Fairchild, & Boatman, 2012 ), it may also be relevant in other situations. For example, if an organization is unable to find a well-qualified Power Player, then it may be an equally good alternative to hire a Conscientious, Backend Leader and a Creative Communicator. Alternatively, a leader with specific tendencies may create a team of strong players who are able to supplement or compensate for the leader’s shortcomings ( Humphrey, Hollenbeck, Meyer, & Ilgen, 2007 ). Imagine an Unpredictable Leader with Low Diligence who surrounds himself with emotionally stable, conscientious team members. By openly sharing personality profiles, team members can work together to counterbalance each other and stay on track. This “Great Team” model of leadership provides an interesting contrast to those who may subscribe to the “Great Man” hypothesis.

Additionally, this study provides insights for leadership development. Knowing to what personality class leaders belong may aid in identifying developmental opportunities for improving the leader’s skills. For example, Conscientious, Backend Leaders should engage in developmental opportunities that will help them to develop their communication, coaching, and persuasion skills. An awareness of potential weaknesses in leadership performance provides an opportunity to preemptively build and develop relevant skills.

Finally, the personality profiles in the study might help to identify leaders with high potential who have not yet had the opportunity to demonstrate their skills. For example, organizations can attempt to identify associates in a group of engineers with a Power Player personality profile. This undiscovered high-potential leader could be presented with special development opportunities that would give him or her the chance to gain experience and hone leadership skills over time. Personality profiling can help source succession management programs by finding future leaders with the right “DNA” to fill open positions.

Study Limitations

Despite these unique contributions, a few limitations should be noted. First, assessment center ratings of performance, rather than on-the-job performance, were utilized. However, several meta-analyses have demonstrated support for assessment centers as predictors of on-the-job performance (e.g., Arthur, Day, Mcnelly, & Edens, 2003 ; Gaugler, Rosenthal, Thornton, & Bentson, 1987 ). Also, the activities in the assessment center were created to mimic on-the-job exercises and, therefore, provide a realistic view on performance. Having participants complete several exercises over the course of a full day helped to gather multiple pieces of information about the participants’ performance.

Similarly, some of the average performance scores for the leader profiles were lower, which may suggest to some that not all the leaders in the sample were effective. However, it is often the case that in assessment centers focused on development, scores tend to be lower ( Thornton & Rupp, 2006 ). Furthermore, assessment center ratings tend to balance criterion-referenced ratings with norm-referenced behavior. This implies that performance in the assessment center is not only being compared to an average leader, but rather the ratings also consider what is the “gold standard” for leadership performance. For example, research shows that most leaders struggle with common skills like execution, defining a strategy, and coaching ( Paese, 2013 ). As such, lower scores, especially in these areas, do not necessarily indicate that the leader is less than effective, but rather confirms that most leaders struggle with some of these competencies.

Additionally, the reliabilities for the performance factors were lower than optimal. Reliability, however, generally acts as a suppressor of validity, suggesting that the results may serve as a lower bound estimate of effects ( Greer, Dunlap, & Hunter, 2006 ). Thus, while our results are on the conservative side, they can be considered meaningful because lower reliabilities make it more challenging to identify significant results.

Finally, this sample included executive-level leaders who had on average 14 years of experience. Even though we found support that our personality profiles hold true across a broader sample of leaders with less experience, the relationship to performance is focused solely on leader effectiveness, rather than leader emergence. It would be important to examine another sample of leaders with less tenure to identify how emergent leaders perform on these criteria.

Future Recommendations and Conclusions

The results and limitations from this study highlight the need to continue research in this area. While the majority of research examining personality and leadership effectiveness has focused on traits individually, there has been increasing attention and interest in examining personality holistically. Leadership research would benefit from broader use of a person-oriented approach to examine personality typologies in order to better understand leadership profiles and their associated effectiveness. This method accepts the notion that personality is complex and therefore may illuminate how personality traits interact with each other to form a profile. Thus, future research using LCA to examine personality and leadership effectiveness is warranted.

First, it would be important to replicate these results using another sample. In particular, we encourage examining objective performance or on-the-job performance measures to see whether any differences emerge. Additionally, it would be interesting to determine whether these profiles of leadership quantitatively or qualitatively differ across leader levels. It may be the case that executives may comprise a greater proportion of leaders with a particular personality profile compared to operational leaders. Furthermore, it may be interesting to identify whether the extent to which individual characteristics are associated with personality profiles or, perhaps more interestingly, whether links between personality profile and leadership performance differ across gender or leader levels.

Furthermore, recognizing the complexity of leadership, it will be also important to examine how various situational factors influence the relationship between the personality profiles and performance. For example, climate stability or culture may impact which type of leader excels. Additionally, taking a more macro-perspective, it would be interesting to learn how having different leader profiles affects organizational performance.

