Index

ABSTRACT

There is a paucity of empirical knowledge and a lack of descriptive portrait about women leadership and their managerial characteristics. The present study attempted to address the literature gap by investigating the correlation between the leadership levels and personality traits of female managers in Metro Manila, Philippines. This non-experimental research involved 100 female managers in the fields of banking, hospitality, and education using purposive sampling technique. The instruments used in this study were Maxwell’s Five Leadership Levels and Goldberg’s Big-five inventory scale. The findings of this study reveal that 31% of the respondents are in Level 1 and 27% are in Level 5. Also, female managers generally have a high level of openness, conscientiousness, and agreeableness and a moderate level of extroversion and neuroticism. Moreover, the five leadership levels are associated with two out of five personality traits: extroversion and neuroticism . Further tests show that there are no significant differences in the leadership levels in terms of the demographic information of the respondents. These results depict that female managers think in abstract and complex ways, are highly organized and determined, have an inclination to make interaction with their team members, experience a great deal of empathy, tend to get pleasure from serving and taking care of their team members, and are relatively prone to negative emotions.

Keywords: Correlational, Female managers, Filipina leaders, Leadership levels, Managers, Personality traits.

JEL Classification:  M10.

DOI: 10.55284/ijebms.v9i2.747

Citation | Alvin B. Barcelona; Diana Ruby S. Gopez; Trisha Ann S. Mariano; Julio Jose M. Pedreña; Jeanne Lou M. Santiago (2022). Leadership Levels and Personality Traits of Female Managers in Select Industries in the Philippines. International Journal of Economics, Business and Management Studies, 9(2): 120-134.

Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Funding : This study received no specific financial support.

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

History : Received: 22 August 2022 / Revised: 10 October 2022 / Accepted: 24 October 2022 / Published: 10 November 2022 .

Publisher: Online Science Publishing

1. INTRODUCTION

There has been a significant increase in the number of women in managerial positions equivalent to a proportion of 52.7 percent in the Philippines (Philippine Statistics Authority, 2020). Subsequently, a report states that the Philippines ranked first among thirty-two (32) countries surveyed in a recent global report on women in senior management positions where 43 percent of Filipina executives handle senior leadership roles.  It is reported that there is a 6 percent increase in Filipino women in senior management teams.  Presently, the three-year moving average is constant at 42 percent (Grant Thornton International, 2020).

While the Philippines fare very well on gender equality with more women participating actively in different fields such as politics and business, there is a paucity of empirical work regarding women leadership and management characteristics. There is a need to apprehend a descriptive portrait of women in managerial positions, most especially now that they are accountable to make important decisions that promote not only the viability of the business but as well as the welfare of the workforce. 

Two of the profile characteristics of female managers, which the researchers perceived to be important, are leadership levels and personality traits. Both are proven to be robust variables that accounted for the success of managers in the field of business in different industries. A study stated that personality traits result in a statistically significant correlation with leadership (Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002).

The underlying theme in the prominence of personality traits linked with the leadership levels of Filipina managers is relatively new. This is similar to the paucity of empirical work regarding women leadership and management characteristics. The insufficiency of academic research about the levels of leadership and personality traits, specifically about women, brings about an advancement to the segment of the relationship between personality traits and leadership theorems.

Maxwell (2011) also posited the difference between management and leadership. Management is at its best when things stay the same. It was noted in his book that management is about stability. It works best when everything stays the same and resources are available. However, leadership deals with people and their dynamics and it varies from the relationship of the leaders to their team members. Despite having differences, leadership and management are complementary systems of action. Both are not necessarily done by different individuals. Because leadership and management are complementary, this means that leaders are capable of being managers as well as the other way around (Scouller, 2011).

According to Maxwell (2011) leadership is influence, and increasing one’s influence on others brings effective leadership. A topic deemed worthy of rigorous debate, most academic researchers say leadership is a theoretical exercise, similar to an equation whose variables are in-depth investigation. On the contrary, Maxwell proved that his concept is straight to the point and easily understandable for aspiring leaders to learn.

