Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Chapter 1
Introduction
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
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
Personality and decision making are the two important constructs in organizational
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
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
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
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
a. Openness
b. Conscientiousness
c. Extroversion
d. Agreeableness
e. Neuroticism
a. Vigilance
b. Hyper vigilance
c. Decision Avoidance
Hypothesis
Ho: There is no significant relationship between the personality profile and the decision making
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
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
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.
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
Chapter 2
Leader, notes Merriam Webster (2017), is someone who leads, directs and who has a
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
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
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
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
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
Neuroticism, the N factor in the Big Five Personality, encapsulates six facets namely:
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
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
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
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
for Coping with Decisional Conflict became the major basis of the researcher for measuring and
unbiased manner, and evaluating the options carefully before making a choice. Therefore, a
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.
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
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
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
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
decisions are often the results of this decision making style, and it is also associated with high
stress.
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.
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
Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism have a greater impact on normal adult personality
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
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.
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) .
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
correlated with hypervigilance. All personality traits obtained meaningful relationship with
Definition of Terms:
18
Personality – pattern of traits that give both consistency and individuality to a person’s
behaviour.
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
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
Conceptual Framework:
* Neuroticism
LEADERSHIP TRAINING
PROGRAM
20
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
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
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
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
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:
Instrumentation
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
Subscales:
Hypervigilance – the decision maker searched frantically for a way out of dilemmas
objectionable alternative.
23
The recent John, Naumann, & Soto (2008) Handbook of Personality chapter discusses the
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
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:
Agreeableness – the degree to which person is kind, how dependable, and cooperative
in certain situations
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
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
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
Chapter 4
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.
a. Openness
b. Conscientiousness
c. Extroversion
d. Agreeableness
e. Neuroticism
Table 3
Personality Profile of the Respondents
27
Domain Mean SD
Table 1 shows that the respondents obtained a mean score of 3.73 in Openness to
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.
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
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
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
attentiveness to inner feelings, preference for variety and intellectual curiosity are the six main
The second most dominant personality trait among the respondents is the Agreeableness.
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
others (Wong, 2012). Through agreeable leaders, strong relationships within the organization can
compliance, modesty and tender-mindedness) had multiple positive moderate correlations with
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
activities of the individual such as note taking and facilitating may allow him to become a leader.
(Lebowitz, 2016)
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
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
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
Table 1 shows that neuroticism is the least dominant trait among the respondents with the
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
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).
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)
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=
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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 )
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.
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
ambitious and persevering correlated with their vigilance when it comes to decision making.
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
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
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
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-
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
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-
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).
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
confronting it.
The researcher began this research with the assumption that cognitive styles
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
extraversion, and agreeableness traits while neuroticism among student leaders negatively
predicted vigilance. Hypervigilance of the student leaders in decision making was negatively
agreeableness trait. Student leaders of being defensive avoidant positively predicted by the
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
#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.
Budget
Proposed Activities and
Persons Involve and Time (appropriations will be
Findings Strategies Objectives Learning Outcomes
Frame adjusted depending on the
(based on the results)
number of participants)
Openness to Experience Openness to Experience Enhance the creativity, Student leaders and facilitators Materials needed Participants have
Hypervigilance (weak -) - Teambuilding Indoor Activities intellect, attentiveness to (participants, team-building (approximately 500- developed their artistic
Defensive Avoidance (weak -) Suggested games: inner feelings, preference masters, instructors) 1000Php) side, problem solving and
(Mechanics on the appendix) of variety of the student Food, Awards and Token integrative thinking
A Shrinking Vessel leaders that affect their 12-24 hours (conduct twice a (800Php/head) demonstrated on the
Marshmallow Spaghetti decision making. year) preferably summer break Venue- Resort and leisure implementation of
Tower and semestral break Park (200Php/head) projects, programs that
Egg drop build student community.