In conclusion, this study provides preliminary evidence for summarizing the synergistic relationship between distinct personality profiles of leaders and their associated performance on three factors. It is essential that we recognize the many pathways to successful leadership, whether we are considering personality or behavioral style. It is our hope that this study is a step in this direction and, more importantly, that it compels others to take similar steps.

Contributor Information

Alissa D. Parr, Select International.

Stephanie T. Lanza, Pennsylvania State University.

Paul Bernthal, Development Dimensions International.

• Antonakis J, Day DV, Schyns B. Leadership and individual differences: At the cusp of a renaissance. The Leadership Quarterly. 2012; 23 :643–650. [ Google Scholar ]
• Arthur W, Day D, McNelly TL, Edens PS. A meta-analysis of the criterion-related validity of assessment center dimensions. Personnel Psychology. 2003; 56 :125–513. [ Google Scholar ]
• Avolio BJ. Promoting more integrative strategies for leadership theory-building. American Psychologist. 2007; 62 :25–33. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barling J, Christie A, Hoption C. Leadership. In: Zedeck S, editor. APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Vol. 1. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2010. pp. 183–240. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barrick MR, Mount MK. Yes, personality matters: moving on to more important matters. Human Performance. 2005; 18 (4):359–372. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bass BM. Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership. New York: Free Press; 1990. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bennis WG. Leadership theory and administrative behavior: The problem of authority. Boston, MA: Boston University Human Relations Center; 1959. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carlyle T. On heroes, hero-worship, and the heroic in history. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; 1907. [ Google Scholar ]
• Collins LM, Lanza ST. Latent class and latent transition analysis for applications in the social, behavioral, and health sciences. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Costa PT, McCrae RR. Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources; 1992. [ Google Scholar ]
• DeRue DS, Hahrgang JD, Wellman N, Humphrey SE. Trait and behavioral theories of leadership: An integration and meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Personnel Psychology. 2011; 64 :7–52. [ Google Scholar ]
• DeYoung CG, Peterson JB, Higgins DM. Higher-order factors of the Big Five predict conformity: Are there neuroses of health? Personality and Individual Differences. 2002; 33 :533–552. [ Google Scholar ]
• Digman JM. Personality structure: Emergence of the five- factor model. Annual Review of Psychology. 1990; 41 :417–440. [ Google Scholar ]
• Digman JM. Higher-order factors of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1997; 73 :1246–1256. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gaugler BB, Rosenthal DB, Thornton GC, Bentson C. Meta-analysis of assessment center validity. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1987; 72 :493–511. [ Google Scholar ]
• Greer T, Dunlap WP, Hunter ST. The effects of skew on internal consistency. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2006; 91 :1351–1358. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hernandez M, Eberly MB, Avolio BJ, Johnson MD. The loci and mechanisms of leadership: Exploring a more comprehensive view of leadership theory. The Leadership Quarterly. 2011; 22 :1165–1185. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hogan R, Hogan J. Hogan personality inventory manual. 2nd. Tulsa: Hogan Assessment Systems; 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hogan R, Hogan J. Hogan personality inventory manual. 3rd. Tulsa: Hogan Assessment Systems; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hogan J, Hogan R, Kaiser RB. Management derailment: Personality assessment and mitigation. In: Zedeck S, editor. American Psychological Association handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hogan J, Holland B. Using theory to evaluate personality and job-performance: A socioanalytic perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2003; 88 :100–112. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hough LM. Effects of intentional distortion in personality measurement and evaluation of suggested palliatives. Human Performance. 1998; 11 :209–214. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hough LM, Eaton NL, Dunnette MD, Kamp JD, McCloy RA. Criterion-related validities of personality constructs and the effect of response distortion on those validities [Monograph] Journal of Applied Psychology. 1990; 75 :581–595. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hough LM, Oswald FL. Personality testing and industrial-organizational psychology: Reflections, progress, and prospects. Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 2008; 1 :272–290. [ Google Scholar ]
• Humphrey SE, Hollenbeck JR, Meyer CJ, Ilgen DR. Trait configurations in self-managed teams: A conceptual examination of the use of seeding for maximizing and minimizing trait variance in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2007; 92 (3):885–892. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hunter ST, Cushenbery L, Fairchild J, Boatman J. Partnerships in leading for innovation: A dyadic model of collective leadership. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice. 2012; 5 :424–428. [ Google Scholar ]