In the mid-20th century, the trait approach was challenged by research that questioned the universality of leadership traits. It was said that across a variety of situations, there are no traits that discern who are leaders from those who are not. Individuals with leadership traits who were leaders in a situation might not be a leader in a different situation. Therefore, leadership was a relationship between people in a social situation and not a quality possessed by individuals. Personal factors that are related to leadership are important, but researchers argued that these were only to be considered relative to the demands of a specific context (Stogdill as cited in Northouse (2007)).

In view of the foregoing, the researchers explored the relationship between female managers' leadership levels and their personality traits. The findings of this study contribute to the existing body of knowledge about constructs related to female leadership globally. More specifically, the present study is very promising to engender a positive interest in feminist leadership in the local context which seemed to be under-researched as of this writing.

1.1. Leadership Level

Maxwell (2011) described the five levels of Leadership which consist of the following: Level 1: Position, Level 2: Permission, Level 3: Production, Level 4: People Development, and Level 5: The Pinnacle, respectively. The first level is the position where anybody can obtain it. People under the lowest level only do the bare minimum that the job demands; they simply have the position and use it to influence others. This level is the only one that does not require the ability and effort to achieve higher lengths. They control their team with the use of the company’s rules and regulations. Position leaders consider their employees as subordinates that only follow and not as a team, they are considered bosses and not leaders.

The second level talks about permission which is highly based on relationships that leaders form. Managers at this level want to get to know their subordinates more than the surface level. This is also for building their trust and being able to influence them. Their main goal is not to keep their position but is getting to know their team and how to get along with them. Permission-level managers can achieve a more positive environment by interacting whether it would be at work or other places.

The third level is about production which is for leaders who do not only desire a pleasant work environment but also results. Some may get stuck at the permission level and neglect the company's production. They gain credibility and influence which leads to people wanting to follow them. Because of their optimism to work, others also get motivated to do better. The positive effects of leaders in the production level are greater morale, higher profits, getting work done, and goals met.

The fourth level describes that people’s development is about empowering their team members and training the team members to become like their leaders is the main goal of Level 4. They invest in developing their followers which leads to stronger bonds and greater productivity. At this level, two positive outcomes are achieved: the first one is that teamwork is incredibly high due to the bonds that were formed, and the second is that performance increases because there are more leaders to help the team.

The fifth or highest level is the pinnacle which is the most difficult one to achieve. It does not only require effort but also a high level of talent and credibility. They are not only able to develop leaders but also recognize potentials. This level can create Level 4 leaders. What is more difficult than developing a leader is making that leader able and willing to develop other leaders. Their reputation does not only reach the company but beyond. This shows how big their influence is.

1.2. Personality Traits

Digman as cited in McCrae and Costa (2010) discussed in his Personality Structure the five necessary dimensions to consider in determining one's personality. These dimensions are also known as the Big Five Personality Traits or OCEAN: Openness, Conscientiousness, Extroversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism, respectively.
The first dimension is extroversion vs. introversion which indicates how socially active a person is, and how they would act when they are surrounded by other people. When one scores high, a person engages with different people by showing assertiveness and optimism towards other people.  Someone who scores low on this trait is more likely to feel less comfortable with small talk but rather prefer to listen.

Moreover, the second dimension is about agreeableness vs. antagonism, which is how humane a person can be and measures how much a person is willing to comply. Those who score high encourage good cooperation and consider the happiness and the success of others.  Those who score low are more likely to be manipulative and less friendly.

Furthermore, the third dimension is conscientiousness vs. lack of direction which can also be called the will to achieve. It can determine how responsible and self-driven a person can be. Managers who score high are committed to their responsibilities and think critically before making decisions. Those who score low tend to experience difficulties with staying organized and focused on a goal.

Neuroticism vs. emotional stability is the fourth dimension that points out a person's emotional stability. This indicates a person's ability to handle emotions to remain balanced and stable. A person who scores high is more likely to experience mood swings and depression. Someone who scores low on this trait is more emotionally stable and resilient.

The last dimension is openness vs. closedness which is about the flexibility to adapt to change. Measures how much a person is willing to be open to factors that are new to them. An individual who scores high on this trait is more likely to be open to new ideas and willing to experience doing things in a new way.  Those who score low prefer to stick to what they know.

