Transformational Leadership, and the relationship to personality and job performance.

In today’s world, there is ambiguity as to why some are able to excel and reach peak performance levels, while others rarely move beyond their current capacity. Individuals that reach their maximum psychological potentials are often seldom, almost miracle like in rarity, with people such as Gandhi, Buddha, Nelson Mandela, Maya Angelou, and Mother Teresa. These varying scales of achievement, personal or otherwise can be found not only in the field in philanthropy, but in the realm of business as well. But to what extent do modern theories of motivation, such as those of Bandura, or Maslow relate to performance in the workplace? They would argue that self-efficacy and need fulfillment are key factors in affecting performance in life, and on the job. H. G. Wells said – “reasonable people adapt to the world, unreasonable ones try to change it. Human progress depends on the unreasonable ones.” Within the business world, it is often easy to spot the achievers and those that simply blend into the background of everyday life. Some individuals are simply able adapt to the tides of change within the workplace to maintain the status quo, while others seek to create the tides themselves. Those individuals create the most impact within the business world, and leave lasting impressions within their organizations.

In an article entitled “Transformational leadership, self-efficacy, group cohesiveness, commitment, and performance” by Ranjnandini Pillai, and Ethlyn A. Williams, they attempt to explain the link between Transformational leadership, self-development, and performance. They “tested a model proposing that transformational leaders build committed and high performing work groups by enhancing employee self-efficacy and cohesiveness. Questionnaires were completed by 303 fire department personnel following preliminary in-depth interviews with fire rescue personnel. After accounting for missing data, 271 responses were included in our data analysis. Results indicated support for the theoretical model in comparison to three alternative models that were considered”1 (Pillai & Williams, 2004)
“Bandura has defined perceived self-efficacy as . . . beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required in managing prospective situations. Efficacy beliefs influence how people think, feel, motivate themselves, and act”2 (Pillai & Williams, 2004). These concepts help us to understand the relationship between our belief systems, and our ability to affect change in our lives and environment. This is a crucial understanding, as individuals with high self-efficacy behave and perform drastically different from those with low self-efficacy when faced with adversity and challenge. Those with higher self-efficacy tend to double their efforts when adversity occurs, while individuals with lower self-efficacy tend to become demoralized and de-motivated. In cohesive teams, the article proposes models of transformational leadership have a direct relationship correlation with performance. The trials took place by questionnaire of several fire department employees at various levels in the organizations, asking questions related to “their ability to achieve goals using a seven point scale of agree and disagree.” (Pillai & Williams, 2004)3 “In the direct model, the parameter estimates of the paths from
transformational leadership to cohesiveness, self-efficacy, commitment and
perceptions of unit performance were 0.45 ð p , 0:001Þ; 0.18 ð p , 0:01Þ; 0.27
ð p , 0:001Þ; and 0.41 ð p , 0:001Þ; respectively. “4 (Pillai & Williams, 2004) The following model taken from the article represents the general concept and results of the trials:















5 (Pillai & Williams, 2004)