• Judge TA, Bono JE, Ilies R, Gerhardt MW. Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2002; 87 :765–780. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaiser RB, Hogan J. Personality, leader behavior, and overdoing it. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research. 2011; 63 :219–242. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lanza ST, Collins LM, Lemmon DR, Schafer JL. PROC LCA: A SAS procedure for latent class analysis. Structural Equation Modeling. 2007; 14 (4):671–694. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lanza ST, Dziak JJ, Huang L, Wagner AT, Collins LM. Proc LCA & Proc LTA users' guide (Version 1.3.0) University Park: The Methodology Center, Penn State; 2013. Available from http://methodology.psu.edu . [ Google Scholar ]
• Lanza ST, Tan X, Bray BC. Latent class analysis with distal outcomes: A flexible model-based approach. Structural Equation Modeling. 2013; 20 :1–20. NIHMS ID: NIHMS591510. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lipman-Blumen J. The allure of toxic leaders: Why we follow destructive bosses and corrupt politicians--and how we can survive them. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lord RG, De Vader CL, Alliger GM. A meta-analysis of the relation between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity generalization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1986; 71 :402–410. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mann RD. A review of the relationships between personality and performance in small groups. Psychological Bulletin. 1959; 56 :241–270. [ Google Scholar ]
• McCrae RR, Costa PT. Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1987; 52 :81–90. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Merz EL, Roesch SC. A latent profile analysis of the Five Factor Model of personality: Modeling trait interactions. Personality and Individual Differences. 2011; 51 :915–919. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morgeson FP, Campion MA, Dipboye RL, Hollenbeck JR, Murphy K, Schmitt N. Are we getting fooled again? Coming to terms with limitations in the use of personality tests for personnel selection. Personnel Psychology. 2007a; 60 :1029–1049. [ Google Scholar ]
• Morgeson FP, Campion MA, Dipboye RL, Hollenbeck JR, Murphy KR, Schmitt N. Reconsidering the use of personality tests in personnel selection contexts. Personnel Psychology. 2007b; 60 :683–729. [ Google Scholar ]
• Murphy KR, Dzieweczynski JL. Why don’t measures of broad dimensions of personality perform better as predictors of job performance? Human Performance. 2005; 18 :343–357. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ones D, Dilchert C, Viswesvaran C, Judge T. In support of personality assessment in organizational settings. Personnel Psychology. 2007; 60 :995–1027. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ones DS, Viswesvaran C, Dilchert S. Personality at work: Raising awareness and correcting misconceptions. Human Performance. 2005; 18 (4):389–404. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ones DS, Viswesvaran C, Reiss AD. Role of social desirability in personality testing for personnel selection: The red herring. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1996; 81 :660–679. [ Google Scholar ]
• Oswald FL, Hough LM. Personality and its assessment in organizations: Theoretical and empirical developments. In: Zedeck S, editor. APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Vol. 2. Washington DC: American Psychological Association; 2011. pp. 153–184. [ Google Scholar ]
• Paese M. Leadership insights: A 10-year culmination of executive analytics. Development Dimensions International; 2013. (White Paper) [ Google Scholar ]
• Salgado JF, Moscoso S, Alonso P. Subdimensional structure of the Hogan Personality Inventory. International Journal of Selection and Assessment. 2013; 21 :277–285. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schmitt N. Personality and cognitive ability as predictors of effective performance at work. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology & Organizational Behavior. 2014; 1 :45–65. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stogdill RM. Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology. 1948; 25 :35–71. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stogdill RM. Handbook of leadership. New York: Free Press; 1974. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tannenbaum S. A strategic view of organizational training and learning. In: Kraiger K, editor. Creating, implementing, and managing effective training and development. Jossey-Bass; 2002. pp. 10–52. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thornton GC, Rupp DE. Assessment centers in human resource management. New York: Psychology Press; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Van der Linden D, te Nijenhuis JT, Bakker AB. The general factor of personality: a meta-analysis of Big Five intercorrelations and a criterion-related validity study. Journal of Research on Personality. 2010; 44 :315–325. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang M, Hanges PJ. Latent class procedures: Applications to organizational research. Organizational Research Methods. 2011; 14 :24–33. [ Google Scholar ]