1.3. Purpose of the Study

The main purpose of this study was to examine the correlation between the leadership levels and personality traits of female leaders. Specifically, it sought answers to the following questions:

1. What is the demographic profile of female managers in terms of:
1.1 age
1.2 years of managerial experience
1.3 industry
1.4 span of control 
2. What are the leadership levels of female managers based on Maxwell’s Five Levels of Leadership?
Level 1: Position
Level 2: Permission
Level 3: Production
Level 4: People Development
Level 5: The Pinnacle
3. What are the personality traits of the respondents in terms of the Big Five Personality Traits:
3.1. Openness
3.2 Conscientiousness
3.3 Extroversion
3.4 Agreeableness
3.5 Neuroticism
4. Is there a significant relationship between the leadership levels and the personality traits of the respondents? 

5. Is there a significant difference between the leadership levels of the respondents in terms of their demographic profile?

2. METHODS

2.1. Research Design

The researchers utilized the correlational type of research. A correlational study is a type of descriptive research where a researcher seeks to understand the nature of the relationship between the naturally occurring variables that cannot be manipulated (Burkholder, Cox, Crawford, & Hitchcock, 2019). In simple ways, correlational research seeks to find out if two or more variables are related in some way without controlling them. The correlational research design was selected because it explained and identified if each variable was associated with one another. Additionally, this research design was chosen to meet the purpose of the study, which is to determine if there is a significant relationship between the leadership levels and personality traits of female managers in the hospitality, banking, and education industries.

2.2. Sampling Technique and Procedure

Non-probability sampling does not give every member population a chance to be part of the study since it is based on particular characteristics searched for by the researchers that exist in that population. The two types of non-probability sampling that were utilized by the researchers are purposive and snowball sampling. Purposive sampling was for participants that have the qualities and skills that meet the criteria for the selection (Etikan, Musa, & Alkassim, 2016). Snowball sampling, on the other hand, is a method where participants recruit other viable participants whom they think were qualified for the research and was only applied when it was difficult to look for targets that meet the criteria (Naderifar, Goli, & Ghaljaie, 2017). With these sampling techniques, the 100 female manager-respondents were divided into three industries: 32 in hospitality, 36 in banking, and 32 in education, respectively. All the female managers chosen were currently working within Metro Manila, Philippines.

Non-probability sampling technique was employed because this research needed to be specifically for female managers and not for everyone within Metro Manila. The researchers did not have connections to all the managers in Metro Manila, hence they used the snowball sampling technique.

The researchers surveyed 100 female managers from the Education, Banking, and Hospitality industries. The respondents were divided based on the three industries: 32 in hospitality management, 36 in the banking sector, and 32 in the education sector. Only female managers were chosen because of the statistically significant increase of women in the workplace, specifically those that are currently working in Metro Manila, Philippines. The demographic profile of the female managers such as their industries, age, years of managerial experience, and span of control was also considered to determine the significant difference in female managers’ Leadership Levels and Personality Traits. 

2.3. Research Instruments

In this study, the researchers used a standardized survey questionnaire as a data collection instrument that consists of a series of questions to gather information (McLeod, 2018). The survey questionnaire that was used by the researchers was structured; it consisted of a set of standardized tests with a fixed scheme and specified the exact wording and order of the questions (Cheung, 2014). The researchers used the first part of the four-part leadership assessment of Maxwell’s Five Levels of Leadership and the Big Five Inventory Scale by Goldberg.

The survey questionnaire was divided into three parts. The first part was the demographic profile of the respondents which had four questions asking about their industry, age, years of managerial experience, and span of control. The second part of the survey questionnaire was about identifying the levels of leadership of the respondents. Each level had ten statements that were answered by putting a checkmark next to each statement if it is true for the respondents. The respondents would not be able to proceed to the next level if they did not mark at least eight statements, which automatically meant that the part where they stopped answering was the level of their leadership. According to Maxwell, however, they might have characteristics from higher levels, but still needed to improve from the level they had stopped.

