Keywords

Introduction

To be a successful leader in today’s turbulent and uncertain environment, organizations need a wide variety of characteristics within their leadership. The range of characteristics is so wide in fact that no one person can be the perfect leader. The good news is, no one needs to be. Leaders can choose to modify their own behavior as the situation demands, or instead, bring in others who have strengths in the areas where the current leadership feels weak. Identifying their own leader-personality profile enables leaders to recognize their own individual strengths and weaknesses.

I present herein a new integrated framework of leader-personality profiles. These profiles are particularly relevant to the current global environment as we emerge from COVID-19, and we realize afresh the importance of distributed leadership. Now more than ever we must recognize our interdependence on one another. If all seven leader-personality profiles are represented and contributing, then organizations can be assured that the necessary perspectives are present to enable a successful way forward.

This chapter begins with an overview of what leadership looks like in a post-COVID-19 environment. Next is a brief description of distributive leadership and why this is particularly relevant to leaders after COVID-19. Then we move into a discussion of personality, with a brief review of personality traits and profiles. Then follows the principal focus of this chapter—a presentation of a new integrated framework of leader-personality profiles. Seven profiles are presented and described. The chapter closes with a brief conclusion, chapter takeaways, and reflection questions.

Leadership After COVID-19

One of the great lessons of the COVID-19 pandemic is just how complex and unpredictable the future is. We cannot eliminate the uncertainty, so leaders need new ways to deal with it. We must learn to live with uncertainty, acknowledging that any one person cannot foresee the impact of every event. Volatility is the new normal, evidenced by frequent and rapid change. With globalization and more employees working from home, business continues to become increasingly complex; there are many moving parts that are positioned in disparate locations. Moreover, the ambiguity of the global situation makes it difficult to comprehend the entire state of affairs; there can be several—and sometimes conflicting—interpretations of the same event.

This combination of uncertainty, volatility, complexity, and ambiguity presents unique challenges for the leader in a post-COVID-19 environment. There is an extremely wide range of leadership characteristics that are required in order to be agile enough to adapt to the demanding complexity and volatility of these times. In fact, the range of necessary characteristics needed is so wide that no one person can be the perfect leader.

This recognition that not one person can be all things perfectly has been described as the death of the hero leader. The hero leader was that mythical perfect person, like Superman, who swooped in with their superpowers to save the day. There is an implicit assumption about the hero leader that the successful outcome depended on the decisions and actions of a single person (Meindl et al., 1985). This assumption is unrealistic because most organizations have multiple people who influence decisions and the implementation of those decisions. Hero leadership may have been something that leaders used to strive for, but after learning our lessons from COVID-19, we must acknowledge that this strategy is no longer effective. There are too many moving parts, too many uncertainties and ambiguities that no one person can imagine all the possible scenarios and simultaneously implement and execute the appropriate responses. Instead, we must be honest and authentic, recognize we are not able to do it all ourselves, and that we require the combined strengths of those around us in order to succeed. We must recognize that individually, we are “incomplete” (Ancona et al., 2007).

The incomplete leader has been described as someone who hones their own strengths while finding others who can make up for their limitations. We start with ourselves, identifying our own set of strengths and weaknesses. Then, we can look to others who can complement us and supplement the things we are missing. In this way, we can create an environment where leadership is distributed across multiple people.

Ancona et al. (2007) stated it this way: “Only when leaders come to see themselves as incomplete—as having both strengths and weaknesses—will they be able to make up for their missing skills by relying on others” (p. 94). First, we must acknowledge that we are incomplete leaders. Then we can address the question, “how do we become complete?” The answer can be found in distributed leadership. Distributed leadership is a process in an organization that involves multiple leaders with overlapping but different responsibilities (Gronn, 2002; Yukl, 2013). It is something that does not require a single individual to perform all of the essential leadership functions, but rather a set of people who can perform them collectively (Yukl, 1999). Not only can responsibilities be shared with team members and peers, but could also be pushed down to lower levels or up to superiors. Yukl (1999) brings further clarity to what distributive leadership might look like: “some leadership functions (e.g., making important decisions) may be shared by several members of a group, some leadership functions may be allocated to individual members, and a particular leadership function may be performed by different people at different times” (pp. 292–293). This is a logical and pragmatic solution of how to approach leadership in today’s uncertain and complex environment.

As evidenced throughout this volume on leadership, the term leadership can carry various connotations of meaning, so it is useful to define how the term will be used in this chapter. Leadership can be defined as a role, trait, behavior, or process. Even so, many definitions over the years reflected the assumption that leadership is a process whereby the leader exerts influence over others to guide or facilitate people and or activities (e.g. Drath & Palus, 1994; Hemphill & Coons, 1957; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Rauch & Behling, 1984). I agree with this assumption. I take the view that leadership is not limited to just the few in a specialized role, but also includes a social process of influencing others. In his classic textbook on leadership, Northouse (2010) provides an excellent synopsis of the leadership literature which can be summarized with the following definition: “Leadership is a process by which an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (p. 3). Leadership can be shown by many more people than just a few at the top; any person who influences a group of people to work together can be a leader in the group. Thus for this chapter, leadership is defined as the ability of an individual to “influence, motivate and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the organizations of which they are members” (House et al., 1999, p. 184). To understand how leaders can influence, enable, or motivate the performance of others, it is helpful to examine the processes used by leaders. Here I suggest that our leader-personality profile is one way to describe the natural inclination for the processes we choose to utilize.

