Article two by Grainiest & Colliers (2012) “Fellowship’s experiences of organizational leadership: A systems psychodrama perspective” was chosen for leadership and article three was carefully chosen for this paper. “Followers’ Personality and the Perception of Transformational Leadership: Further Evidence for the Similarity Hypothesis” by the authors Flee, J. , & Synchs, B. (2010) came from the reference list of article one. These articles titles in comparison all are related to followers’ in an organization and show how followers’ personality, preferences, and experiences affect how hey perceive leadership.
The purpose of the study in article one, the authors wanted the findings built upon the “Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness Research Program (GLOBE study)” by analyzing the personalities Of the participants and the impact on implicit leadership views. Article two’s purpose for the study is to describe follower-ship experiences of organizational leadership from a systems psychodrama perspective and the aim of article three’s study is to extend previous research on the relationship between follower’s personality and the perception and acceptance of ramifications leadership.
The comparison of the studies show how followers’ personality, preferences, and experiences affect how they perceive leadership in organizations. The authors rational for the topic in article one is “the primary focus of the GLOBE study and to analyze how cultural preferences predicted leadership preferences. ” (Palmer, et al. , 2013, peg. 56) This study added significantly to the body of literature related to implicit leadership and the study did not report how participants’ personalities impacted their views of leadership.
In article two, the authors’ build a strong ease that has given them motivation for the study and their rationale for the topic is because “the research was important in its rich comment on organizational leadership as expressed by fellowship in a contained space and interpreting the views from below the surface” (Grainiest, et al. 201 2, peg. 6) which are not expressed in organizations generally and easily. The authors’ also commented on how there is no previous research on the topic.
Finally in article three, the author’s build a plausible case that provide evidence that followers personality influences the perceptions of ramifications leadership and commitment to the leader. For the author’s to do their study, they reversed the order of variables in which the leaders affect their followers’ attitudes and behaviors to the followers’ reactions to leaders as the independent variables and the leaders as the dependent variable. The comparison of the rational in each article provides the prediction of followers’ personality whether through the GLOBE study or as one particular leadership style.
Research Questions The research questions in each of the articles provide the researcher the tools needed to test their theories. In article one, Palmer along with the other authors provided the following hypotheses to be tested in their study. 1 . DO followers’ personality in neurotics correlate with Charismatic Leadership and Directive Leadership? 2. Does Extroversion correlate how followers perceive with preferences to Directive Leadership, Bureaucratic Leadership, or Self Serving Leadership? 3. Does Agreeableness correlate with followers’ personality for Charismatic Leadership, Directive Leadership, and Self Serving Leadership? . Do Openness correlate with Directive Leadership, Bureaucratic, and Self Serving Leadership? These hypotheses of followers’ neurotics, extroversion, agreeableness, and openness may be positively correlated to Charismatic and Directive leadership but my impact Bureaucratic and Self Serving leadership negatively. Article two state “given the aforementioned complexity on the macro, mess, and micro leadership levels (Greenest, et al. , 201 2, peg. 3); the authors wanted to know whether leadership is an anxiety for followers. Also, followers’ experiences and how they perceive race and gender in leadership.
The following hypotheses are tested: 1) What is fellowship’s systems psychodrama experience of organization leadership? 2) Is leadership an anxiety for followers that is an object split between a “good parent and a bad parent’ theory? 3) How does followers experience of organizational leadership denigrating the present and hoping for a good future like “good bread with bad butter in between’? 4) Do followers perceive race and gender play a part in leadership? 5) Do followers believe leadership is experiencing an adolescent type of identity crises? ) Why do followers perceive leadership as a bad object containing unsolvable shame and haunting organizations? 7) Do coping with existential anxiety round leadership based on trusting the systemic and unconscious life forces towards equilibrium, linked with an inner strength to survive? Article three tests the hypotheses for followers “high in extroversion, agreeableness and openness are assumed to perceive or attributed more transformational leadership and to show more affective commitment to their supervisors” (Flee, et al. , 2010, peg. 98) in relation to followers’ perceptions of transformational leadership and the affective commitment to the supervisor and the personalities of leaders. The authors’ hypotheses mentioned are: 1) Followers extroversion is positively related to the perception Of transformational leadership and to the affective commitment to the supervisor, whereas the relationship with continuance commitment is negative. 2) Followers’ agreeableness is positively related to the perception of transformation leadership and to the affective commitment to the supervisor, whereas the relationship with continuance commitment is negative. ) Followers’ openness is positively related to the affective commitment to the negative. 4) Followers’ neurotics is negatively related to the perception of prevision, whereas the relationship with continuance commitment is positive. 5) Followers’ perception of leaders’ personality (high extroversion, high agreeableness, high openness and low neurotics) is related to the perception of transformational leadership and to affective commitment to the supervisor. ) Relationship between follower personality and the perception of transformational leadership and commitment to the supervision are mediated by the perception of one’s leader’s personality. A comparison of the research questions show article one with four hypotheses, article two with seven, and article three with six hypotheses Sample Population The sample population in each of these articles show a comparison that mostly women were used in the studies. The first article shows that it used 132 college educated, full time managers or leaders in an organizations with there being 81 females and 48 males within these groups.
