Online Appendix Global Leader Profiles Personality Combinations

Global Leader Personality Profiles Supplemental File

Supplementary Materials for From Traits to Profiles: Understanding Global Leadership through Personality Combinations The data for this study are publicly available on the Open Science Framework file storage: https://osf.io/hujmw/?view_only=7602631834014de0adc66cad42727ff5

This file includes: Table S1. Standardized Scores for the Big Five Facet Profiles Appendix S1. Non-Global Leader Discriminant Analysis Table S2. Comparison of Latent Profile Analysis Model Fit Statistics for Baseline Models of the Non-Global Leader Sample (n = 1,901) and Non-Managerial Staff Sample (n = 242) Table S3. Personality Profile Conditional Response Means for Three Samples Figure S1. Profile Solutions across Personality Profiles of Global Leaders, NonGlobal Leaders, and Non-Leader Lower-Level Employees

Global Leader Personality Profiles Supplemental File

1

Table S1 Standardized Scores for the Big Five Facet Profiles Facet O1 Fantasy O2 Aesthetics O3 Feelings O4 Actions O5 Ideas O6 Values C1 Competence C2 Order C3 Dutifulness C4 Achievement C5 Self-Discipline C6 Deliberation E1 Warmth E2 Gregarious E3 Assertiveness E4 Activity E5 Excitement Seeking E6 Positive Emotion A1 Trust A2 Straightforward A3 Altruism A4 Compliance A5 Modesty A6 Tendermindedness N1 Anxiety N2 Hostility N3 Depression N4 Self-Conscious N5 Impulsive N6 Vulnerable

Profile 1: Extreme Resilient

Profile 2: Extreme Undercontroller

Profile 3: Extreme Overcontroller

Profile 4: Resilient

Profile 5: Creative/ Vulnerable

-0.56 -0.30 -0.49 -0.71 -0.12 -0.14 0.32 0.31 0.49 0.35 0.49 0.64 -0.15 -0.16 -0.02 -0.02 -0.32

-0.09 -0.05 -0.24 -0.26 -0.30 -0.36 -0.40 -0.06 -0.42 -0.56 -0.34 0.02 -0.33 -0.21 -0.53 -0.65 -0.21

-0.07 -0.34 -0.17 -0.66 -0.49 -0.13 -0.78 -0.27 -0.49 -0.37 -0.78 -0.41 -1.03 -0.84 -0.50 -0.25 -0.31

0.62 0.45 0.67 0.48 0.31 0.36 -0.11 -0.37 -0.30 -0.19 -0.32 -0.59 0.59 0.42 0.26 0.29 0.46

0.12 0.19 0.26 0.70 0.71 0.33 1.13 0.48 0.88 1.03 1.09 0.29 0.90 0.83 1.01 0.86 0.45

-0.36 0.09 0.26 0.17 0.32 0.05 -0.01 -0.34 -0.49 -0.45 -0.16 -0.54 -0.35

-0.32 -0.27 -0.19 -0.36 -0.06 0.11 -0.31 0.36 0.26 0.40 0.45 -0.02 0.60

-0.76 -0.92 -0.37 -0.76 -0.62 0.01 -0.32 0.92 1.05 1.07 0.89 0.53 0.88

0.73 0.30 0.03 0.25 -0.07 -0.15 0.25 0.00 0.05 0.02 -0.20 0.57 0.03

0.72 0.76 0.19 0.68 0.32 -0.02 0.44 -1.00 -0.80 -1.07 -0.99 -0.59 -1.33

Note(s): The scores presented are standardized scores to help with the interpretation of the data. O =

Openness to Experience, C = Conscientiousness, E = Extraversion, A = Agreeableness, N = Neuroticism.

