WHICH BIG FIVE PERSONALITY TRAITS DO SRI LANKAN LEADERS PREDOMINANTLY SHARE AND VARY?
ABSTRACT
Leadership is described as a skill rather than a trait which could potentially elevate a person’s pathway in life. However, to achieve leadership qualities specific traits maybe ideal in specific intensities which may vary or be static between leadership personalities. The following report conveys a research question investigated by a student of Gateway College, Colombo for an academic folio. The question investigated is on whether leaders share similar scores in the trait spectrums of the Five Factor Model (FFM) and how they could potentially vary. The report is structured conventionally starting from the background profile, academic aims and research design description that includes both the procedural algorithm and sampling methods used. It then proceeds to give an in- depth display and analysis of the results of this study through both descriptive statistics and data visualisations summarising the critical data patterns observed among the variables of this study. The report ends with well-rounded conclusion(s) and its(their) relevant evaluations alongside further suggestions for future research in the field of leadership and trait psychology.
BACKGROUND PROFILE
When considering the background of this study I chose to write on why this study became an area of interest as well as a brief introduction to technical subject matter and jargon that this study deals with such as conceptions of trait psychology in general and the nature of the Five Factor Model (FFM).
LEADER’S AND THEIR TRAITS
Academics say leadership has never been a fixed attribute within our personality but is quality formulated through a network of traits (Gibbs, 1947). While there are some traits that drastically vary between leadership personalities, there are others that are roughly similar in terms of score. In fact, this statement is supported by prior research evidence which suggests that while certain traits may apply universally among ideal leaders, most traits could distinctly vary (Kirkpatrick, 1991). I believe that stating their dissimilarity is discernible so what drew my ardour towards this area was finding exactly which of these traits vary and which of them coincide similarly. In order to maintain credibility and standardisation I chose to use the Five Factor Model or BIG 5 test as commonly called to define its traits as variables.
THE BIG FIVE TEST (FIVE FACTOR MODEL)
According to most trait theorists, The Five Factor Model (FFM) is now constituted as a basis of most personality structures (Pervin, 2009) which makes it an appropriate model to decompose the variables of a leadership personality. The model factors personality into five different dimensions: extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism and openness (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Openness is an intra-psychic trait which describes our willingness to change (Costa & McCrae, 1992) where high scorers are usually those that appreciate a dynamic and unpredictable lifestyle. Meanwhile conscientiousness describes our propensity to be self-controlled, hardworking and responsible (Jackson & Roberts, 2017). Extraversion on the other hand tells how energised we are in the presence of people and consists of several individual factors like sociability and impulsivity (Eaves & Eysenck, 1975). A low scorer in this spectrum would be described as introvert and would therefore be less energised in social gatherings. The fourth trait, agreeableness refers to a person’s disposition of being likeable, pleasant and harmonious with others (Graziano & Tobin, 2009) and finally neuroticism which reflects our response and stability to environmental stress where high scorers are vulnerable to feelings like guilt and dejection. (Widiger, 2009).
A strong feature of the BIG 5 test, apart from the fact that it can be conducted cost-effectively in a virtual environment, is that it uses an established content analysis procedure to give a quantitative score for each trait (together known as an OCEAN score) meaning that the gathered data can be immediately visualised on charts and set for statistical testing. This makes it a scientific instrument, which, moreover, has a high degree of reliability and validity as shown through studies (Thiel, 2021).
OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY
Throughout this investigation, my aim is to understand whether leadership personalities irrespective of their gender, position or role encompass certain BIG 5 traits that vary drastically between personality to personality alongside other traits that remain relatively constant. By researching this question, individuals can understand the traits that may enhance and the traits that would not inhibit their ability to take up effective leadership representing a good use of science been utilised as a human endeavour. For instance, if introversion drastically varies amongst successful leaders, an introvert desiring to take up leadership may understand that his/her introversion is not a deterrent to his capability of becoming a strong leader. Meanwhile if conscientiousness is a quality that remains constantly high across most leader, a laid-back person may understand that he/she ought to have the propensity to be hardworking, astute and goal-oriented in the future to take up leadership. Hence this study can offer qualitative advice and applicative use to many stakeholders especially those beginning to approach leadership which hence becomes an external objective of this study.