Original text

Effective leadership is a cornerstone of success in any organization, driving growth, innovation, and employee engagement. Developing leadership skills implies more than acquiring knowledge; it requires nurturing qualities that inspire and motivate others. Whether you're a seasoned leader or aspiring to become one, comprehending the key attributes of effective leadership is essential. We will delve into the critical qualities of effective leaders, explore strategies for nurturing these attributes, and offer practical insights for personal and professional development. Additionally, leaders in digital marketing can significantly benefit from leveraging white label SEO services to enhance their team's capabilities and deliver comprehensive solutions to clients.

Understanding Leadership

Leadership involves guiding, influencing, and inspiring others to achieve common goals. It involves setting a vision, motivating team members, and fostering collaboration and trust. Effective leaders possess a blend of personal qualities and professional skills that enable them to navigate challenges, make knowledgeable decisions, and drive organizational success. Comprehending the multifaceted nature of leadership is the first step toward developing the skills paramount to lead effectively.

Cultivating Emotional Intelligence

Emotional intelligence (EI) is a foundational quality of effective leadership. It involves the ability to recognize, understand, and manage one's own emotions, as well as the emotions of others. Leaders with high emotional intelligence can build strong relationships, manage stress, and resolve conflicts effectively. Cultivating EI implicates self-awareness, self-regulation, empathy, and social skills. By developing emotional intelligence, leaders can create a positive work environment, foster collaboration, and enhance team performance.

Building Communication Skills

Clear and effective communication is paramount for successful leadership. Leaders must convey their vision, expectations, and feedback in a manner that is comprehended and accepted by their team. Building communication skills implicates active listening, clarity in messaging, and adapting communication styles to different audiences. Effective leaders use communication to build trust, align team members with organizational goals, and foster an open and inclusive culture.

Developing Decision-Making Abilities

Decision-making is a critical aspect of leadership. Leaders must often make tough choices under pressure, balancing short-term needs with long-term goals. Developing decision-making abilities involves gathering and analyzing information, considering various perspectives, and assessing potential outcomes. Effective leaders are decisive yet flexible, willing to adjust their approach based on new information or changing circumstances. Leaders can navigate complexities and guide their teams toward success by honing their decision-making skills.

Fostering a Growth Mindset

A growth mindset is the belief that abilities and intelligence can be developed through dedication and hard work. Leaders with a growth mindset embrace challenges, comprehend failures, and persist in facing setbacks. Fostering a growth mindset implicates encouraging continuous learning, seeking feedback, and viewing obstacles as opportunities for growth. By cultivating this mindset, leaders can inspire their teams to strive for excellence, innovate, and achieve their full potential.

Encouraging Collaboration and Teamwork

Effective leaders understand the power of collaboration and teamwork. They create an environment where team members feel valued, respected, and empowered to contribute their ideas and skills. Encouraging collaboration implicates building a culture of trust, facilitating open communication, and recognizing the strengths of each team member. Leaders who foster teamwork can harness their team's collective intelligence, drive creativity, and achieve better results.

Enhancing Problem-Solving Skills

Problem-solving is essential for leaders, enabling them to address challenges and find effective solutions. Enhancing problem-solving skills implicates critical thinking, creativity, and analyzing situations from multiple perspectives. Leaders must be able to identify root causes, develop actionable plans, and implement solutions efficiently. By improving their problem-solving abilities, leaders can navigate obstacles, drive progress, and support their team's success.

Nurturing Creativity and Innovation

Creativity and innovation are vital for organizational growth and competitiveness. Leaders play a key role in nurturing a culture that encourages creative thinking and innovation. This implies providing experimentation opportunities, supporting risk-taking, and recognizing and rewarding innovative ideas. By fostering an environment where creativity thrives, leaders can drive continuous improvement, inspire their teams, and usher their organizations toward new opportunities and successes.

Developing Conflict Resolution Skills

Conflict is a natural part of any team dynamic, and effective leaders must be adept at resolving conflicts constructively. Developing conflict resolution skills involves comprehending the underlying issues, facilitating open communication, and finding mutually beneficial solutions. Leaders who handle conflicts with empathy and fairness can maintain a positive team atmosphere, stem disruptions, and strengthen relationships. Leaders can ensure a harmonious and productive work environment by mastering conflict resolution.

Encouraging Accountability

Accountability is a key component of effective leadership. Leaders must hold themselves and their team members accountable for their actions and performance. Encouraging accountability implicates setting clear expectations, providing regular feedback, and fostering a culture of responsibility. Leaders who emphasize accountability can drive high performance, ensure alignment with organizational goals, and build a sense of ownership and commitment within their team.

Inspiring Vision and Purpose

A compelling vision and a sense of purpose are paramount for motivating and guiding a team. Effective leaders articulate a clear, inspiring vision aligning with the organization's values and goals. They communicate this vision with passion and conviction, helping team members comprehend their role in achieving it. By inspiring vision and purpose, leaders can unite their team around common goals, foster a sense of meaning, and drive collective effort toward success.

Fostering Adaptability and Flexibility

In a rapidly changing world, adaptability and flexibility are paramount leadership qualities. Leaders must respond to new challenges, opportunities, and environmental shifts. Fostering adaptability implies being open to change, embracing new ideas, and continuously learning. Flexible leaders can effectively adjust their strategies, innovate, and usher their teams through transitions. By cultivating adaptability, leaders can ensure their organization remains resilient and competitive in the face of change.

