1

Chapter 1

Introduction

Background of the Study

“Life is not a matter of chances, it is a matter of choices.”

Decision making has always been a part our everyday lives, from deciding what you will

have for dinner to deciding what career path will you take and on what age you are going to settle

down. From these decisions, we tend to react about its outcomes. Making choices can help to

overcome problems and to choose an alternative on life-dilemmas that all individuals encounter.

This act of considering various choices and choosing one alternative over the other can be

defined as decision making. Individual’s decision-making style can be influenced by the

individuals’ personal ideologies, traits and lifestyle. Personality has been an interesting topic in

the science of psychology. It a person’s collaboration of traits, qualities to form their character

and individuality. How we are as a person influence the way we react, our actions, the way we

think, and on how we make decisions.

Personality and decision making are the two important constructs in organizational

psychology for personality is measured to predict an individual’s effectiveness while good

decision making is a part of a healthy cognition which may affect and interfere in times of work.

In leadership, a leader who can sell or market himself to others can capture the hearts of his

people. Leaders and politicians here in the Philippines can be a good example. During national

election campaigns, on a larger scope, candidates put their unwavering smiles, show gestures and

say positive words to people just to get their votes by making a good impression to them. And

that is where personality put its work. A politician who has a likeable personality will no wonder

get most of the people’s votes. In Filipino culture, charismatic leaders who are more appealing
 2

tend to be the masses favourite. Charismatic leaders are the ones who carries positive aura, drops

hilarious jokes, and shares same stories of hard work and perseverance which many Filipino can

relate. It was believed that making good impressions may create a harmonious relationship in the

organization.

Leadership efficiency can be seen by how firm he stands in his own judgements, personal

point of views, and how wise he makes decisions. A leader who is driven is more likely to be

efficient in his job. Careful decision making suggests that the leader is passionate enough in his

duty because it is a manifestation that he cares much about the organization’s status and purpose.

In an organization may be it small or big, leaders serve as the fuel of its engine because they are

the ones who makes decisions, cogitates plans and strategies for future executions, and directs his

people to achieve their goals.

This two psychological constructs: personality and decision making when combined may

predict leadership efficacy and efficiency. It is important for the people to know and identify

which traits and behaviours would make a leader effective in his job. Leadership skills of an

individual can be developed and trained even if he is still in the school. Students who are actively

affiliated with organizations inside and outside of their universities can be a way of fostering

leadership skills within them. University student council and organizations may produce leaders

that can be someday useful to the society. Leadership skills may also help new graduates to

adjust in their new environment once they started working. According to the HR manager whom

the researcher interviewed for a requirement in I/O Psychology, good grades is a good indicacy

of potential for a fresh graduate, yes, but when they are already in the office more important

would be how do you adapt, how do you become more initiative, how do you become a team

player, how do you think out of the box, how do you become more creative all of which

describes a potential leader that an organization needs.

 3

The researcher aims to determine the relationship between personality traits and decision

making and whether personality traits can predict the decision making styles or not. The

researcher is inquisitive about this way of connecting an individual’s personality in a cognitive

process such as decision making that is inevitable in one’s life.

The researcher is motivated to proceed with this study because the researcher would like to

discover the personality traits that may correlate with different decision making styles among the

student leaders in Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila. Student leaders became the target

population of the researcher since the researcher enjoys being involved in leadership

organizations on her years in the college, and currently works with other student leaders in the

student council. Also, the researcher would like to determine the decision making competency of

the student leaders the student leaders’ decisions play a huge part in the organization’s failure

and success.

This descriptive correlational study about determining the relationship between personality

traits and decision making competency may contribute in terms of literature since this matter has

been frequently explored. The findings of this research study may produce multifarious research

ideas not only for personality and behavioural psychologists but also to the whole science of

psychology.
 4

Statement of the Problem

1. What is the personality profile of the respondents in terms of

a. Openness

b. Conscientiousness

c. Extroversion

d. Agreeableness

e. Neuroticism

2. What is the decision making profile of the respondents in terms of

a. Vigilance

b. Hyper vigilance

c. Decision Avoidance

3. Is there a significant relationships between respondents’ personality and decision making?

4. Based on the results, what leadership training can be recommended?

Hypothesis

The researchers formulated hypothesis of the possible outcomes of the experiment.

Ho: There is no significant relationship between the personality profile and the decision making

profile of the PLM Student Leaders

 5

Significance of the Study

The study will be beneficial to the following:

To university and educational institution administrators. To give more attention to the students

to become leaders in nurturing and in developing a holistic environment where the students can

grow and foster their leadership skills.

To parents. To the first teachers of the students who are the main foundation of the students, to

always keep them well-rounded individuals most especially in their own schools.

To Political Organizations. To know the areas of development needed to produce effective and

efficient leaders.

To the youth leaders and aspiring youth leaders. To apply the findings of this research to

themselves.

Moreover, the study can contribute to the body of knowledge on personality traits and decision

making. It will also test the applicability of the instruments such as Big Five Inventory and

Melbourne Decision Making Questionnaire.

 6

Scope and Limitations

The study reiterates the relationship of a personality trait with a certain decision making

approach among student leaders. The researcher is interested in knowing what particular

personality trait will correlate with a particular decision making approach which is vital to the

role of leadership.

The participants were the incumbent student officers of Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng

Maynila regardless of what type of organization the student is involved (Academic, Non-

Academic, Religious, and Student Council). In furtherance, however, the study’s respondents are

limited only among student leaders in the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila.

 7

Chapter 2

Review of Related Literature

Leader, notes Merriam Webster (2017), is someone who leads, directs and who has a

commanding authority or influence among his stakeholders.

Any leader thrives to be a “know-how” in dealing with everyday problems and dilemmas

concerning the welfare of its people. The act of identifying and choosing alternatives can

influence a leaders’ values and preferences has to do with cognition. It is defined as decision

making process. In a recent study, it was showed how cognition and decision-making are related

through quantum models and mathematical approaches and not just on psychological classical

theories (Busemeyer and Yearsley, 2015).

Personality on Leadership

According to Pierce J. Howard on his work, The Owner’s Manual for Personality at

Work (as cited on Krakoff, 2008), “Personality at work are like cars in the city: They often keep

us from our destination” by this quote, personality affects one’s work may be it positively or

negatively. The researcher is motivated to finish this study for the purpose of identifying the

student leaders’ personality that may affect their work ethics specifically on decision making.

The popular Big Five-Model of Costa and McCrae (Feist, J., Feist, G.J., Roberts, T.,

2013 p.374), with the aid of relevant literature and further factor-analysis, became the basis of

many personality psychologists in studying personality dynamics. These dimension were divided

into 5 factors namely: Openness to Experience, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness

and Neuroticism.
 8

Openness to Experience factor, in reference with the Costa and McCrae’s Five-Factor

Model, encapsulated six facets namely: imaginative, creative, original, prefers variety, curious

and liberal. Individuals high in Openness to Experience are seekers of new ideas, and activities

and easily gets bored. A study by Timothy A. Judge was featured on an article on the Business

Insider showing an overview of what personal qualities a leader must have. Results showed that

Openness to Experience was the third strongest predictor of leadership. (Lebowitz, 2016) In

fact, it was just as strong linked as to leadership as extraversion. Based on an article of the

consulting psychologist and executive coach, Dr. Maynard Brusman (2017), leaders with high

scores in the O factor (Openness to Experience) tend to have many broad interests and like to

be cutting-edge. They are often to be curious, introspective and reflective, seeking new

experiences and thinking about the future. Meanwhile, leaders with the low scores in O factor

tend to be practical and down to earth. Work done efficiently and systematically are appreciated

by these leaders.

The C on the Big five Factor is the Conscientiousness trait. Facets associated in this

personality traits are: conscientious, hardworking, well-organized, punctual, ambitious and

persevering. Featured on an article (as cited by Lebowitz, 2016) are the findings of the results

of the study “Personality and Leadership” of Judge and according there a person’s tendency to

be conscientious was the second predictor of leadership. Based also on the article of Brusman

(2017), leaders who scored high on C factor (Conscientiousness) are disciplined and

dependable. They are often called “practical leaders” for they consolidate their time, energy and

effort through attaining their goals. On the opposite side, those leaders who scored low on this

factor attain goals with spontaneous and non-methodological approach.