Out of the 1 32 participant, 75 were Hipic, 30 Blacks, 12 White and 15 who were of other ethnicities and their age average of 40 years. There are 8 newly identified cases on leaders of large organizations in article two with 64 participants insisting of 52% White, 33% Black, 9% Indian, and 6% other with 58% participants being female and 42% male between the ages of 28 and 61 years. Article three participants in the study are 1 53 clerical volunteers and women being 75% of the workers with the average mean of 36. 5 in their ages.
A comparison shows that show women were mostly interviewed. What does not compare, is that article two did not have as many participants as one and three. Article three did not mention ethnicity or race as did articles one and two. Results Examining the results of each study, the authors in their perspective articles how that their hypotheses are mostly positive and correlate to the given research questions. In article one, the current study found the personality trait of followers’ on agreeableness as being a predictor high on leadership.
New experiences for followers openness is incongruent with Bureaucratic Leadership, but personality traits related to “Charismatic, Value-Based Team dervish and Directive Leadership, and negatively related to Bureaucratic Leadership and Self-Serving Leadership. ” (Farmer, et al. , 201 3, peg. 62) Neurotics was positively correlated with preferences for Charismatic Leadership and Directive Leadership. Extroversion was positively correlated with preferences for Directive Leadership and negatively correlated with tolerance for Bureaucratic and Self-serving Leadership.
Agreeableness was positively correlated with preferences for Charismatic Leadership and Directive Leadership and negatively correlated with tolerance for Self-Serving dervish. Openness was positively correlated with preferences for Directive leadership and negatively correlated with tolerance for Bureaucratic and Self- Serving Leadership. Whereas in article two, leadership is seen from followers’ experience is torn between the rational and mechanistic task and leaders avoiding how followers as people are being cared for. Followers perceive leaders as adults who treat them as children.
Although article three states “followers’ extroversion and agreeableness were positively related to the perception of overall transformational leadership and to affective commitment to the supervisor, the relationship between followers’ extroversion and continuance commitment to the supervisor was negative and agreeableness was not related to continuance commitment. ” (Grainiest, et al. , 201 2 peg. 01) Openness, transformational leadership, and commitment are correlated in a direction that is positive, with continuance commitment showing only a significance to leaders.
Neurotics is negatively related to followers’ perception of affective commitment and transformational leadership. The perceptions of transformational leadership was positively related to perceived leaders’ extroversion, openness, and agreeableness and negatively related to perceived leaders’ neurotics. “There is support for the mediation effect Of extroversion and agreeableness, a tentative support for neurotics but no support for openness. (Flee, et al. , 201 0, peg. 93) Therefore, the comparison of the hypotheses is that follower’s perceptions of leadership through followers’ personality traits see leadership as not caring and followers’ are agreeable to prevent conflict and the perception of transformational leadership is the leadership that followers perceive their leaders to be. Conclusion The limitations of article one are the use of the GLOBE questionnaire using two empirical pilot studies. Article two mentioned a limitation that leadership was included in the study therefore, no interpretation about the other’s view an be made.
Article three’s data is cross-sectional and they cannot rule out that transformational leadership influences followers’ self-perception and their influence of personality characteristics examined in this study is limited. The comparison of the limitations is that the authors’ were not able to provide enough data using data from previous studies. In conclusion, Palmer and the other authors from article one in their findings found that extroversion in leadership is strongly correlated to effective leadership and their study found the personality trait of followers in agreeableness is insistent in regards to leadership.
From article 2, leadership is by followers’ views is seen as a relationship that Sees followers as immature. The authors also suggested future research should be done to include the leadership experiences of fellowship and to conclude with article three, the findings the authors found suggests that leaders influence strongly the behaviors and attitudes of followers in commitment, performance, and satisfaction. Elevating followers’ motives and values, the transformational leadership sets leaders’ behaviors as a proven effect in organizations.