2003 IMTA Proceedings - International Military Testing Association

640
arising from small sample size (however, if values are less than p < .05, we report the lower p
value). Note that because we hypothesize a specific direction for our hypothesis tests, a onetailed
test is appropriate (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). In light of recent recommendations (e.g.,
Wilkinson et al., 1999), and to help better interpret the magnitude of these effects, we also report
90% confidence intervals around each of our hypothesis tests. Thus, by presenting effect sizes, pvalues,
and confidence intervals, readers should best be able to determine the “importance” of
the effects and tests we report.
A different concern, perhaps more important with smaller sample sizes, is the presence of
outliers and extreme cases. To ensure the results were not biased by extreme cases, we examined
the distributions of the variables in terms of skewness and kurtosis (zero represents perfectly
normal distributions, skewness > ±3 and kurtosis > ±7 are indicative nonnormal distributions; see
West, Finch, & Curran, 1995). None of the measures were nonnormal, with openness to new
experiences showing the largest deviation from normality (skewness = -1.27; kurtosis = 4.37) but
still falling well within the range of appropriate normality.
Performance Ratings Across Typical and Maximum Contexts
Table 2 shows the means, standard deviations, and correlations for all measures. As
reflected in Table 2, the low correlation between the team performance measures across the
typical and maximum performance contexts (r = .18, ns) suggests the ratings from these
contexts were not interchangeable.
Hypotheses
Hypotheses 1 through 4 predicted that extroversion (Hypothesis 1), openness to new
experiences (Hypothesis 2), and agreeableness (Hypothesis 3) would be positively related to
transformational leadership, while neuroticism (Hypothesis 4) would be negatively related. As
shown in the last row of Table 2, transformational leadership is positively related to extroversion
(r = .31, p < .05, [.04; .53]), but negatively related to both neuroticism (r = -.39, p < .05, [-.59;
-.14]) and agreeableness (r = -.29, p < .05, [-.52; -.03]). Transformational leadership is not
significantly related to openness to experience, nor conscientiousness. Hence Hypotheses 1 and 4
were supported while Hypotheses 2 and 3 were not. While the relationship between
transformational leadership and agreeableness was significant, it was in the opposite direction as
hypothesized.
In line with Murphy’s (1996) recommendation that personality should be examined using
a multivariate framework, we also conducted a multiple regression analysis in which
transformational leadership was regressed on all of the FFM constructs. As shown in Table 3, the
overall model comprising the five personality factors was significant, explaining 28% of the
variance in transformational leadership ratings (F[5, 33] = 2.59, p < .05). However, only
neuroticism (β = -.29, p < .10, [-.57; .-01]) and agreeableness (β = -.30, p < .10, [-.58; -.02]) were
significant predictors at p < .10 (one tailed).
Next, Hypothesis 5 predicted that transformational leadership would be more predictive
of team performance in maximum rather than typical performance contexts. As Table 2 shows,
transformational leadership was significantly related to team performance in both typical
contexts (r = .32, p < .05, [.06; .54]) and maximum contexts (r = .60, p < .05, [.40; .75]). The
formula proposed by Williams (1959) and Steiger (1980) was used to test for the difference
between two non-independent correlations. We found these correlations to be significantly
different t(36) = 1.63, p < .10 (one tailed), although the confidence intervals overlapped slightly.
Thus, we concluded that the relationship between transformational leadership and team
45 th Annual Conference of the International Military Testing Association
Pensacola, Florida, 3-6 November 2003