Personality Traits and Leadership Styles: A Three-Article Review
This paper presents a comparative analysis of three academic articles examining the relationship between personality traits and leadership. The first article explores how "fearless dominance" and psychopathic personality characteristics relate to success and failure in U.S. presidential leadership. The second article associates personality traits with transactional, transformational, and laissez-faire leadership styles. The third examines how personal growth projects shape leadership identity development across five key dimensions. Together, the articles argue that leadership style and effectiveness are shaped by a complex interplay of traits, context, and interpersonal dynamics, and that outcomes—whether positive or negative—depend on the demands of the leadership role itself.
- Introduction and Overview: Common themes identified across three leadership articles
- Psychopathic Traits and Presidential Leadership: Psychopathic traits linked to U.S. presidential performance
- Personality Traits and Leadership Styles: Personality correlates of three distinct leadership styles
- Personal Growth and Leadership Identity Development: Five dimensions of leadership identity shaped by growth
- Conclusion: Context determines whether leadership traits help or harm
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper synthesizes three distinct academic sources into a coherent comparative discussion, identifying a shared theme across articles that vary in focus and scope.
- It grounds abstract personality concepts in concrete, memorable examples—such as George W. Bush's reaction to the 9/11 attacks—that illustrate how leadership traits manifest in real situations.
- The conclusion ties together all three articles with a unifying insight: that contextually appropriate behavior, even when seemingly contrived, can be a legitimate leadership strategy.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates thematic synthesis across multiple sources. Rather than summarizing each article in isolation, the author connects them through a shared lens—how personality traits shape leadership performance—and builds toward a unified argument. This approach is characteristic of undergraduate-level literature review and synthesis writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a brief framing paragraph before moving through three body sections, each dedicated to one article. A synthesizing section then draws the articles together with analytical commentary and a personal example. The conclusion reinforces the central argument that no trait is universally good or bad—context determines appropriateness. The structure follows a compare-and-synthesize pattern common in short academic review papers.
Introduction and Overview
While there are surely differences between the three articles reviewed here, they do indeed share a common theme that can be identified and examined. Each article approaches the relationship between personality and leadership from a different angle, yet together they converge on the idea that the traits a leader possesses—and how those traits interact with context—determine both style and outcome.
Psychopathic Traits and Presidential Leadership
The first article speaks about "fearless dominance" and how the personal traits therein lead to failure or success in the position of the United States President. The authors note that the psychopathic personality is one teeming with superficial charm, egocentricity, dishonesty, guiltlessness, callousness, risk-taking, poor impulse control, and so forth. By extension, there is often a strong link between psychopathic personality disorder and deviant or criminality-based behaviors and mindsets. There is also often strong comorbidity with depression, anxiety, and similar conditions.
However, many of the traits listed above could also be associated with the acts of political leaders who must behave in a bold and decisive manner. Their actions are scrutinized and assessed to the highest degree. While a need for power is generally viewed through a negative lens, it is actually a prerequisite for becoming President in a modern political context. Furthermore, such individuals invest a great deal of energy in getting and staying elected, and they genuinely enjoy and crave both the process and the job itself.
Not all traits linked with the Presidency carry negative associations, however. Better traits include extraversion and conscientiousness. Traits that can be either good or bad include lower levels of agreeableness. Some people correlate high agreeableness with a lack of core principles, while others interpret it as bipartisanship (Lilienfeld et al., 2012).
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), 489–506.
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.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.