ARTICLE: The Future of The Humanistic Personality

Suzanne Bourner • 4 March 2019

Two Distinct Theories, Divided by a Common Past

Personality theories have over time pursued explanations of human behaviour and of what it may be that composes a person. This essay will examine two personality theories which, whilst having fundamental differences, have roots embedded firmly within humanistic psychology (Linley and Joseph 2004b). Both theories alongside their respective criticisms will be considered with a purposeful emphasis on assessment of humanistic attributes, culminating in some thought as to the future of the humanistic tradition itself.


Humanistic psychology emerged in the 1950s as an alternative to the psychoanalytic and behavioural approaches prevailing at the time. Its focus was on how to flourish as a human being and aimed to study in broad terms the ultimate potential of individuals (Silberschatz, 2007). These fundamental concepts became of pivotal importance again at the turn of the century within the emerging field of Positive Psychology. Positive psychologists have been voluble in appreciation of their fields roots in humanistic psychology and in acknowledgement of certain shared values (Seligman, 2002). However, whilst remaining within the familiar humanistic realms of individual character virtues, positive psychology extends far beyond the traditional humanistic approaches and integrates a firmly data based methodology. (Peterson & Seligman, 2004).


Whilst it was the humanistic psychologist Abraham Maslow who established the first professional association in humanistic psychology alongside the first journals in this emerging field, one of the most prominent humanistic theories in personality was developed by Carl Rogers (1961). Carl Rogers developed his theory of personality as a by-product of his work as a clinical psychologist in relation to use of his ‘person centred therapy’ (Rogers, 1959). This theory of personality was reflected in Rogers views that the core of human nature is “essentially positive” (Rogers, 1961, p.73) and hinges upon the idea that an individual may become a fully functioning person through a continuous, ‘flowing’ approach to growth and self-acceptance.


Possibly one of Rogers most central principles is contained within the idea of the self. Here lies the concept that an individual’s ‘phenomenological field’ includes all conscious and unconscious experiences available at a particular moment. The self is thus created as development occurs and a part of the phenomenological field becomes differentiated (Hall, Lindzey, Loehlin, Manosevitz & Locke, 1985). The self-concept constitutes an individual’s characteristics and awareness, and develops through interactions with others. However, this explanation of self has been criticised as vague due to lack of detail as to when the differentiation of phenomenal field into self actually occurs. Rogers also only seems to define the ‘ideal self’ and not any alternative variations. A more general shortcoming of this and other humanistic theories is that although there is some mention of the unconscious self experience in Rogers writings after 1977, much emphasis is placed upon conscious awareness. This arguably limits the exploration of much of the approach and largely ignores unconscious and subconscious considerations. Additionally, research by the behaviourist movement used studies of animals in deriving theory. Whilst humanistic psychologists therefore prefer a holistic approach and exploration of ‘persons’ over ‘pigeons’, it is nonetheless difficult to prove or disprove humanistic theory which lacks objective methodology, (Soper et al. 1995).


Another key principle of Rogers personality theory is that of an ‘actualising tendency’. This is the tendency and underlying drive of all humans to develop the organisms best and full capacities, forcing it towards autonomy. Rogers maintained that this tendency, which guides all motivations is an integral part of the organism which, whist may be suppressed cannot be destroyed (Rogers, 1977). This fundamental concept supposes that organisms naturally strive to fulfil their full potential. Whilst previous psychologists such as Freud had argued that organisms aim for homeostasis (Krebs & Blackman, 1988), Rogers defends the positive urge assertion by citing studies which show that absence of external stimuli leads to increased internal stimuli – and not to homeostasis (Rogers, 1977). However, the idea that individuals are intrinsically good and will always choose the most positive paths for themselves remains in question. Related to this is the additional alleged shortcoming of this and other humanistic theories wherein ignorance of the concept of evil leads towards a naïve and overly positive bias (Hoffman 2009, p. 485).


