Impact of Big Five personality traits on authentic leadership
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The bulk of the current research on authentic leadership focuses on the examination of its consequences. Little attention has been paid to the predictors of authentic leadership. We examined how the Big Five personality traits can predict an authentic leadership style. Design/methodology/approach Using multisource time-lagged data from 305 leader–subordinate dyads, we examined how the Big Five traits (extraversion, agreeableness, consciousness, openness to experience and neuroticism) are related to authentic leadership. While leader personality was measured through self-reports, we measured authentic leadership style through subordinate reported data. Findings We found good support for the proposed hypotheses. While extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness and openness to experience were positively related to authentic leadership style, neuroticism was negatively related to it. Practical implications The findings support the trait view of leadership, suggesting that the personality traits of a leader can predict his/her authentic leadership style. These findings hold promise for managers in that they can use personality inventories and tests in the selection and evaluation process to select and train potential authentic leaders. Originality/value We proposed a unique idea and tested it using leader–subordinate dyadic data that are time-lagged to test our hypotheses.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".