Extraversion having six facets of affectionate, joiner, talkative, fun loving, active and

passionate was the strongest predictor of leadership emergence and leadership effectiveness but
 9

it was a better predictor of the leader’s effectiveness in position according to Lebowitz 2016

(ibid). However, the authors deconstructed the variable (Extraversion) into distinct parts, and

results suggests that dominance the independent variable dominance and sociability better

predicted leadership than extroversion as a whole. As the authors write, “as both sociable and

dominant people are more likely to assert themselves in group situations.” Brusman (2017)

viewed extraverted leaders as the ones who prefers to be around other people, enthusiastic,

sociable and fun-loving. The author labelled these leaders as “formal or informal leader” and

often not a listener because extroverts most of the time dominates the conversation. Those

leaders who scored low in extroversion are probably known as introverts, prefer working alone.

The people-person trait, Agreeableness represents the A in the Big Five Factor. Traits

under this dimension are: softheartedness, trusting, generous, acquiescent, lenient and good-

natured as reported by Feist (ibid). According to Judge, these traits on the book of Personality

& Leadership, friendliness was the “least relevant” to leadership of all the traits studied.

However, on the leadership effectiveness, this trait was related. On the author’s’ note, “because

agreeable individuals tend to be more passive and compliant, it makes sense that they would be

less likely to become leaders.” However when the researchers are done with the study,

agreeable people can be as effective leaders as other people with high scores on the other

dimensions of personality. Brusman (2017) stated that leaders with high scores on this

dimension tend to relate to authority by being accepting and submissive. These leaders may

came across as unprincipled for these people may yield their work positions. Leaders who

scored low in this dimension tend to be sceptical, persistent, and firm. These leaders may came

across as hostile, rude, combative, and even self-centred

Neuroticism, the N factor in the Big Five Personality, encapsulates six facets namely:

anxious, temperamental, self-pitying, self-conscious, emotional and vulnerable. On the findings

 10

of Judge (as cited by Lebowitz, 2016), neuroticism was not a strong predictor of leadership,

concluding that individuals that are highly neurotic are not especially likely or unlikely to

become leaders. According to Brusman (2017), neurotics are highly reactive and tend to be

responsive, alert, sensitive and expressive. They are easily depressed and tensed under stress. In

tough times, neurotic individuals vent out their frustrations before actually doing the job task.

Suggested by the author, neurotics may fil the role of conscience or emotional barometer for the

team. Staying calm, stress-free, guilt-free and urge-resistant are the traits that individuals with

low neuroticism have.

Leadership traits, even before, have been a subject of interest for the trait theorists. In

the Late 70’s, Stogdill 1978 identified traits that were positively associated with leadership. The

list included the following 10 characteristics: drive for responsibility and task completion; vigor

and persistence in pursuit of goals; risk taking and originality in problem solving; drive to

exercise initiative in social situations; self-confidence and sense of personal identity; willingness

to accept consequences of decisions and action; readiness to absorb interpersonal stress;

willingness to accept consequences of decision and action; readiness to absorb interpersonal

stress willingness to tolerate frustration and delay; ability to influence other people’s behaviours;

and capacity to structure social interaction systems to the purpose at hand. All of which can be

positively correlated with the big five personality traits popularly theorized by the late

personality psychologists Costa and McCrae. (Northouse, 2012)

Decision Making on Leadership

Decisions that leaders make is vital to an organization’s success in the end. In a book of

Managerial Decision-Making Leadership: The essential Pocket Strategy, “The leader of the team

is the decision-maker, he or she can learn who to invite into the decision-making process and
 11

how to lead the process to maximize the quality and the “executability” of a final decision but he

is the one has to bear the final responsibility for the decision. (Wang, 2010)

The researcher of this study classified the decision-making styles of student leaders into

three: Vigilance, Hypervigilance and Decision Avoidance. The researcher’s basis for this

classification rooted from several literature which used decision making as the focus of their

studies. The Melbourne Decision-Making Questionniare: An Instrument for Measuring Patterns

for Coping with Decisional Conflict became the major basis of the researcher for measuring and

evaluating the decision-making variable among the respondents.

Vigilance as defined by Burnett is a process of clarifying objectives to be achieved by the

decision, searching painstakingly for relevant information, assimilating information in an

unbiased manner, and evaluating the options carefully before making a choice. Therefore, a

vigilant decision maker is a rational one.

An excerpt from the book What Every Leader Needs, the author stated that there is this

new CEO that switched a bankrupt company’s status into 360-degree. He vetted ideas from his

people, defined success metric upfront, scoped and resourced projects and defined clear

accountabilities and tracked real progress and clear expectations that kept his people focused on

the right outcomes. They took decisive decisions instead of waiting others to get a task done.

These traits are connected with the researcher’s definition of vigilance decision making.

On Strategic Leadership: Theory and Research on Executives, Top Management Teams,

and Boards by (Canenella et. al, 2009) the relationship of leadership power and vigilance is

strong because of the myriad ways in which a powerful CEO can affect the functioning of the

board. The greater the relative power, the greater its vigilance. Strengthening board vigilance has

been a goal for the CEOs in most organizations not only for the companies’ success but also for

the uniformity in making decisions and taking actions.

 12

Hypervigilance defined by Burnett, is a decision making style where the decision maker

frantically way out of dilemmas. Due to the pressure, the decision maker is impulsive upon

coming up with solutions that seem to promise immediate relief. Consequences of choices are

overlooked because of emotional excitement, and limited attention. Extremely, this style is a

“panic-like state” in which is associated with severe emotional stress.

According to The Bass Handbook of leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial

Applications (Bass et al., 2009) Hypervigilance may set in if threats or problems contain time

pressures and deadlines that the decision maker want to escape. Person in panic at first imitates

what other persons’ are doing second failing to anticipate the consequences of choices. Informal

groups may be formed within an organization if the leader cannot deal with the crisis. Drive and

anxiety may be reduced by developing a formal leadership support that may increase the people’s

feeling of security. Thus, hypervigilant leaders shall compose their directive selves for they can

affect influence on the threats that the whole organization is facing.

Burke & Fox (2016) on their book Human Frailities: Wrong Choices on the Drive of

Success, groupthink and one-way communication may result from a group or organization whose

head is a hyper vigilant narcissistic leader. These individuals are constantly scanning for nay tiny

insult, denigration or possibility of being uncovered.

Defensive Avoidance, described by Burnett (ibid) is defined as a decision making style

which is escaping conflict by procrastinating, shifting responsibility to someone else, or

constructing wishful rationalizations to bolster the least objectionable alternative. Faulty

decisions are often the results of this decision making style, and it is also associated with high

stress.

Defensive Avoidance is considered as a form of cognitive distortion that greatly affects

leadership. These are also termed as “leadership vices”, as it defects skills needed for the good
 13

governance. These leadership vices may lead to flawed retrospective assessments of the

probabilities of the outcomes, lack of empathy that impedes putting oneself in another leader’s

shoes, overconfidence in initial decisions, and ego-centric bias. (Femia et. al, 2016 )

An early research study proposed a model of decision making by Jannis and Mann during

the late 1970s. In this model, it is stated that making decisions produce psychological stress to

individuals. The psychological stressors may come from the individual’s concerns about losses in

choosing among different alternatives and the reputation when the wrong alternative has been

chosen. According to the researchers, handling psychological stress can determine the success

and failure of making good decisions. Stress management paved way on conceptualizing decision

making style. These decision making styles are vigilance, defensive avoidance and hyper

vigilance. The researchers labelled the vigilant decision making style as the most effective.

From a more recent study, four decision making styles has been identified: Vigilance,

Hyper vigilance, Buck-passing, and Procrastination. Vigilant Decision Making Style uses a

methodological approach in making decisions, considers wide range of options before coming up

into a final decision. Hyper Vigilance Decision Making Style differs with Vigilant decision

making style in a sense that the decision-maker is influenced by his/her strong conflict and stress.

This is when the decision-maker is impulsive to come up with an instant solution to a problem.

Buck-passing is when the decision-maker avoids making decisions insisting that it is a

responsibility that should be done by others. This decision making style is usually evident in

groups, organizations and bureaucracies. Procrastination as the final decision making style is said

to be the most inefficient among all four. This is when the decision-maker puts off the tasks and

decisions that has to be done. Furthermore, these delays may cause the decision-maker to come

up with a bad decision (Rajaman, 2014).

Personality and Decision Making

 14

According to research, the Big Five Personality model: Openness, Conscientiousness,

Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism have a greater impact on normal adult personality

that can be maintained person's emotional, interpersonal, experiential, attitudinal, and

motivational styles. It can also envision job performance, employee attitude, team performance.

