How Leaders ‘Strength of Heart’ and ‘Strength of Will’ Enhance Team Performance

Figures & data

Figure 1. Hypothesized model.

*p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01

Table 1. Confirmatory factor analysis (comparing measurement models).

	Models		χ2 (df)	RMSEA	SRMR	GFI	CFI	IFI	Δχ^2 (Δdf)
Study 1	5-factor	[Comp] [NCMTL] [Persev] [Help] [TPerf]	163.50 (94)	.07	.07	.90	.94	.94	-
	4-factor	[Comp, NCMTL] [Persev] [Help] [Tperf]	306.54 (98)	.12	.10	.81	.82	.82	143.04 (4)**
	4-factor	[Comp, Persev] [NCMTL] [Help] [TPerf]	210–99 (98)	.09	.09	.86	.90	.90	47.49 (4)**
	4-factor	[Comp] [NCMTL] [Persev] [Help, TPerf]	467.03 (98)	.16	.13	.75	.68	.69	303.53 (4)**
	3-factor	[Comp, Help, TPerf] [NCMTL] [Persev]	746.33 (101)	.20	.16	.64	.44	.45	582.83 (7)**
	2-factor	[Comp, NCMTL, Persev] [Help, TPerf]	656.05 (103)	.19	.16	.67	.52	.53	492.55 (9)**
	1-factor	[Comp, NCMTL, Persev, Help, TPerf]	934.29 (104)	.23	.18	.58	.28	.29	770.79 (10)**
Study 2	5-factor	[Comp – T1] [NCMTL – T1] [Persev – T1] [Help -T1] [Help -T2]	116.94 (94)	.07	.08	.81	.94	.94	-
	4-factor	[Comp – T1, NCMTL – T1] [Persev – T1] [Help – T1] [Help -T2]	143.81 (98)	.09	.10	.78	.88	.89	25.84 (4)**
	4-factor	[Comp – T1, Persev – T1] [NCMTL – T1] [Help – T1] [Help – T2]	146.07 (98)	.10	.11	.76	.87	.88	29.13 (4)**
	4-factor	[Comp – T1] [NCMTL – T1] [Persev – T1] [Help – T1, Help – T2]	153.09 (98)	.11	.10	.76	.85	.86	36.96 (4)**
	3-factor	[Comp – T1, NCMTL – T1, Persev – T1] [Help – T1] [Help – T2]	171.06 (101)	.12	.12	.73	.81	.82	54.12 (7)**
	2-factor	[Comp – T1, NCMTL – T1, Persev – T1] [Help – T1, Help – T2]	207.52 (103)	.14	.13	.69	.72	.73	90.58 (9)**
	1-factor	[Comp – T1, NCMTL – T1, Pers – T1, Help – T1, Help – T2]	353.63 (104)	.22	.20	.53	.33	.36	236.69 (10)**

For each study, Δχ² for each model reflects its deviation from the factor-model presented in the first line.

Comp = Compassion; NCMTL = Non-calculative motivation to lead; Persev = Perseverance; Help – Helping behaviors; TPerf = Team performance; T1/T2 = Time 1/Time 2.

*p ≤ .05. ** p ≤ .01 (two-tailed).

Table 2. Means, standard deviations and correlations (study 1).

Variables	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Country^a	-	-	-
2. Leaders’ gender^b	-	-	.22**	-
3. Leaders’ education^c	2.40	.64	−.11	.00	-
4. Management level^d	-	-	−.11	.13	−.03	-
5. Leaders’ non-calculative motivation to lead	4.63	.55	.15	−.10	.16	−.04	(.80)
6. Leaders’ dispositional compassion	4.81	.43	-.08	−.23**	.21*	.07	37**	(.88)
7. Leaders’ perseverance	5.10	.50	.07	.07	.09	−.14	−.04	.04	(.61)
8. Team development-helping behaviors	5.16	.46	.00	.02	.16*	−.24**	.12	.24**	.08	(.89)
9. Team performance	4.80	.67	−.19*	−.06	.11	.07	.05	.18*	−.07	.21**	(.90)

N = 154. Reliabilities are on the diagonal in parentheses.

^a0: Portugal, 1: Angola.

^b0: woman, 1: man.

^c1: No college degree, 2: A bachelor’s degree, 3: A master’s degree or equivalent, 4: A terminal degree (e.g., PhD).

^d0: midlevel management, 1: top management.

*p ≤ .05. ** p ≤ .01 (two-tailed).

Table 3. Bootstrap regression analysis (5000 samples; Model #7, Hayes 2018) for testing the moderated mediating model (study 1).

