Personality and Leadership style Essay

1. Personality

Over six billion people live on this planet. yet no two of us are likewise. Our differences are preponderantly reflected in our typical actions and our personal visual aspects. For centuries. people have wondered what makes each of us act the manner we do. During this admiration. people have come to the decision that actions reveal our character traits. which in bend reveal our personality. Our personality makes us alone. Furthermore. people distinguish themselves from others by their personal blend of features and the degree of accent placed on each trait. This differentiation reflects our personality and makes us who we are: one in six billion.

Personality is defined as a alone blend of traits qualifying persons. and act uponing their interaction with their environment. The footings personality. features and traits are used interchangeably throughout this paper. They refer to those variables judged to be most of import and relevant to a assortment of human maps. specifically leading. which farther distinguish an person and influence his/her interaction with his/her environment. In Army for illustration. the Army’s Leadership manual lists seven values. three properties. four accomplishments and three actions as the cardinal leading features for effectual leaders. Character is described in footings of an individual’s values and properties. and is the sum sum of an individual’s personal traits.

2. Leadership manners

A combination of act uponing others and carry throughing the coveted end is indispensable in specifying leading. A leader is a leader because he or she has followings. One thing that distinguishes the procedure of taking is the willingness of the followings. Peoples with authorization. such as constabulary officers. can coerce people to make things they do non desire to make. but this is non leading. Leaders inspire. challenge. enable. empower and promote others to desire to follow them to carry through their shared missions or ends. Leadership is a dynamic procedure that deserves survey. Leadership is a quality and a accomplishment. which is both admired and needed in our military and our society. As pointed out in the definitions. leading is a relational procedure affecting personal interactions between leaders and followings. Leaderships must go on to spread out their apprehension of themselves. their function in leading. and develop their ain leading accomplishments. One manner to understand leading is to reexamine the assorted leading theories that have evolved over the past century.

Many organisations require from leaders the ability to put and pass on ends. motivate. inspire enterprise and authorise the followings and facilitate alteration. Such manner of leading is known as transformational. On the other manus they may necessitate efficaciously organizing the subsidiaries in conformity with processs and criterions ; this type of leading is typically referred as transactional. The properties of transformational and transactional manners are farther explained below. There is a nexus between an individual’s personality and the leading manner persons are most comfy with and more likely to utilize. The connexion between personality and leading manner was noted by several research workers and leading specializers ( e. g. Bass. 2000. 2008 ; Pillai. Schriesheim. & A ; Williams. 1999 ; de Charon. 2003 ) .

It is of import to understand your natural leading manner so you can capitalise on your natural leading strengths ( or be cognizant of and turn to your natural failings ) for your calling development. self-realization and success at the workplace. Jung Typology Profiler for Workplace™ determines the most likely natural leading manner of an person based on personality type and the expressiveness of assorted behavioural qualities such as vision. power. resourcefulness. empathy and other behavioural qualities. Based on your personality appraisal. the JTPW Career Development Profile provides practical tips for going a more effectual leader ( or a more content worker if leading is non your strength ) and indicates possible booby trap.

3. Relationship between Personality and Leadership manners

The inquiry of personality influences on leading has been off studied but still presents a beginning of contention. The alone blend of traits of a leader’s personality creates his or her leading manner and determines the quality of their leading ability. Persons with certain personality traits including unity and honestness. vision. personal bravery. good judgement. compassion. intelligence and cognition. assurance. doggedness. enthusiasm. and inaugural are more likely to go effectual leaders. Four personality types are more likely to go effectual leaders. ISTJ. ESTJ. ENTJ. and INTJ history for approximately 78 per centum of in-between class to flag rank officers in the United States military. All of these personality types include thought and judgment ( TJ ) . These four types. nevertheless. do up merely 30 per centum of the general population. Ninety-five per centum of senior military leaders are minds. go forthing merely five per centum as compassionate antennas. Peoples who have task-oriented personality types tend to hold considerable focal point on inside informations. They are non comfy originating an action-plan until they are satisfied they have all the necessary facts.