Autonomy-dependency is affiliated with tolerance for delay and other aspects of decision making

styles wherein the extent of the person's ability to define its values and goals itself and also the

ability to carry out activities that reflect those goals and values. This study investigated

relationship between big five factors and general decision making styles wherein hypotheses

were formulated for the present study. Conscientious people have the proneness to be goal-

oriented and motivated because of being methodical, organized, and thorough vigilant decision

maker because they considers as many options as possible, weighs various outcomes, and takes

the time to make a sound decision. They also develop strategies to reach desired goals. Opposite

with hyper vigilance which is buck passing, and procrastination, impulsive and highly stressed

approach to making decisions (Rajaman, 2014).

In parenting, decision making and personality traits also became interesting variables in

many studies. Parents and young adolescents was related on decision making competence. The

relationship was stronger for males than females. Partial support was given for modelling theory

in regard to the role of parents in the socialization of decision making skills and confidence. A

study also investigated the decision making styles and personality traits with respect to

attachment styles with their parents and guardians. Based on the research findings, the

researchers identified attachments styles associated with personality and decision making styles.

It is proven that secure attachment style is a significant predictor of decision self-esteem,

vigilance, buck-passing and procrastination. Personality traits such as neuroticism, extraversion,

agreeableness and openness to experience can be predicted by secure attachment style.

 15

Preoccupied attachment style is the most significant predictor of conscientiousness personality

trait (as cited in Singh, S., 2013).

A more recent study examined Personality traits, core self-evaluation, and emotional

intelligence due to decision making difficulties specifically on choosing career. The questions

that responded by Italian students found that EI adds significant incremental variance compared

with personality traits and core self-evaluation in predicting career decision-making difficulties,

offering new research opportunities and intervention possibilities (Fabio et al., 2012).

Another experimental study examined whether the big five personality factors could

predict thrives or chokes under pressure during a decision-making task, the effects of the big five

personality factors and under social and combined social and time pressure were assessed.

Research findings showed that Neuroticism negatively predicted performance under social

pressure but did not affect decision making under low pressure. Agreeableness personality trait

negatively predicted performance in both experiments (Byrne, Silasi-Mansat, & Worthy, 2006) .

Personality traits has been a good predictor of decision-making towards advertising.

Studies like this greatly contribute in the field of Consumer Psychology. In Malaysia, there was a

study conducted about how personality traits can be predictors of Decision making towards

advertising among Malaysian consumer students. Using Big five Personality traits Questionnaire

and 5 Phases’ Decision Making Questionnaire as instruments. Data gathered were analysed by

Pearson correlation and multiple regression analysis. The research found out that high

conscientiousness and emotional stability predicted by the consumers’ decision making toward

advertising (Mehdi, et al., 2014).

In 2014 a study about Personality and decision making styles of university students, by

H.M. Saidur Rahaman was conducted. This study focused on the relationship between

personality and decision making styles. Correlational analysis revealed that big five factors are
 16

correlated with decision making styles. Multiple regression analyses further showed that

conscientiousness and openness to experience positively and neuroticism negatively correlated

with vigilance. Extroversion, openness to experience negatively and neuroticism positively

predicted buck-passing. Some findings indicate that neuroticism and conscientiousness predicted

procrastination both positively and negatively, in that order. Only neuroticism predicted hyper

vigilance.

Synthesis:

Personality and decision making has been one of topic of interest among psychology

researchers even before. Links between personality and cognitive processes (one of which the

decision making) contributed mostly on the literature about organizational psychology. The

studies collated investigated about how big five personality traits affect one’s decision making

similar in this study. Also, other factors such as emotional, interpersonal, experiential, attitudinal,

and motivational styles of the respondents are explained. The studies of Fabio et. al (Role of

Personality Traits, Core Self-evaluation, and Emotional Intelligence in Career Decision Making,

2012), Rajaman (Personality & Decision Making Styles of University Students, 2014), Mehdi

(Personality Traits as Predictors of Decision Making towards Advertising Among Malaysian

Consumers Student, 2014) limited the scope of their study also within university students only.

The aforementioned studies also used correlational analysis and multiple regression to determine

the relationship between the variables.

The study of Rahaman (2014) hypothesized specific personality traits that will correlate

with decision making styles supported classical models by Costa and McCrae big five factor

model 1997 and Janis and Mann model of decision making 1977. Unlike with the current study,

the researcher wanted to discover which variable will correlate to the decision making styles of

the local respondents. The study of Brown & Mann (as cited in Singh, S., 2013) focused on the
 17

parent and adolescents on attachment styles and relationship with regards to personality traits and

decision making. Emotional intelligence and core self-evaluation other than personality traits

affect career decision making among university students on the study of Fabio (ibid). The

variables of interest in this research are also tested in an experimental study of Byrne et, al on

2006 (ibid). The personality and decision making of the subjects are tested with social pressures

and low pressures.

The researcher of this study aimed to identify the personality trait of the respondents that

may correlate with the decision making styles to fill in the gaps of the literature by directly

applying these two variables among youth leaders. This research is intended for the development

of the (emerging) student leaders by recommending a program for implementing leadership

trainings, workshops and seminars.

The study’s locale was conducted at the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila. The researcher

analysed the test results of the participants if there was a relationship between the personality and

the decision making styles among the respondents. Conscientiousness, extraversion and

agreeableness positively correlated with vigilance. Neuroticism negatively correlated with

vigilance. Openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness negatively

correlated with hypervigilance. All personality traits obtained meaningful relationship with

defensive avoidance, inverse relationships are seen between openness to experience,

conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness. Positive correlation with neuroticism and

defensive avoidance is also evident.

Definition of Terms:
 18

Personality – pattern of traits that give both consistency and individuality to a person’s

behaviour.

Decision-making – cognitive process in the selecting a course of action among several

alternatives and options.

Leadership – skill related to the ability of an individual to guide other individuals of an entire

team.

Student Leader – a student who takes on the responsibility of serving his fellow students in an

organization or student population.

Theoretical Framework:

According to Janis and Mann’s Conflict Theory of Decision Making is a social psychological

theory of decision making in which the presence or absence of three antecedent conditions are

held to determine the reliance on a particular coping patterns. The three conditions are:

awareness of the risks about the choices, the hope of finding a better alternative, and the belief of

adequate time to search and deliberate before the decision is required. It is assumed that the

same patterns (vigilance, hypervigilance, and decision avoidance) are in the repertoire of every

decision maker. It is recognized that personality variables and other characteristics of the

decision maker, such as trait anxiety, habitual coping style, and information-processing

capability, have major influence on the predisposition to use one or other patterns and the

frequency of usage. (Burnett et al., 1997)

 19

Conceptual Framework:

PERSONALITY TRAITS of the

PLM Student Leaders
* Openness to Experience DECISION MAKING STYLE
of the PLM Student Leaders
* Conscientiousness
 Hyper vigilance
* Extroversion  Vigilance
* Agreeableness  Defensive Avoidance

* Neuroticism

LEADERSHIP TRAINING
PROGRAM
 20

Figure 1: The Research Conceptual Paradigm

The research under study aims to determine the relationship between the personality traits

and decision making styles of the respondents. The independent variable (personality) is

connected by a right arrow pointing to the dependent variable (decision-making). From the

results, an arrow pointing below from the right arrow connecting the two variables introduces a

leadership training program for the student leaders. The researcher then will determine if

personality traits correlates with decision-making profile of the PLM Student Leaders.

Chapter 3

Methodology

Research Design

The researcher obtains quantifiable data therefore this study is a quantitative research. The

researcher utilized survey questionnaires to proceed with this method. This is a descriptive

correlational study. This descriptive research design used correlation as a statistical measure of

the relationship between two or more variables, gives an indication of how one variable may

predict another (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2016).

Research Locale

The research was conducted within this university, the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng

Maynila. The Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng maynila (PLM) is a pioneer, a leader, and a model

institution of higher education in the Philippines. The Philippines’ Commission on Higher

Education has cited PLM as a model for public institutions across the country. According to

Professional Regulation Commission, PLM is among the top five schools nationwide in terms of
 21

board exam passing rate where it is one among three public universities in the top ten category.

PLM is located at Gen. Luna cor. Muralla St., Intramuros, Manila, Metro Manila. This

university is known for producing great scholars with competent leadership skills. The study

aims to delineate personality traits of the student leaders and to trace its relationship with their

decision making profile.

Samples and Sampling Techniques

The researcher obtained a sample size of 209 from a population size of 354 student officers

in this academic year 2017-2018 obtained from the PLM Supreme Student Council database.