A variety of leadership models have been published, albeit primarily in the area of leadership behaviors. There has been a proliferation of taxonomies on leadership behaviors (see Bass, 1990; Yukl, 2013), but there is yet to be published an integrated framework of leader-personality profiles as is presented here. As we emerge from COVID-19, now is the time to build on lessons learned and create distributed leadership processes based on the seven leader-personality profiles.

Personality Profiles

We all have a personality and we can easily identify the personality traits of those we know well. We might use words such as shy, outgoing, introverted, or extraverted. Personality is defined as “consistent and enduring individual differences in ways of thinking, feeling, and acting” (Costa & McCrae, 2008, p. 180). This contemporary definition is supported by ancient texts including Greek philosophers, the Torah, and the Bible. Circa 370 bc, Plato suggested that our soul was a tripartite personality and could be divided into three parts: intellect, needs, and will. The earlier Torah text, also known as the Old Testament in the Bible, written circa 1470 bc, also refers to our personality as our soul and references three parts: mind, heart, and strength (Deuteronomy 6:5, New International Version). In Biblical texts, the three-part personality of mind, heart, and strength appears three times in the New Testament and was written circa 70 AD (Luke 10:27, Mark 12:30, Matt 22:37). All these definitions can be understood as describing the same concepts. The mind is our intellect, where our thoughts reside. The heart is the seat of our emotions, feelings, and felt needs. Strength is the strength of will to act, which is evidenced as behaviors. It is the unique combination of these three parts—the mind, heart, and will—that determines our personalities.

Personality traits are the indicators that measure our different ways of thinking, feeling, and acting. The Five Factor Model (FFM; Costa & McCrae, 1992a), colloquially called “the Big Five,” is arguably the most extensively researched model of personality traits in the field of personality psychology. The FFM’s five factors (neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness) are well-known, but often incorrectly described as traits, rather than categories of traits. Factors are not personality traits per se, but rather groupings of similar traits (Costa & McCrae, 1992a). When structured in a hierarchical manner, personality psychologists use the terms factors and facets. The term facet designates the lower-level, narrower traits that are located within each of the higher level, broader factors. Figure 23.1 shows the five factors and their facets as represented in the FFM (Costa & McCrae, 1992a).

Fig. 23.1
A hierarchy depicts neuroticism with anxiety and depression, extraversion with warmth and activity, openness with imagination, agreeableness with trust, and conscientiousness with orderliness.

The factors and facets of the FFM (Costa & McCrae, 1992a, b)

Full size image

The factors and facets of the FFMFive Factor Model (FFM) (Costa & McCrae, 1992a, b).

The factor of neuroticism is concerned with levels of self-confidence, self-esteem, and composure under pressure. Someone who scores highly on neuroticism would tend to be self-critical, may be moody, or approach life with a “glass half-empty” perspective. Alternatively, someone with a low score on neuroticism would be confident, resilient, and steady in the face of pressure. As shown in Figure 23.1, the neuroticism factor includes facets such as angry-hostility, depression, self-consciousness, and vulnerability.

Table 23.1 Four personality profiles identified by FFM factors (Gerlach et al., 2018)
Full size table

The factor of extraversion concerns sociability and measures the need for social interaction. Someone who scores highly on extraversion would tend to be outgoing, optimistic, and dislike working by themselves. Someone who scores low on extraversion would appear quiet and reserved and does not mind working alone. Extraversion includes traits such as gregariousness, activity, and positive emotions.

Openness concerns levels of imagination, curiosity, and creative potential. Someone who scores highly on openness would tend to be imaginative, quick-witted; they may be easily bored and not pay attention to the details. Someone who scores low on openness is likely more practical and focused, showing an affinity for routine work. The factor of openness includes the facets of imagination, feelings, and intellect.

Agreeableness is the degree with which a person seems socially sensitive, tactful, and altruistic. A high score on agreeableness indicates someone who is friendly, compliant, and quickly engenders trust. A low score indicates someone who is independent, frank, and direct. The factor of agreeableness includes the traits of altruism, compliance, modesty, and tender mindedness.

Conscientiousness is the level to which a person seems self-controlled and responsible. A high score on conscientiousness indicates someone who is dependable, organized, and thorough; they are easy to supervise, but may be inflexible with rules. A low score on conscientiousness indicates someone who is spontaneous and adaptable, but may tend to resist rules and close supervision. The factor of conscientiousness includes the facets of competence, orderliness, and dutifulness.

One of the strengths of the trait approach is the ability to produce psychometrically sound instruments for measurement, as evidenced in the well-documented psychometric properties of the NEO Personality Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992b), the official test of the FFM. Thousands of empirical studies have been published using the FFM traits as predictors for a variety of outcomes allowing further investigation with meta-analytic methods. Results of meta-analyses show personality is a significant predictor of important outcomes such as job performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991), job satisfaction (Judge et al., 2002), and leadership styles (Bono & Judge, 2004).

