Download Opening the Black Box: The Role of Personality and Anger in Executives’ Decision Making and Leadership PDF

TitleOpening the Black Box: The Role of Personality and Anger in Executives’ Decision Making and Leadership
File Size851.5 KB
Total Pages140
Table of Contents
                            Table of Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
List of Abbreviations
1. Introduction
	1.1 Background
		1.1.1 Strategic Decision Making
		1.1.2 Leadership
		1.1.3 Personality of Executives
		1.1.4 Emotions
		1.1.5 Environmental Dynamism
	1.2 Research Questions
	1.3 Contributions
	1.4 Outline
2. Narcissism, Core Self Evaluation and Sensitivity to
Criticism on the Executive Level - How do Executive‘s
Personalities and Anger Influence their Decision Making
and Leadership Behavior?
	2.1 Introduction
	2.2 Background
		2.2.1 Research on Personality and Decision Making Behavior
		2.2.2 Research on Personality and Leadership Behavior
	2.3 Theory Development
		2.3.1 The Need for an Executive Personality Profile
		2.3.2 Conceptual Framework
	2.4 Discussion
		2.4.1 The Challenges of Future Research and Limitations
		2.4.2 Contributions
		2.4.3 Conclusion
3. Anger on the Executive Suite – Towards a Theory Linking
Core Self Evaluation and Hypersensitive Narcissism to
Individual Decision Making Comprehensiveness
considering the Role of Environmental Dynamism
	3.1 Introduction
	3.2 Background
		3.2.1 Individual Decision Making Comprehensiveness
		3.2.2 Dual Processing Theory
		3.2.3 Personality of Executives
		3.2.4 Anger
		3.2.5 Environmental Dynamism
	3.3 Theory Development and Propositions
		3.3.1 Core Self Evaluation and Hypersensitive Narcissism
		3.3.2 Core Self Evaluation and Individual Decision Making Comprehensiveness
		3.3.3 Hypersensitive Narcissism and Individual Decision Making Comprehensiveness
		3.3.4 Core Self Evaluation and Anger
		3.3.5 Hypersensitive Narcissism and Anger
		3.3.6 Anger and Individual Decision Making Comprehensiveness
		3.3.7 Mediating Proposition Core Self Evaluation – Anger – Individual DecisionMaking Comprehensiveness
		3.3.8 Mediating Proposition Hypersensitive Narcissism – Anger – IndividualDecision Making Comprehensiveness
		3.3.9 The Role of Environmental Dynamism
	3.4 Discussion
		3.4.1 Contributions
		3.4.2 Limitations and Conclusion
4. The mediating Role of Anger in the Relationship between
Executive’s Core Self Evaluation and their Individual
Decision Making Comprehensiveness: Empirical Evidence
	4.1 Introduction
	4.2 Background
		4.2.1 Individual Decision Making Comprehensiveness
		4.2.2 Core Self Evaluation
		4.2.3 Anger
	4.3 Theory Development and Hypotheses
		4.3.1 Core Self Evaluation and Individual Decision Making Comprehensiveness
		4.3.2 Core Self Evaluation and Anger
		4.3.3 Anger and Individual Decision Making Comprehensiveness
		4.3.4 Mediating Proposition Core Self Evaluation – Anger – Individual DecisionMaking Comprehensiveness
	4.4 Methods
		4.4.1 Setting
		4.4.2 Sample and Data Collection
		4.4.3 Measures
		4.4.4 Analyses and Results
	4.5 Discussion
		4.5.1 Contributions
		4.5.2 Limitations and Conclusion
5. Overall Discussion and Conclusion
	5.1 Summary of Findings
		5.1.1 Personality and Emotions of Executives in Decision Making and Leadership
		5.1.2 The Role of Environmental Dynamism
	5.2 Contributions
		5.2.1 Research Question 1
		5.2.2 Research Question 2
		5.2.3 Research Question 3
		5.2.4 Practical Implications
	5.3 Overall Limitations
	5.4 Conclusion
Document Text Contents
Page 2

Opening the Black Box

Page 70


thoroughly analyzing a given situation, determining problems, inclusively generating
alternatives, and evaluating actions.

Moreover, anger makes one eager to act (Harmon-Jones, 2003; Mackie et al., 2000).
An angry decision maker is unlikely to spend time for exhaustive information search
and integration during the decision making process, and also is not likely to spend time
integrating a given decision with the overall strategy.

In addition, anger has been negatively associated with advice-taking (Gino &
Schweitzer, 2008), and this is inconsistent with the fact that a single decision maker is
unlikely to have all the information needed to make a good decision. Comprehensive
decision making typically involves some degree of advice taking.