The third part of the survey questionnaire was about identifying the personality traits of the respondents based on Goldberg’s Big Five Inventory Scale. It consisted of 44 statements that helped discern the personality traits of the respondents. These questions were answered with the use of the 5-point Likert scale where the respondents chose the extent they agree or disagree with the given statements (McLeod, 2018).

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 1 depicts that the majority of the respondents belong to the age bracket of 31-45 years old, constituting a percentage of 54%. Also, those who are at least 45 years old have a proportion of 34%, and a share of 12% from female managers who are 18-30 years old.

Table 2 delineates  the distribution of the years of managerial experience among female managers. The years of experience that range from 6-10, 11-15, and 1-5 constitute the highest percentages of 31%, 21%, and 19%. Meanwhile, the respondents who have more than 20 and 16-20 years of managerial experience have low percentages of 13% and 10%. Lastly, respondents who have less than a year of being managers form the lowest percentage of 6%.

Table 3 elucidates the three industries where female managers are working. It is depicted above that there are 32 female managers in the hospitality industry and the same frequency of 32 for the education industry, forming 64% of the respondents. Moreover, the banking industry has accumulated the most respondents with 36% of the population.

Table 4 presents the number of team members the female managers are handling at work. Managers who are handling less than 10 and between 10-50 subordinates have high levels of percentages 41%, and 44%. On the contrary, the managers who have subordinates between 51-100 and more than 100 have ground-level percentages of 9% and 6%.

Table 5 gives a run-down of the levels of leadership of the respondents. The majority of the respondents (31%) are in level 1 which means that they have more room to improve. In the statement of Maxwell (2011) this is the only level that requires no ability or effort to achieve because anyone can be appointed to a position. At level 1, people will only follow if they think that they have to do it. Also, 16% of the respondents fall under level 2. The foundation of leadership at this level is relationships with team members. The respondents at this level lead with the people, which means that they are learning how to understand their people to lead well.
While 11% of the respondents reached level 3, these production leaders know how to motivate their people to get things done. On this level, leaders who produce outcomes contribute to the improvement of their credibility. Furthermore, 15% of the respondents are in level 4. Characterized as people development, respondents in this level aim for reproduction. The respondents’ goal at this level is to identify and develop as many leaders as they can by investing in them and helping them grow. Lastly,  27% of the female managers achieved the highest level described as the “pinnacle”, which is the most challenging to attain. It requires longevity as well as intentionality. Level 5 leaders often transcend their position, organization, and the industry at large. Based on mean scores in each level, it implies that all the respondents in their respective levels have mastered their previous levels.

In this section, the summary of the personality traits of the respondents in terms of the Big Five Personality Traits, namely openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism, also known as OCEAN, are presented in the following tables.

Table 6 explains the first of five personality traits, openness. The results show that  44% of the respondents  have a moderate level and 56% of them have high level of openness with an overall mean of 3.74, which belongs to category level “high” .

Findings show that the majority of female managers have a high level of openness to experience as they use their creative and imaginative minds to implement new ideas in the workplace. While moderately open managers may prefer to have a routine, they are uncomfortable with new things and tend to prefer the familiar. They are also very practical individuals. Although all of the managers are more creative and have a wide variety of interests compared to those who score low, they like to challenge themselves and see opportunities to improve themselves.

 Table 7 shows the conscientiousness trait with 10% of the respondents scoring moderate and 90% scoring high resulting in the overall mean of 4.25. This second trait also belongs to the category level of “high”.

The researchers have analyzed that female managers are high on this trait because they are staunched to their goals and responsibilities as they have a significant position in the workplace. Female managers who have a high level of this trait are those who perform successfully in the workplace as the objectives of the company are met.

The findings of the table can be compared to the work made by Weisberg, Deyoung, and Hirsh (2011) where women were found to have a higher level of conscientiousness rather than men in some aspects, such as being dedicated, disciplined, and organized to perpetuate the goals as well as to follow the rules. It may infer that they have good impulse control, which helps them finish their tasks and reach their goals.

