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
Table S1
Standardized Scores for the Big Five Facet Profiles
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
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)
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.
Table S3
Personality Profile Conditional Response Means for Three Samples
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
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.
Figure S1
Profile Solutions across Personality Profiles of Global Leaders, Non-Global Leaders, and NonLeader Lower Level Employees