Building Trust and Credibility

Trust and credibility are fundamental to effective leadership. Leaders must earn the trust of their team through consistent actions, honesty, and integrity. Building trust implicates being transparent, keeping commitments, and demonstrating genuine concern for the well-being of team members. Credible leaders are respected and followed willingly, making motivating and guiding their team easier. Leaders can build strong, cohesive teams and drive organizational success by fostering trust and credibility.

Leveraging Technology and Innovation

In today's digital age, leveraging technology and innovation is paramount for effective leadership. Leaders must stay informed about technological advancements and comprehend how to integrate them into their organization's operations. Leveraging technology involves using tools and systems to enhance productivity, communication, and decision-making. Innovative leaders seek out new technologies that can drive efficiency and competitiveness. By embracing technology, leaders can usher their organization into the future and maintain a competitive edge.

Encouraging Diversity and Inclusion

Diversity and inclusion are paramount for fostering innovation, creativity, and a positive work environment. Effective leaders recognize the value of diverse perspectives and create an inclusive culture where everyone feels valued and respected. Encouraging diversity implicates actively seeking out diverse talent, promoting inclusive practices, and addressing biases. Leaders championing diversity and inclusion can build stronger teams, enhance problem-solving, and drive better decision-making. By fostering an inclusive environment, leaders can ensure that their organization thrives and benefits from various ideas and experiences.

Leading Through Change

Change is inevitable in any organization, and effective leaders must be able to usher their teams through transitions successfully. Leading through change involves clear communication, empathy, and a strategic approach. Leaders must help their team understand the reasons for change, address concerns, and provide support throughout the process. By fostering a positive attitude toward change and demonstrating resilience, leaders can smoothly guide their teams through transitions and maintain morale. Effective change leadership ensures the organization remains agile and ready to adapt to new challenges and opportunities.

Building a Positive Organizational Culture

A positive organizational culture is paramount for employee satisfaction, engagement, and productivity. Leaders play a paramount role in shaping and maintaining this culture. Building a positive culture involves promoting core values, recognizing achievements, and fostering a sense of community. Leaders must direct by example, demonstrating the behaviors and attitudes they wish to see in their team. By creating a supportive and positive work environment, leaders can enhance employee well-being, drive high performance, and ensure long-term success.

Developing leadership skills is a continuous journey that involves nurturing key qualities such as emotional intelligence, communication, decision-making, and resilience. Effective leaders inspire and motivate their teams, foster collaboration, and drive organizational success. By understanding and cultivating these paramount attributes, leaders can enhance their personal and professional growth and lead their organizations toward triumph. Whether you're an aspiring leader or looking to improve your leadership abilities, focusing on these qualities will help you build a strong foundation for effective leadership.

Copyright © 2024 SCORE Association, SCORE.org

Funded, in part, through a Cooperative Agreement with the U.S. Small Business Administration. All opinions, and/or recommendations expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the SBA.

• English | en
• Spanish | ES
• French | FR
• German | DE
• Portuguese | PT
• Chinese | ZH
• Japanese | JA

Developing Leaders Who Can Navigate Crises and Disruption

Explore the characteristics of a change-ready leader and the six degrees of leadership for navigating disruption.

In a disruptive climate shaped by rapid digital transformation and economic volatility, what is the single most critical factor that determines an organization's resilience and performance? 

While robust supply chains and healthy cash reserves are essential, the true differentiator often lies in the quality of leadership. At Korn Ferry, we recognize that adaptable, agile leadership isn’t merely about steering through challenges—it’s about transforming these challenges into strategic opportunities.

When considering Leadership Development  solutions, it is crucial that these programs are crafted to empower leaders at all levels not only to survive, but also to thrive amidst change. 

The Need for Adaptable Leadership

Adaptable leadership enables organizations to seize change as an opportunity to revolutionize their business. Without it, the impacts of disruptive change are immediate and tangible —plummeting performance, employee and customer attrition, and competitors drawing further ahead.  

There is a pressing urgency for adaptable leadership in an environment of relentless, disorienting change and complexity. Our survey revealed that nearly 66% of leaders listed agility and openness to change as critical, while over 33% stressed the need for organizational agility in a disrupted world. 76% of participants would prioritize adapting to ever-changing socio-political expectations, addressing the escalating climate crisis, and keeping up with technological advancements. But do they possess the skillset to do so?

Our research into the evolution of leadership found that change-ready leaders know how to collaborate across the business, embrace continuous learning, and listen to their employees. They make bold decisions when necessary, focusing on creating an environment of trust and resilience, and possess a clear vision for the future.