Table 8 shows the extroversion trait with only 1% of the respondents scoring Low, 54% scoring moderate, and 45% scoring high, with an overall mean of 3.63. In general, the respondents have a “moderate” level which is between the mean range of 2.34 to 3.67.

Findings show that the majority of female managers scored moderately on this trait. This result means that they can either prefer to do their work alone to concentrate or get help from their subordinates by socializing. Those high on extroversion are usually socialites who thrive in social situations. They tend to gain energy and are excited about being around others. While scoring low in extroversion puts individuals in the introvert category, these managers tend to be more reserved and less inclined to make social interactions.

Based on a study conducted by Phondej and Yousapronpaiboon (2015) women who score moderate in the extroversion trait possess both extrovert and introvert traits. They are called ambiverts since they have the flexibility to change between being extroverts and introverts depending on the situation. They can swiftly adjust from working and socializing with others to working and enjoying their time alone.

Table 9 shows the agreeableness trait with 12% of respondents scoring moderate and 88% scoring high resulting in an overall mean of 4.33, which belongs to the “high” category level.

The majority scored a high level of agreeableness which means that female managers often unite their members to work as a team and are solicitous about the well-being and success of their subordinates. Because of this trait, they show amiability and consideration to everyone in the workplace. The study of  Weisberg et al. (2011) shows that women have a higher level of agreeableness as they tend to be compassionate and polite towards the people around them. With that, compassion shows the warmth and empathy that women usually radiate.

While those who scored low or moderate may be perceived as more suspicious, manipulative, or uncooperative, female managers with a lower level of this trait may be seen as antagonistic when interacting with others, making them less likely to be favored or trusted.

Table 10 shows that the Neuroticism trait has 48% of respondents scoring low and 52% scoring moderate,combining the scores altogether resulting in an overall mean of 2.35. This trait belongs to the “moderate” category level, which is between the mean range of 2.34 to 3.67.

Based on the results, female managers, in general, are moderate in neuroticism because their emotions need to remain balanced and stable in the workplace. At times, they may feel confident about themselves and about the tasks that need to be done, but they might sometimes also feel insecure, anxious, or have low self-esteem.

3.1. The Relationship of Leadership Levels and Personality Traits of the Respondents

Table 11 elucidates the lack of relationship between leadership levels and the openness trait of the respondents. This table also shows the distribution of the level of openness at the leadership levels. Level 1 has the most managers with 14% scoring moderate and 17% scoring high, Level 2 with 9% scoring moderate and 7% scoring high, and Level 3 with 7% scoring moderate and 4% scoring high. Moreover, Level 4 leaders have only 6% that scored moderate and 9% that scored high, and Level 5 with 8% moderate and the most in high with 19%.

Based on the results, the majority of Level 1, 4, and 5 managers scored high in openness. This means that from the beginning of female managers’ careers until their pinnacle, they still enjoy experimenting with new ideas and discovering novel experiences. This also means that they prefer variety and value independence. While this also applies to the managers that scored moderate in Levels 1 to 5, it is more pronounced in those who scored high. However, the computed statistic does not imply that as the leadership levels scale up, the openness levels also increase.

With a χ² of 5.07 and p-value > 0.05, the researchers do not reject the null hypothesis because there is not enough evidence to conclude that the variables are associated. A similar result by Baptiste (2018) wherein openness-to-experience was a non-significant trait in his Pearson Correlation analysis (p = 0.080). He implied that openness had a weak correlation with leadership. In his study, the openness trait of female managers did not contribute to job efficiency. On the contrary, the openness trait in the study of Easley (2019) possessed stronger aspects in the workplace manifesting a p-value < 0.01 which signifies that this trait covaries with leadership.

Table 12 concludes that the researchers did not reject the null hypothesis of leadership levels being correlated with the conscientiousness trait of the respondents. The data also represent a high proportion of conscientious leaders. Level 1 at 5% scored moderate and 26% scored high, while Level 2 at only 1% scored moderate and 15% scored high. Moreover, Level 3 leaders with 3% scored moderate and only 8% scored high, Level 4 had no scores in the moderate level but had 8% of leaders scoring high, and Level 5 leaders have 1% scored moderate, and also 26% scored high.