This research used purposive sampling to qualify the target respondents. Thus, the

respondents’ qualifications’ include: a. being a college student;

b. Studying in Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila; and

c. an incumbent student officer in PLM

In choosing the respondents, the researcher used the simple random sampling technique.

In this technique, each member of the target population has an equal chance of being selected as

subjects. Slovin’s formula was used to determine the ideal sample size from the population:

n = N / (1 + Ne2)

Whereas:

n = 209 (no. of sample)

N = 354 (total population)

e = 0.05 (error margin/ margin of error)

Instrumentation

Melbourne Decision Making Questionnaire (DMQ)

 22

The Flinders Decision Making Questionnaire (DMQ; Mann, 1982) by Janis and Mann

(1977) was designed to measure the decision making coping patterns of individuals. This scale

was based on the sub-scales of the Melbourne Decision Making Questionnaire. (Vigilance, hyper

vigilance, and decision avoidance) the three sub-scales of MDMQ were used to predict students'

course and career decision making. Independence of choice, satisfaction, and planfulness relating

to their university course and on planfulness and options relating to future employment were

taken into considered. MDMQ scores and measures of course and career decision making are

found to be significantly correlated with each other showing good internal consistency and high

reliability.

This study supports the validity of the DMQ as an instrument for measuring decision

making behaviour. The scale showed good internal consistency and reliability across cultures and

provides operationalization of decision making patterns valid enough that remains close to the

theoretical model (Janis & Mann’s conflict theory, 1977) from which the original questionnaire

was derived. A higher average score on any of the three scales indicates a higher presence of that

particular decision-making style.

Subscales:

 Vigilance – the decision maker clarifies objectives to be achieved by the decisions,

canvasses an array of alternatives, searches painstakingly for relevant information,

assimilates information in the unbiased manner and evaluates alternatives carefully

before making a choice.

 Hypervigilance – the decision maker searched frantically for a way out of dilemmas

 Defensive Avoidance – the decision maker escapes conflict by procrastinating, shifting

responsibility to someone else or constructing wishful rationalization to bolster the least

objectionable alternative.
 23

Big Five Inventory

The recent John, Naumann, & Soto (2008) Handbook of Personality chapter discusses the

conceptual and measurement issues of Big Five Inventory.

The Big Five Inventory (BFI), is often compared to Costa and McCrae’s NEO Five Factor

Inventort (NEO-FFI), and Goldberg’s set of 100 trait-descriptive adjectives. The scientific

origins and history of the Big Five and the theoretical accounts are one of the issues that

Handbook of Personality covered (John et al., 2008). The study also recommended which

measurement you should use in different applications.

Internal consistency reliability, factor structure, and convergent-discriminant validity of the Big

Five Inventory (BFI) were tested in two independent samples of nonclinical adult volunteers

(Sample 1: N = 500; Sample 2: N = 316) and in one sample of adolescent volunteers (Sample 3:

N = 223). Two adult subsamples (n = 70, and n = 141, respectively) also showed a 2-month retest

reliability data. The internal consistency reliabilities were evident for all five BFI scales (mean α

values were .77, .78, and .81 for Sample 1, Sample 2, and Sample 3, respectively); all test-retest

correlations were greater than .75 in both adult participant subsamples. Only the first five

components of the BFI item correlation matrix could be reproduced safely across the three

samples as showed by the principal component analyses. In all three samples, the BFI scales

showed adequate convergent-discriminant validity coefficients. These findings support that the

BFI provides satisfactory reliability and validity data. BFI compared to other personality

measures used short phrases instead of single word adjectives and long phrases which may cause

leniency and fatigue to the respondents. With this, the BFI elicit higher inter-rater agreement than

those measure who used the traditional long phrases and lexical systems. Each subscales contains

8-9 items , and for each subscale a higher score indicates that the person has higher level of that

trait.
 24

Subscales:

 Openness to Experience – appreciation of art, emotion, adventure, unusual ideas,

curiosity and variety of experience.

 Conscientiousness – organized and dependable, how self-discipline, act dutifully, aim

for achievement, and prefer planned rather than spontaneous behavior

 Extraversion – energy, positive emotions, surgency, assertiveness, sociability and the

tendency to seek stimulation in the company of others and talkativeness

 Agreeableness – the degree to which person is kind, how dependable, and cooperative

in certain situations

 Neuroticism – emotional stability characterized by anxiety, fear, moodiness, worry,

envy, frustration, jealousy and loneliness

Procedure:

The researcher collected sample of 209 respondents from the PLM students who were

currently an officer of an organization or student council. The respondents were given 10 minutes

to answer the following questionnaires; a 22-item Melbourne Decision-Making Questionnaire

and the 44-item Big Five Inventory (BFI).

Before the experimentation, pilot testing was conducted to ensure the item reliability and its

applicability in the target respondents. A sample of n=30 from the sample population answered

the 2 scales (BFI and MDMQ) and the findings are: cronbach alpha for overall (BFI α = 0.902

and MDMQ α= 0.897) indicate a high level of internal consistency and inter-item reliability with

the researcher’s target sample. Note that the higher the α coefficient, the closer it is to the value

of α = 1, the more the items have shared and probably measured the same underlying concept.
 25

Cronbach alpha for each subscale was also calculated which demonstrated acceptable reliability

with values ranging from 0.64-0.70 for the BFI and 0.65-0.88 for the MDMQ.

Table 1
Reliability of the BFI Instrument
Domain Cronbach’s alpha Mean Standard Deviation
Openness to 0.65 3.85 0.40
Experience
Agreeableness 0.65 3.81 0.51
Conscientiousness 0.67 3.47 0.50
Extraversion 0.64 3.36 0.89
Neuroticism 0.76 3.35 0.68
N=30

Table 2
Reliability of the MDMQ Instrument
Scales Cronbach’s alpha Mean Standard Deviation
Vigilance 0.77 1.66 0.23
Hypervigilance 0.65 1.03 0.39
Defensive Avoidance 0.88 0.88 0.44
N=30

Statistical Analysis:

Mean & Standard Deviation. Average scores of the participants are included in each entry on the

table.

Pearson-R. The researcher used Pearson-R to correlate the results between the personality trait

and decision making profile of the participants. Pearson-R is a measure of strength of a linear

association between two variables and is denoted by r.

In interpreting the Pearson Correlation Coefficient the following was utilized:

 26

A Pearson correlation coefficient of 0 shows no correlation between variables, ± .10 to .19

interprets very weak correlation, ±.20 to .39 denotes weak correlation, ±.40 to .59 shows

moderate correlation, variables resulted with ±.60 to .79 will be interpreted to have strong

correlation, ±.80 to .99 coefficient correlation denotes very strong correlation and ± 1.0

coefficient correlation will be interpreted to have a perfect correlation between variables.

Chapter 4

Results and Discussions

This section would discuss the interpretations of the data gathered. This would also discuss the

results of the study, its relationship to one another, and the reason for its occurrence.

Problem 1: What is the personality profile of the respondents in terms of

a. Openness

b. Conscientiousness

c. Extroversion

d. Agreeableness

e. Neuroticism

Table 3
Personality Profile of the Respondents
 27

Domain Mean SD

Openness to Experience 3.73 0.47

Agreeableness 3.70 0.53
Conscientiousness 3.50 0.59
Extraversion 3.45 0.56
Neuroticism 3.19 0.59
N= 209

Table 1 shows that the respondents obtained a mean score of 3.73 in Openness to

Experience, 3.70 in Agreeableness factor, 3.50 in Conscientiousness, 3.45 in Extraversion, and

3.19 in Neuroticism. These findings can be supported by the results of the pilot testing among the

target population, the results were: O= 3.85, A=3.81, C=3.47, E= 3.36, N=3.35.

A. Personality Profile of the respondents in terms of Openness to Experience

Openness to Experience had the highest mean score (3.73) making it the most dominant

personality trait of the respondents. Considerations for this personality trait to be the most

dominant would be the desire of the students to go beyond their comfort zones. Being the ones

who have the guts to take another responsibility other than academics is one of the main

manifestations of the student leaders to have openness to experience. Attending to conferences,

applying for congress meetings is another way of the student leaders to be active and

participative with the current issues on a national level which displays intellectual curiosity.

Creativity is shown among the student leaders through the programs, projects and events that

they offer to the students. Making creative and artistic publicity materials for upcoming events

and programs, such as posters and bulletin board announcements, the number one venue wherein

student leaders post updates, display the student leaders’ active imagination and creativity.
 28

Student leaders are also aware of their feelings, good at expressing emotions and basically know

exactly what they want. Being assertive is a trait that student leaders must have because many

people listen for their opinions.