Rogers also conceptualized a psychological version of the ‘actualizing tendency’, known as ‘self-actualizing tendency’. This is the experience which is purely relevant to the self (Rogers, 1959). In other words, it is the drive to see oneself in line with one’s own conscious view of one’s own characteristics. For example, in childhood a person develops self- concept, alongside secondary needs for positive regard from others and positive self-regard. A person will then tend to behave in a way which is consistent with that individuals self-concept. However, it has been criticized that there is a potential rift between the actualization and the self-actualization directions. If there is alienation from the true self therefore, then there may be organismic movement in one direction, with conscious struggle in the other. Rogers acquiesced that this is partly due to society which encourages human behaviour which counters actualizing tendency ( Rogers , 1977. P. 248) citing young infants as being an example of completely congruence. Rogers personality theory in focusing on self-actualization has also been identified as contributory to an overly individualistic mind-set and inconsiderate of society at large (Garrison 2001, p. 98). This is perhaps symptomatic of the purely westernised style and lack of cross cultural applicability of the humanistic approach at this time (Hofstede & Bond, 1984, p. 396; Gambrel & Cianci 2003).


Rogers believed in a process of ‘organismic valuing and conditions of worth’. This is the idea that when significant figures in life provide conditional rather than unconditional positive regard, such as parents, then individuals will tend to introject those desired characteristics, making them “conditions of worth”. (Rogers, 1959). The person will then go on to use these values as a basis for their self-concept, rather than self or organismic evaluation. An incongruence between the ‘self as perceived’ and the ‘self as experienced by the individual’ (or organism) can then lead to anxiety and confusion. Such maladaptive behaviour is what Rogers called the common human condition: incongruence between the self and experience. It is questionable how this principle aligns with Rogers overarching belief in the ability of humans to continually “make constructive choices” (Rogers, 1961, p.195). Whilst his emphasis on autonomy and ‘choosing behaviours’ may be advantageous as a therapy form, this theme could be at odds with his fundamental concept of incongruence. One may question for example the degree of autonomy it is possible to have (Rogers, 1977, p.15) whilst being urged by society in one direction and by the self in another (Kensit, 2000)


Within this theory is the possibility however of developing optimally and achieving existence as a ‘fully functioning person’ constantly moving towards “The Good Life” (Rogers, 1961, p.186). Conversely, the ‘maladjusted person’ is anxious, defensive, maintains his life, runs to a plan, feels manipulated, is not autonomous or creative, but conforming. The goal of Rogers therapy is thus to disperse the conditions of worth and to improve the organismic valuing process. However, it is possible to highlight an incongruence between a) the assertion that self-descriptions move towards ideals after counselling and b) Rogers’ aim of removing conditions of worth. Statements of ideals which clients are gravitating towards in therapy may indeed be the client’s representations of their conditions of worth. This is potentially inconsistent with one of Rogers aims being to remove conditions of worth to restore the organismic valuing process (Maddi, 1989). Additionally, whilst some characteristics have been supported (Coan, 1972), other studies have not supported Rogers’ fully functional description. It has been seen that Openness to experience and organismic trusting do not correlate (Pearson, 1974). Additionally, it has been found that self-accepting and non-defensive people may be more accepting of others (Ryckman, 2012). It is also perhaps a result of this theory’s origin as an off shoot of a particular therapeutic approach that Rogers refers merely to two personality types, the maladjusted or fully functioning human (Maggi, 1989). As we have seen, this theory employs a non-reductionist approach in which the client is accompanied by the therapist on a journey of self-actualization, viewing the person as an active and autonomous agent. It thus falls prey to the criticism that in focusing on an individual’s journey of self-discovery, it may represent limited benefit to those individuals with more complex problems (Van Deurzen, 2015).


Humanistic theorists such as Rogers emphasized the importance of the greater human endeavour of self-determination and self-actualization and assumed that all people are capable of thriving, goodness and becoming better people. This concept was accepted by many as having paved the way for the emergence at the turn of the century of positive psychology (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2009). Similarly, it has been supported that positive psychology represents very much a “Neo-Adlerian perspective” (Watts & Ergüner-Tekinalp, 2017). As seen, humanistic theories of personality have been criticised in general for being naively positive, untestable due to focus on subjective experience, unscientifically based, disregarding of unconscious processes and unhelpful to those with complex problems. Whilst positive psychology undoubtedly comes from the same roots, it is well argued that many such areas of criticism are addressed within this more recent field.