In the article “A Test of Bandura’s theory: Generalized self-efficacy and the personality traits of introversion and extroversion as measures of job performance” by James G. Hadley additionally proposed the idea that introversion and extroversion also have a role to play in job performance. These results are interesting, and show that introverts are able to master the skills and talents of extroverts, and can make decisions in a more precise and timely manor, the extroverts often find it difficult to look within to answer questions, and thus are less able to adapt.
They describe the study as “addressing Albert Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy as a general construct rather than a domain-specific trait of personality, and seeks to d determine if generalized self-efficacy (GSE) are capable of predicting job performance. The personality traits of introversion and extroversion were also measured and compared to GSE to test whether or not trait theory and social learning theory could be correlated with job performance. One hundred fifty-one subjects were given the on-line version of Keirsey Temperament Sorter II (KTS II) to determine their traits of introversion and extroversion. They were also administrated a GSE scale developed by Schwarzer and Jerusalem. Subjects were assessed on their job performance using a calibrated performance feedback assessment form at the one and two-month period.”6 (Hadley, 2003) It goes on to say “zero-order correlations and indicated that GSE and extroversion accounted for no significant variance in overall job performance. Age (r=.25, p<.01), education (r-.18,p<.05), and introversion (r=-.16,p<.05), did have a significant positive correlation to job performance. Implications from this study suggest that self-efficacy has poor utility as a general construct, but may be more effective as domain specific concept as Bandura proposed. Overall, however, personality traits appear to be weak predictors of job performance. In addition, contrary to expectations, introverts showed a higher positive correlation to job performance as measured in retraining program for internet service providers. This particular finding could suggest that introverts may be more successful in positions related to information technology that require researching and investigating customer problems, or they simply may have been highly motivated than extroverts whom trait theory would have predicted would do better. Possibly, introverts can master extroverted tasks, while extroverts are just good at being extroverts but cannot adapt as easily to the introverted environment. More research is needed to answer this question. Finally, comparing trait theory to social learning theory revealed no significant difference in predicting job performance.”7 (Hadley, 2003) As a Technical Process Analyst at a major financial institution, these results are fascinating; as I currently work within an exciting, cohesive team of high performers, lead by a Transformational Leader that innately promotes self-efficacy and dedication to the success of the project. Having spent over eight years in the industry, much of my craft involving diagramming and flowcharting, I can appreciate the visual model and correlations proposed by Transformational Leadership, and can relate to many concepts experientially. I can especially those of the introverted perspective on problem solving, as that is my primary mode of functioning and processing. I absorb the content, process it, and decide my next course of action, while some extroverts are already onto the next issue. This can sometimes cause tangents and confusion in meetings, and can often result in a lack of clarity within the team. Through observation, I notice the abrupt and almost confrontational nature of some extroverts can be a hindrance in the business world, while others simply make their opinions known, fast, furious and burnout quickly. The my experience introverts are able to emulate and decisively use those skills as well as others, to bring about optimal results, and thus produce optimal performance in all aspects of life. Achieving mastery through trial and error, processing and refinement. Continuous improvement, a cycle of constant change and optimization of life, and at the work place, as we work towards higher and higher levels of professional self-actualization as proposed by visionaries such as Maslow, and his hierarchy of needs. To conclude, who we are, how we learn, and how we behave directly relate to job performance. The striving of for peak levels of mastery and performance is a process that can perhaps take many life times. Key modes of functioning such as introversion and extroversion, concepts derived from Carl Jung’s theories can also aid this process. When combined with self-efficacy, and a willing spirit of self-development, there is no end to our accomplishments. These individuals that reach peak levels of self-actualizations can change the world like Jesus or Buddha, or conversely work for a company for 25 years in the same mundane job, fading into the background, and die with their music within them. Those with high self efficacy, especially when focused on skill development in specific areas like Technology and Customer Oriented Problem Solving, as I am in my profession, are able to utilize our introverted analytical processing like a magnifying glass, focusing our energies towards individual tasks and skills, as we continue our work of mastery. End Notes

1. Pillai, Rajnandini, Williams, Ethlyn A. (2004). Transformational leadership, self-efficacy, group cohesiveness, commitment, and performance, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17, 144.
2. Pillai, Rajnandini, Williams, Ethlyn A. (2004). Transformational leadership, self-efficacy, group cohesiveness, commitment, and performance, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17, 145.
3. Pillai, Rajnandini, Williams, Ethlyn A. (2004). Transformational leadership, self-efficacy, group cohesiveness, commitment, and performance, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17, 150.
4. Pillai, Rajnandini, Williams, Ethlyn A. (2004). Transformational leadership, self-efficacy, group cohesiveness, commitment, and performance, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17, 154.
5. Pillai, Rajnandini, Williams, Ethlyn A. (2004). Transformational leadership, self-efficacy, group cohesiveness, commitment, and performance, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17, 153.
6. Hadley , James G.(2003). A Test of Bandura’s theory: Generalized self-efficacy and the personality traits of introversion and extroversion as measures of job performance, Dissertation 1, ii
7. Hadley , James G.(2003). A Test of Bandura’s theory: Generalized self-efficacy and the personality traits of introversion and extroversion as measures of job performance, Dissertation 1, iii.