ADVERTISEMENTS:
After reading this article you will learn about Personality Development: 1. Definition of Personality Development 2. Characteristics of Personality Development.
Definition of Personality Development:
Personality is concerned with the psychological pattern of an individual— the thoughts, emotions and feelings—that are unique to a person. In fact, the totality of character, attributes and traits of a person are responsible for molding his personality.
These inherent personality traits and the different soft skills interact with each other and make a person what he or she is. It helps bring out a number of intrinsic qualities of a person, which are a must in any responsible position.
In simple words, personality is a set of qualities that make a person distinct from another. The word ‘personality’ originates from the Latin word ‘persona’, which means a mask. In the theatre of the ancient Latin-speaking world, the mask was just a conventional device to represent or typify a particular character.
It is the sum of the characteristics that constitute the mental and physi cal being of a person including appearance, manners, habits, taste and even moral character. The personality of a person is how he presents himself to the world; it is how others see him.
It has been aptly said:
Reputation is what people think you are.
Personality is what you seem to be.
Character is what you really are.
When we do something again and again, we form a habit. Ultimately these habits form a particular behaviour. If they recur frequently, they become a part of our psyche. They are reflected in all our activities—what we say, what we do, how we behave in certain circumstances and even in how we think. They become the core of our personality.
Personality analysis is thus a methodology for categorizing the character and behaviour of a person. Personality is made up of some characteristic pattern of thoughts, feelings and behaviour that make one person different from others.
Each of these individual attributes has its own individual characteristics, as indicated in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1 Personality Attributes and their Characteristics:
According to a theory expostulated by Carl Jung (1875-1961), a contemporary of Freud, all personal characteristics are a by-product of two fundamental attitude types: introversion and extroversion. Extroverts are optimistic, outgoing and confident, while introverts are averse to going out and facing the world outside.
Besides introversion and extroversion, different temperaments of individuals play an important role in determining their personality. Long ago, Greek physician Hippocrates put forward the theory that the temperament of a person is dependent on certain fluids (which he calls ‘humor’) present in the human body.
Disproportionate mixtures and increase of any of the humors causes a change in the human temperament.
According to this categorization, human temperaments have been classified into four categories:
Sanguine temperament — caused by excess of blood
Melancholic temperament — caused by excess of spleen
Phlegmatic temperament — caused by excess of phlegm
Choleric temperament — caused by excess of bile
Individual attributes of these temperaments are given in Table 1.2.
Table 1.2 Attributes and temperaments:
This ancient theory of Hippocrates has undergone many modifications but the main principle still holds good. However, these individual attributes are not the only factors that mould the personality: heredity and environment also play a major part in influencing one’s personality. Here are a few comprehensive case studies illustrating the points discussed.
Through the following three case studies, it will become clear that personality is a multi-dimensional issue with the following key characteristics:
1. One’s personality sends out a signal that others read.
2. Consciously different personalities can be powerful.
3. There is no ‘one right personality’; it differs by role.
Characteristics of Personality Development:
i. Case 1: One’s Personality Sends out a Signal that Others Read:
Nelson Mandela had a towering personality. The world respects him, and knows many aspects of his personality. Yet, as you read through the different anecdotes of this great leader, what strikes you as a refreshing revelation is that Mandela very effectively ‘worked on’ his personality. He was conscious that his personality reflected the confidence he exuded in others, and his demeanor was a signal to his people.
As stated in a TIME magazine article (2008), during a presidential election campaign. Nelson Mandela’s propeller plane developed a snag a few minutes before landing. Mandela, however, continued to be calm, reading a newspaper. The plane had an emergency landing and Mandela came out safe.
Later Mandela said, ‘Man, I was terrified up there!.. Of course I was afraid!… But as a leader, you cannot let people know. You must put up a front.’
