Orsal O., Karadag E.

Global Business Research Congress (GBRC), İstanbul, Turkey, 26 - 27 May 2016, vol.2, pp.320-330 identifier

  • Publication Type: Conference Paper / Full Text
  • Volume: 2
  • Doi Number: 10.17261/pressacademia.2016118652
  • City: İstanbul
  • Country: Turkey
  • Page Numbers: pp.320-330
  • Eskisehir Osmangazi University Affiliated: Yes


Today's changing environment, economic status and cultural structures affect the behavior of an individual and the personality traits in relation to these effects give direction to the leadership styles perceived in the society. In this context, the purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between personality traits and leadership behavior in business students. This study was modeled by using a correlational pattern. Data were collected from 386 business students studying at a faculty of management in a state university located in the Central Anatolia. All data were collected by using "Leadership Style Scale" developed by Northouse (2004) and "Five-factor Personality Scale" developed by Goldberg (1992). The leadership characteristics of the students were evaluated only by observation not by self-report. Style scale of Northouse suggests that lieders have two types of leadership behavior: task behavior and relationship behavior. Even, the focus of the style approach is that how the individual combines these two types of behavior in order to influence other people. After informin about the aim and subject of the study followed by obtaining verbal consent, pre-prepared questionnaire forms were filled out by the students under supervision in about 15-20 min. In the Leadership Style Scale, mean task-style score was 38.0 +/- 7.0; relationship-style score was 39.5 +/- 8.3 and general leadership-style score was 78.0 +/- 14.3. This findings reveal moderately high task-style and relationship-style scores and significantly high general leadership-style scores. In the Five-factor Personality Scale, mean sociability score was 31.5 +/- 6.1, responsibility score was 37.9 +/- 6.5, emotional balance score was 35.5 +/- 6.5, adaptability score was 31.0 +/- 7.2 and openness to improvement score was 34.6 +/- 5.3. Both task-style and relationship-style leadership scores increased with increasing emotional balance personality scores. On the other hand, only relationship-style leadership score was found to increase with increasing responsibility, adaptability and openness to improvement personality scores (p<0.01). There was a significant correlation with increasing scores in Leadership Style scores and increasing five-factor personality scores of "sociability, responsibility, emotional balance and openness to improvement" Leadership scores increased with the increasing age, while status of having education about leadership increased with the decreasing age. In students with no education about leadership, both general score and two subscores of leadership style scale as well as the "sociability, responsibility, emotional balance and openness to improvement" subscores of personality scale was increased. The goodness of fit of the theoretical model was determined by GFI, AGFI, RMSEA, chi(2) ve chi(2)/df ratio. The correlation level of the covariate and the variance commonly explained by the model was GFI 0.97. AGFI goodness of fit value was 0.96 and similar to the GFI. Thus, GFI and AGFI goodness of fit values suggest that theoretical model is appropriate for the data set. On the other hand, RMSEA consisting of the variance unexplained by the model and covariance average was found to be 0.06 which suggest that only a few variance or covariance could not be explained by the theoretical model. In the model, the variance explained in each potential variable can be determined by its relationship with other potential variables.