Derived from the results, the majority of female managers on all levels of leadership scored high on conscientiousness. This signifies that female managers, whether they are new or veterans in the field, have good control of their impulses and are quite disciplined. However, the results imply that with the null hypothesis not being rejected, an increase in leadership level does not necessarily mean an increase in their level of conscientiousness.

This can be equated to the study conducted by Easley (2019) wherein her hypothesis was partially disproved. There was a negative significant correlation between conscientiousness and leadership, which means female managers who are organized are less likely to work with subordinates that are lazy and incompetent. With a χ² of 8.05 and p-value > 0.05, the researchers concluded that the null hypothesis is not to be rejected because of the lack of evidence to conclude that the variables are correlated.

Table 13 shows that in all Level 1 leaders, only 1% scored low, 20% scored moderate, and 10% scored high. While other leadership levels do not have scores in the low level of extroversion, 10% of Level 2 scored moderate and 6% scored high, 10% of Level 3 leaders scored moderate and only 1% scored high. Meanwhile, 7% of Level 4 leaders scored moderate and 8% scored high and 7% of Level 5 scored moderate and 20% scored high.

Based on the results, Levels 1, 2, and 3 in general, scored a moderate level of extroversion. This signifies that those who have yet to establish their presence in the leadership scene may thrive in social situations and feel comfortable voicing their opinions. Their emotional payoff from attaining social achievements is mostly conserved similar to introverts. Meanwhile, Levels 4 and 5 generally have highly extroverted female managers. This signifies that extraversion is one of the reasons that these managers reached such a high level of leadership. They naturally and frequently socialize with various types of individuals because are generally assertive, sociable, fun-loving, and outgoing.

Additionally, the table delineates that the p-value is at 0.011 with a strength of the relationship that is 31.4% providing a good threshold for suggesting a substantive relationship between the two variables which is a χ² value of 19.7 and p-value < 0.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected, concluding that there is an interconnection between the leadership levels and the extroversion trait.

This aligns with the results of the study of Judge et al. (2002) in Ozbağ (2016) in which it was inferred that extroversion has the strongest personality trait (p-value = 0.31). It is positively associated with leadership emergence. Moreover, extroverts are more likely to emerge as leaders in a group because of their characteristics that include but not limited to being communicative, confident, and optimistic.

Table 14 shows the distribution of the level of agreeableness in the leadership levels where 7% of Level 1 leaders scored moderate, and 24% scored high, Level 2 at 2% scored moderate and 14% scored high, and none from the Level 3  leaders scored moderate, while 11% scored high. Among Level 4 leaders, only 1% scored moderate and 14% scored high and 2% of Level 5 leaders scored moderate and 25% scored high.  Based on the results, female managers on all leadership levels scored high on the agreeableness trait. This may imply that from the beginning of their career as a female manager until they become Level 5, which is the pinnacle, they encourage strong teamwork and they would rather consider the success of their subordinates than compete with them. Moreover, the statistical inference does not indicate that the level of leadership increases along with the level of agreeability of female managers. This implies that the null hypothesis of leadership levels being correlated with the agreeableness trait of the respondents was not rejected. With a p-value > 0.05 and χ² of 5.73, the findings suggest that agreeableness and the five levels of leadership are not correlated. Furthermore, female managers having a high level of agreeableness may find it difficult to reprimand subordinates. A similar study resembles the findings where agreeableness and leadership have a weak correlation (p-value = 0.08) as it serves as an impediment to success. Agreeable individuals may tend to accept the fate of a particular situation as to why it happened rather than taking an action. Judge et al. (2002).

Table 15 determines the dissemination of the level of neuroticism in the leadership levels. It shows that of all Level 1 leaders, 21% scored moderate and 10% scored low. Meanwhile, 10% of Level 2 scored moderate and 6% scored low, 7% of Level 3 leaders scored moderate, and only 4% scored low. On the other hand, 3% of Level 4 leaders scored moderate, and 12% scored low. Lastly, 11% of Level 5 scored moderate and 16% scored low.