Frostbite A whole day event-activity
Minefield
-Teambuilding Outdoor
Activities
Suggested games:
Amazing Race
Sport activities
Relay games
41
Conscientiousness Make the student leaders Student leaders (officers of an Participants increased
Vigilance (very weak +) Conscientiousness embody a sense of organization) their desire to do tasks
Hypervigilance (weak -) -Keeping a Journal achievement through - well, achieve goals, and
Defensive Avoidance (weak -) -Practice of queuing (prioritizing efficient and organized take obligations to others
of important tasks) execution plans and to- Daily note-taking seriously.
-Post-assessment (check-off dos in an orderly manner
boxes of accomplished tasks) for this can have an effect
on their decision making.
Extraversion Develop communication Student leaders, teachers, Materials needed (100- Student leaders are more
Vigilance (very weak +) Extraversion and social skills needed in community involved (barangay 200Php/head) engaged on their work
Hypervigilance (very weak -) -Community Service (outreach making good decisions. and local municipalities) Transportation that require a great deal of
Defensive Avoidance (very weak -) and feeding programs, tree- (100Php/head) interaction with other
planting, clean-up drive) Quarterly every year Sponsors people.
Student leaders, other members
of the organization
Agreeableness Make student leaders Student leaders, advisers, event 10,000Php for the overall Student leaders
Vigilance (very weak +) Agreeableness value their co-officers the organizers production and execution maintained harmonious
Hypervigilance (weak -) -Seminars tackling about the same way that they value (a lot an extra money for relationships within the
Defensive Avoidance (weak -) importance of cooperation and their stakeholders to make the speakers honorarium) organization.
warm relationship in an decision making open to
organization everyone in the
organization. This can be
42
attained through
developing a strong
relationship within the
organization.
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
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
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
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
the student leader’s decision making that can contribute in their effectiveness when it
and guidance counsellors) are the main persons to have this program applied among the
student leaders.
Conclusion
A. Openness to Experience appeared to be the most dominant trait among the 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
G. Defensive avoidance decision making have significant relationships with all the
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
organizations can adopt this program in training their students and members.
Moreover, with the proper execution of this program, the instructors, teachers,
belongingness. For the student leaders and aspiring student leaders, the
activities which will make them be the better versions of themselves. This
learnings that will enlighten them on developing their character and intellect
as student leaders.
students can grow and foster their leadership skills. The proposed program can
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
researcher recommends the proposed program in your locality for this will
improve the areas that needs development (i.e. personality traits and decision
REFERENCES
Aamodt, M, G. (2016). Industrial & Organizational Psychology, 8th ed. 443. Taguig, PH.
Abu Bakar Z., Johar, I.M., & Siti, S.H. (2013). Neuroticism Personality & Emotional
Arani, M. R., & Heidari, M. (2017). Relationship between Five Personality Traits and
Bar-On, R., Fabio, A.D., & Palazzeschi, L. (2012) The Role of Personality Traits, Core
Bass, B. M. & Bass, R. (2009). The Bass Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research,
Beauducel, A. Brocke, B., & Leue, A. (2006). Energetic bases of extraversion: Effort,
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
Busemeyer, J. R., & Yearsley, J. M. (2015). Quantum Cognition & Decision Theories: A
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
Dean. P. (2016) Can Leadership be Learned? Wharton Magazine. The Wharton School
Feist, G., Feist, J. & Roberts, T. (2013). Theories of Personality, 8th Edition. Penn Plaza,
Femia, J., Yi, K. A., & Stomp, G. (2016). Political Leadership in Liberal & Democratic
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
Robins, & L.A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Rsearch (pp.
Howard, J.M. & Howard, P.J. (2010). The Owner’s Manual for Personality at Work.
Lebowitz, S. Big 5 Personality could predict who will & won’t become a leaders. (2016,
http://www.businessinsider.com/big-five-personality-traits-predict-leadership-
2016-12
Phillips, J. G., & Reddie, L. (2006). Decisional Style & Self-Reported Email Use in
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.
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
Wong, A.C. What Filipinos Can be Proud Of? (2012, July 29). INQUIRER.NET.
APPENDICES
52
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/