Being a leader takes effort. When looking at effort I think I take on more of intelligence is malleable stance. As I believe that effort continues to engage and activate intelligence throughout the life cycle (Dweck, 2008). Dweck (2008) points to the belief that personality traits are malleable contradictory to what some may feel are encoded in our genes. In other words they are shaped by our experiences and desires rather than being assigned at birth. However, this brings into question if they can be change would a person be able and how would they go about doing so? Dweck (2008) believes that personality facets or traits can be changed by changing beliefs and in doing so it will shift personality facets. This in a slightly farfetched way can be connected to what I was addressing before when asking what counts the actions or the thoughts behind the behavior? Meaning that someone can fake a behavior to seem as though they possess a certain personality trait, at which someone point in this replication if it goes on long enough they may assume that actual belief and therefore acquire that personality trait. Although this is in the realm of possibilities if a certain personality trait is not so debilitating that is leaving a person impossible to be employed or reach life goals then why not use a strength-based method to find a career or goal that aligns to one’s personality?
While keeping this in mind leaders can use their follower’s personalities to find the way to best motivate them. The path-goal theory addresses how leaders can motivate their followers. The reformulated path-goal theory as described by House, focuses on leadership behaviors that increases follower empowerment, work unit performance, and overall satisfaction (1996). The reformulated theory contains a vast amount of propositions that relate to leader behavior, individual differences of followers, and contingency moderator variables (House, 1996). Even with the 26 propositions being relevant to 8 classes of leader behaviors it is unlikely that a leader will be able to adapt all 26 or even all 8 leader behaviors at anyone time (House, 1996). Even most of the behaviors will not be shown at any one time or in anyone situation (House, 1996). This makes sense as some of the behaviors would better couple together for effectiveness than others. For instance, it would make sense to couple articulation of a vision with role modeling of appropriate behaviors for the path-goal clarifying behaviors (House, 1996). Path-goal clarifying behaviors is one of the two leader behaviors (House, 1996). Clarifying behaviors focus on organization and schedule (House, 1996). In other words, making sure that followers know what to do, how to do it, and organizing the schedule so that task can be accomplished (House, 1996).
This is only possible, however, if a leader knows their own strengths. As House (1996) brings to attention that a specific combination of any behavior will be dependent on the leader’s skills. Therefore it is imperative that a leader recognizes not only their followers’ personality traits in order to gauge agreeableness and openness to new experiences but their own personality traits in order to be effective.
Dweck, C. (2008). Can Personality Be Changed?: The Role of Beliefs in Personality and Change. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(6), 391-394. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20183329
House, R.J. (1996) Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 323-352.