Global Leader Personality Profiles Supplemental File

2

Appendix S1. Non-Global Leader Discriminant Analysis

We performed exploratory post-hoc latent profile analysis (LPA) comparisons based on whether someone was a global leader (n = 618) versus non-global leader in a sample of non-global leaders (n = 1,901) as well as to a sample of non-leader lower level employee (n = 242). The data for the non-global leader sample and non-leader lower level employee sample were collected by the same assessment center as the global leader sample. All data files are publicly available on OSF storage: https://osf.io/hujmw/?view_only=7602631834014de0adc66cad42727ff5 Table S2 shows that a 4-factor solution was optimal in the non-global leader sample while a 3factor solution was optimal for the non-leader lower-level staff member sample. As the pattern or “trend” for some profiles was similar for the global leader and non-global leader samples, we used Wald’s test of equality to test for differences. The results showed that whether leader were global or non-global significantly predicted their classification into Profile 1 (95% CI: 0.185, 0.614), Profile 2 (95% CI: 0.394, 1.238), Profile 3 (95% CI: 0.571, 1.478), Profile 4 (95% CI: 0.547, 1.199), and Profile 5 (95% CI: 1.00, 1.00). Table S2 shows a three-profile solution was optimal for the non-leader lower-level staff member sample.

Table S2 Comparison of Latent Profile Analysis Model Fit Statistics for Baseline Models of the NonGlobal Leader Sample (n = 1,901) and Non-Managerial Staff Sample (n = 242) Number Logof Classes likelihood Non-Global Leader Sample

AIC

BIC

aBIC

CAIC

Entropy

Smallest Class %

LMR pvalue

1 Profile

-41049.54

82119.07

82174.574

82142.803

82141.862

1.000

100.00%

--

2 Profiles

-40734.23

81500.45

81589.255

81538.423

81536.916

0.533

45.24%

<0.001

3 Profiles

-40615.78

81275.55

81397.654

81327.760

81325.688

0.678

12.91%

0.01

4 Profiles

-40524.42

81104.83

81260.235

81171.279

81168.643

0.590

8.81%

0.02

5 Profiles

-40471.88

81011.76

81200.460

81092.442

81089.241

0.648

0.21%

0.07

6 Profiles

-40425.10

80930.20

81152.207

81025.127

81021.361

0.647

0.21%

0.24

Non-Leader Lower-Level Employee Sample 1 Profile

-5211.85

10443.70

10478.593

10446.894

10457.538

1.000

100.00%

--

2 Profiles

-5179.51

10391.01

10446.836

10396.118

10413.153

0.615

28.53%

0.36

3 Profiles

-5157.68

10359.35

10436.107

10366.371

10389.794

0.613

20.86%

0.03

4 Profiles

-5146.40

10348.80

10446.486

10357.731

10387.543

0.672

5.70%

0.82

5 Profiles

-5135.68

10339.37

10457.989

10350.215

10386.416

0.728

1.28%

0.24

6 Profiles

-5126.00

10332.30

10471.857

10345.064

10387.353

0.754

1.27%

0.58

Note. AIC = Akaike Information Criterion; CAIC = Consistent Akaike Information Criterion; BIC = Bayesian Information Criterion; aBIC = Sample-Size Adjusted BIC. Boldface type indicates the accepted model.

Global Leader Personality Profiles Supplemental File

3

Table S3 Personality Profile Conditional Response Means for Three Samples Global Leader Sample Profile 1: Extreme Resilient Openness 140.22 Conscientiousness 154.37 Extraversion 150.88 Agreeableness 136.58 Neuroticism 38.27 % 11.00% N 72 Non-Global Leader Sample Big Five Trait

Big Five Trait

Profile 1: Resilient

Profile 2: Extreme Undercontroller

Profile 3: Extreme Overcontroller

Profile 4: Resilient

107.96 129.89 112.48 115.04 71.44 21.04% 132

108.93 151.01 129.19 124.95 45.47 15.37% 104

129.11 134.81 134.79 118.96 59.63 46.76% 269

Profile 2: Undercontroller

Profile 3: Overcontroller

Profile 4: Moderate

110.27 138.76 123.63 119.44 60.08 38.20% 738

127.06 122.99 131.67 115.36 73.59 29.41% 559

Openness 132.48 109.02 Conscientiousness 147.99 118.28 Extraversion 147.66 99.31 Agreeableness 125.15 120.70 Neuroticism 46.72 88.64 % 23.46% 8.31% N 446 158 Non-Leader Lower-Level Employee Sample Big Five Trait