In deviating from its more spiritual, less empirical ancestors, positive psychology is the more scientific study of human flourishing, to use a familiar humanistic word. Positive psychological personality theory promotes the idea that there is much to be gained from expanding focus to include close assessment of a persons’ better points in addition to simply correcting its problems. This approach to personality has provided a vast array of empirical studies investigating positive personality constructs such as courage, humour, optimism, how these interrelate and how to enable their development (Martinez-Marti & Ruch, 2017). A key feature of this theory is the assessment of an individuals’ character strengths using the Values In Action Survey, an empirically validated self-assessment tool to help individuals understand their core strengths. Just as the goal of Rogers theory is improvement through gradual self-acceptance towards ‘full functioning’ (Rogers, 1961), so positive psychology promotes improvement through discovery of self strengths towards ‘optimal functioning’ (Linley & Joseph, 2004). Whilst the similarities are undeniable, so too are the distinctions. Positive psychological personality theory may be accused of having a similarly humanistic, Eudemonic theme of self-actualization. However, it has inarguably taken several scientific strides further in analysing how various personality traits link with other constructs, across cultures, in relation to other individuals and organisations (Warren, Donaldson & Donaldson, 2017). The common humanistic weaknesses of subjective experience obsession, verifiability, and ethnocentrism may not apply to this theory given its broad use of ‘others’ as well as self-reporting methods and cross-cultural, longitudinal, experimental designs.


Another central concept of positive psychology is that of ‘Flow’, long accepted by positive psychologists as a humanistic principle employed by Carl Rogers (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2009). In positive psychology flow is the process of achieving optimal functioning resulting in loss of self-consciousness, effortless control, clarity of goals and experience of intrinsic reward (koehn, 2013). On a neuropsychological level flow has been associated with decreased activity in the prefrontal cortex thus accounting for sensations of distortion of time, loss of self-consciousness, and loss of inner-critic (Dietrich, 2004). This has the impact of allowing the implicit mind to dominate, encouraging communication between brain areas and improving creativity, alongside increasing dopamine and amplifying curiosity. This theory of personality then not only utilises empirical study, but also implements other scientific fields in its underpinnings.


Positive psychology also attempts to address complex psychological burdens. Studies have shown that individuals with mental disorders such as psychosis are assisted with positive psychological personality strength interventions (Sims, Barker, Price & Fornells, 2015). This theory seeks to encompass not only those wishing to avoid pathology or to achieve optimal performance, but also to define the most distressed personality as more than the representation of a pathology. (Schulenberg, 2016). Positive psychology is able to study the individuals’ intact faculties and strengths in order to analyse how these may buffer against serious disorder. It is argued that this cannot be to the exclusion of clinical methods, and does not represent an effective approach for the most serious of conditions, but such studies effectively serve to bring positive psychology inwards from the mere periphery of conventional clinical work (Duckworth, Steen & Seligman, 2005)

The extraordinary efforts and advances of positive psychology in building a vast body of peer reviewed empirical research may not however be enough to exempt it from some of the criticisms faced by traditional humanistic theories. Whilst both the ‘Client Centred’ and positive psychological approaches to personality have provided constructive tools in counselling and therapeutic fields, it is argued that both still fall foul of common humanistic shortcomings. Both remain for many to be naively optimistic in their failure of analysis of the more negative but important sides of human nature. Both can be accused at least to some degree of continuing in their bias towards ‘self’ driven, individualistic principles. Both are also arguably of limited use to those with complex problems. It is perhaps for this reason that positive psychologists have taken care to distance themselves in name and in methodology from the humanistic tradition (Waterman, 2013). It is to be seen however whether these shared critiques are an indication of the commonality of these two approaches, or a mere legacy of two now diverging paths. Given the above discussion, there is support for the idea that we will observe the humanistic tradition continue in its evolution to address further criticisms, in the shape of positive psychology.


References

Coan, R. W. (1972). Measurable components of openness to experience. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 39(2), 346.


Dietrich, A. (2006). Transient hypofrontality as a mechanism for the psychological effects of exercise. Psychiatry research, 145(1), 79-83.


Lee Duckworth, A., Steen, T. A., & Seligman, M. E. (2005). Positive psychology in clinical practice. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol., 1, 629-651.