RESEARCH DESIGN
To investigate the titled research question, an observational research design seemed appropriate whereby we hand over the official BIG 5 online survey to each of the participants and compare their OCEAN scores statistically to identify which ones are shares and varied. The following flow chart functions as an algorithm that summarises the research procedure.
METHODOLOGY
The investigation starts by sampling leaders and gaining their consent in a recursive pattern (see below) and then proceeds to give the official BIG 5 personality test available at www.truity.com/test/big-five-personality-test. Afterwards participants refill the five scores and other details like age and leadership roles in an independent form. Following the data gathering stage, the results will be prepared on a spreadsheet where a descriptive statistical test is to be performed followed by displaying a series of data visualisations which can then be used to gain insights into the question, formulate findings and lastly write a conclusion.
Figure 1: Flow chart that summarise research method and process visually.
A critical part of procedure is highlighted in the decision box in Figure 1 involves gaining informed consent from leaders on whether they wish to partake in this study thus offering the right to withdraw in accordance with the APA Code of Ethics section A.3.3(a)-(j) and A.3.3(E) along with a disclosure to the nature and aims of this study. This was done as it was important that their busy schedules do not get disturbed as a result of the study being representing a good use of ethical practice. Further ethical considerations included not keeping the records for longer than necessary and keeping biographical details confidential in secure secondary storage medium.
SAMPLING
For this investigation I decided to use opportunity sampling whereby I approach known individuals from the target population of leaders who are freely available at the time to partake in the study. The sampling process started with approaching known leaders from school management, parental workplaces and social circles who were then asked to forward the research materials to other leaders through worth-of-mouth to gain a more unknown and variable sample that could represent a diverse pool of leaders. Overall, the sample size came to a total of 55 comprising of a biased amount of 16 females and 38 males across multiple roles like management, directorship, professorship etc. As race, religion, race and other demographical factors were not of interest they were not considered in the sample but efforts were made to approach demographically diverse people to ensure a generalisable sample. The following data visualisations summarise the nature of the sample.
Figure 2(a): Pie chart illustrating gender distribution of sample. 2(b) Pie chart illustrating leadership role
PREDICTION
It is hypothesised that a good majority of leaders in this sample will share adequate and similar levels of O, C and N traits while E and A traits may tend to differ from one leader to another. This prediction was vaticinated through my personal schema of an ideal leader who I envision to be open to change (Openness), hardworking (Conscientiousness) and stable in stressful situations (Neuroticism) meaning they should share similar scores in each of the traits. However, a leader’s extraversion may vary as some leaders may find social settings unenergetic to their sense of well-being despite having competent social skills. On similar lines, agreeableness could also vary as some leaders may appear pleasant around team mates while other maybe unempathetic and rigorous. This prediction is based entirely on personal opinions despite the fact that real-world scenarios maybe a lot different as there are no perfectly ideal leaders however it can be said that a perfect leader would encompass each of the BIG 5 traits in adequate levels according to his/her work ethic.
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
To ensure a sense of systematism in delivering and reporting the results of this study each trait has been analysed individually using three data visualisations followed by statistical deductions. Since this study assesses the similarity or dissimilarity within a set of scores, histograms and scatter diagrams are used to communicate the variability and spread of the scores alongside a bar graph that summarises a few statistical metrics that serve as dispersion measures. These metrics include the range, standard deviation (SD) and coefficient of variance (CV). The range assess the difference between the maximum and minimum values of a data set and gives a very brief idea of the spread of scores while SD and CV give a more comprehensive outlook on dispersion by assessing how far values are centred around the mean which then determine the consistency of scores.
AGREABLENESS
Through the results of this study, agreeableness shared the most similarity and consistency among the leaders of our sample. As visualised through both the shape of the score distribution on the histogram and scatter of scores against Participant ID on the scattergram, most A scores fall into the latter high end of the spectrum in a manner that is consistent and centred. The consistency and lack of variability in the scores is also justified through the use of statistical metrics with a scores ranging over 54 data points and being at least 11.88 data points away from its mean of 72.9 while the coefficient of variance is at 16% meaning that each result is moderately 84% closer to the each other and centred around the mean. All these metrics are comparatively lower to other traits concluding that willing to place others needs above yours, being pleasant and empathetic are attributes shared strongly amongst most of the leaders in our sample.