Profile 1

Profile 2

Profile 3

Openness Conscientiousness Extraversion Agreeableness Neuroticism % N

133.78 145.18 144.61 126.87 55.04 26.86% 65

114.21 134.20 119.14 117.01 66.69 53.72% 130

134.506 114.826 127.563 116.765 83.673 19.42% 47

Profile 5: Creative/ Vulnerable 129.30 104.06 132.38 118.38 80.76 5.83% 41

Comparing the results in Table S3 and Figure S1 highlights meaningful differences in the latent personality profiles of global leaders, non-global leaders, and non-leader lower-level staff members. Comparing Panel A to Panel C in Figure S1 suggests notable differences in the personality profiles of global leaders and non-leader lower-level staff members. The 3-profile solution and general pattern of the non-leader lower-level staff members is in line with studies of the general population (e.g., Ferguson and Hull, 2018; Merz and Roesch, 2011). However, the non-managerial sample was quite small (n = 242), and therefore the results presented in Table S3

Global Leader Personality Profiles Supplemental File

4

and Figure S3 for this sample should be interpreted with greater caution than our LPA results for the global leader sample and non-global leader sample.

Comparing Panel A and B in Figure S1 suggests that, while the personality profiles of global and non-global leaders exhibit a similar structure, global leaders’ personality profiles tend to be more amplified. For instance, Global Leader Profile 1 is characterized by more extreme levels in each of the five traits in the FFM (see Table S3) – that is, higher scores on openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness, and lower scores on neuroticism – than NonGlobal Leader Profile 1 (see Table S3), leading us to label Global Leader Profile 1 as “extreme resilient” and Non-Global Leader Profile 1 as “resilient.” Similarly, Global Leader Profile 3 (“extreme overcontroller”) is a more extreme version of Non-Global Leader Profile 3 (“overcontroller”), as global leaders in this profile exhibit significantly higher levels of conscientiousness at comparable levels of openness to experience, extraversion, and agreeableness, relative to non-global leaders. Interestingly, however, the “extreme overcontroller” global leader profile also shows noticeably lower levels of neuroticism than the “overcontroller” profile among non-global leaders, indicating that global leaders comprising this profile exhibit greater emotional stability and ability to adjust to contextual demands. A similar pattern is again evident when comparing Global Leader Profile 4 to Non-Global Leader Profile 4, such that “moderate” global leaders are again more open, conscientious, extraverted, and agreeable, and less neurotic than “resilient” non-global leaders. The Comparing across Panel B and C in Figure S1 which depicts the results for the non-leader population and non-leader lower-level employee population suggests that Profile 1 in the nonleader sample is analogous to the non-global leader/ local leader profile “resilient”. In addition, Profile 2 in the non-leader sample analogous to Profile 3 “undercontroller” in the non-global leader/ local leader sample. Profile 3 in the non-leader/ lower-level employee sample compares to profile 4 in the non-global leader/ local leader sample “moderate”. These results highlight the greater similarity between non-global leaders and non-leader / lower-level employee staff compared to between global leaders and the two other groups.

Overall, these findings offer evidence that global leaders are indeed different from non-global leaders and workers in general, even after accounting for the interaction of personality traits within individuals. To name one example, across various profiles, global leaders tend to be more ego-resilient (exhibit comparatively higher levels of openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness, and lower scores on neuroticism) than non-global leaders and non-managerial staff members, which is likely to yield positive job outcomes.

Global Leader Personality Profiles Supplemental File Figure S1 Profile Solutions across Personality Profiles of Global Leaders, Non-Global Leaders, and NonLeader Lower Level Employees

Panel A: Global Leader Latent Personality Profiles

Panel B: Non-Global Leader Latent Personality Profiles.

Panel C: Non- Leader/ Lower Level Staff Latent Personality Profiles

5