This paper synthesizes three peer-reviewed studies examining the relationship between personality traits and leadership effectiveness. The first article examines psychopathic personality traits in U.S. presidents, revealing how traits like dominance and risk-taking can enable or undermine political leadership. The second article correlates personality characteristics with three leadership models: transactional, transformational, and laissez-faire. The third explores how personal growth projects influence leadership identity development across five dimensions. Together, these articles demonstrate that leadership performance emerges from complex, multifaceted personality systems shaped by context, situational demands, and interpersonal relationships.
The first article examined in this review addresses "fearless dominance" and how personality traits associated with this construct lead to success or failure in the U.S. presidency. The research describes the psychopathic personality as characterized by superficial charm, egocentricity, dishonesty, guiltlessness, callousness, risk-taking, and poor impulse control. These traits are often linked to deviancy and criminality, with comorbidity common alongside depression and anxiety.
However, many of these characteristics closely resemble traits required of effective political leaders who must act boldly and decisively. Presidential actions receive intense scrutiny and assessment, yet the need for power—generally viewed negatively—is actually a prerequisite for modern political leadership. Successful presidential candidates invest considerable energy in campaigns and genuinely enjoy both the process and the office itself. Psychopathic personality traits thus present a complex paradox in political contexts.
The article also identifies traits more consistently valued in presidential leadership: extraversion and conscientiousness. Agreeableness presents a more ambiguous case, with high levels sometimes interpreted as lack of core principles and other times celebrated as bipartisanship (Lilienfeld et al., 2012). This nuance underscores that personality assessment in leadership contexts cannot rely on simple positive-or-negative categorization.
The second article takes a broader approach, associating different leadership styles with their corresponding personality traits. The study examines three leadership frameworks: transactional, transformational, and laissez-faire. Like the first article, it identifies distinct personality profiles for each leadership type.
Transformational leaders are characterized by strong social and interpersonal skills. Laissez-faire leadership, by contrast, represents an absence of leadership and active avoidance of responsibility. Transactional leaders focus on exchange—specifying what they will provide and what they expect in return, with careful review and regulation of these transactions (van Eeden, Cilliers & van Deventer, 2008).
The research identifies a constellation of traits associated with effective thinking styles and problem-solving patterns, including evaluative, behavioral, conceptual, and innovative thinking, as well as variety-seeking, adaptability, and detail-consciousness. Conversely, less desirable traits in this framework include perfectionism, excessive privacy, and excessive abstractedness. This article reinforces the first study's finding that leadership effectiveness depends on which traits activate in response to situational demands.
The third article shifts focus to how personal growth projects shape leadership identity development. A central finding is that separating personal development from leadership development is impossible because "leadership occurs within the context of interpersonal relationships" (Odom, Boyd, & Williams, 2012).
The study emphasizes that since people are not fully conscious of all aspects of their identities, "leadership educators should help students become aware of the components of their self and develop a deeper self-awareness" (Odom, Boyd, & Williams, 2012). The research identifies five specific dimensions to leadership identity development: developmental influences, developing self, group influences, changing view of self with others, and broadening view of leadership.
The study notes that how leadership styles emerge is complex and difficult to analyze. The five dimensions can shape development positively or negatively, whether intentionally or inadvertently. This suggests that leadership identity is neither fixed nor simply determined by external training, but emerges dynamically through relational and reflexive processes.
Across all three articles, a unified theme emerges: leadership style, form, and performance are shaped by multiple interacting factors, with outcomes dependent on situational context, organizational stakes, and the specific demands of the leadership role. The apparent connection between psychopathic personality traits and successful U.S. presidents—at first counterintuitive—becomes logical when examining which personality components are being described.
For example, superficiality, often viewed negatively in everyday life, functions as a "coin of the realm" in politics. Politicians must interact with countless individuals and perform ceremonial duties; authentic emotional response to every interaction would be neither practical nor expected. The research confirms that presidential candidates possess a genuine "thirst for the job and the power that can be garnered," yet this does not require that all words and motions be sincere (Lilienfeld et al., 2012). Instead, it reflects a deliberate calculation about what message and performance the situation demands.
All three articles emphasize that leadership traits are varied, complex, and interdependent. The totality of personality characteristics—not any single trait—determines how leaders perform under pressure, why they make specific choices, why they succeed or fail, and how others perceive them. The distinction between what is "real" and what is performed may be meaningful psychologically but operationally less relevant if the performance achieves appropriate outcomes.
This principle appears evident in the response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. When informed of the attacks while in a classroom of schoolchildren, President George W. Bush maintained composure rather than exhibiting visible distress. His facial expression revealed strong emotion, but he regulated his behavioral response to match the situation's demands. However, his later rhetoric—including "Mission Accomplished" declarations and "cowboy" statements about fighting terrorism—presented a different persona. Some observers viewed this assertiveness as justified leadership; others interpreted it as inflammatory rhetoric that encouraged enemy regrouping. This example illustrates how the same leader deploys different personality presentations across contexts, neither necessarily dishonest nor authentic in absolute terms.
Personality traits exist within situational contexts, and different situations call for different trait manifestations. Superficiality and emotional restraint, generally viewed negatively, sometimes represent superior leadership choices. If a friend wears an unflattering garment or a child unknowingly disturbs a childcare provider, an unfiltered honest reaction would likely cause unnecessary harm. Similarly, displaying visible anger about a national tragedy may have resonated emotionally with some citizens, but doing so would have been inappropriate to the presidential role in that moment.
There is legitimacy to concerns about contrivance and emotional inauthenticity in leadership. However, this analysis suggests that such performance occurs for valid reasons: the protection of others' feelings, the maintenance of stability, and the ability to think clearly under pressure. Leadership effectiveness emerges not from perfect authenticity but from the skillful alignment of personality expression with situational requirements and relational impact.
References
Lilienfeld, S. O., Waldman, I. D., Landfield, K., Watts, A. L., Rubenzer, S., & Faschingbauer, T. R. (2012). Fearless dominance and the U.S. presidency: Implications of psychopathic personality traits for successful and unsuccessful political leadership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(3), 489–505.
Odom, S. F., Boyd, B. L., & Williams, J. (2012). Impact of personal growth projects on leadership identity development. Journal of Leadership Education, 11(1), 49–63.
van Eeden, R., Cilliers, F., & van Deventer, V. (2008). Leadership styles and associated personality traits: Support for the conceptualisation of transactional and transformational leadership. South African Journal of Psychology, 38(2), 253–267.
You’re 98% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.