On the other manus. people who have relations-oriented personality types tend to hold considerable focal point on the consequence and are comfy originating an action-plan when they have merely the indispensable facts ( Blake & A ; Mouton. 1982 ) . Therefore. it is of import for a leader to understand personality and accurately adjust leading manner to the direction state of affairs. The combination of leading manner and personality type appears to meld into a psychological combination that produces the ethos of a leader. “Leaders are non merely identified by their leading manners. but besides by their personalities. their consciousness of themselves and others. and their grasp of diverseness. flexibleness. and paradox” ( Handbury. 2001. p. 11 ) . In add-on. McGregor ( 1960 ) provinces. “It is rather improbable that there is a individual basic form of abilities and personality trait features of all leaders. The personality features of the leader are non unimportant. but those which are indispensable differ well depending on the circumstances” | Relationship Between Leadership and Personality 2 ( p. 180 ) . Therefore. it may so. do a difference in determining personality type in order to find the right occupation lucifer between an employee and his or her co-workers.

Hogan & A ; Kaiser ( 2005 ) specify leading as being about the public presentation of groups / squads. They argue that mensurating personality is a valid forecaster of leading capableness. when looked at from two positions. foremost how you think about yourself. and secondly. how others think about you. ( Reputation ) . The two facets of repute they identify are the bright side. or when our societal public presentation is at its best ( In interview for illustration ) . and the dark side. which reflects the feeling you make when you are away guard. or at your worst. The behaviours or inclinations you display in the dark side tend to be concealed by good practiced societal accomplishments. but over a longer clip period. for case in a work/career scenario. the dark side will negatively impact relationships with others. Many good adept and refined campaigners perform good in interview. utilizing their societal accomplishments to dissemble their true behaviour as a leader. The usage of a trait theoretical account. where certain personality features are seen as forecasters or indexs of good leading. are able to give a below the surface profile of a possible leader. and supplier mark posts to possible jobs.

Hogan & A ; Kaiser make the of import connexion between personality and organisational public presentation through the importance of leading manner ( Shaped by personality ) determining employee attitudes and the effectual operation of the squad. which later drives. or hinders. organisational effectivity. Where personality is shaped in are younger old ages. and hence less developable during are big old ages. the accomplishments approach focal points on the accomplishments and cognition required by a leader to be successful. The accomplishments approach uses 3 accomplishment countries. proficient. human and conceptual and postulates that leading ability is trainable. That is non to state that the accomplishments model wholly excludes the importance of personality as one of the three constituents of the accomplishments theoretical account involves personal properties which includes personality. cognitive ability and motive.

The manner attack to leading accent the importance of behaviour. which is different from the personal features attack of personality based theoretical accounts such as the trait attack. A large inquiry of class is can leaders act in a manner that contradicts their natural features or personality? Possibly in the short term. but on an on-going footing? Using a tool such as the leading grid appears to oversimplify the behaviours of leading and shows small connexion between the theoretical account of manner and concern public presentation. What good is a theoretical account. if it lacks prognostic capablenesss? Likewise who is to state that there is a certain manner of leading most suited to a specific state of affairs! Situational leading recognizes that certain leaders are more successful in certain state of affairss and espouses the demand for leaders to flex and accommodate their manner to fit the state of affairs.

Leadership manner within a situational theoretical account of leading focal points on the two spectrums of support and way. and requires behavior to be adapted across both. When you look at some of the underpinning drivers of leading attacks such as manner. state of affairs. and skill. we would reason that personality plays an of import portion. Our issue with all these theoretical accounts. including the trait theoretical account. is that for all the research and academic argument that has gone on over the last half century. why are we still so hapless at foretelling leading success? Possibly leading of more of an art than a scientific discipline and hence the factors of success are less definable than we may wish for. the trait attack can be a utile tool in placing who will non be successful in a leading function. However. utilizing an eternal list of traits. based on some theoretical theoretical account of leading.

Using the large five nevertheless. ( Myers 2007. pp618 -620 ) and being clear sing the effects of an individual’s profile on the function you are looking to make full can be a valuable procedure to set about. For us. concerns spend excessively much clip looking to choose people into a function and non adequate focal point on choosing people out of a function. In other words. place those cardinal features. such as emotional instability. low thrust. and a deficiency of conscientiousness. that should except a campaigner from a procedure. and so see their accomplishments. manner. and ability to accommodate to different state of affairss to inform your pick.

A concluding though on this topic is the different between Abell’s attack to associating leading with scheme. a forward looking attack. and the stationariness of attacks such as the accomplishments attack. which appear more focussed on direction undertakings instead than the leading of future success. We would reason that this gives more support to the thought of utilizing a personality based attack. such as that proposed by Hogan & A ; Kaiser ( 2005 ) . looking for that charming ingredient of leader who can transform the administration. and more significantly transform the Black Marias and heads of the work force.