In contrast to traits, personality types are focused on the organization of multiple traits within an individual, and how the arrangement of these traits might define particular types of people (Sava & Popa, 2011). Early theorists, such as Hippocrates, Freud, and Jung studied personality by identifying types; at the time, these individual differences were sometimes called temperaments. Today, we often see consultants and practitioners readily embracing types, as it is a practical and pragmatic way to group individuals. But the measurement of types is highly controversial in the research community. Take the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI; Myers & McCaulley, 1985), for example: a contemporary personality assessment which is built entirely on Jung’s typology, the MBTI is widely utilized by consultants and highly criticized by personality researchers. The MBTI is a personality test that identifies 16 personality types from a combination of four dichotomies: introversion versus extraversion, sensing versus intuition, thinking versus feeling, and judging versus perception. Although the MBTI has a very large commercial base, it is criticized by researchers due to concerns around its psychometric properties and scientific validity (Pittenger, 2005). Studies have shown participants received different type profiles when retested (Howes & Carskadon, 1979; McCaulley & Carskadon, 1983); in one particular study, researchers found nearly 70% of the participants’ MBTI profiles changed after three administrations of the test (Salter et al., 2005). Furthermore, a comprehensive review revealed few consistent relationships between MBTI type and managerial effectiveness (Gardner & Martinko, 1996).

Historically, traits and types have each been studied in isolation. Nevertheless, a contemporary perspective is emerging that traits and types need not be mutually exclusive; personality profiles could be considered as a prototypical configuration of traits (Asendorpf et al., 2001). More recently, studies have started taking this approach of building personality profiles empirically from traits. Early seminal work (Asendorpf et al., 2001; Caspi & Silva, 1995; Robins et al., 1996) was refined and extended (Gerlach et al., 2018) with empirical evidence to support the existence of at least four profiles: average, self-centered, reserved, and role model. As shown in Table 23.1, the average profile is characterized by average scores on all five factors. The self-centered profile shows a high score on extraversion, an average score on neuroticism, and low scores on the remaining factors. The reserved profile is characterized by average scores in extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness, with low scores in neuroticism and openness. The role model profile displays socially desirable traits and is marked by high scores on all factors apart from neuroticism. Table 23.1 summarizes each of the four profiles and their differing scores on the FFM factors.

While this approach to integrate traits into profiles reflects a significant start to establishing a psychometrically sound instrument for measurement, there is still more to gain by researching the finer grained distinction of facets. For example, consider the traits of gregariousness and excitement-seeking, facets of the extraversion factor. In a study of police officer and firefighter recruits, both groups of recruits generally scored higher than a normative sample on the excitement-seeking facet, while police recruits scored higher than firefighters on the gregariousness facet (Salters-Pedneault et al., 2010). When measuring at the facet level, more nuanced and meaningful differences can be discerned. If personality is only measured at the level of factors, the distinctions afforded by study at the facet level will be missed, which can have a significant impact on the prediction of important outcomes such as job performance or leadership styles.

Research that integrates traits into profiles will help to address some of the methodological concerns of typology research. Finer distinctions that include the measurement of facets will improve nuanced prediction of leadership and job performance. Future models of personality profiles should integrate such an approach, as I do here.

Leader-Personality Profiles

Why then develop personality profiles specific to the context of leadership? And why especially now, as we emerge from COVID-19? When conducting personality research, recognizing the context in which the personality traits are exhibited has consistently proven to be important in understanding personality psychology. Also called situational strength, it has been found to be an important moderator in the examination of individual difference variables (Bem & Allen, 1974; Hattrup & Jackson, 1996; Judge & Zapata, 2015; Murphy & Dzieweczynski, 2005). When using personality traits to predict job performance, researchers suggested the variance in job performance attributable to situational strength was “far from trivial” (Judge & Zapata, 2015, p. 1167). For example, in a study comparing overall-personality, home-personality and work-personality, results showed that work-personality was a better predictor of job satisfaction than either overall-personality or home-personality (Heller et al., 2009). Work-personality has also been found to be a better predictor of work-related criteria than overall personality (Bowling & Burns, 2010).

Most personality assessments measure overall personality, as they are capturing who you are overall and are not specific to a certain context. The tests usually ask questions such as who you are when you are at a party or how you spend your personal time. However, what I advocate here is to recognize the importance of context in the personality test itself. For example, when Heller et al. (2009) measured work-personality, it was defined as the “characteristic patterns of thoughts, feelings and behaviors at work” (p. 1055). I suggest taking a step further and considering personality within the specific context of leadership. Building on the definitions of leadership and personality mentioned earlier in this chapter, I therefore define leader-personality as the consistent ways of thinking, feeling, and acting when influencing, motivating, or enabling others to contribute toward the success of their organization.

As the focus here is to describe the characteristic traits of the individual, I have chosen the title of leader-personality rather than leadership-personality. Yet this does not diminish the importance of acknowledging that leadership is in the context of working with others and having followers. The term leadership is often used when focusing on a process that involves the relationship of leaders and their followers, whereas the term leader is more focused on the characteristics of the individual (Day, 2000). Keeping with our definition of leaders as possibly anyone and not necessarily specified by a job role, leader-personality profiles identify the traits of anyone who acts in the context of influencing, motivating, or enabling others to contribute toward the success of their organization.