Although commonly viewed as a negative or “red flag” trait, being neurotic is basically an individual’s capability to withstand, control, and negate negative emotions. Level 4 managers, in general, scored low on this trait. This means as people developers, they are fairly strong-willed and lead by example through their emotional strength. Their self-esteem is high and remains resilient through tough times. This implies that the majority of level 1, 2, 3, and 5 female managers who scored moderate are more prone to negative emotions. Nevertheless, they are still less likely to be perceived as anxious or moody. In general, female managers from all levels are calm, secure, and self-satisfied.

Moreover, female managers who are self-aware can make them successful in their careers. This is similar to the findings of the study of Bendersky and Shah (2013) where they had undergone two experiments on how extroverts and neurotics achieve as a team. It was discussed that neurotic leaders use their anxiety as a motivation to work hard. Additionally, they contributed more to the success that exceeded their team members’ low expectations of them. 

Therefore, the p-value of 0.018 which is < 0.05 and an χ² value of 11.9 was used as the basis to reject the null hypothesis. These findings propound that there is a statistically significant correspondence between the leadership levels and the neuroticism trait.

3.2. The Differences in Leadership Levels in terms of the Demographic Profile of the Respondents

The following tables summarized the significant differences in the demographic information: age, years of managerial experience, industry, and span of control to the levels of leadership of the respondents.

Table 16 features the leadership levels of each age bracket. Female managers at the ages 18-30 years old are considered to be at Level 3 with a mean score of 29.9. Meanwhile, managers at ages 31-45 are in Level 2 as they have a leadership mean score of 22.9, and managers above 45 years old are in Level 2 as well, where they have a mean score of 23.1. The researchers do not reject the null hypothesis because of the p-value being 0.336 which verifies that there is no statistically significant difference between the leadership scores of each age group.

In Table 17, the findings show that respondents with less than one year of managerial experience attained the highest mean score of 26.2, then 1-5 years coming up with a mean score of 24.1, and 6-10 years with a mean score of 25.7 in which all of them attained Level 4 leadership. Meanwhile, respondents with 11-15 years of experience accumulated a mean score of 22.0, 16-20 years of experience with 22.6, and those with more than 20 years got 21.2 which landed these three age groups in Level 3 leadership.

Since the p-value is .945, there is no significant difference between the leadership scores and the years of managerial experience.

Table 18 provides an overview of the difference between leadership levels with respect to the industries of the respondents. The respondents from the hospitality and banking industry are considered to be in Level 2 where they both attained a 23.5 mean score. Meanwhile, managers from the education industry attained Level 3 with the highest mean score of 24.4 Despite that fact, the p-value of 0.967 suggests that there is no significant difference between the leadership levels regarding what industry they are managing, therefore, the researchers have concluded to not reject the null hypothesis.

In Table 19, the findings above with a p-value of 0.755 means that the null hypothesis is not rejected because it shows that there is no significant difference between the leadership levels concerning control span. The respondents with a smaller span of control of less than 10 (23.3) and between 10-50 (22.8) are included in Level 2. Those respondents with a larger span of control of 51-100 (25.8) and more than 100 (31.7) are regarded as Level 3 managers. The p-value of 0.755 shows that there is no sufficient sample evidence to conclude that leadership levels of female managers differ according to their span of control.

4. CONCLUSION

This study explored the relationship between personality traits and leadership levels among female managers in Metro Manila, Philippines. This correlational research involved 100 managers from three different industries: education, banking, and hospitality. Female managers in general have a high level of openness which means that they tend to think in abstract and complex ways. They enjoy experimenting with new ideas and discovering novel experiences. The female managers attained a high level of conscientiousness; they are highly organized and determined managers in their respective industries. They forego immediate gratification for the sake of long-term achievement. Also, they scored a moderate level of extroversion, which means that they are moderately inclined to make interactions with their team members. They engage with others like most extroverts but their emotional payoff from attaining social achievements is mostly conserved similar to introverts.
In addition, female managers have a high level of agreeableness. They put others’ needs ahead of their own as well as cooperate rather than compete with others. They experience a great deal of empathy and tend to get pleasure from serving and taking care of their team members. Interestingly, female managers’ neurotic trait is generally at a moderate level. This can be thought of as their alarm system. Female managers are moderately prone to negative emotions as a sign that something is wrong; their threshold to withhold emotions is balanced.