A study by Timothy A. Judge was featured on an article on the Business Insider showing

an overview of what personal qualities a leader must have. Results showed that Openness to

Experience was the third strongest predictor of leadership. (Lebowitz, 2016). In fact, it was just

as strong linked as to leadership as extraversion. Active imagination, aesthetic sensitivity,

attentiveness to inner feelings, preference for variety and intellectual curiosity are the six main

facets of the Openness to Experience factor.

B. Personality Profile of the respondents in terms of Agreeableness

The second most dominant personality trait among the respondents is the Agreeableness.

Trust (forgiving), straight-forwardness (not demanding), altruism (warm), compliance (not

stubborn), modesty (not show-off) and tender-mindedness (sympathetic) are the six facets of

Agreeableness factor. This factor translates into likeability. Student leaders draw helping

behaviours from a cooperative environment. In a team, trust with each member is important for a

goal to be achieved. Trust can be manifested by the student leaders when delegating tasks to their

co-officers for an event to become feasible. Warm attitudes can be manifested when student

leaders fix internal conflicts in a diplomatic way to maintain good relationship within the

organization. Consensus is practiced by the student leaders within the organization by coming up

with an idea shared by all of the officers. Essentially, published in Inquirer.NET, Filipinos are

known globally to be highly-relational, proficient in emotionally and socially connecting with

others (Wong, 2012). Through agreeable leaders, strong relationships within the organization can

be developed. Facets under this personality factor (trust, straight-forwardness, altruism,

 29

compliance, modesty and tender-mindedness) had multiple positive moderate correlations with

transformational leadership. (Lamm, 2013).

C. Personality profile of the respondents in terms of Conscientiousness

Conscientiousness is the third most dominant personality among the respondents with the

mean of 3.50. This factor reflects the degree to which the leader is dependable, responsible,

perseveres, and is achievement oriented. This trait can be observed when the student leaders are

highly focused on a task, having high concerns with the rules, having a sense of control on the

team, and is driven for a proper system within the organization. Conscientiousness is seen among

the student leaders given that they belong an organization. Student leaders organize events,

projects and programs from planning, production, and execution. Another factor also is the

systematized communication between the student leaders and the university administration.

Administrators set standard process in processing papers in order to make an event possible. This

process is known to be CSW or the Completed Staff Work Conscientiousness can also be

displayed when student leaders facilitate tasks, prioritize things and delay gratifications. . In a

goal-oriented organization, gamesmanship is set aside and their focus is on achieving goals.

Again, on the study of Timothy A Judge, it was revealed that the second strongest predictor of

leadership. According to the author, Conscientiousness factor was closely related to leadership

emergence than to leadership effectiveness. According to Judge, the inherent organizing

activities of the individual such as note taking and facilitating may allow him to become a leader.

(Lebowitz, 2016)

D. Personality profile of the respondents in terms of Extraversion

Table 1 shows that extraversion is the second to the least dominant personality among the

respondents with the mean score of 3.45. Extraversion can be evident to the student leaders who
 30

always talk and seen to be more forceful with their opinions. Gaining relationships that will help

the student leaders for resource and outside connections can also be attributed to this trait.

Developing and maintaining high number of relationships increases the scope of influence the

student leader has. Extroverts’ optimistic views allow them to emerge as great leaders, and to be

perceived as “leader-like”. Bono and Judge recognized this personality trait as the strongest and

most consistent to correlate of transformational leadership (Lebowitz, 2016). However, while

extraversion is important for leadership in general, the effectiveness of this depends on the

context of leadership. Interestingly, student leaders’ extraversion placed 4th which meant to be the

second least dominant trait they have. It can be inferred that academic pressures of being a

scholar in PLM make the students stay away from enjoyment most of the time. This can also be a

good thing for the student leaders.

Excessiveness of this trait have the tendency to be bold, aggressive and grandiose in so

many ways for example being the center of attention, quickly bounce from one conversation to

another, and often over-estimate their capabilities. Further, leaders who engage in shallow

discussions with people might fail to develop strategies and focus that the team needs (Piccolo,

2010). Extraverted leaders who are sensation seekers maintain short-lived enthusiasm for

projects, people, and ideas (Beauducel et al., 2006).

E. Personality profile of the respondents in terms of Neuroticism

Table 1 shows that neuroticism is the least dominant trait among the respondents with the

mean score of 3.19. Anxious, temperamental, self-pitying, self-conscious, emotional, and

vulnerable are the six main facets of this trait. This trait links with emotional instability. It has

been consistently clear in the literature that Neuroticism negatively correlate with leadership.

Being shown that student leaders have this trait to be the least dominant, student leaders have a
 31

reasonable degree of self-esteem. These leaders are considered to be confidently vulnerable by

knowing their own capabilities and limitations. Student leaders maintain calmness, keeping

frustrations invisible, during crises and focuses on how to redress during difficult situations.

Student leaders sometimes show strong emotions like anger and disappointment strategically to

shake people out of complacency and passivity. In a qualitative study “Dimension of neuroticism

Personality among Leader and the Impact towards Self-Esteem of Employee at the Workplace”,

the impact of emotional personality of leaders may be unhealthy for the whole organization.

Respondents experienced feelings of shock, disorientation, very confused at the outset because of

the leaders who behave unpredictably and easily angry to the team (Johar et. al,2013).

An article in Wharton Magazine explained how maladjustment affects the performance of

leaders. Those leaders who dwell on the negative find it harder to adapt to work. Dealing with

stress is not an easy job but leaders must develop a sense of emotional stability within themselves

in order for them to perform better. We all have some amount of neuroticism, leaders must have

less neuroticism and more emotional stability than the people we lead. (Dean.P., 2014)

Problem 2: What is the decision making profile of the respondents in terms of

a. Vigilance

b. Hyper vigilance

c. Defensive Avoidance

Table 4
Decision Making Profile of the Respondents
Scales Mean SD
Vigilance 1.69 0.67
Hypervigilance 1.10 0.44
Defensive Avoidance 0.86 0.43
 32

The table shows the summary of the decision making profile of the respondents on

descriptive statistics. Vigilance decision making, with the highest mean of (1.69) followed by the

Hypervigilance decision making with the second highest mean obtained (1.10), and Defensive

Avoidance, the lowest mean (0.86) among the decision-making scales. These findings can be

supported by the results of the pilot testing among the target population, the results were: V=

1.66, HV= 1.03, DA=0.88.

A. Decision making profile of the respondents in terms of Vigilance

Table 2 shows that the respondents scored highest on the Vigilance scale. Vigilance is

seen among student leaders who clarifies objectives to be achieved by the decision, canvasses an

array of alternatives, searches painstakingly for relevant information, assimilates information in

an unbiased manner, and evaluates alternatives carefully before making a choice. One reason

for this was, deciding as student leaders, these individuals weigh alternatives carefully for the

reason that every decision made may benefit or harm their stakeholders. Thorough decision

making is practiced also for another reason of accountability that if the leader became lenient on

deciding, when choices are overlooked, consequences may also fall under their shoulders.

Vigilance can be manifested among the student leaders when there is a strong commitment

within them to solving problems and confrontations, when consultations and solicitations of

expert advice is always considered, when the council assumes that making decisions requires

thorough process, weighing competing values and making subtle trade-off judgements.

The extent to which leaders exercise vigilant decision-making, do not rely on over simple

decision-making (e.g. “do what we did last time”, “follow tradition”, do what’s good enough“),

are open to advice, learn from their own and other’s experience, improves the quality of their

decisions and, in turn, the project outcomes (Giannantonio & Hurley-Hanson, 2013 on Extreme

Leadership: Leaders, Teams & Situations Outside the Norm).

 33

A term in Organizational Psychology, Participative decision-making (PDM), is the practice

in which employers allow or encourage employees to share or participate in organizational

decision making. In student council meetings, PDM is usually practiced wherein anyone

regardless of the position can make a stand and can join in making crucial decisions, this way the

organization can practice vigilance in decision making. Also, based on the Maslow’s Hierarchy

of Needs, this practice can enhance the strength of the organization because officers feel a sense

of belongingness to the organization (Aamodt, 2016).

B. Decision making profile of the respondents in terms of Hypervigilance

Table 2 shows that hypervigilance decision-making obtained the second highest mean of

1.10 making it the second dominant decision-making style among the respondents. Due to time

pressure and deadlines to beat, hypervigilant student leaders impulsively seizes upon hastily

contrived solutions that seem to promise immediate relief. The full range of consequences of

choices are overlooked because of emotional excitement, perseveration, and limited attention. In

its most extreme form, hypervigilant student leaders exhibits “panic-like” actions in which

opinions and desires are changed repeatedly. This decision-making is accompanied by high stress

and pressures.