Leader-personality profiles are based on the definitions of personality presented earlier in this chapter. Thus it is the unique combination of three parts—the mind (thoughts), heart (feelings), and will (actions or behaviors)—that determines our leader-personalities. To integrate these three parts of personality into leader-personality profiles, first consider the design of a Venn diagram, as shown in Fig. 23.2.

Fig. 23.2
An illustration depicts the thoughts of the mind, behaviors as will, and feelings of the heart.

Three-part personality

Full size image

When these three parts of personality are set into a Venn diagram, it displays how they combine to create seven profiles. One profile is primarily driven by the mind, one by the heart, and one by the will. Another profile is driven equally by both their mind and will, one by both their will and heart, and another equally by their heart and mind. And one profile is equally driven by all three parts: the mind, heart, and will. While much empirical work has been done to suggest the existence of at least four personality profiles (Gerlach et al., 2018), there remains very little theoretical understanding behind those findings. I suggest a biblical text can provide the theoretical grounding of how many personality profiles exist and the purpose of each profile. In this text, the word “gift” is used to describe each profile:

We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us. If your gift is prophesying, then prophesy in accordance with your faith; if it is serving, then serve; if it is teaching, then teach; if it is to encourage, then give encouragement; if it is giving, then give generously; if it is to lead, do it diligently; if it is to show mercy, do it cheerfully. (Romans 12: 6–8)

These seven gifts were given to individuals by God and have been described as “inherent tendencies that characterize each different person” (Walker, 1991, p. 2023). Walker’s (1991) description of “inherent tendencies” noticeably aligns with Costa and McCrae’s (2008) definition of personality as “enduring individual differences.” Since both cases are describing personality, this biblical text is therefore used as the inspiration for the labels for each of the seven leader-personality profiles: Prophet, Server, Teacher, Encourager, Giver, Administrator, and Sympathizer. Two labels (Administrator and Sympathizer) have been modified slightly from the biblical text which will be further described herein. I have placed the seven profiles into the Venn diagram (see Fig. 23.3) and use their locations to assist in developing the understanding of each profile.

Fig. 23.3
An illustration depicts the teacher's mind, sympathizer heart, prophet's will, administrator, giver, encourager, and server.

Seven leader-personality profiles

Full size image

Even though the seven labels are drawn from biblical text, this is not to imply that these seven profiles are for Christians only. The context of the passage reveals that the gifts are for “all people” (Romans 12:3). The original Greek word used is ανθρωποσ (anthropos), meaning “every man” in a gender-neutral way. The gifts were given by God for all people, whether Christian or not (Winston, 2009).

We all have a mind, heart, and will, and it is the unique combination of these three parts that make our leader-personality. We tend to be most comfortable in one or two areas and lead from there (e.g., someone who leads with their heart, or someone who leads with their mind). The seven profiles are not roles nor job descriptions, but rather personality descriptors. The Teacher tends to be most comfortable leading with their mind, as opposed to the Sympathizer, who leads with their heart. The Prophet leads with their will and tends to act before thinking. The Administrator integrates both mind and strength of will, showing excellence in supervising people and processes. The Encourager is like a coach, who leads with both the heart and mind, encouraging others to obtain their best as well as communicating the logic of why it is best. The Server combines both heart and will, causing them to take up efforts in which they can serve others by their actions. The Giver integrates all three areas of the mind, heart, and will and is someone who leads by being generous and resourceful; a natural networker, they know who needs to connect in order to get things done.

The remainder of this chapter provides a description of each leader-personality profile, integrating theoretically related personality and leadership research. Also included are the original Koine Greek words and their definitions, as suggested by the context of the biblical book of Romans, on which the labels for the profiles were based. The seven biblical gifts have been extensively researched by DellaVecchio and Winston (2015), Fortune and Fortune (2009), and Winston (2009), so while their research lacks a focus on personality or leadership, their interpretations of the seven profiles bring a rich contribution to this discussion. Descriptions start with the profiles of Teacher, Sympathizer, and Prophet because each of these profiles is focused primarily on one of the three parts of personality. Presented next are the profiles that overlap into two areas of personality: the Administrator, Encourager, and Server. Lastly the profile of Giver will be described, which equally combines all three areas of personality.

As you read through the various profiles, think about your own leadership style and see which profiles resonate with you. You will likely find at least one, and maybe even two or three, that you feel describe you well. Moreover, you will likely find at least one, maybe more, that you know do not describe you well—this is to be expected as we are all incomplete leaders. It has been argued that people have some combination of all profiles (Winston, 2009), but even this argument supports the idea that we are stronger in some areas more than others. Thus the conclusion remains the same that we are all incomplete. Recognizing our incompleteness is the first step to improving ourselves so we might be successful leaders in a post-COVID environment.

