Who wants to change their personality and what do ...

4 downloads 0 Views 440KB Size Report
Sep 2, 2014 - A response to Allan, Leeson Et: Martin. Hugh McCredie. This paper is a response ... Allan et a1. then proceed to cite as further 'evidence' Martin ...
Response

Who wants to change their personality and what do they want to change? A response to Allan, Leeson Et: Martin Hugh McCredie This paper is a response to the assertion by AlIan et al. (2014) that personality, as 11U!asured by the Big 5 factors, is amenable to change by coaching interventions. It challenges the evidence on which the assertion is madi. the robustness offurther evidence cited and argues that convincing evidence will only be found in changes to the biological structures underpinning the Big 5 factors andlor their functioning. It questions whether coaching interventions might be more suitably directed at the achievement of personal and/or

behavioural objectives. N THEIR PAPER 'Who wants to change their personality .. .' Allan et al. (2014), assert: This paper will discuss personality change within a coaching context. Martin, Oades and Caputi (2012) proposed that client motivated intentional personality change interventions could be beneficial. However, they omit to mention my subsequent challenge to Martin et a1. (McCredie, 2013) that the evidence on which they based their proposed causal link between short coaching interventions and personality change was unconvincing. In fact. the authors of the sole source of coaching evidence (Spence & Grant, 2005) cited by Martin et al. commented: 'The current data set does not permit any strong claim to be made about the ability of coaching to influence personality per se.' Allan et a1. then proceed to cite as further 'evidence' Martin et al. (2013a and b), both of which are referenced as 'unpublished manuscripts', presumably unavailable for inspection and comment. There is an established, and still accumulating, body of evidence which relates d,e Big 5 perso nality traits to deep-rooted biological mechanisms. In particular, Eysenck (1967) located differe nces in Neuroticism (aka Emotionality) in the arousability of the auto-

I

210

nomic nervous system (ANS, aka visceralnervous or involuntary-nervous system) which functions mainly unconsciously, and controls visceral nmctions such as heart rate, digestion and breathing rate. Gray (1971 ) postulated that such arousability was the result of early conditioning to threat, so that those higher on neuroticism were likely to be more threat-sensitive. If short series of coaching interventions really do change dime nsions of personality, it needs to be demonstrated that they have an effect on the structure and/or functioning of the underpinning biological mechanisms. It will not suffice merely to show changed self-report psychometric scores following coaching interventions, as the latter may simply serve to increase a, fonnerly naive, client's impression management (i.e. faking) responscsSuch possibility is likely to be even greater when the coaching targets 'client-motivated personality change' such as is envisaged by Allan et al. Unti l such time as robust peer-reviewed evidence to support the causal link between coaching and personality change has been made publicly available, I suggest that coaching psychologists and their clients would be better served by focussing on the achievement of more behavioural or personal objectives for which there is some

International Coaching Psychowgy R.euiew • Vo/. 9 No. 2 September 2014 © The British Psychowgical Society -1SSN· 1750-2764

Who wants to change their personality and what do they want to change";

support (e.g. Spence & Grant, 2005). Aside from this, perso nality scores have only a moderate association with both overall performance and specific behavioural competencies, whilst the latter can be much more strongly predictive of overall effectiveness (McCredie, 2012). So why bother trying to change personality?

The Author Hugh McCredie BSc(Hons) MSc PhD (Mane) CPsychoi, Chartered FCIPD, AFBPsS. Independen t researcher/writer. Vice-Chair The Psychometrics Forum (UK).

Correspondence Hugh McCredie Email: [email protected]

References Al lan ,JA, Leeson, P. & Martin, L. S. (2014). Who wants to change their personali ty and what do they want to change? Inlemational Coaching Psychology Review, 9(1), 8-2l. Eysenck, HJ. (1967) . The biological basis oJpersonality. Springfield, lL: Charles C .Thomas. Gray, J A (1971 , 1987). Th£P'Y,hoiogy offearand ,tress (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Martin, L.S., Oades, L.G. & Caputi, P. (2012). What is personali ty change coaching an d why is ' it important? International Coaching Ps)'clwlogy Riroiew, 7(2), 185-193. Martin, L.S., Oades. L.G. & Caputi , P. (2013a) Intenlianal pmonality change coaching: A randomised controlled trial oJ client clwsen pmonality Jacet change using

the

Five-Factor

M o(lel

oJ

Martin, L.S. , Oades. LG. & Caputi, P. (2013b). experiences

oJ

personality

change

Cli~lIts'

coaching.

Unpublished manuscript. McCredie, H. (2012) . Relating personality. compelencies and managerial performance, Assessment & Developmenl Matters,

4(3),~.

McCredie, H (2013). What is person ality change coaching and wh y is it imponant? A response to Martin, Oades & Caputi. International Coaching Psychology Review, 8(1),99-100. Spence, C.S . & Grant, A.M. (2005) . Individual a nd group life-coaching: Initial fin dings from a randomised, controlled trial. In MJ. Cavanagh, A.M. Gran t & T. Kemp (Eds.)' Evidence-based coaching (Vol. 1, pp.143-158). Bowen Hills, Austnilia: AustJ 211