	Mediator: team development-helping behaviors							Dependent variable: team performance
Predictors	B	SE	t	ULCI	LLCI	F	R^2	B	SE	t	ULCI	LLCI	F	R^2
						3.96**	.18						2.44*	.10
Country^a	−.05	.08	−.68	−.21	.10			−.24*	.12	−2.02	−.47	−.01
Gender of the leader^b	.11	.08	1.47	−.04	.26			−.01	.11	−.12	−.24	.21
Leaders’ education^c	.06	.06	1.01	−.05	.17			.05	.09	.55	−.12	.22
Management level^d	−.28**	.09	−3.21	−.45	−.11			.15	.13	1.12	−.11	.41
Leaders’ non-calculative motivation to lead	.02	.07	.34	−.11	.16			.00	.11	.04	−.20	.21
Leaders’ dispositional compassion	.25**	.09	2.74	.07	.44			.16	.14	1.13	−.12	.45
Leaders’ perseverance	−.02	.07	−.26	−.16	.13			-	-	-	-	-
Compassion * perseverance	.48*	.19	2.54	.11	.85			-	-	-	-	-
Team development-helping behaviors	-	-	-	-	-			.29*	.12	2.33	.04	.53

N = 154.

^a0: Portugal, 1: Angola.

^b0: woman, 1: man.

^c1: No college degree, 2: A bachelor’s degree, 3: A master’s degree or equivalent, 4: A terminal degree (e.g., PhD).

^d0: midlevel management, 1: top management.

*p ≤ .05. ** p ≤ .01 (two-tailed).

Figure 2. Conditional effects of leaders’ dispositional compassion on team development-helping behaviors (study 1).

Table 4. Means, standard deviations and correlations (study 2).

Variables	M	SD	1	2	3	4.1	4.2	5.1	5.2	6.1	6.2	7.1	7.2
1. Leaders’ gender^a	-	-	-
2. Leaders’ education^b	1.37	.53	−.06	-
3. Management level^c	-	-	−.04	−.33*	-
4.1. Leaders’ non-calculative motivation to lead (T1)	4.54	.47	−.14	−.16	.03	(.74)
4.2. Leaders’ non-calculative motivation to lead (T2)	4.69	.68	−.21	−.05	−.07	.62**	(.86)
5.1. Leaders’ dispositional compassion (T1)	4.73	.43	−.15	−.13	.12	.54**	.34*	(.89)
5.2. Leaders’ dispositional compassion (T2)	4.82	.54	−.24	−.03	−.19	.43**	.69**	.52**	(.91)
6.1. Leaders’ perseverance (T1)	4.93	.48	−.11	.01	.16	.07	.08	.06	.12	(.58)
6.2. Leaders’ perseverance (T2)	5.10	.57	.06	.05	.12	.29*	.25	.18	.19	.56**	(.69)
7.1. Team development-helping behaviors (T1)	5.13	.49	.35*	.09	−.11	.31*	.04	.14	−.04	.11	.17	(.92)
7.2. Team development-helping behaviors (T2)	5.27	.43	.28*	.10	−.21	.23	.17	.09	.13	.01	.18	.52**	(.80)

N = 52. Reliabilities are on the diagonal in parentheses.

^a0: woman, 1: man.

^b1: A bachelor’s degree, 2: A master’s degree or equivalent, 3: A terminal degree (e.g., PhD).

^c0: midlevel management, 1: top management.

*p ≤ .05. ** p ≤ .01 (two-tailed).

Table 5. Bootstrap regression analysis (5000 samples; Model #1, Hayes 2018): how leaders’ dispositional compassion predicts team development behaviors (T2) as conditional on leaders’ perseverance (study 2).

	Dependent variable: team development behaviors (T2)
Predictors	B	SE	t	ULCI	LLCI	F	R^2
						3.68**	.41
Gender of the leader^a	.18	.11	1.51	−.06	.43
Leaders’ education^b	−.01	.11	−.13	−.23	.20
Management level^c	−.17	.11	−1.56	−.39	.05
Team development-helping behaviors (T1)	.34**	.12	2.78	.09	.59
Leaders’ non-calculative motivation to lead (T1)	.09	.14	.66	−.19	.37
Leaders’ dispositional compassion (T1)	.13	.15	.86	−.17	.42
Leaders’ perseverance (T1)	.07	.11	.60	−.16	.29
Compassion (T1) * Perseverance (T1)	.97*	.38	2.55	.20	1.74

N = 52.

^a0: woman, 1: man.

^b1: A bachelor’s degree, 2: A master’s degree or equivalent, 3: A terminal degree (e.g., PhD).

^c0: midlevel management, 1: top management.

*p ≤ .05. ** p ≤ .01 (two-tailed).

Figure 3. Conditional effects of leaders’ dispositional compassion on team development-helping behaviors (study 2).

Hayes, A. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. Guilford Press.

 Google Scholar

Data availability statement

Data are available upon request.