OPENNESS
Figure 4(a) Histogram of scores. 4(b)Scattergram of scores. 4(c) Bar chart summarising measures of dispersion for each trait.
Openness was the second trait that shared the most similarity and consistency among the leaders of our sample. As visualised through both the shape of the score distribution on the histogram and scatter of scores against Participant ID on the scattergram, most O scores fall into the higher end of the spectrum in a manner that is consistent and centred. The consistency and lack of variability in the scores is also justified through the use of statistical metrics with a scores ranging over 52 data points and being at least 13.42 data points away from its mean of 72 while the coefficient of variance is at 18% meaning that each result is 82% closely dispersed around the mean. Overall, these metrics are lower than other traits but higher than the metrics deduced for Agreeableness. The visualisation together with its statistical evidence conclude that being open to change and allowing for diverse and unpredictable lifestyle is a critical dimension within leader as it is a strongly common trait amongst most of the leaders in our sample.
CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
Conscientiousness was a trait that was shared in a moderately similar pattern by our leaders in an almost split situation between the scores. As visualised through both the shape of the score distribution on the histogram and scatter of scores against Participant ID on the scattergram, most C scores fall into the median to higher ends of the spectrum in a manner that is comparatively more dispersed and scattered across a range of scores. The comparatively higher variability in the scores is also justified through the use of statistical metrics with a scores ranging over 65 data points and being at least 16.35 data points away from its mean of 69.1 while the coefficient of variance is at 24% meaning that each result is on average centred around the mean at 76%. Overall, these metrics are lower than other traits but higher than the metrics deduced for both Agreeableness and Openness suggesting greater inconsistency and variability. The visualisation together with the measures of dispersion calculated conclude that the propensity to be diligent, hard-working and inquisitive is a trait shared in a split manner amongst most of the leaders in our sample meaning that while some results are similarly high others moderately low.
EXTRAVERSION
Extraversion and neuroticism were the two traits that were shared in a strongly dissimilar pattern by our leaders but also in a split situation with most leaders falling towards the extraversion scale as opposed to the introversion scale due to the mean of 58.1. As visualised through both the shape of the score distribution on the histogram and scatter of scores against Participant ID on the scattergram, most E scores range from the lower to higher ends of the spectrum in a manner that is very dispersed and scattered across a range of scores. The high variability in the scores is also justified through the use of statistical metrics with a scores ranging over 69 data points and being at least 19.15 data points away from its mean of 58.1 while the coefficient of variance is at 33% meaning that only 67% of the results are centred and located around the mean. Overall, these metrics are way higher than C, O and A traits suggesting greater inconsistency and variability. The visualisation together with the measures of dispersion calculated conclude that the whether a leader is energised in social circles is something that varies form personality to personality and disapproves the statement that all leader must be extroverted personalities as most leaders in a sample scored moderately on extraversion.
NEUROTICISM
The trait was shared in a most dissimilar and inconsistent manner by the leaders f our sample was neuroticism. As visualised through both the shape of the score distribution on the histogram and scatter of scores against Participant ID on the scattergram, most N scores fall into the extremely low to higher ends of the spectrum in a manner that is extremely dispersed and scattered across a range of scores. The comparatively higher variability in the scores is also justified through the use of statistical metrics with a scores ranging over 86 data points and being at least 17.82 data points away from its mean of 46.2 while the coefficient of variance is at 39% meaning that only 62% of the scores are vaguely dispersed around the mean. Overall, these metrics were the lowest records through this investigation suggesting the greater inconsistency and variability in neuroticism among leaders. The visualisation together with the measures of dispersion calculated conclude that being stable and withstanding to be environment stress is a quality that varies form leader to leader meaning some leaders maybe calm and composed in stressful situations while others maybe unstable and pressurised.
EVALUATION
This evaluation is focused on examining the strengths and weaknesses of the research design I used in terms of five scientific aspects: generalisability, reliability, application, validity and ethicality.
GENERALISABILITY
In terms of generalisability, this study is strong as it considers a sample of 55 participants across several reputed organisations and leadership roles as well as few different age groups. This indicates that the results can be easily applied to the target population of leaders due to the sample being both valid and reasonably reliable to generalise. However, where it falls short is on gender where largely more males (22 more) have been considered over females which means that the results of the study represent mostly male leadership traits and cannot be fully generalisable to female populations. This reduced the generalisability of the study.
