TRAIT APPROACH IN

LEADERSHIP
• Presented by:
• NCMH CLINICAL LABORATORY GROUP
• Graduate Students MMHoA
NCMH CLINICAL
LABORATORY
GROUP
• ASIS, PRECIOUS JAIMIE
• MARTIN, SHERRY AN
• REYES, CARLO MARTIN
• TAMERA, MARCO
 Trait Approaches: Intelligence,
self-confidence, determination,
integrity and sociability

SCOPE
Five Factor Personality Model
and Leadership
 To gain knowledge about Trait
Approaches.
To understand Five Factor
Personality Model and Leadership
OBJECTIVES
To develop a deeper understanding
on the application of Trait approach
in leadership
HISTORICAL
SHIFTS
IN TRAIT
PERSPECTIVE
STUDIES OF
LEADERSHIP
TRAITS &
CHARACTERISTICS
 INTELLIGENCE

SELF CONFIDENCE

FIVE MAJOR
LEADERSHIP DETERMINATION

TRAIT
INTEGRITY

SOCIABILITY
INTELLIGENCE
• relies on your ability to grow, learn and
master new ways to lead people
SELF
CONFIDENCE
• Necessary for leaders to take risks and
accomplish high goals. Self-confident leaders
tend to deal immediately and directly with
problems and conflicts, rather than
procrastinating, ignoring, or passing
problems to others
DETERMINATION
• is a prerequisite for success as the strength of
will involves/gives the leader energy to move
on towards the ultimate goal.
INTEGRITY
• Integrity in leadership means having strong
moral principles, standing by your words,
and doing the right thing. (Honesty, fairness,
responsibility, consistency and courage)
SOCIABILITY
• is a leader's inclination to seek out pleasant
social relationships. Leaders who show
sociability are friendly, outgoing, courteous,
tactful, and diplomatic. They are sensitive to
others' needs and show concern for their
well-being.
 Openness
Five Factor Conscientiousness
Personality
Model of Extraversion
Leadership
Agreeableness
Neuroticism
 (Explorer/ High) Appetite for new ideas and activities,
Originality, gets easily bored, have many broad interests. Curious,
imagination introspective and reflective, seeking new experiences
(refers to and thinking about the future. May be considered
one’s impractical or unrealistic by others.
originality,
imagination (Moderate / Med.) Somewhat down to earth,
or openness
considers new ways of doing something if convinced.
Openness to new
experiences.
Reflects level
Not known for creativity or curiosity but appreciates
innovation and efficiency.
of curiosity
versus
comfort with (Preserver/ Low) Prefer familiar territory, more
familiar practical, down to earth and comfortable with
territory.) repetitive activities. May be considered Prefer familiar
territory, more practical, down to earth and
comfortable with repetitive activities. May be
considered
 (Focused/ High) Tends to consolidate energy, time
and resources. Works in disciplined, dependable,
linear, sequential manner, with a strong will to
achieve goals.
Consolidation,
will to achieve, (Balanced / Med) Keep work demands and personal
goal-oriented needs in balance. Can switch from focused activities
(Capacity to to spontaneous tasks.
Conscientiousness focus attention
on sustained,
repetitive, goal
focused
behavior.) (Flexible/ Low) Prefers multitasking and
spontaneous work, approaches goals in a relaxed,
spontaneous, open-ended way. Can be considered
casual about responsibilities or unorganized by
others.
 (Extravert/ High) Likes to be in the thick of the action,
prefer to be around other people, is talkative,
enthusiastic, sociable and fun loving. May not be a good
listener as tends to dominate the conversation.
Positive
emotionality, (Ambivert / Med.) Move easily from working with
sociability (This others to working alone, have moderate threshold for
factor describes sensory stimulation and may tire of it after a while.
Extraversion comfort levels
with external
stimuli.

(Introvert/ Low) Prefers to be away from noise and

stimulation, like working alone, is serious, quiet,
private person. May be considered as loner by others.
 (Adapter/ High) Tends to accommodate the wishes
and needs of others, is tolerant, humble and
accepting. May be considered as naïve, submissive
and conflict-averse by others.
Accommodation
, adaptability (Negotiator / Med) Can shift between competitive
(Estimate of and cooperative situations and usually push for a

Agreeableness point at which

person gets
tired of being
win-win strategy

defiant and turn

to acts of
submission.) (Challenger / Low) Tends to cater to his or her
own personal priorities, relates to authority by
being skeptical, tough, guarded, persistent and
competitive. May be considered as hostile, rude,
self-centered or combative by others.
 (Reactive/ High) Very reactive and prefers a
stress-free workplace, have a shorter “trigger”
and can’t take much stress before feeling it.
Need for
stability,
negative (Responsive / Med.) Responsive and tend to be
emotionality calm, secure and steady under normal