According to The Bass Handbook of leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial

Applications (Bass et al., 2009) Hypervigilance may set in if threats or problems contain time

pressures and deadlines that the decision maker want to escape. Person in panic at first imitates

what other persons’ are doing second failing to anticipate the consequences of choices. Informal

groups may be formed within an organization if the leader cannot deal with the crisis. Drive and

anxiety may be reduced by developing a formal leadership support that may increase the people’s

feeling of security. Thus, hypervigilant leaders shall compose their directive selves for they can

affect influence on the threats that the whole organization is facing.

 34

C. Decision making profile of the respondents in terms of Defensive Avoidance

Table 2 shows that defensive avoidance obtained the lowest mean score of 1.10 making it

least dominant decision-making style among the respondents. Defensive avoidance can be

manifested when leaders procrastinate, shifts responsibility to someone else, or constructing

wishful rationalizations to support the least objectionable alternative. Expressions of defensive

avoidance is associated with incomplete and often biased evaluation of information, leading in

turn to faulty decisions. Defensive avoidance is also associated with high stress.

Defensive Avoidance is considered as a form of cognitive distortion that greatly affects

leadership. These are also termed as “leadership vices”, as it defects skills needed for the good

governance. These leadership vices may lead to flawed retrospective assessments of the

probabilities of the outcomes, lack of empathy that impedes putting oneself in another leader’s

shoes, overconfidence in initial decisions, and ego-centric bias. (Femia et. al, 2016 )

Problem 3: Is there a significant relationship between Personality Traits and Decision

Making among respondents?

Table 5
Relationship of Personality Traits & Vigilance
Personality R P-value Interpretatio Decision Conclusion
Traits n
O 0.09 -0.05 No Accept Ho Not
Correlation Significant
C 0.17 0.02 Very Weak Reject Ho Significant
E 0.14 0.04 Very Weak Reject Ho Significant
A 0.14 0.00 Very Weak Reject Ho Significant
N -0.17 0.02 Very Weak Reject Ho Significant
Alpha= 0.05 level of significance
 35

Table above shows the correlations of personality traits and vigilance decision-making.

Conscientiousness (r=0.17, p-value=0.02), Extraversion (r=0.14, p-value=0.04) and

Agreeableness (r=0.14, p-value=0.00) positively correlated while Neuroticism (r=-.17, p-value=

0.02) negatively correlated with vigilance decision making, all are statistically significant (p-

value < 0.05). Openness to experience did not correlate with vigilance decision making and

found to have no significant relationship (p-value -0.05=0.05).

a. Big Five Personality and Vigilance Decision making

Student Leaders’ conscientious trait of being hardworking, well-organized, punctual,

ambitious and persevering correlated with their vigilance when it comes to decision making.

Conscientiousness and Vigilance of the respondents, unsurprisingly, showed a significant

positive relationship among the respondents. Leaders high in conscientiousness factor and

vigilance are most likely to become successful leaders, in other words they are the ideal type.

Reason for this positive relationship could be close linkage of the conscientious traits with the

traits of a vigilant decision maker. Conscientious individuals with good impulse control and

exhibits goal-directed behaviors tend to be thorough and assertive in making decisions.

Conscientious people have the proneness to be goal-oriented and motivated because

of being methodical, organized, and thorough vigilant decision maker because they considers as

many options as possible, weighs various outcomes, and takes the time to make a sound

decision. They also develop strategies to reach desired goals. (Rahaman, 2014)

Vigilance decision making correlated with the student leaders’ traits of agreeableness

and extraversion factor. Reasons for this could be, friendly –natured individual, tend to seek

help with other leaders to decide carefully. Being naturally kind and considerate with others,

and their stakeholders, agreeable people take their time in making decisions to avoid problems

that may cause trouble after a decision was made. Although this factor (A) is the least predictor
 36

of leadership, it is consistent with the findings on the literature that Agreeableness has a

positive relationship with Vigilance.

Agreeable and extraverted leaders show same characteristics with extroverted leaders,

the difference is for a pleasant person, popularity and being loved is preferable and that is the

reason why agreeable and extraverted leaders make decisions thoroughly so that they can

increase their popularity when they arrived at right decisions (Arani and Heideri, 2017).

Student leaders with high level of neuroticism; such as who are anxious, emotional

and vulnerable most of the time negatively correlated with Vigilance Decision Making. Again,

vigilance is defined as the ability to maintain concentrated attention over prolonged periods of

time even under stressful situations (ibid). While writing this paper, the researcher believed that

these two variables will have a negative dependency with each other because of their

contrasting definitions on the literature. Emotional instability could cause an individual to make

poor decisions, with which can affect vigilance in decision making.

Table 6
Relationship of Personality Traits & Hypervigilance
Personality R P-value Interpretatio Decision Conclusion
Traits n
O -0.20 0.00 Weak Reject Ho Significant
C -0.23 0.00 Weak Reject Ho Significant
E -0.16 0.02 Very Weak Reject Ho Significant
A -0.25 0.00 Weak Reject Ho Significant
N 0.08 0.24 No Accept Ho Not
Correlation Significant
Alpha= 0.05 level of significance

Table above shows the correlations of personality traits and hypervigilance decision-

making. Openness to Experience (r=-0.20, p-value= 0.00) Conscientiousness (r=-0.23, p-

value=0.00), Extraversion (r=-0.16, p-value=0.02) and Agreeableness (r=-0.25, p-value=0.00)

negatively correlated with hypervigilance decision making, all are statistically significant (p-
 37

value < 0.05). Neuroticism (r=0.08, p-value= 0.24) did not correlate with vigilance decision

making and found to have no significant relationship.

a. Personality Traits and Hypervigilant Decision Making

In Hypervigilance, Conscientiousness and Agreeableness negatively correlated with

it. Again, hypervigilance is defined by the researcher as a decision making style where the

decision maker frantically way out of dilemmas, accompanied by high stress and pressures.

Conscientious and agreeable people take their time in making decisions. Reasons for Openness

to Experience (r=-.20) and Extraversion (r=-.16) to have lower coefficient correlation would be

the fact that excessiveness in action-orienteers and enthusiasms can trigger hypervigilance.

However, negative correlations suggest that intellect, curiosity, and assertiveness of student

leaders make them less of a hypervigilant decision maker with a mean score of 1.10.

Table 7
Relationship of Personality Traits & Defensive Avoidance
Personality R P-value Interpretatio Decision Conclusion
Traits n
O -0.23 0.00 Weak Reject Ho Significant
C -0.32 0.00 Weak Reject Ho Significant
E -0.16 0.02 Very Weak Reject Ho Significant
A -0.34 0.00 Weak Reject Ho Significant
N 0.19 0.00 Very Weak Reject Ho Significant
Alpha=0.05 level of significance

Table above shows the correlations of personality traits and defensive avoidance decision-

making. Openness to Experience (r=-0.23, p-value= 0.00) Conscientiousness (r=-0.32, p-

value=0.00), Extraversion (r=-0.16, p-value=0.02) and Agreeableness (r=-0.34, p-value=0.00)

 38

obtained negative correlations while Neuroticism (r=0.19, p-value= 0.00) positively correlated

with defensive avoidance decision making, all are statistically significant (p-value < 0.05).

a. Personality Traits and Defensive Avoidance

Defensive Avoidance positively correlated with Neuroticism. Leaders with high

Levels of neuroticism tend to buck-pass and procrastinate whenever they are to make decisions.

Faulty decisions made by emotionally unstable and easily anxious leaders could be due to their

decision making style of putting it off or passing the burden of freedom to other leaders. When a

perceived situation causes anxiety from choosing options, one convenient option for student

leaders is sometimes to avoid it. Although avoidance can provide an escape from a particular

anxiety, it neglects to deal with the cause of the anxiety. Sometimes they avoid making decisions

which causes anxiety, preferring to leave it unresolved or passing it to others instead of

confronting it.

