Seattle aP cific nivU ersity Digital Commons @ SPU Industrial-Organizational Psychology Dissertations Psychology, Family, and Community, School of Summer July 20th, 2016 Am I a Good Leader? How Variations in Introversion/Extraversion Impact Leaders’ Core Self-Evaluations Marisa N. Bossen Seattle Pacific nU iversity Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.spu.edu/iop_etd Part of the Industrial and Organizational Psychology Commons, and the Personality and Social Contexts Commons Recommended Citation Bossen, Marisa N., "Am I a Good Leader? How Variations in Introversion/Extraversion Impact Leaders’ Core Self-Evaluations" (2016). Industrial-Organizational Psychology Dissertations. 7. https://digitalcommons.spu.edu/iop_etd/7 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Psychology, Family, and Community, School of at Digital Commons @ SPU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Industrial-Organizational Psychology Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ SPU. Am I a Good Leader? How Variations in Introversion/Extraversion Impact Leaders’ Core Self-Evaluations Marisa N. Bossen A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy In Industrial/Organizational Psychology Seattle Pacific University July 2016 Approved by: Reviewed by: Paul R. Yost, Ph.D. Robert B. McKenna, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Chair, Industrial/Organizational Industrial/Organizational Psychology Psychology Dissertation Chair Katy Tangenberg, Ph.D. Lynette H. Bikos, Ph.D. Dean, School of Psychology, Family, & Professor of Clinical Psychology Community Committee Member Robert E. Lewis, Ph.D. Vice President, APTMetrics Committee Member LEADER CHARACTERISTICS AND CORE SELF-EVALUATION ii Marisa N. Bossen retains the copyright to the research and material herein. LEADER CHARACTERISTICS AND CORE SELF-EVALUATION iii Acknowledgements First and foremost, I am grateful to Dr. Paul R. Yost, for his mentorship, support, and guidance throughout my time in graduate school. Thank you for letting me explore a topic of personal interest! A hearty thank you to the rest of my committee, Dr. Lynette Bikos and Dr. Robert Lewis, for enthusiastically signing on to the journey and helping me along the way. I really enjoyed working with all three of you! Despite being 2,800 miles away, my family supported me with love and encouragement that was constantly felt across the continent. Mom, Dad, Connie, Erica, Alana, and Grandma Carole: Thank you for supporting me! I know it wasn’t always easy to have the distance and time zones between us. I’m grateful for your visits to Seattle, for being sounding boards, steady rocks, and sources of humor and big laughs when I needed it, for your snail mail cards with words of encouragement, and for your endless patience. I love you all so much. To the family I chose, who moved to Seattle to be with me through graduate school, Jason, Calum, and Kona: I owe you a debt of gratitude for being my faithful companions and a wellspring of love. Jason, you have been the lion’s share of my support network through graduate school and the dissertation process. There are not enough words to convey my gratitude and awe at your strength and resiliency in supporting me through the last six years. Calum and Kona, I appreciate the two of you keeping me company as I worked on this thesis. 1434. LEADER CHARACTERISTICS AND CORE SELF-EVALUATION iv Dedication To E.B., W.B., B.C., J.C.: I couldn’t have done this without your love and support. LEADER CHARACTERISTICS AND CORE SELF-EVALUATION v TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................ III DEDICATION ............................................................................................................................. IV ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................. IX CHAPTER I ................................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................... 1 EXTRAVERSION: NATURE BEFORE NURTURE ............................................................................. 3 CORE SELF-EVALUATION: TRAIT AND STATE ............................................................................. 9 RELATIONSHIPS WITH DIRECT REPORTS AND IMPLICIT LEADERSHIP THEORY ........................ 12 LEARNING GOAL ORIENTATION ................................................................................................ 13 PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS FOR LEADER CORE SELF-EVALUATIONS ....................................... 14 PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER: GOAL ORIENTATION, DIRECT REPORTS, AND PERSONALITY ..... 15 RESEARCH HYPOTHESES ........................................................................................................... 16 CHAPTER II ................................................................................................................................ 18 METHOD ..................................................................................................................................... 18 PARTICIPANTS ............................................................................................................................ 18 MEASURES ................................................................................................................................. 19 DESIGN AND PROCEDURE .......................................................................................................... 22 DATA ANALYSES ....................................................................................................................... 23 CHAPTER III .............................................................................................................................. 25 RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................... 25 DATA PREPARATION .................................................................................................................. 25 STATISTICAL ASSUMPTIONS ...................................................................................................... 27 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS .......................................................................................................... 28 HYPOTHESIS ONE: THE EFFECT OF I/E TYPOLOGY AND NODR ON CSE .................................. 29 HYPOTHESIS TWO: THE EFFECT OF I/E TYPOLOGY, NODR, AND LGO ON CSE ...................... 30 CHAPTER IV .............................................................................................................................. 33 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................... 33 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS .................................................................................................... 33 THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS .................................................................................................... 33 PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS ........................................................................................................ 43 STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY ........................................................................ 46 FUTURE RESEARCH SUGGESTIONS ............................................................................................ 50 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................. 51 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 53 LEADER CHARACTERISTICS AND CORE SELF-EVALUATION vi LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... 63 FIGURE 1. Graphical representation of hypothesis 1b. ............................................................. 63 FIGURE 2. Graphical representation of proposed relationship between variables for introverted leaders in hypothesis 2b. ....................................................................................... 64 FIGURE 3. Graphical representation of proposed relationship between variables for extraverted leaders in hypothesis 2b. ....................................................................................... 65 FIGURE 4. Histogram depicting normality of the standardized residuals. ................................ 66 FIGURE 5. CSE linearly regressed on NoDR and I/E (hypothesis 1a). .................................... 67 FIGURE 6. CSE linearly regressed on NoDR and I/E at weak levels (-1 SD) of LGO (hypothesis 2a). ..................................................................................................... 68 FIGURE 7. CSE linearly regressed on NoDR and I/E at average (mean) levels of LGO (hypothesis 2a). ..................................................................................................... 69 FIGURE 8. CSE linearly regressed on NoDR and I/E at strong levels (+1 SD) of LGO (hypothesis 2a). ..................................................................................................... 70 FIGURE 9. CSE curvilinearly regressed on NoDR and I/E at weak levels (-1 SD) of LGO