Neuroticism (refers to
one’s need
circumstances. Have a moderate threshold for
handling workplace stress.
for stability
or negative
emotionality) (Resilient/ Low) Very calm and relatively
unaffected by stress that usually burdens
others, have a longer fuse and can take
abundant amounts of stress before showing the
signs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IB1FVbo8TSs
 Focus exclusively on leadership
roles.
How Does the
Trait Find the right people
Approach
Work?
Boost organizations output
 Personal awareness and
development
How Does the Determine leaders “fit” in the
Trait organization
Approach
Work?
PROBLEMS &
LIMITATION OF THE
TRAIT APPROACH
• No differences between leaders and
followers
• Minute relationships between traits and
leadership effectiveness
• Numerous leadership measures with low
reliability
• Minuscule systematic research on the
processes
STRENGTH OF THE
TRAIT APPROACH
• Intuitively appealing
• Century of research
• Highlights the leader component in the
leadership process
• Benchmarks for what we need to look
for if we want to be leaders.
 “The Role of Personality in Leadership: Five Factor
Personality Traits and Ethical Leadership” : Neuroticism
has a negative effect on ethical leadership perception of
employees. (Ozbag, 2016)

RESEARCH ON “The Relationship Between the Big Five Personality

Traits and Authentic Leadership” : Conscientious leaders
with low levels of neuroticism, who practice authentic
BIG FIVE AND leadership, will bring about positive social change.
(Baptiste, 2018)

LEADERSHIP “Developing Knowledge Creation Capability: The Role of

Big-Five Personality Traits and Transformational
Leadership” : Openness, agreeableness and
extraversion have direct influence on knowledge
creation capability. (Ayub, 2019)
FREE BIG FIVE
PERSONALITY
TEST
REFERENCES
Ayub, M.U., et al. (2019) : Developing knowledge creation capability: The role of big-five personality traits
and transformational leadership, Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences (PJCSS), ISSN
2309-8619, Johar Education Society, Pakistan (JESPK), Lahore, Vol. 13, Iss. 1, pp. 30-61

Baptiste, B. (2018). The Relationship Between the Big Five Personality Traits and Authentic Leadership.
https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5993&context=dissertations

Fleenor, J. (2017). Trait approach to leadership. In The SAGE Encyclopedia of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, 2nd edition (Second Edition ed., Vol. 4, pp. 1651-1652). SAGE Publications,
Inc, https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483386874

Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership: theory and practice. Eighth Edition.(Eight Edition ed., pp. 15-38) Los
Angeles, SAGE Publications.

Ozbag, G.K. (2016) The Role of Personality in Leadership: Five Factor Personality Traits and Ethical
Leadership. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 235, 235-242.

Patel, V.B. (2014). Five Factor Personality Model of Leadership,International Journal of Research in
Humanities and Social Sciences, ISSN:(P) 2347-5404 ISSN:(O)2320, Vol. 2, Issue: 2,
https://www.raijmr.com/ijrhs/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/IJRHS_2014_vol02_issue_02_05.pdf
CASE STUDY : Choosing a Research
Assistant
Dr. Angi Dirks is the chair of the state university’s organizational
psychology department, which has four teaching assistants (TAs). Angi has just
found out that she has received a grant for research work over the summer
and that it includes money to fund one of the TAs as her research assistant. In
Angi’s mind, the top two candidates are Roberto and Michelle, who are both
available to work over the summer. Roberto, a foreign student from Venezuela,
has gotten very high teaching evaluations and is well liked by the faculty.
Roberto needs a summer job to help pay for school since it is too expensive for
him to return home for the summer to work. Michelle is also an exceptional
graduate student; she is married and doesn’t necessarily need the extra
income, but she is going to pursue a PhD, so the extra experience would be
beneficial to her future endeavors.
 A third teaching assistant, Carson, commutes to school from a
town an hour away, where he is helping to take care of his aging grandparents.
Carson manages to juggle school, teaching, and his home responsibilities well,
carrying a 4.0 GPA in his classwork. Angi knows Carson could use the money,
but she is afraid that he has too many other responsibilities to take on the
research project over the summer.
As Angi weighs which TA to offer the position, a faculty member
approaches her about considering the fourth TA, Analisa. It’s been a tough year
with Analisa as a TA. She has complained numerous times to her faculty
mentor and to Angi that the other TAs treat her differently, and she thinks it’s
because of her race. The student newspaper printed a column she wrote about
“being a speck of brown in a campus of white,” in which she expressed her
frustration with the predominantly white faculty’s inability to understand the
unique perspectives and experiences of minority students. After the column
came out, the faculty in the department became wary of working with Analisa,
fearing becoming part of the controversy. Their lack of interaction with her
made Analisa feel further alienated.
 Angi knows that Analisa is a very good researcher and writer, and
her skills would be an asset to the project. Analisa’s faculty mentor says that
giving the position to her would go a long way to “smooth things over” between
faculty and Analisa and make Analisa feel included in the department. Analisa
knows about the open position and has expressed interest in it to her faculty
mentor, but hasn’t directly talked to Angi. Angi is afraid that by not giving it to
Analisa, she may stir up more accusations of ill treatment while at the same
time facing accusations from others that she is giving Analisa preferential
treatment.

QUESTIONS:
1. Of the four options available to Angi, which is the most ethical?
2. Using the principles of distributive justice, who would Angi choose to become the research
assistant?
3. From Heifetz’s perspective, can Angi use this decision to help her department and faculty
face a difficult situation? Should she?
4. Do you agree with Burns’s perspective that it is Angi’s responsibility to help followers assess
their own values and needs in order to raise them to a higher level that will stress values such
as liberty, justice, and equality? If so, how can Angi do that through this situation?
THANK YOU
FOR
LISTENING