Recognizing What Leadership Really is
When asked as part of the first lesson for this course, prior to delving into any of the information of the lesson, how I would define leadership, I thought of leadership as the process of teaching and guiding others in navigating decision-making processes and performing tasks related to an environment where multiple people are involved. What I soon learned shortly thereafter was that I was not too far off. However, I was missing a few key pieces of information; specifically, where Peter G. Northouse (2016), noted that leadership also contains the element of influence, as “without influence, leadership does not exist,” as my perception of leadership passed over this aspect completely. (p.6)
Within the relationship between leaders and followers, influencing others as a leader comes with a great responsibility to build and maintain relationships. (Northouse, 2016, p.7) A good leader is often an advocate for ethical practices which involves respecting others, acting with integrity, and recognizing the importance of decision-making and how behaviors affect others within the leadership environment. (Northouse, 2016, pp.336-337) Still, how can we ensure that we are, or become, good leaders?
The Psychodynamic Approach
One perspective to enhance our understanding and practices of good leadership is the psychodynamic approach. Much of this approach was developed from the early works of psychoanalytical theories developed by Sigmund Freud. (Northouse, 2016, 297) His theories were the basis for the later understandings of there being underlying reasons and motivations which drive our human behaviors. (Northouse, 2016, p.298) Freud’s psychoanalytical theories were later adopted, further built upon, and applied to organizational psychology. (Northouse, 2016, p.298) From these developments (presumably), Northouse (2016) has suggested that the only way to fully understand the roles we take on as leaders, with all implications and consequences of leadership encompassed, is “through accepting and exploring hidden undercurrents that affect human behavior.” (p.296) We must understand ourselves, how we function, and why to then be capable of applying that same information to our leadership roles if we hope to be successful, good leaders. (Northouse, 2016, p.295) Therefore, the next question is, where do we start?
The Importance of Insight
Considering leadership as a process allows us to recognize and examine how our behaviors shape the relationships we form with others. (Northouse, 2016, p.8) Behaviors of leaders and followers contribute to the outcome of the leadership relationship as being either a positive and productive relationship or may lead to the demise of the relationship and organization. (Northouse, 2016. Pp. 301-305) To explore the psychoanalytical approach and apply it to leadership practices, we can first begin to acknowledge that others are motivated in different ways than ourselves; second, we can apply the information we learn from this in the group coaching perspective noted in Northouse (2016), where multiple practices during coaching sessions can help leaders explore new ways to promote understanding and positive change in the workplace. (pp. 309-313)
Another possible avenue of incorporating the psychodynamic approach is by the use of questionnaires to help leaders understand their own selves as well as others, particularly, to identify different personalities which then gives insight into what values, motivations, and conditioned responses & behaviors affect or deflect others. (Northouse, 2016, pp.317-323) A few of these personality typing questionnaires that I have had experience with, I feel deserve attention paid to in order to encourage additional research on their validity. These two typing questionnaires are the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, and the Enneagram model of Personality Typology.
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
In, The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and Transformational Leadership, a study published by F. William Brown and Michael D. Reilly (2008), Brown and Reilly administered both a Rater form to subordinates and a Leader form to leaders using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). (p. 923) Leaders also completed a second typing questionnaire, the Myers-Briggs Typing Indicator (MBTI) to compare data found by the MLQ, looking for correlations between the two in order to determine the validity of the BMTI. (Brown & Reilly, 2008, p. 924) Findings suggested that the MBTI showed no correlation between the subordinate ratings of leaders’ transformational leadership abilities, while leaders’ self-reported personality inventory found a significant positive correlation to their transformational leadership abilities. This suggests that these results may be due to biases regarding what the leaders knew would be more socially acceptable answers regarding leadership and thus were putting forth this bias when completing the personality inventories. (Brown & Reilly, 2008, p. 925-926)
As I was reading this study, I took notes as to what I would suggest if subsequent research was conducted regarding the validity of the MBTI. I suggested in my notes, that the importance of taking these inventory tests from a perspective of how a person functions in their day to day life should be stressed to the leader respondents; as respondents should be aware that to attain validity, they should not answer from a perspective of who they would like to be, or what behaviors they would like to display, but from how they really interact in the world on a day to day basis. This would require that the individual be extremely self-reflective and capable of identifying their own biases as to not skew the results.