The majority of the female managers landed in Level 1- Position, which means that majority are in a prime position to begin investing in their growth and potential as a leader; followed by Level 5- Pinnacle which means that managers in this level have invested their lives into the lives of others for the long haul. Developing themselves and others to become leaders who develop other leaders. Like a tree growing branches and leaves.  There is a good threshold between the relationship of leadership levels and the extroversion and neuroticism traits for implying that there is a substantive relationship of covariance. However, the traits of openness, conscientiousness, and agreeableness did not signify interconnectedness to the leadership levels. It was also found out that female managers’ demographic information showed no significant differences in their respective leadership levels. Among the recommendation of the researchers are the following: (1) increase the number of respondents from the three levels of management: entry, middle, and top, respectively; (2) focus on one specific industry to obtain a more in-depth analysis using qualitative methodology and add more variables that may affect the leadership levels and personality traits of the managers. As a whole, the study was able to expand the existing body of knowledge about feminist leadership and how their personality traits are associated with their leadership styles.

REFERENCES

Baptiste, B. (2018). The relationship between the big five personality traits and authentic leadership. Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies. 4714.  

Bendersky, C., & Shah, N. P. (2013). The downfall of extraverts and rise of neurotics: The dynamic process of status allocation in task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 56(2), 387-406.Available at: https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0316.

Burkholder, G. J., Cox, K. A., Crawford, L. M., & Hitchcock, J. H. (2019). Correlational design. Research design methods. Retrieved from: https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=MwKPDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT112&dq=correlational+research+designs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwig5eaa_azsAhX9yosBHTa4C-84ChDoATAIegQIBBAC#v=onepage&q=correlational%20research%20designs&f=false

Cheung, A. K. L. (2014). Structured questionnaires. In: Michalos A.C. (Eds,). encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research. Dordrecht: Springer.

Easley, S. (2019). The relationship between leadership style and personality type among college students. Retrieved from: https://scholar.dominican.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1059&context=honors-theses.

Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1-4.Available at: https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11.

Grant Thornton International. (2020). Ph tops women in business survey. P&A GrantThornton. Retrieved from: https://www.grantthornton.com.ph/insights/global-insights1/articles/ph-tops-women-in-business-survey.

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765-780.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.765.

Maxwell, J. (2011). The 5 levels of leadership: Proven steps to maximize your potential. Center street. Retrieved from: https://www.pdfdrive.com/the-5-levels-of-leadership-e51484370.html.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. J. (2010). NEO inventories professional manual. Retrived from: http://cda.psych.uiuc.edu/multivariate_fall_2013/neo_mccrae_costa.pdf.

McLeod, S. A. (2018). Questionnaire: Definition, examples, design and traits. Simply psychology. Retrieved from: https://www.simplypsychology.org/questionnaires.html.

Naderifar, M., Goli, H., & Ghaljaie, F. (2017). Snowball sampling: A purposeful method of sampling in qualitative research. Strides in Development of Medical Education, 14(3), 1-7.Available at: https://doi.org/10.5812/sdme.67670.

Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Ozbağ, G. K. (2016). The role of personality in leadership: Five factor personality traits and ethical leadership. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 235, 235-242.

Philippine Statistics Authority. (2020). Women and men factsheet 2020. Retrieved from: https://psa.gov.ph/content/psa-issues-updates-women-and-men-philippines-5.

Phondej, W., & Yousapronpaiboon, K. (2015). Linking female leaders’ personality traits to motives, powers and behaviour competencies: Women in executive level positions. World Review of Business Research, 5(3), 247-258.

Scouller, J. (2011). The three levels of leadership: How to develop your leadership presence, knowhow and skill. Cirencester: Management Books 2000.

Weisberg, Y., Deyoung, C., & Hirsh, J. (2011). Gender differences in personality across the ten aspects of the big five. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 178-178.Available at: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00178.