Teacher

As revealed in Fig. 23.3, the Teacher is one who leads with their mind. They lack a strong inclination in the areas of the heart and will to act. Thus, they tend to be most comfortable leading with in a logical, rational way, which may appear non-emotional and slow to respond. They tend toward intellectual discussions, which may appear unfeeling or cold in their approach while taking a long time to decide before they act. They may also find themselves “teaching” in their approach to others—they will research and deliberate what they determine is best, then communicate that in a logical and systematic way, either in writing or verbally. They may not currently be in the job role of a teacher, but might find they enjoy that particular role. Another good description of this profile is someone who is a researcher, because they are highly analytical, wanting to validate any facts or arguments that are presented to them. They are intellectually sharp and enjoy problem-solving—anything that stretches the mind. The original Greek word for teaching is διδασκων (didaskon) which means to instruct, clarify, illustrate, or simplify for the sake of communication and understanding (Bryant, 1991). DellaVecchio and Winston (2015) suggested that a Teacher profile has an extraordinary ability to discern, analyze, and deliver information so that others will learn. Fortune and Fortune (2009) suggested this profile is one who loves to research and communicate truth. Taken together, this indicates a person who is a strong communicator, whether it be written or oral, and with a strong ability to help others grasp the important concepts. For a leadership context, the Teacher profile is thus defined as someone who exhibits strong ability to analyze and deliver information so that others will understand.

Theoretically, this profile is likely to score high on most of the openness personality facets, particularly intellect and imagination. Intellect describes someone who is intellectually curious, often questioning, and desires stimulation that comes from new ideas. Imagination is the level of creativity and innovation. A low score would be expected on agreeableness, particularly the facet of tender mindedness. Tender mindedness describes one who can be swayed by emotions or feelings over rational judgment—this is the very opposite of a Teacher, who prefers logic and rational judgment over emotions. The Teacher can also be slow to accept the perspectives of others, as they first want to check the source or validate the facts. Because of this, they may appear reserved or distant, but this cold logic can bring an important perspective and is necessary to bring balance to leadership.

Moreover, the leadership literature also suggests there are leaders who lead naturally with their mind. Daniel Kahneman’s (2011) book, titled “Thinking, Fast and Slow,” explored the thinking processes of the human mind and noted two different systems of thinking: System 1 thinking is “fast”—it is quick, reactive, and automatic. Good fast decisions come from those who have many years of specific experience in a particular area. System 2 thinking is “slow,” deliberate, and effortful; this is the normal process used for problem-solving. Not everyone naturally engages in System 2 thinking, but those with a Teacher profile would likely be naturally inclined to it. The ability to perform System 2 thinking is an important aspect of leadership and can be naturally provided by someone with a Teacher leader-personality profile.

Sympathizer

The Sympathizer profile, as shown in Fig. 23.3, is one who leads with their heart. They also lack a strong inclination in the areas of the mind and will. Thus, the Sympathizer is relationally focused and strongly desires to see harmony among relationships. They are likely high on emotional intelligence and will be known for showing care and kindness to others.

The Greek word used here, ελεων (eleon), is translated as “mercy” in the New International Version of the Bible (Romans 12:8). This word is derived from ελεοσ (eleos), which means to have compassion on (Bryant, 1991). DellaVecchio and Winston (2015) and Winston (2009) labeled this profile as “Showing mercy,” while Fortune and Fortune (2009) used the title “Compassion person.” While compassion and mercy are close to the biblical context, Sympathizer is a more suitable title for this leader-personality profile which can encompass a broad range of caring leadership behaviors.

DellaVecchio and Winston (2015) suggested that this profile has the extraordinary ability to feel and act upon genuine empathy for others who are in pain. Fortune and Fortune (2009) suggested this person is one who shows compassion, love, and care to those in need. Taken together, this indicates that a Sympathizer will respond with empathy to those around them and will score exceptionally high on emotional intelligence. Thus, this leader-personality profile is defined as one who genuinely feels empathy for others and cares deeply for the well-being of people.

The Sympathizer profile is likely to score highly on the factor of agreeableness, particularly the facets of compliance and tender mindedness. Compliance is the desire to get along with others, being cooperative to the point of not wanting to express disagreement. Tender mindedness is being sympathetic and caring about humanitarian causes; one who is often swayed by feelings rather than rational judgment—this particularly aligns with the idea of making decisions with the heart rather than the head. It is also reasonable to expect low scores on neuroticism traits, especially the facet of angry-hostility. Angry-hostility describes someone who is quick to take offense, which is opposite to someone who is patient and kind, like those with a Sympathizer profile.

Supporting leadership literature can be found in Goleman’s (1995) work on emotional intelligence that described the importance of leading with the heart. He defined the components of emotional intelligence as self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and social skill (Goleman, 1998). The component of empathy was defined as the ability to understand the emotional make-up of other people and shows skill in treating people according to their emotional reactions. He recognized the distinction between intelligence quotient and emotional quotient, stating that they have little to do with each other, which further supports the distinction between the mind and the heart as shown in this framework.

When in leadership positions, Sympathizer profiles may show a tendency to make decisions that please others due to their high scores on empathy and compliance. This may lead to behaviors that appear non-confrontational or indecisive, which are potential weaknesses for leadership. The Sympathizer profile should be aware of these weaknesses, but feel secure knowing that emotional intelligence is an important element of leadership.

