1. W. Russell, K. van Ittersum, S. Brewer, H. Huang, & C. Stenmark
Leadership and Stress
W. Russell, K. van Ittersum, S. Brewer, H. Huang, & C. Stenmark
Department of Psychology, Angelo State University, San Angelo, Texas, 76903
INFORMATION
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
HYPOTHESIS
Transformational Leadership focuses on the charismatic and affective elements of leadership. This style of leadership develops intrinsic motivation and follower development because they push their followers to accomplish more than is what usually expected of them.
A study looking into the relationship between stress and leadership roles by Sherman, Lee, Cuddy, Renshon, Oveis, Gross, and Lerner (2012) found that managers actually had less cortisol in their system naturally than non-leaders when measuring salivary cortisol and anxiety self-reports. In a study by Campbell, Baltes, Marin, and Meddings (2007), 88% percent of leaders said that work is a primary source of stress in their lives and that having a leadership role only increases the amount of stress.
When under perceived stress, the body produces cortisol and adrenaline through the hypothalamic– pituitary–adrenal axis (HPA) (Bear, Connors, & Paradiso, 2016). The long-term activation of the stress-response system and the consequent overexposure to cortisol and other stress hormones can disrupt almost all bodily functions. According to the Mayo Clinic (2016), there is an increased risk of numerous health problems, including: anxiety, depression, digestive problems, headaches, heart disease, sleep problems, and weight gain.
The method of inducing stress that the study utilized is the Trier Social Stress Test (TSST). The TSST overcomes the previous limitations of other stress tests by using a standardized format of public speaking, mental arithmetic, and anticipation. This is the best way to induce stress in a controlled environment that will produce the same expected physiological response in all participants.
Before and after the stressor, the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory - Short Form (STAI) and the Positive Affectivity Negative Affectivy Scale (PANAS) is given to the participant. Salivary samples were taken before and after the stressor to determine the increase in cortisol levels (the physiological response).
Before the stressor, participants will take inventories evaluating Transformational Leadership skills along with personality and demographics..
Personality is conceptualized using the Five Factor Model (FFM or the Big 5) which summarizes an individual’s personality using five broad dimensions: Openness to experience, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism.
Hypothesis 1: Participants with high leadership skills will have a smaller cortisol reaction
Hypothesis 2: Controlling for personality, participants with high leadership skills will have a lower total stress perception
Hypothesis 3: Participants who score high on Extroversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness will have less perceived stress
RESULTS
As expected, Leadership Total Score correlated with Extroversion (r= .355, p <.05), Agreeableness (r = .533, p < .01), and Conscientiousness (r = .480, p < .01).
A stepwise regression was performed and it found that the personality factor, Neuroticism, was a significant predictor of cortisol reactivity (R2 = .081, F(1, 68) = 5.966, p < .05) and self-reports of stress (R2 = .057, F(1, 68) = 4.113, p < .05).
There were sex differences for the cortisol reactivity and total leadership scores that are not expected. Women are typically more reactive to cortisol changes, however males averaged M=.203 while females averaged M=.047. Males scored an average of M= on the Transformational Leadership Inventory while females averaged M= Female participants had a significant increase in cortisol levels when they had mixed gender judges while males did not (reference Table 3).
Table 1
Summary of Stepwise Regression Analysis for Cortisol Reactivity
Variable B
SE B β t p
Neuroticism
.007
.003
.284
2.443
.017
Table 2
Summary of Stepwise Regression Analysis for Self-Reports of Stress
Variable B
SE B β t p
Neuroticism
-.069
.034
-.239
-2.028
.046
DISCUSSION
PARTICIPANTS
Instead of leadership being the factor that predicted differences in stress and cortisol reactivity after a stressor, personality had the biggest impact. As neuroticism increased there was an increase in cortisol levels and as neuroticism increased self reports of stress after the stressor decreased. Future research should pursue the difference found here in self reports of stress and physiological stress reports.
When selecting people for high stress positions personality can be taken into consideration more than leadership skills or potential. The audience that someone is working in can impact how well the job is performed.
Data was collected from 70 participants, 25 males, 45 females, with a mean age of Participants were collected from a regional state university’s psychology participant pool. Consistent with local demographics, a majority (50.7%) of participants were Caucasian, 40.8% reported Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, while 8.5% reported other ethnicities.
Table 3
Means Table for Female Participants
Judge
Self Reports of Stress
Cortisol
All Female
6.00
.008
Mixed Gender
8.04
.085
Total
7.04
.047
Table 4
Means Table for Male Participants
Judge
Self Reports of Stress
Cortisol
All Female
6.38
.149
Mixed Gender
6.33
.262
Total
6.36
.203