The researcher began this research with the assumption that cognitive styles

particularly decision making can be influenced by an individual’s personality traits. The

researcher was interested to understand which particular traits would most likely to correlate

with the student leader’s decision making. This assumption was supported by the theory of

decision making by Janis & Mann. According to the theory, the presence and absence of these

three antecedents (1) awareness of risks and consequences about choosing an alternative, (2)

hope of finding a better alternative, (3) belief of time needed to deliberate for a decision affects

the decision making style, and also other factors such as personality traits interfere with an

individual’s decision making. For student leaders, personality and decision making are two

important attributes that make them effective leaders. The results showed that vigilance in
 39

decision making can be positively predicted by the student leader’s conscientiousness,

extraversion, and agreeableness traits while neuroticism among student leaders negatively

predicted vigilance. Hypervigilance of the student leaders in decision making was negatively

predicted by the student leader’s openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, and

agreeableness trait. Student leaders of being defensive avoidant positively predicted by the

neuroticism trait while openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, and

agreeableness negatively predicted defensive avoidance. These findings gave clarifications to

the questions on this research. With these results, the researcher devised a program that would

help the students to become effective as leaders to the school and leaders to the community in

the near future.

 40

Problem 4: Based on the results, what leadership training can be recommended?

#BOURNESUPREMACY

SOP 4: Based on the results of the study, what leadership training program can be recommended?

Table 7
Recommended Leadership Training Program
Proposed Program for Leadership Training for Student Leaders
Rationale: To uphold the social responsibility among student leaders, the need for a holistic development of leadership skills and decision-making can be attained through this leadership training
program.

Findings
Openness to Experience
Hypervigilance (weak -)
Defensive Avoidance (weak -)
Proposed Activities and
Strategies
(based on the results)
 Openness to Experience
- Teambuilding Indoor Activities
Suggested games:
(Mechanics on the appendix)
 A Shrinking Vessel
 Marshmallow Spaghetti
Tower
 Egg drop
 Frostbite
 Minefield
Objectives
Enhance the creativity,
intellect, attentiveness to
inner feelings, preference
of variety of the student
leaders that affect their
decision making.
Persons Involve and Time
Frame
Student leaders and facilitators
(participants, team-building
masters, instructors)
12-24 hours (conduct twice a
year) preferably summer break
and semestral break
A whole day event-activity
Budget
(appropriations will be
Learning Outcomes
adjusted depending on the
number of participants)
Materials needed Participants have
(approximately 500- developed their artistic
1000Php) side, problem solving and
Food, Awards and Token integrative thinking
(800Php/head) demonstrated on the
Venue- Resort and leisure implementation of
Park (200Php/head) projects, programs that
build student community.

-Teambuilding Outdoor
Activities
Suggested games:
 Amazing Race
 Sport activities
 Relay games

Conscientiousness
Vigilance (very weak +)
Hypervigilance (weak -)
Defensive Avoidance (weak -)
Extraversion
Vigilance (very weak +)
Hypervigilance (very weak -)
Defensive Avoidance (very weak -)
Agreeableness
Vigilance (very weak +)
Hypervigilance (weak -)
Defensive Avoidance (weak -)
 Conscientiousness
-Keeping a Journal
-Practice of queuing (prioritizing
of important tasks)
-Post-assessment (check-off
boxes of accomplished tasks)
 Extraversion
-Community Service (outreach
and feeding programs, tree-
planting, clean-up drive)
-Socialization days (gatherings)
Karaoke, eat-out, picnic, movie
time
 Agreeableness
-Seminars tackling about the
importance of cooperation and
warm relationship in an
organization
Make the student leaders
embody a sense of
achievement through
efficient and organized
execution plans and to-
dos in an orderly manner
for this can have an effect
on their decision making.
Develop communication
and social skills needed in
making good decisions.
Make student leaders
value their co-officers the
same way that they value
their stakeholders to make
decision making open to
everyone in the
organization. This can be
Student leaders (officers of an
organization)
Daily note-taking
Student leaders, teachers,
community involved (barangay
and local municipalities)
Quarterly every year
Student leaders, other members
of the organization
Weekly/ twice a month bonding
Student leaders, advisers, event
organizers
41
Participants increased
their desire to do tasks
- well, achieve goals, and
take obligations to others
seriously.
Materials needed (100- Student leaders are more
200Php/head) engaged on their work
Transportation that require a great deal of
(100Php/head) interaction with other
Sponsors people.
Pocket money/ Allowance
(500Php)
10,000Php for the overall Student leaders
production and execution maintained harmonious
(a lot an extra money for relationships within the
the speakers honorarium) organization.
 42

attained through
developing a strong
relationship within the
organization.

Neuroticism For the student leaders to Student leaders react to

Vigilance (very weak -) manage their emotions,
Defensive Avoidance (very weak +)  Neuroticism keep calm during crucial
-Guidance-counselling situations and in vive
positive feelings that may
interfere in their decision
making as officers.
Mental health professionals stressors less emotionally
(psychologists, guidance and are less easily upset.
counsellors)
-
Monthly sessions

Student leaders
- Cell-group sessions that will
serve as an encouragement and Weekly basis
guidance. -

Table 7 includes the proposed activities, persons involved, timeframe, and budget for the leadership training program.

#BOURNESUPREMACY, a leadership training program consisting activities designed to enhance their personality traits and decision-

making that affect leadership. Its objective is to help student leaders to do their work properly for the benefit of their stakeholders. It aims to

aid student leaders to develop relationships with other people as well as to understand themselves also. This program will be possible with

the help of instructors, teachers, and mental health professionals (psychologist and guidance counsellors).
 43

Chapter V

Summary, Conclusion, & Recommendation

This section discussed the overall findings of the study, followed by the conclusion based

on the data gathered and the recommendation to further improve the study.

Summary

The researcher’s objective was to inform the students or the youth rather on how their

personality traits related on the way they think and on the way on how they get things

done by making decisions. The hypothesis tested under study is if there will be a

significant relationship between personality traits and decision-making of the student

leaders. Conducted among n=209 sample from the target population, the researcher have

the respondents answer the 44-item Big Five Inventory and the 22-item Melbourne

decision Making Questionnaire. The findings are:

1. The student leaders obtained the highest mean score on the openness to experience

factor with 3.73, followed by agreeableness factor with the mean score of 3.70.

Conscientiousness, extraversion and neuroticism with mean scores 3.50, 3.45 and 3.19, in

that order.

2. The respondents obtained the highest mean score on vigilance scale with 1.69,

followed by hypervigilance with a mean score of 1.10, and lastly defensive avoidance

with the lowest mean score of 0.86.

 44

3. Conscientiousness, extraversion and agreeableness positively correlated with vigilance.

Neuroticism negatively correlated with vigilance. Openness to experience,

conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness negatively correlated with

hypervigilance. All personality traits significantly correlated with defensive avoidance,

inverse relationships are seen between openness to experience, conscientiousness,

extraversion, and agreeableness. Positive correlation with neuroticism and defensive

avoidance is also evident.

4. Bourne Supremacy, a proposed leadership training program was devised to improve

the student leader’s decision making that can contribute in their effectiveness when it

comes to leadership. Instructors, teachers, and mental health professionals (psychologist

and guidance counsellors) are the main persons to have this program applied among the

student leaders.

Conclusion

Based on the results, the following conclusions are drawn:

A. Openness to Experience appeared to be the most dominant trait among the student

leaders.

B. Neuroticism appeared to be the least dominant trait among student leaders.

C. Vigilance decision making is the most used decision making style by the student

leaders.

D. Defensive avoidance is the least used decision making style by the student

leaders.
 45

E. Vigilance decision making have meaningful relationships with conscientiousness,

extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism.

F. Hypervigilance decision making have meaningful relationships with openness to

experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness

G. Defensive avoidance decision making have significant relationships with all the

big five personality traits.

H. To address the aforementioned findings, a yearlong-proposed program have been

developed.

Recommendation:

1. The leadership training program, the Bourne Supremacy is devised to help the

student leaders become competent not only on their decision making but also

on the development of their personality. Its objectives is clearly to enhance the

student leader’s character by engaging them on various activities which

promote efficiency as student leaders and growth as an individual. School and

organizations can adopt this program in training their students and members.

Moreover, with the proper execution of this program, the instructors, teachers,

university administrators, and guidance counsellors may achieve their goals

all anchored to the development of the students.

2. Students may feel the need for self-improvement, achievement, and

belongingness. For the student leaders and aspiring student leaders, the

researcher recommends this program for them to engage themselves on the

activities which will make them be the better versions of themselves. This

program is a great venue to be acquainted with different people, and to acquire

 46

learnings that will enlighten them on developing their character and intellect

as student leaders.

3. For the universities and educational institutions, the researcher of this

study advise them to give more attention to encouraging students to become

leaders in nurturing and in developing a holistic environment where the

students can grow and foster their leadership skills. The proposed program can

be of help in empowering students in schools that will serve as a training

ground for developing good citizens which will later contribute in the society.