Gambrel, P. A., & Cianci, R. (2003). Maslow's hierarchy of needs: Does it apply in a collectivist culture. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 8(2), 143.


Garrison, A. (2001). Restoring the human in humanistic psychology. Journal of humanistic psychology, 41(4), 91-104.


Hall, C., Lindzey, G., Loehlin, J. C., Manosevitz, M., & Locke, V. O. (1985). Introduction to theories of personality. John Wiley&Sons.


Hoffman, E. (2009). Rollo May on Maslow and Rogers. Psychology, 49(4), 484-485.


Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1984). Hofstede's culture dimensions: An independent validation using Rokeach's value survey. Journal of cross-cultural psychology, 15(4), 417-433.


Kensit, D. A. (2000). Rogerian theory: A critique of the effectiveness of pure client-centred therapy. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 13(4), 345-351.


Koehn, S. (2013). Effects of confidence and anxiety on flow state in competition. European journal of sport science, 13(5), 543-550.


Krebs, D., & Blackman, R. (1988). Psychology: A first encounter. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.


Linley, P. A., & Joseph, S. (2004). Toward a theoretical foundation for positive psychology in practice (pp. 713-731). John Wiley & Sons, Inc..


Linley, P. A., & Joseph, S. (2004). Toward a theoretical foundation for positive psychology in practice (pp. 713-731). John Wiley & Sons, Inc..


Maddi, S. R. (1989). Personality theories: A comparative analysis. Dorsey Press.


Martínez-Martí, M. L., & Ruch, W. (2017). Character strengths predict resilience over and above positive affect, self-efficacy, optimism, social support, self-esteem, and life satisfaction. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(2), 110-119.


Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi In, Snyder, C. R., & Lopez, S. J. (Eds.). (2009). Oxford handbook of positive psychology. Oxford University Press, USA.


Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2004). Strengths of character and well-being. Journal of social and Clinical Psychology, 23(5), 603-619.


Pearson, P. H. (1974). Conceptualizing and measuring openness to experience in the context of psychotherapy. Wexler, DA & North Rice, L., Innovations in Client-Centered Therapy, 139-170.


Rogers, C. R. (1959). Significant learning in therapy and in education. Educational leadership, 16(4), 232-242.


Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist's view of psychology. London: Constable.


Rogers, C. (1977). Carl Rogers on personal power: Inner strenght and its revolutionary impact. New York: Delacorte.


Ryckman, R. M. (2012). Theories of personality. Cengage Learning.


Seligman, M. E. (2002). Positive psychology, positive prevention, and positive therapy. Handbook of positive psychology, 2(2002), 3-12.


Silberschatz, G. (2007). Comments on" The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change.".


Schulenberg, S. E. (2016). Disaster Mental Health and Positive Psychology–Considering the Context of Natural and Technological Disasters: An Introduction to the Special Issue. Journal of clinical psychology, 72(12), 1223-1233.


Sims, A., Barker, C., Price, C., & Fornells-Ambrojo, M. (2015). Psychological impact of identifying character strengths in people with psychosis. Psychosis, 7(2), 179-182.


Soper, B., Milford, G. E., & Rosenthal, G. T. (1995). Belief when evidence does not support theory. Psychology & Marketing, 12(5), 415-422.


Van Deurzen, E. (2015). Paradox and passion in psychotherapy: An existential approach. John wiley & sons.


Warren, M. A., Donaldson, S. I., & Donaldson, S. I. (2017). Evaluating Scientific Progress in Positive Psychology. Scientific Advances in Positive Psychology, 1.


Waterman, A. S. (2013). The humanistic psychology–positive psychology divide: Contrasts in philosophical foundations. American Psychologist, 68(3), 124.


Watts, R. E., & Ergüner-Tekinalp, B. (2017). Positive Psychology: A Neo-Adlerian Perspective. The Journal of Individual Psychology, 73(4), 328-337.