Prophet

Figure 23.3 shows the Prophet is one whose will to act is the primary focus in their leader-personality style. They also lack a strong inclination in the areas of the heart and mind. Thus, the Prophet profile might not take the time to think before they act and will likely show little care for the feelings of others. The Prophet leads primarily with strength of will, so often their first response is to act; they want to see things get done. The Greek word for this profile is προφητεια (propheteia) which is defined in the biblical context as making known or divulging vital information necessary for spiritual living and development (Bryant, 1991). The label of Prophet is appropriate because like spiritual prophets, the person with this profile will frequently offer warnings on why something might go wrong. Just as the marketing and management literature has adopted the term evangelist to describe a zealous advocate, so also can the term prophet be applied to a non-religious context to mean one who speaks in a visionary way, is able to make predictions, or foresees potential doom. Due to the tendency to set aside feelings or thoughtful deliberations, they may seem blunt or confrontational in an effort to just get things done.

According to DellaVecchio and Winston (2015), people with these profiles have the ability to quickly discern good and evil. Fortune and Fortune (2009) suggested this profile is one who clearly perceives the will of God. Both of these definitions have a strongly spiritual perspective, which is not necessarily warranted by the context (Winston, 2009). When applied to a leadership context, I suggest this person can foresee when there might be trouble ahead; they are often good at envisioning a better future and identifying potential trouble spots along the way. Thus, the definition for this profile is one who exhibits a strong ability to communicate warning and vital information necessary for proceeding rightly.

The personality traits of this profile are likely to score highly on many of the facets of neuroticism, such as depression and angry-hostility, and low on particular agreeableness facets such as compliance. Depression is feeling frequently discouraged or discontented; this discontentment becomes an important motivator for speaking out with a new vision. Angry-hostility is being quick to take offense; they may feel easily insulted when others are unwilling to trust what they “see” so clearly. Compliance is one who shows a desire to get along with others and is unwilling to express disagreement—this is the opposite of a Prophet who will willingly and frequently raise objections. From a leadership standpoint, criticality and disagreement are important to making good decisions so, within reason, these objections should be welcomed.

The concept of grit in the leadership literature is theoretically relevant here; grit is a combination of passion and perseverance (Duckworth, 2017). Those with grit are deeply passionate about what they believe. They can persevere in their belief so strongly that it can construed as either determination or stubbornness. This determination comes naturally to those with a Prophet profile. This is needed in leadership, as we need leaders who bring vision, direction, and determination. Because of their strong conscience and desire to see things done right, their warnings should be thoughtfully considered in order to prevent future problems.

Administrator

Figure 23.3 shows the Administrator is one who leads equally with both their mind and will. They also lack a strong inclination in the area of the heart. Thus, in their efforts to think things through and get things done, they may leave other people’s feelings and opinions out of the process. Even so, the Administrator is an excellent overseer who enables people and processes to function effectively. According to DellaVecchio and Winston (2015), Administrators have a strong ability to identify the appropriate goals, communicate those goals to others, and help others work harmoniously to achieve those goals. Fortune and Fortune (2009) suggested this profile is one who loves to organize or direct others.

The Greek word used here is προισταμενοσ (proistamenous) which means to stand over or place over (Bryant, 1991). The Greek word is translated by the New International Version of the Bible as “to lead” (Romans 12:8). As evidenced in this volume on leadership, “to lead” can be understood in a plethora of ways. As the original Greek means “to stand over,” I have chosen to use the label of Administrator, as it indicates this person is a strong supervisor or manager, one who oversees or monitors people and processes. DellaVecchio and Winston (2015) and Winston (2009) labeled this profile as “Ruler,” while Fortune and Fortune (2009) chose “Administrator.” Using the label of Administrator incorporates the ideas of management and oversight without confounding other definitions of leadership. Management and leadership are distinct, albeit related, concepts (Yukl, 2013). A strong Administrator naturally brings the management qualities of monitoring and oversight as their strength in leadership.

As a natural manager, those with the Administrator profile are good at making plans and implementing them. They enjoy the challenge of establishing new procedures and are excellent at creating order out of chaos. They are often capable and responsible. Thus, the definition for this profile is someone who naturally sees the need for new procedures, then establishes and oversees procedures and/or people, in order to achieve organizational goals.

As evidenced by the well-researched personality traits of managers (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991; Barrick et al., 2001; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000), the Administrator profile is likely to score highly on most conscientiousness facets, especially competence, orderliness, and dutifulness. Competence is the trait of being confident and well-prepared, one who takes pride in common sense and prudence. Orderliness is one who is well-organized, tidy, and methodical. Dutifulness is one who sticks to the rules and keeps their promises. As Fig. 23.3 shows the Administrator does not include an overlap into the heart, it is reasonable to expect a low score on agreeableness, particularly modesty. A high score on modesty is someone who dislikes being the center of attention or has a low opinion of themselves—this is the opposite of what would be expected from a competent overseer who believes in their abilities and is able to run meetings as they supervise others. This becomes both a strength and weakness in leadership. Their strength is the ability to establish and monitor processes to help others achieve the organization’s goals, but the weakness is the potential lack of heart and care for the relational aspects of those they work with.