Richard Stengel wrote in this TIME magazine article about Mandela as he reflected on this episode:
‘And that’s precisely what he learned to do- pretend and, through the act of appearing fearless, inspire others. It was a pantomime Mandela perfected on Robben island, where there was much to fear. Prisoners who were with him said watching Mandela walk across the courtyard, upright and proud, was enough to keep them going for days. He knew that he was a model for others, and that gave him the strength to triumph over his own fear.’
Similarly, while Mandela was always bitter about his long imprisonment, he always put up a positive demeanour about it.
India’s cricket captain, Mahendra Singh Dhoni too sends a cool and composed signal to his team at all times. Even in the most stressful situations, he appears completely in control and unruffled.
Yet, internally he churns his thoughts at all times, with a deft combination of planning his moves and being outright street-smart. He is aware that his unflustered exterior is a signal that keeps his team composed and focused, without losing their nerve in crunch situations.
Personality, unlike what many people believe, is not in-born and static. It can be consciously developed and changed. With conscious effort, one can project the desired personality.
For example, in preparation for an interview session, or in one’s professional career, a person may have to work on his personality. Every role comes with certain personality expectations.
By consciously working on the desired traits over time and projecting the desired ones, one can make a very tangible change to his original self to meet the expectations.
One’s personality is a signal that others read at all times. This includes every gesture and every articulation of the person. This signal is read by the interviewer or by superiors in a professional world. In turn, opinion gets formed and selection choices are made based on such impressions.
In one’s career, it is therefore important to recognize at all times that there is a direct correlation between the personality signal one sends out and one’s career growth. Those who do not align these expectations may get stunted in their careers.
ii. Case 2: Same Person: Consciously Different Personalities can be Powerful:
Mandela’s powerful personality always reached his people. Waving hands with a smiling face and wearing bright coloured print shirts showed him as a fulfilled patriarch of modem Africa. His tight fists during his run for the Presidency showed his determined resolve.
Wearing fatigues and sporting a beard while he was the leader of the African National Congress’s (ANC’s) underground wing showed his aggression (TIME 2008). Thus, it is possible, and even desirable, to not have the same personality under all conditions. Consciously working on, and demonstrating different personalities under different conditions can be very powerful.
In a corporate-setting, appearance and body language matter. One’s attire, demeanour and style reflect one’s personality. Hence, it is important to consciously work on one’s appearance so that it creates the desired impression during an interview or subsequently in one’s career.
iii. Case 3: There isn’t One Right Personality; It Differs by Role:
In an interview for a global team leader position, an experienced candidate, Seema, was pitted against a well-qualified and outspoken John. Seema had worked in several companies, and led small teams. John, on the other hand, was a brilliant researcher and had primarily worked in individual contributor roles.
During the interview for the team leader position, the interviewer presented a case where the work to be done is split across two teams—one in India, the other in the US. The team in India looked at their counterpart in the US as a threat, and vice versa. Each team wanted to get a bigger share of the pie and own more of the quality work than the other.
When John was asked how he would handle the leadership of the India team, he said he would outmaneuver the US team by demonstrating clear innovation excellence and superiority of his team over its counterpart.
He confidently articulated the many methods he would use to showcase to his management how the work he did will clearly be of higher value and impact. This would ensure increased ownership of the work by the India team, and hence a larger share of the pie.
Seema, however took a completely different view. She said she would first call for a joint face-to-face interaction session between the US and the India teams. The intent would be to break any mental barriers and misgivings between the teams and the respective leaders.
She said it is critical that the teams on both sides of the globe think of themselves as one team—since they both represented the same company, working to win against the competition. Subsequent to that session, the teams will work cohesively, supporting each other at all times, to win more customer business.
This way, she explained, the total work pie can be grown, benefiting both the teams. It would give both the India team and the US team more responsibilities.
The interview team liked John’s aggression and confidence, but felt that these personality traits, while valuable in many cases, were not appropriate for this role. The current role required a strong ethic of teamwork and global collaboration.
John’s focus would lead to more internal strife and competition. He would dissipate more energy on winning internal battles. Seema’s strategy was to build a strong global team and to focus her energy externally to win against competitors.