Examples of change-ready leadership in action can be found everywhere. Look at Apple as an example, moving quickly to shift its supply chains away from China , Intel and Google’s bold move to challenge Nvidia’s AI chip tech dominance, and online learning platform Duolingo pivoting rapidly to generative AI and GPT-4. At the other end of the spectrum, lessons can be gleaned from companies that lacked the boldness, speed, and adaptable leadership to survive change: Blockbuster, Blackberry, Kodak, and others.

What Characteristics Should Adaptable CEOs and Leaders Have?

Adaptable leaders move with speed and boldness. But what are the characteristics that enable them to do so? Our research suggests four key dimensions to change-readiness: clarity of purpose, learning agility, empathy and inclusivity, and agile leadership.  

Clarity of Purpose

Clarity of purpose is about foresight. 63% of the CEOs we assessed as successful  Enterprise Leaders  have a very clear, well-articulated strategic vision. 74% told us that having a genuine sense of mission and purpose was a vital trait—and it makes leaders more resilient, too. Change-ready leaders not only need a clear vision for the future; they must become visionaries within their organizations, inspiring and energizing others during uncertain times.

Learning Agility

There’s little point in developing change-readiness if the business is continually blindsided by changes it failed to see coming. Learning agility is vital for leaders to stay informed and get ahead of rapidly evolving trends, spot risks and opportunities, and act decisively before it’s too late. A hunger for continuous learning will help leaders extract key lessons from every experience and translate this knowledge into actionable insights. Right now, learning agility is proving an essential attribute for change-ready leaders who are moving fast to embrace Generative AI.

Empathy and Inclusivity

Being a leader in disruptive times also demands empathy, compassion, and understanding. It requires leaders to meet others where they are now with humility and authenticity. Conscious inclusion is promoted by bringing everyone to the table so they can listen, learn, and then lead the organization through change.

Agile Leadership

Finally, agile leadership means embracing new behaviors, skills, and approaches among leaders who must be quick to respond, resilient, and adaptable. Change-ready leaders should also be aware of their own attitude towards change and how it affects them. 76% of leaders told us that having the mental capacity to effectively manage whatever comes—like technological change or climate crisis—will be critical in the future. 

Ranging from immersive one-on-one executive coaching to self-directed, scalable development, our  Leadership Development  solutions are built to develop agile leaders who can navigate their teams through change. Our unique methodologies and frameworks can benchmark, assess, and develop these keys to adaptable leadership through solutions ranging from  leadership accelerators to executive coaching, along with our dedicated solution for developing change-ready leaders .

• Leadership Development

Leaders who can tap into the power of all

Six Degrees of Leadership for Navigating Disruption 

Taking a step back will help leaders consider their organization’s readiness to adapt to change. Can decision-makers navigate a potential crisis or disruption? How well and how rapidly did the organization respond to a recent crisis such as the pandemic, or to a technological disruption such as GenAI? It is important to consider the readiness of not just the senior leadership team, but leaders at every level of the organization including middle managers and first-timers.  

We have the expertise and solutions to help build organizational leadership adaptability. From deeply customized immersive experiences for CEOs to self-directed, scalable development for first-line managers and everything in between, we create powerful learning journeys and personalized coaching solutions. Our development journeys concentrate on the unique skills and tools needed to navigate crises and disruption. We tie assessment, development, and coaching together to deliver personalized journeys at scale, making for an easy learning experience for employees and their managers. 

For example, our  Six Degrees of Leadership for a Challenging World  is a  Leadership U  solution developed for mid-level managers, first-time managers, and high potentials. This learning framework directly targets leadership adaptability to help develop a pipeline of change-ready leaders with the following six “degrees”:  

• Anticipate:  Foreseeing what lies ahead amid ambiguity and uncertainty. For example, a mid-level manager might anticipate the urgent need for Generative AI training in their team to remain relevant and competitive as the technology becomes more widely adopted.  
• Navigate:  Course-correcting in real time to keep the organization on an even keel. A first-time manager, for example, will need to develop their powers of persuasion and influence to help overcome organizational inertia in the face of change.  
• Communication:  Constantly connecting with others; the leader is both the messenger and the message. For example, a leader tasked with implementing a new set of organizational values should ensure that they not only communicate the reasons for the change but should lead through example and embody the change in their own behaviors.   
• Listen:  Breaking down the organizational hierarchy to gather insights at all levels―especially viewpoints the leader doesn’t want to hear. This can be a significant mindset shift for leaders used to top-down managerial styles, but listening to others will enable course-correction by hearing directly from the people most impacted by the change.  
• Learn:  Applying learning agility to “know what to do when you don’t know what to do”. Learning agility will help new leaders find their feet in their new roles faster, learning from their mistakes and adding value to the organization by getting ahead of trends.  
• Lead:  Empowering others in a bottom-up culture that is more nimble, agile, innovative, and entrepreneurial than ever before. Leaders can build a resilient and change-ready team by making space for innovation, listening to feedback, empowering others to contribute, and creating an environment of psychological safety.  