Encourager

The Encourager leads with a combination of their heart and mind (Fig. 23.3). They are known for having a positive, cheerful attitude and being able to find the silver lining in any situation. Another good description for this profile might be a coach, as they enjoy challenging others to grow and are excellent at motivating others.

DellaVecchio and Winston (2015) described this profile as someone who has the ability to call forth the best in others through encouragement and motivation. Fortune and Fortune (2009) suggested this profile loves to encourage others to live a victorious life. The word encourager comes from the Greek word παρακαλων (parakalon). This word has two parts—a “call” and “companionship”—which together they mean to be with and for another (Bryant, 1991). Taken together, this indicates this profile is willing to walk with others on their journey while calling forth their best along the way. The definition for the Encourager profile is someone who walks alongside others and encourages them to accomplish their best for the organization.

Because of the overlap of heart and mind (Fig. 23.3), the Encourager profile would likely score highly on agreeableness and openness facets. Feelings, a facet of openness, describe someone who is sensitive to the feelings of others. The cheerful attitude and ability to motivate others lead us to expect this profile would also score highly on the facets of gregariousness and positive emotions. Gregariousness describes someone who likes to be around people and is highly sociable. Someone who scores high on positive emotions is cheerful, high-spirited, and buoyant in mood. Because of the overall cheerful and positive attitude, it would be expected this profile would score low on depression. Depression has been described earlier under the Prophet profile; as shown in Fig. 23.3, the Prophet profile is situated exactly opposite to the Encourager (see Fig. 23.3), so it is reasonable to expect these two profiles might have some opposing qualities. Moreover, depression is a facet of neuroticism, which those who lead with their will may be more prone to. The area of the will is the only area with which the Encourager profile does not overlap.

The leadership literature around executive coaching is relevant to the Encourager profile. Executive coaching has been defined as practical, goal-focused, one-on-one learning for the purpose of behavioral change (Hall et al., 1999; Peterson, 1996). The objective of executive coaching is to encourage behavioral change and improve individual performance, which is expected to enhance organizational effectiveness (Day, 2000). Someone with an Encourager leader-personality profile might find themselves naturally drawn to this literature and might already play the role of coach or mentor within their field. Thus, the strength an Encourager profile brings to leadership lies in their ability to motivate others to contribute to the success of the organization.

Server

The Server profile leads with both their heart and will (Fig. 23.3); they are a do-er who rolls up their sleeves to get things done in a way that serves those around them. They are focused on the emotional and practical aspects of enabling others to best serve the organization but might not take the time to think before they act. According to DellaVecchio and Winston (2015), Server profiles have the desire to free others to work more effectively and will elevate the needs of the other person without concern for their own rank or recognition. Fortune and Fortune (2009) suggested this profile loves to serve others. The Greek word for serving is διακονια (diakonia) which means to aid and can be interpreted as the ability to identify unmet needs and then make use of available resources to accomplish the desired goals (Bryant, 1991). Taken together, this indicates that this person is a helper who cares for the needs of others. Thus, the definition of a Server leader-personality profile is someone who will serve others, without regard for themselves, in the best interest of the other person and the organization.

Because of this profile’s emphasis on heart and will, and lack of influence of the mind (see Fig. 23.3), this profile would be expected to score highly on agreeableness and neuroticism facets, and low on openness facets. Because of the focus on the other person rather than themselves, this profile will likely score highly on self-consciousness, which is someone who is uncomfortable in drawing attention to themselves. A high score is expected on modesty, which is related to humility and deference to others—this particularly aligns well with the academic literature around servant leadership. As do-ers, this profile would be expected to score highly on activity, which is someone who enjoys a high energy level and may find sedentary work unappealing. Lastly, it would be reasonable to expect a low score on intellect, which is focused on being intellectually curious—this profile would rather be getting something done than investigating theoretical questions.

The leadership literature related to the Server profile can be found in the substantial amount of published research on servant leadership. Greenleaf’s (1977) book “Servant Leadership” was a seminal work that sparked much discussion and research. He defined the servant leader as one who has a natural feeling that they want to serve, and the servant leader will be a servant first (Greenleaf, 1977). Further research investigating servant leadership described it is as leading others by serving them instead of serving self and suggested six aspects: voluntary subordination, authentic self, covenantal relationship, responsible morality, transcendental spirituality, and transforming influence (Sendjaya & Cooper, 2011).

Those with a Server profile exhibit a readiness to renounce their superior status if it prevents them from helping others in a practical way. Contrary to many leaders who crave the spotlight, Servers who put the interests of the organization and others above their own naturally bring this important component of leadership to the table.

Giver

As evidenced in Fig. 23.3, the Giver distinctively combines the mind, heart, and will to bring a unique leader-personality profile to the table. This is not to imply that the Giver is perfect in all three areas. Rather the three areas of mind, heart and will integrate to create a profile that creates different strengths but also lacks the unique strengths provided by the other profiles. A Giver is a natural networker who seeks to enable others behind the scenes. They may also be good with money or a natural entrepreneur.