4. The student leaders, most of them are affiliated with organizations that are

parallel to their principles and aspirations. For political organizations, the

researcher recommends the proposed program in your locality for this will

improve the areas that needs development (i.e. personality traits and decision

making) to produce efficient student leaders.

 47

REFERENCES

Aamodt, M, G. (2016). Industrial & Organizational Psychology, 8th ed. 443. Taguig, PH.

Cengage Learning Asia Pte Ltd.

Abu Bakar Z., Johar, I.M., & Siti, S.H. (2013). Neuroticism Personality & Emotional

Intelligence of Leaders & Impact towards Self-Esteem of Employee in

Organization. 84. 431-436.Skudai, MY. Elsevier Ltd.

Arani, M. R., & Heidari, M. (2017). Relationship between Five Personality Traits and

Decision Making Styles of Coaches. 1:70-76. Zarga, Jordan.

Bar-On, R., Fabio, A.D., & Palazzeschi, L. (2012) The Role of Personality Traits, Core

Self-Evaluation, and Emotional Intelligence in Career Decision-Making

Difficulties. Journal of Employment Counseling. Vol 49(3). 118-129. American

Counseling Association. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1920.2012.00012.x

Bass, B. M. & Bass, R. (2009). The Bass Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research,

and Managerial Applications. Simon & Schuster.

Beauducel, A. Brocke, B., & Leue, A. (2006). Energetic bases of extraversion: Effort,

Arousal, EEG & Performance. International Journal of Psychopyhsiology, 85, 232-

236.

Brusman, M. Leadership Personality: Do you have the 5 traits? Retrieved August 15,

2017. http://www.contentforcoachesandconsultants.com/leadership-personality-do-

you-have-the-right-big-five-traits/

Burke, R.J. & Fox, S. (2013). Human Frailties: Wrong Choices on the Drive of Success

(Psychological and Behavioural Aspects of Risk) 1st ed. London, UK. Routledge.
 48

Burnett, P., Ford, S., Mann, L., & Radford, M. (1997). The Melbourne Decision Making

Questionnaire: An Instrument for Measuring Patterns for Coping with Decisional

Conflict. Vol. 10, 1-9. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Busemeyer, J. R., & Yearsley, J. M. (2015). Quantum Cognition & Decision Theories: A

Tutorial. Journal of Mathematical Psychology. Nashville, TN: London, UK:

Bloomington, IN.

Byrne, K. A., Silasi,-Mansat, C. O., & Worthy, D. A. (2015). Who Chokes Under

Pressure? Personality & Individual Differences. Vol. 74. 22-28. Elsevier Ltd. doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.10.009

Canella, A. A., Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. C. (2009). Strategic Leadership: Theory

& Research on Executives, Top Management Teams & Boards. Oxford University

Press. Oxford, CA.

Dean. P. (2016) Can Leadership be Learned? Wharton Magazine. The Wharton School

University of Pennysylvania, Philadelphia, PA.

Feist, G., Feist, J. & Roberts, T. (2013). Theories of Personality, 8th Edition. Penn Plaza,

NY, USA. McGraw-Hill Ed.

Femia, J., Yi, K. A., & Stomp, G. (2016). Political Leadership in Liberal & Democratic

Theory. 80-81. Andrews, UK.

Ginannantonio, C.M., & Hurly-Hanson, A.E. (2013). Extreme Leadership: Leaders,

Teams, & Situations outside the Norm. 246. 19-21. Northampton, MA, USA.

Edward E.

John, O.P., Naumann, L.P., & Soto, C.J., (2008). Paradigm Shift to Integrative Big Five

Trait Taxonomy History, Measurement, and Conceptual Issues. In O.P John, R. W.

 49

Robins, & L.A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Rsearch (pp.

114-158). New York, NY: Guildford Press.

Howard, J.M. & Howard, P.J. (2010). The Owner’s Manual for Personality at Work.

London, UK. CentACS.

Lamm, K. (2013). The Relationship of Agreeableness & Transformational Leadership in

Undergraduate Students. Gainesville, FL, USA. University of Florida.

Lebowitz, S. Big 5 Personality could predict who will & won’t become a leaders. (2016,

December 7). Business Insider. Retrieved from

http://www.businessinsider.com/big-five-personality-traits-predict-leadership-

2016-12

Mehdi, K. (2014). Personality Traits as Predictors of Decision Making Towards

Advertising among Malaysian Consumers Student. Khiruddin, R. & Omar, F.

(Eds.). European Scientific Journal. 5-13. Daneshu, IR.

Phillips, J. G., & Reddie, L. (2006). Decisional Style & Self-Reported Email Use in

Workplace. Computers in Human Behaviour. 23 (2007). 2414-2428. Vic, AU.

Elsevier Ltd.

Piccolo, R.F. Extraversion & Leadership. (2010, November 27). Retrieved from

http://ron-piccolo.com/2010/11/27/extraversion-and-leadership/

Rahaman, S.H.M. (2014). Personality & Decision Making Styles of University Students.

Journal of Indian Academy of Applied Psychology. 40(1). 138-144. Dhaka, BD.

Singh, S., & Tak, P. (2013). Psychological Motivations & Compulsive Buying: A Study

of Consumers in Delhi. Indian Journal of Marketing. 43 (9). New Delhi, India. doi:

10.17010/ijom/2013/v43/19/38351
 50

Wang, C. (2010). Managerial Decision-making Leadership: The Essential Pocket

Strategy. John Wiley & Sons.

Wong, A.C. What Filipinos Can be Proud Of? (2012, July 29). INQUIRER.NET.

Retrieved from http://www.globalnation.inquirer.net

 51

APPENDICES
 52

Suggested Indoor Activities

Shrinking Vessel
For: Creative Problem Solving What You'll Need: A rope, blanket, or tape to mark a
space on the floor
Instructions: Make a space on the floor and have your whole group (or a set of smaller
teams) stand in that space. Then gradually shrink the space, so the team will have to
think fast and work together to keep everyone within the shrinking boundaries.
Marshmallow Spaghetti Tower
For: Creative Problem Solving &Collaboration Exercise
What You'll Need: 20 sticks of uncooked spaghetti, 1 roll of masking tape, 1 yard of
string, and 1 marshmallow for every team. Instructions: Using just these supplies, which
team can build the tallest tower? There's a catch: the marshmallow has to be at the very
top of the spaghetti tower, and the whole structure has to stand on its own (that means
no hands or other objects supporting it!) for five seconds.
Egg Drop
For: Creative Problem Solving &Collaboration Exercise What You'll Need: A carton of
eggs; basic construction materials like newspapers, straws, tape, plastic wrap, balloons,
rubber bands, popsicle sticks, etc.; tarp or drop cloth, parking lot, or some other place
you don't mind getting messy!
Instructions: Divide the group into teams and give each one 20-30 minutes to construct
a carrier that will keep an egg safe from a two-story drop (or however high you choose).
If you end up with a tie, gradually increase the height of the drop until you're left with a
winner.
Frostbite
For: Creative Problem Solving &Collaboration Exercise What You'll Need: 1 packet of
construction materials (like card stock, toothpicks, rubber bands, and sticky notes) for
each team, an electric fan
Instructions: Your teams of 4-5 are no longer sitting in your office, they're Arctic
explorers trekking across the frozen tundra! Have each team elect a leader to guide
their expedition. When a sudden storm hits, the team must erect an emergency shelter
to survive. However, both of the team leader's hands have frostbite, so s/he can't
physically help construct the shelter, and the rest of the team has snow blindness and is
unable to see. Give each team a set of construction materials and start the timer. When
time runs out, turn on the electric fan's arctic winds and see who successfully built a
shelter that will keep them safe. Adjust the difficulty with sturdier construction
 53

materials (provide popsicle sticks instead of toothpicks, etc.), by changing the fan's
settings, or by having the fan running while the team constructs their shelters.
Minefield
For: Creative Problem Solving &Collaboration Exercise
What You'll Need: An empty room or hallway, and a collection of common office items
Instructions: Use boxes, office chairs, water bottles, etc. to create an obstacle course of
"mines" within your empty space. Divide the group into pairs, where one partner is
blindfolded. The other must guide that person from one end of the course to another
without setting off any mines. The person guiding their partner cannot enter the course
and must only use verbal instructions to get their partner through. Depending on the
number of people you have and how difficult you want this activity to be, you can vary
the number of pairs trying to complete the course at the same time so that pairs have to
work harder to listen to each other and communicate clearly.
From: http://www.wrike.com/blog/ultimate-guide-team-building-activities/