Assess and Develop Your Adaptable Leadership Today

The current rapid pace of change is not just a blip—it’s the new business-as-usual, which is why adaptable leadership has moved from a desirable to critical skillset at every level. Organizations need to know if their leaders possess the agile traits that will make them motivated and successful, no matter what challenges lie ahead. 

Our integrated development journeys focus on the unique skills and tools needed for leaders facing uncertainty, ambiguity, and disruption. Starting with our  Success Profiles , we enable organizations to understand “what good looks like”, assess where their leadership is now, make learning stick with personalized journeys, and make it easy to access and scale for leaders at every level.  Talk to a Leadership & Professional Development expert today .

Key takeaways

• The pressing need for adaptable leadership in the face of change 
• Which characteristics a change-ready leader should possess 
• The six degrees of leadership for navigating disruption

Featured insights

• More Online, More Harassment?
• Taking Charge?
• Different Styles (of Leadership) for Different Times
• Making Inspiration Our Aspiration

Related Capabilities

Related Insights

Coaching at Scale for High-Potential Employees

High-potential employees should not be taken for granted. Consider coaching to help them feel valued and prepared to travel up the leadership pipeline. 

8 Pain Points Facing Learning and Development Leadership

Getting Leadership Development right and focusing on leadership pain points will unlock transformative leadership and other benefits.

Leadership Strategy Handbook for Navigating Change

Discover how to lead your organization through change with Korn Ferry’s eBook on leadership strategy.

Insights to your inbox

Stay on top of the latest leadership news with This Week in Leadership - delivered weekly to your inbox.

Korn Ferry Pay: The Full Picture of Pay at Your Fingertips

Korn Ferry Pay enables you to effectively manage your compensation programs, so you can attract and retain the best talent and achieve your organizational goals.

• Capabilities
• Business Transformation
• Organization Strategy
• Total Rewards
• Assessment & Succession
• Talent Acquisition
• Leadership & Professional Development
• Intelligence Cloud
• Consumer Markets
• Financial Services
• Healthcare & Life Sciences
• Specialties
• Board & CEO Services
• Corporate Affairs
• Cybersecurity
• FInancial Services
• Human Resources
• Information Technology
• Risk Management
• Supply Chain
• Sustainability
• Korn Ferry Architect
• Korn Ferry Assess
• Korn Ferry Listen
• Korn Ferry Pay
• Korn Ferry Sell
• Jobs with our clients
• Advance your career
• Join Korn Ferry
• Find a consultant
• Find an office
• Business impact
• Investor relations
• Press releases

© Korn Ferry. All rights reserved.

Terms of Use

Cookie Settings

Do Not Sell My Info

AI in Employee Development: How AI Can Help Identify and Train Valuable Employees

A I rapidly transforms business decision-making by providing data-driven insights that reveal patterns and predict outcomes more accurately than traditional methods. Its ability to analyze vast amounts of employee data allows businesses to uncover high-potential employees by identifying traits, behaviors, and skills that correlate with strong performance and leadership qualities.

Companies can ensure a robust leadership pipeline by investing in AI-driven talent development. It drives innovation, improves retention rates and fosters a culture of continuous growth, leading to long-term business success.

How AI helps businesses identify high-potential employees

Identifying high-potential employees is crucial for building a resilient and innovative workforce. Here’s how businesses can leverage AI to reveal emerging leaders with the most significant growth potential.

1. Predictive analytics for employee potential

Using AI to analyze historical data, businesses can predict which employees will most likely excel in leadership roles. AI models can identify traits and performance patterns among successful leaders to help organizations tailor their talent strategies.

A proactive approach is important as experts predict that 97 million new roles may emerge by 2025 due to the shifting labor landscape between humans, machines and algorithms. Leveraging these insights can efficiently identify and prepare the next generation of leaders. It ensures a seamless transition and a robust leadership pipeline.

2. Behavioral analysis and personality traits

Natural language processing (NLP) allows businesses to analyze employees’ emails, performance reviews and other communications to uncover valuable insights about individual strengths, weaknesses and leadership potential. By understanding patterns in language, sentiment and tone, NLP can reveal critical behavioral and personality traits that contribute to high performance.

This analysis helps companies identify emerging talent who demonstrate initiative, collaboration and problem-solving skills. It enables more accurate assessments and personalized development strategies to nurture future leaders.