DellaVecchio and Winston (2015) suggested that a Giver profile may give of their income, time, or energy in ways that exceed a normal standard. Fortune and Fortune (2009) suggested the Giver profile is one who loves to give time, talent, energy, and means to benefit others. The Greek word for giving is μεταδιδουσ (metadidous) which means to give over, share, or transfer (Bryant, 1991). Taken together, this indicates this profile is a strong resourcer, who can share or transfer resources to ensure the effective use of time, money, energy, or skill. For a leadership context, the Giver profile is defined as someone who exhibits the ability to allocate and share resources to enable attainment of the organization’s goals.

Because of the combination of mind, heart, and will, the personality traits are more difficult to theoretically predict in this case. A natural networker, it is reasonable to expect some level of extraversion, yet they may also be happy to work behind the scenes to get things done, thus an average level of extraversion is proposed. Because of their tendency to be good with financial resources, a high level of detail-conscientiousness is expected, which is reflected in the trait of orderliness, a facet of conscientiousness. Most likely this profile would score highly on altruism, a facet of agreeableness, which is described as being generous and giving. Because of their balanced combination of mind, heart, and will, this profile might be especially resilient, dealing well with stress, thus it would be reasonable to expect a low score on the trait of vulnerability (a facet of neuroticism). Vulnerability is defined as not coping well with stress or crises.

This description of the Giver profile corresponds with Adam Grant’s (2013) concept of Givers in his book “Give and Take.” Grant stated that Givers focus on the interests of others, share credit, and make connections with others. He provides a list of values usually evident in Givers, including helpfulness, dependability, and responding to the needs of others. He also mentions altruism as a trait often seen in Givers (and is found lacking in those who are Takers). The leadership strengths of those with a Giver profile lie in their ability to manage resources for the benefit of all.

Table 23.2 provides a summary of the leader-personality profiles I have proposed, including their theoretically suggested personality traits, based on the overlaps of the three personality areas of mind, heart, and will.

Table 23.2 Summary of leader-personality profiles and personality traits
Full size table

Conclusion

As we emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic, now is the time to recognize our lessons learned and implement a distributive leadership strategy. Leader-personality profiles are one way of discerning the different personalities and perspectives that should be included in organizational leadership. The seven profiles, based on biblical “gifts,” are particularly relevant to the context of distributive leadership because the wider context of Romans 12 asserts that the gifts are intended to be utilized together. Two verses (Romans 12:4–5) just prior to the list of gifts (Romans 12:6–8) give an analogy of the body to show how different parts are meant to be used together and not in isolation. The analogy describes different body parts working together: “For just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we, though many, form one body, and each member belongs to all the others” (Romans 12: 4–5, NIV). Each part cannot work alone successfully, but rather they need each other.

The idea of the body working together is further expounded by the same author (the apostle Paul) in another letter where he wrote:

Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many. Now if the foot should say, “because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. And if the ear should say, “because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? But in fact, God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. If they were all one part, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, but one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” (1 Corinthians 12:14–21)

Here the analogy is applied to the concept of distributed leadership, where it can be acknowledged that no one person is meant to work alone, but we must work together by relying on the strengths of each other. While a variety of leadership models have been published over the years, they have predominantly focused on leadership behaviors. Leadership behavior taxonomies provide useful lists of leadership skills, but speak nothing to the way we naturally lead. Herein I presented a model of leader-personality profiles that suggests your natural leader-personality, helping you to identify your characteristic strengths and weaknesses. This enables you to be your best when able and ask others for assistance where needed. Uniquely relevant for today’s environment as we emerge from COVID-19, this framework of leader-personality profiles introduces a model of distributive leadership that is appropriate and sustainable for our uncertain world.

Chapter Takeaways

  1. 1.

    As we emerge from COVID-19, we must find leadership strategies that are effective in an uncertain and complex world. Appropriate and sustainable leadership can be found through a distributive leadership approach.

  2. 2.

    The strategy of trying to be the hero leader is no longer adequate. We must acknowledge that we are incomplete. We can address our incompleteness by identifying our strengths and weaknesses and legitimately depending on others in the areas where we are weak.

  3. 3.

    There are seven leader-personality profiles, each based on a combination of the three personality areas of mind, heart, and will.

  4. 4.

    The seven leader-personality profiles are Teacher, Sympathizer, Prophet, Administrator, Encourager, Server, and Giver.

  5. 5.

    Of the seven leader-personality profiles, several are likely to describe you, and several are likely to not describe you. This framework can help you identify your natural leadership strengths and weaknesses.

Reflection Questions

  1. 1.

    This chapter suggests hero leadership is no longer sustainable after COVID-19 and the best strategy is distributed leadership. To what extent do you agree? Why?

  2. 2.

    Consider each of the seven leader-personality profiles. Identify a situation where each leadership profile would be especially appropriate and effective.

  3. 3.

    Which leader-personality profiles do you identify with?

  4. 4.

    With a work colleague, discuss the profiles you identify with.  Does your colleague agree with your assessment?

  5. 5.

    Identify a work colleague who is strong in the leader-personality areas you are weak. Develop a plan on how you might lead together.