George Washington: The Big 5 Assessment
This week in Leadership we explored two approaches to leadership—the trait approach and the skills approach. I found both of these topics to be interesting. In this blog post, I will apply one significant trait approach—the Big 5 Personality Factor assessment to the first President of the United States, George Washington.
IMPORTANT NOTE: This post and its conclusions are complete opinion. I am in no way an expert on this theory or the leader I examine. I am merely seeking to demonstrate a practical application of the theory.
The Trait Approach
 |
Image source: https://www.boundless.com/psychology/textbooks/
|
The trait approach seeks to describe traits that leaders have. Trait theories can be limiting because they tend to be a little too black and white. You either have this trait or you cannot be a leader. However, one trait theory—the Big 5 Personality Factor is theory—is both practical and attainable for everyday use. According to this trait theory, each of our personalities is made of these five factors: openness (or curiosity), conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness, and neuroticism (or a tendency towards anxiety or other negative feelings) (Northouse, 2016, p.27). And every individual displays these characteristics to a certain degree. In regards to how leaders reflect these factors, researchers have learned that the factor most associated with leadership was extraversion followed by conscientiousness, openness, low neuroticism, and agreeableness in order of association with leadership (Northouse, 2016, p.27).
Here is a link to an online Big 5 Personality Factors Assessment if you’re interested in completing it for yourself: https://www.truity.com/view/tests/big-five-personality
 |
| http://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/george-washington/ pictures/george-washington/by-gilbert-stuart |
Let us now consider how one very famous leader, George Washington, might theoretically score in each of these areas. Washington proves that though these traits and their associations with leadership seem straightforward this may not always be the case.
George Washington: The Big 5 Assessment
1. Openness- Openness describes a person that is curious and enjoys abstract thinking. People that score low in this area tend to see things more literally and seek practicality in reasoning (Truity, 2017). It is hard to determine how George Washington may have scored in this area. In many ways, he thought out of the box. He played a large role in creating an entirely new nation with entirely new rules. But, he also made straightforward, practical decisions in doing all of this. He was not showy or particularly inclined towards risk. I would argue that Washington would score in the middle of the road in the area of openness for these reasons.
2. Extraversion-Was George Washington extraverted? Did he enjoy being in social settings or was he more reserved? Sebastian Marshall, author of Gateless asserts that George Washington was “hyper-introverted” (Chu, 2017). Also, an overwhelming amount of sources agree that Washington was an ISTJ (introverted, sensing, thinking, and judging) on the Myers-Briggs ® Personality Types. Although George may have preferred to work alone, it did not mean he was unable to work with others to accomplish a task—especially in the case of winning the Revolutionary War for America. Washington likely scored low in the area of extraversion, but this worked to his and our nation’s advantage because he was a fantastic listener who spoke only deliberately and with purpose. Washington scores low in extraversion but proves this is not necessarily a bad thing.
3. Agreeableness-Agreeableness describes the “tendency to be accepting, conforming, trusting, and nurturing” (Northouse, 2016. P. 25). Washington was not one to conform. He did not do things to please others, and he obviously distrusted the British enough to lead the Americans against them in the War. If Washington had been a conforming, accepting man I would wager that America would not be the nation it is today. Washington transformed a rag-tag army into a disciplined military unit capable of defeating one of the most formidable militaries on the planet. This man was not a conformist. He was a challenger unwilling to accept something just because he was told to do so. Because of this, I would suggest Washington scores low on the scale of agreeableness.
4. Conscientiousness- Conscientiousness describes the “tendency to be thorough, organized, controlled, dependable, and decisive” (Northouse, 2016. P. 25). Our George Washington’s score on conscientiousness would be through the roof. He led, sometimes unwillingly, with a loyalty and determination that few others ever could. He demonstrates the importance of perseverance and following through. He felt a strong sense of responsibility to the nation and all of those he served. Additionally, he was determined to finish what he started. No doubt, it is because of Washington’s high conscientiousness that we even have a nation.
5. Neuroticism- Was George an anxious man? Did he experience a fair amount of doubt of depression? There is no doubt he made some monumental decisions that altered the course of a nation throughout his military and political career. But did these decisions make him nervous? According to an article in the February 2011 Smithsonian Magazine, as Washington left his beloved Mount Vernon for his inauguration as President of the United States he wrote “About ten o’clock, I bade adieu to Mount Vernon, to private life, and to domestic felicity and, with a mind oppressed with more anxious and painful sensations than I have words to express” (Chernow, 2011). Even in his inaugural address, Washington described his anxieties about his new role saying that “no event could have filled me with greater anxieties” (Chernow, 2011).Despite this, Washington’s nervousness and discomfort did not affect his ability to lead. Instead, he overcame and created a precedent for White House decorum and Presidential behavior. So where would George Washington likely score on the neuroticism spectrum? I would place Washington fairly high on this scale. To me, he does not seem to be a highly positive person that I eager to jump into things. However, it is important to note that this did not make him a poor leader. In fact, this cautiousness of attitude made his decisions careful and sure. He was a realistic man who did not make risky decisions for a fledgling nation. As one survey points out high neuroticism is often coupled with a fear of failure that “can provide an important source of motivation” (Truity, 2017).
George Washington was undoubtedly one of the greatest leaders to ever exist. However, he proves that leaders do not necessarily have to be extraverted or empathetic or highly positive. He shows that leaders can be different and different situations call for different leaders. Washington possessed the right traits for the job he was called to do. I like how his example demonstrates the faults in trait theory. Just because a leader may lack in one area it does not mean he cannot be a remarkable, ground-breaking leader. Leadership is impossible, in my opinion, to quantify or write down on paper. Leaders are uniquely apt to lead in their own situations with their own followers.
I hope you have enjoyed reading this week’s post. Be sure to check in next week for another discussion of leadership. You can find my blog anytime at http://exploringleadershipinpublicadmin.blogspot.com/
References
Chernow, R. (2011). George Washington: The reluctant president. Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/george-washington-the-reluctant-president-49492/
Chu, Charles. (2017). David Foster Wallace on the power of introversion. Better Humans. Retrieved from https://betterhumans.coach.me/david-foster-wallace-on-the-power-of-introversion-3c51a3e60939
Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice. (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Truity. (2017). The big five personality test. Retrieved from https://www.truity.com/personality-test/1628/test-results/4365053
Comments
Post a Comment