3. Skill gap analysis

Implementing AI-driven assessments allows businesses to uncover employees with untapped skills and the potential for future growth by analyzing their performance, skills and interests. These evaluations help organizations identify overlooked talent, providing personalized career development and training recommendations.

Such insights are crucial, given that a Pew study found that 63% of workers who quit a job cited a lack of advancement opportunities as a reason. Utilizing AI for skill identification fosters an environment where employees feel recognized and supported in their career paths. It reduces turnover and builds a more engaged, growth-oriented workforce.

4. Social network analysis

Businesses can identify employees who build relationships and influence their peers by analyzing internal collaboration networks. AI can map out these networks through communication platforms and project management systems to uncover influencers who foster teamwork, drive projects and bridge knowledge gaps.

This insight helps organizations recognize natural leaders and who are well-positioned to advance into leadership roles. Identifying these network connectors enables companies to cultivate a supportive environment where influential employees can leverage their relationship-building strengths for broader organizational impact.

5. Pattern recognition in performance metrics

Utilizing AI to identify consistent patterns among top performers in productivity, quality, and innovation enables businesses to pinpoint essential attributes contributing to success. By analyzing vast amounts of employee data, AI models can recognize trends in behavior, skills and work habits. It distinguishes high achievers, offering actionable insights into nurturing similar qualities across the workforce.

Developing high-potential employees with AI

Developing high-potential employees cultivates a dynamic and innovative workforce. Here’s how businesses can create tailored development programs with AI that maximize each employee’s strengths.

1. Personalized training and development programs

AI-based learning platforms can tailor learning paths that adapt to employees' unique needs and strengths. These platforms analyze individual performance data to provide personalized training modules that address specific skill gaps or build on existing expertise.

This targeted approach ensures employees receive relevant, engaging content that accelerates their professional development. Customizing the learning experience fosters a culture of continuous improvement. It empowers high-potential employees to reach their full potential and contribute to the company’s overall success.

2. Mentorship matching

With data-driven compatibility analysis, matching high-potential employees with suitable mentors allows businesses to foster meaningful and impactful relationships. In this process, algorithms consider professional expertise, industry interests and career aspirations to develop mentor-mentee matches that align with both parties’ goals.

This strategy ensures employees receive guidance from mentors who can offer relevant insights and support based on shared experiences and compatible interests. Leveraging these tailored matches can accelerate talent growth. It ensures high-potential employees receive the mentorship necessary to thrive in their careers.

3. Career pathway optimization

Providing data-backed career path recommendations helps businesses align employee growth with organizational needs while recognizing individual strengths. AI tools can analyze skills, interests, and performance metrics to map out potential career paths that best suit an employee's abilities and aspirations.

These recommendations ensure employees pursue roles where they can excel and meaningfully contribute to the company’s goals. This strategic alignment benefits both parties: employees find rewarding growth opportunities and companies gain a more engaged workforce ready to tackle evolving business challenges.

4. Engagement analysis and retention strategies

AI helps businesses monitor employee engagement, predict turnover risks, and suggest targeted interventions to boost retention. Analyzing communication patterns, productivity data, and feedback can identify early signs of disengagement. It allows managers to address issues before they lead to turnover.

This feature is critical, given that global employee disengagement generates a staggering $8.8 trillion loss in productivity annually. With AI insights, companies can implement personalized strategies like recognition programs, flexible work arrangements, or tailored career development opportunities. It reengages employees and fosters a more committed, productive workforce.

5. Performance coaching and feedback

AI-driven feedback tools provide businesses with continuous, real-time performance insights and coaching suggestions tailored to each employee. Analyzing work patterns, task completion rates and collaborative behaviors delivers specific, actionable advice. It helps individuals refine their skills and address areas needing improvement.

This immediate feedback allows employees to adjust quickly and enhance their performance and productivity. Organizations also benefit from these insights by better understanding team dynamics and refining their training programs to support employees in meeting their goals more effectively.

Maximizing workforce potential through AI strategies

Businesses that implement AI-driven strategies to identify and develop high-potential employees, can unlock the full potential of their workforce. By leveraging AI tools for strategic workforce planning, leaders can ensure their organizations thrive with a well-prepared, dynamic team ready to tackle future challenges.

• Astrology News
• Horoscope News

Leo, Horoscope Today, June 1, 2024: Day of public engagement and recognition

About the Author

AstroDevam is a premium organisation providing ancient and authentic knowledge of Astrology, Vastu, Numerology, and Innovative Corporate Solutions with a contemporary perspective. AstroDevam, having patrons in more than 100 countries, has been promoted by Achary Anita Baranwal and Achary Kalki Krishnan, who not only have Master's Degrees in Astrology, but are engaged in teaching Scientific Astrology, Vastu, and Numerology for more than three decades. Read More

Visual Stories