RELIABILITY
The Five-Factor Model, which is more commonly known as the Big Five, is a personality platform most commonly used for psychology studies and is widely considered the most scientifically reliable (Agostino, 2012) meaning the results reported would have been reliable to deduce conclusions from. Furthermore, all participants received the same treatment which extends to the sent message, questionnaire and BIG 5 test meaning the investigation was scientifically fair. However, there is still the possibility that the Big 5 tests results of each leader could alter when redone and this can threaten the study’s reliability alongside the fact that there would have been several environmental factors when the leaders did the tests at their own pace which could lead to a different result when replicated in a controlled setting.
APPLICATION
This study does have some applicative richness as it tells us the importance of openness and agreeableness to a leader indicating that those attempting to take up leadership must ensure that they are open-minded and willing to change while also being empathetic towards other and willing to place their team members needs above theirs. Application also extends to the fact that extraversion appears to be largely spread according to the statistical metrics meaning that it does not seem to interfere with one’s ability to stand as a leader which can reduce stigma or stereotypes caused by people foreseeing introverted personalities as less suitable for leadership.
VALIDITY
The study is valid in the sense that it used the well-known BIG 5 test measuring the exact traits it intends to measure rather than using a made-up test.A further strength lies in data generated through this investigation which were quantitative scores meaning the conclusion and findings deduced could easily be statistically proven and would have been less affected by the researcher bias. However as seldom to questionnaires and survey, there is the tendency that the leaders would have show cased demand characteristics by showcasing the characteristics that leader should show or by conforming to the social desirability bias. There could have also been the impact of order effects which would have led the leaders to become fatigued towards the latter part of the tests leading to false responses. Furthermore, current issues at workplaces or familial stress could have also interfered when giving honest answers among the leaders of this sample. Overall, validity maybe poor but given the assumption that all participants were honest and integral in the study, it may have been less affected.
ETHICALITY
The study maintains good ethical practice as far as an online survey can go by giving the right to withdraw and informed consent which ensures that busy leaders are not disturbed from their commitments and rigorous schedules. However, a lot of sensitive information such as age, gender and name were gathered in this investigation which could have distressed our leaders’ privacy concerns.
CONCLUSION
This study clearly concludes that agreeableness and openness are the most shared leadership qualities at high levels in the spectrum while conscientiousness, extraversion and neuroticism are the least shared traits among leaders according to both visualisations and statistical metrics. This indicates that being willing to change and place others’ needs above are attributes that are shared similarly among leader while also being critical to leadership personalities.
While being diligent, extraverted and stable in stress are qualities that vary amongst leadership personalities, it must be remembered that ideal leaders incorporate a perfect mix of the five traits.
FURTHER RESEARCH OPTIONS
This study can be further enhanced by incorporating new research ideas and questions that could be studies to break down the topic of leadership traits. A few question that can be assessed in further qualitative studies and research investigation include:
- How could leadership traits differ between male and female personalities?
- Which BIG 5 traits are ideal for leaders?
- What traits do leaders showcase in stressful situations?
- How does extraversion affect leadership?
- Are leaders more open to change in real-life?
REFERENCES
Costa Jr, P.T. and McCrae, R.R., 1992. Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and individual differences, 13(6), (pp.653-665).
Costa Jr, P.T. and McCrae, R.R., 1992. Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and individual differences, 13(6),( pp.653-665).
Eaves, L., & Eysenck, H. (1975). The nature of extraversion: A genetical analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(1), 102–112
Gibb, C.A., 1947. The principles and traits of leadership. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 42(3), p.267.
Graziano, W. G., & Tobin, R. M. (2009). Agreeableness. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 46–61). The Guilford Press.
Kirkpatick, S.A. and Locke, E.A., 1991. Leadership: do traits matter? Academy of management perspectives, 5(2), pp.48-60.
Matthews, G., Deary, I.J. and Whiteman, M.C., 2003. Personality traits (pp.03-05) Cambridge University Press.
Pervin, L.A., 1994. A critical analysis of current trait theory. Psychological Inquiry, 5(2), (pp.103-113).
Widiger, T. A. (2009). Neuroticism. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 129–146). The Guilford Press.