Finally, trait anger is likely to be related to system two processing during decision
making, because it entails a propensity to get angry sourced within the personality and
not related to a situation, leading to a higher likelihood of emotionally charged,
automatic processing, which as a consequence is apt to be less comprehensive.
Consequently we argue that anger reduces comprehensiveness of decision making
because it is likely to be associated with system one processing.

So, an angry CEO is generally likely to ignore additional information and others
during the decision making process on for example an acquisition. This implies that
the decision making process is likely to be short, and subjectively colored by the
CEO’s personal opinion because not as much additional information enters his
decision making process. Overall decision making is not expected to be exhaustive or
inclusive. This leads us to conclude that anger reduces overall decision making
comprehensiveness and escorts us towards the following proposition:

P4: Anger in executives is negatively associated with individual decision making

Page 71


3.3.7 Mediating Proposition Core Self Evaluation – Anger – Individual Decision
Making Comprehensiveness

Anger negatively mediates the relationship between core self evaluation and individual
decision making comprehensiveness. The reason for this is that high levels of core self
evaluation reduce the propensity to get angry in a given decision making situation, and
anger in turn reduces individual decision making comprehensiveness. Thus, the higher
the degree of core self evaluation, the lower the propensity to get angry anchored
within a given personality, and the higher the individual decision making

A CEO deciding on an acquisition who has a high core self evaluation is likely to have
been exhaustive and thorough while collecting information during the decision making
process, and he is willing and able to accept any, including last-minute information
and or information contradicting his initial opinion, before making the final decision.
This is due to his generally high positive self perception composed of high levels of
self esteem, locus of control, and self efficacy. Additionally, his emotional stability
enables him to deal both with any contradictory information and the individuals
delivering it to him in a constructive way without feeling the need for a defensive
action entailing an angry outburst. Rather, he is able to decide comprehensively, since
he is not prone to an uncontrolled, angry reaction in the first place. In contrast, a CEO
with a low core self evaluation and thus a low general positive self perception is likely
to react angrily to contradicting information because he feels a need to defend his
volatile self. Additionally, his low emotional stability means that he is not able to
balance potential angry emotions but is likely to act upon them, leading to lower
degrees of individual decision making comprehensiveness.

As core self evaluation is likely to foster system one processing, we assume that this
implies a conscious, controlled decision making behavior, likely to be associated with
decision making comprehensiveness. Furthermore, by reducing the potential emotional
charge of the situation, core self evaluation reduces the likelihood of automated

Page 139


Stumpp, T., Hülsheger, U. R., Muck, P. M., & Maier, G. W. 2009. Expanding the link
between core self-evaluations and affective job attitudes. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 18(2): 148-166.

Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. 2007. Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston,
MA: Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education.

Tiedens, L. Z. & Linton, S. 2001. Judgment under emotional certainty and uncertainty:
The effects of specific emotions on information processing. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6): 973-988.

Tjosvold, D. 2008. The conflict-positive organization: it depends upon us. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 29(1): 19-28.

Tracy, J. L. & Robins, R. W. 2003. "Death of a (Narcissistic) Salesman:" An
Integrative Model of Fragile Self-Esteem. Psychological Inquiry, 14(1): 57.

Van Velsor, E. & Leslie, J. B. 1995. Why executives derail: perspectives across time
and cultures. Academy of Management Executive, 9(4): 62-72.

Vogel, C. 2006. A field guide to narcissism. Psychology Today, 39(1): 68-74.

Weber, M. 1924/2005. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft - die Wirtschaft und die
gesellschaftlichen Ordnungen und Mächte, Nachlass, Teilband 4: Herrschaft.

Wiersema, M. F. & Bantel, K. A. 1992. Top Management team demography and
corporate strategic change. Academy of Management Journal, 35(1): 91-121.

Wink, P. 1991. Two faces of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 61: 590-597.

Wirth, H. J. 2002. Narzissmus und Macht. Giessen: Psychosozial Verlag.

Page 140


Yagil, D., Luria, G., & Gal, I. 2008. Stressors and resources in customer service roles:
Exploring the relationship between core self-evaluations and burnout.
International Journal of Service Industry Management, 19(5): 575-595.

Yammarino, F. J., Spangler, W. D., & Bass, B. M. 1993. Transformational leadership
and performance: A longitudinal investigation. Leadership Quarterly, 4(1): 81-

Zajac, E. J. & Westphal, J. D. 1996. Who shal succeed? How CEO/Board preferences
and power affect the choice of new CEOs. Academy of Management Journal,
39(1): 64-90.

Zheng, Y. & Huang, L. 2005. Overt and Covert Narcissism: A Psychological
Exploration of Narcissistic Personality. Psychological Science (China), 28(5):

Similer Documents