EXPLORING RELATIONS BETWEEN TYPICAL AND MAXIMUM PERFORMANCE RATINGS AND THE FIVE FACTOR MODEL OF PERSONALITY

186 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Leading from Within: The Effects of Emotion Recognition and Personality on Transformational Leadership Behavior (2005, background): “Similarly, mixed results for the trait of openness exist (Judge & Bono, 2000; Ployhart et al., 2001).”
Motivating Knowledge Sharing in Knowledge Management Systems (2014, methodology): “This measurement has shown reliability, validity, and acceptable psychometric properties in the Chinese culture (Chan & Drasgow, 2001; Lim & Ployhart, 2004; Ployhart et al., 2001).”
Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analysis. (2004, background): “Indeed, experimental studies have demonstrated that even when survey measures of leadership focused on specific behaviors, they did not perfectly reflect leaders’ behavior ( Phillips & Lord, 1986 ).”
A cross-cultural test of the ‘five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership’ (2006, background): “Ployhart et al. (2001) obtained the scores on leadership behavior from the maximum performance setting and the typical performance setting, which are significantly different from the daily working setting.”
Linking the Big Five-Factors of personality to charismatic and transactional leadership; perceived dynamic work environment as a moderator (2005, methodology): “Previous research that did use a more longitudinal design had different measurement points mostly only a few weeks apart from each other (e.g., Ployhart et al., 2001).”