Now, regarding the difference between the findings of the self-reporting form and the subordinate’s forms, Brown and Reilly (2008) covered this portion of my opinion above, noting that these were likely due to responses reflecting socially acceptable biases with the leaders’ self-reports. However, the portion of my opinion (in relation to the importance of answering the questions in the personality inventories to reflect how someone really thinks, feels, and behaves on a daily basis), was not covered and this may be something to think about in the future. A way to incorporate it into a study might be to have a leader first fill out the personality inventory test without being told about the importance of not responding with bias, and then after, having them take it again a few weeks later– stressing the importance of not responding with bias. Then, comparing both of those results with the results of the subordinates’ reports about leadership personality and abilities… perhaps this will produce greater correlations between the MLQ and the MBTI, and therefore, increase the validity of the MBTI.
Personally, I would like to see more of these personality typing tools being used to help leaders understand themselves as well as their followers. Though the MBTI study above did not yet find positive correlations to leadership abilities, it did not go without stating that more research is needed. The need for more appropriate methods of research to refine and increase validity (either positive or negative) ought to be something that continues to be explored in the future. These types of tools could potentially lead to groundbreaking findings in the future, I just hope we take the time and put in the effort to get there.
The Enneagram Model
Another study looking into the validity of personality typing and effects on organizations that I found was the Personality Type and Work-Related Outcomes: An Exploratory Application of the Enneagram Model, by Anna Sutton, Chris Allinson, and Helen Williams. (2013) This study, in contrast to the Brown and Reilly (2008) study, found positive correlations between Enneagram Personality Typing tools and empirically supported tools such as The Big Five model (personality traits), and the Schwartz model (personal Values), as well as incorporating research by Schulthiss & Brunstein (1999) about implicit motives. (Sutton, Allinson, & Williams (2013), p.239)
It’s important to note that the Enneagram is believed to give insight into a “perceptual filter about what an individual needs in life for survival and satisfaction, and how it can be achieved.” (Wagner, 1996, as cited in Sutton, Allinson, & Williams, (2013), p. 238) The Enneagram helps an individual gain further insight by including “explicit and implicit personality characteristics within each [of 9 types]” of personality types; which Sutton, Allinson, & Williams (2013) further clarify, “Explicit personality refers to those aspects that are available to the individual’s conscious awareness, and can be reliably assessed by the self-report questionnaire;” while unconscious, shadow aspects, of one’s self—(the implicit personality) we more than often choose to ignore. (p. 238) Sutton, Allinson, & WIliams (2013) also warn, “Ignoring the implicit personality in favor of an exclusive reliance on self-reports restricts the study of personality to the conscious self-concept,” which can limit growth potential; thus, the Enneagram can illuminate the implicit personality within an individual, offering “great use in identifying the workforce’s hidden potential and development needs” when applied to organizational leadership. (p.238)
Now, although positive correlations were found between the Enneagram and other models, Sutton, Allinson, & Williams (2013) were sure to include in their conclusion, this statement:
This paper has described some first steps in validating the Enneagram typology, providing evidence of its concurrent and predictive validity through theoretically sound links with three other models of personality and significant relationships with several workplace outcomes. As a type model of personality, the Enneagram describes significant world groupings of individuals who share patterns of traits, values, and motives, and therefore provides a potentially useful new tool for practitioners to apply in management training and personal development. (p.247)
So, what do you think about the use of personality typing in leadership? Have you taken either the MBTI or the Enneagram personality typing questionnaires? Let me know in the comments below or suggest other tools that you have used which are also being explored as possible additions to the current repertoire under the psychodynamic approach!
References
Brown, F.W., and Reilly, M.D. (2008). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and Transformational Leadership. Journal of Management Development, Vol. 28, No. 10, 2009, pp. 923-926. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Retrieved on September 7, 2018. Retrieved from: https://search-proquest-com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/docview/216353223/fulltextPDF/1746AED1F66B489APQ/1?accountid=13158
Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice (7th ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. pp. 6, 7, 295- 298., 301-305, 309-313, 317-323, 336-337.
Sutton, A., Allinson, C., & Williams, H. (2013). Personality Type and Work-related Outcomes: An Exploratory Application of the Enneagram Model. European Management Journal, 31, pp. 238, 239, 247. ELSEVIER. Retrieved on September 7, 2018. Retrieved from: https://www-sciencedirect-com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/science/article/pii/S0263237312001442