Cometh The Hour, Cometh The HR Team

by PH818511 • 25 March 2021
 Research suggests that sparing a thought for your HR Team this quarter may reap disproportionately long term rewards. Over the past few years it's likely that your human resources talent have been busily preparing your company for comparative (in pandemic terms) fripperies. These will have included leaving the EU, attracting the best talent with new ‘woke’ requirements, machine learning and AI based shifts in personnel, to name a few. Of late however, many such tasks will have been sidelined as your HR professionals negotiate the myriad of Covid related complexities. Thus, whilst many well honed human resources teams may appear to be gliding serenely through the water, it's likely that they are paddling furiously beneath. In recent months, alongside the plethora of complex pre-covid challenges brought forth during recent years, your HR professionals will have been equally consumed with the dramatic changes facing the broader post covid landscape of human resources itself.  It was observed in 1809 that long term survival of an organism is dependant predominantly upon its ability to adapt to change. Organisations are no different. A wave of change is inarguably upon corporations and the way they deal with their human element. In response to which, many of our corporate clients are choosing to discard the often ‘auxiliary’ perception of the HR team. Human Resources functions are being driven closer towards the heart of many forward thinking organisations, as leadership begin to heed research supporting that this team of people have the innate ability to empower profitable corporate change. Questions many companies are currently asking themselves include: How prepared is our company for the intensity of corporate reshaping prompted by the current global pandemic? Does our HR team have the tools and breadth of operation it needs to respond to the new specific ‘human’ and ‘remote’ challenges we face? In answering these questions, the following areas of HR ops are pivotal.  Perhaps unsurprisingly, Adecco group has recently found that 75 percent of workers wish to keep the flexibility they have benefited from during the pandemic. More surprisingly however is research suggesting that this new method of professional functioning may actually be of value to employers: Flexible workers are often more engaged and statistically less likely to leave. Now, this is where the real work begins for HR and where their metal is tested. How can your company or team maximise the performance of its professionals whilst not falling foul of the many and well documented pitfalls associated with flexible/ home working? Such snares are summarised by research institutions including The Centre for Evidence Based Management. Studies underline that hazards tend to fall under three main factors highlighted as being vital in a ‘psychologically effective workplace’. These three essential factors are ‘trust’, ‘information sharing’ and ‘social cohesion’. Three constructs which are illusive at the best of times within most organisations and even harder to achieve when the workforce is at home.  It becomes clear then, that some hard graft will be required if we are to cultivate a psychologically effective workplace and reap the aforementioned benefits offered to us by a more a more flexible working environment. HR teams must devise new ways to create drive, innovation, thrust and rapport amongst an organisations greatest asset – its professionals. In recognition of the broadening roles of the oft-pidgeonholed HR team, forward thinking companies are prioritising support for HR executives in their exploration of how to inspire leadership and their teams in this new age. As well as considering the dramatic adaptation which HR is currently attempting to facilitate, daily tasks will also need rethinking. Many will attest for example to the difficulties associated with onboarding where new hires don’t even enter an office. Possibly, Human Resources have never had a more acute part to play in the performance of an organisation than now, when they must consider how to nurture a psychologically effective working culture, remotely.  Another central area to support your HR professionals in, is that of wellbeing. Whilst this concept is by no means new and sits close to the top of many corporate agendas, thanks to Covid this concept has taken on a new level of gravity and functional importance. Before 2020, more employees than ever were suffering from poor mental health. After what is now a year of social isolation, professional upheaval, emotional challenge and financial hardship, our workforce is under more (invisible) pressure than ever. Just as a race car cannot be expected to win with worn parts, our professionals will not outperform the competition when they’re run down and stressed. It is perhaps timely and logical that HR teams also be given the tools they need to offer services which maximise personal growth, professional development and mental wellbeing.  Whether handled via an in-house team or outsourced to an external HR specialist, now is the time for HR professionals to be accurately utilised. Any flippant regard for this fundamental department should as of now be placed firmly in the corporate rear view mirror. Visionary leadership will be required going forward to create the necessary human resource driven adaptations if organisations are to take advantage of the possibilities presented by the new flexible/ remote working culture. Cometh the hour, cometh the HR team...

Leading From Home

by Suzanne Bourner • 21 April 2020
Keeping Your Best Assets on Track

Naming 'The Dark Lord' of the Corporate World

by PH818511 • 26 September 2019
Whilst workplace stress is receiving a healthy amount of attention these days, a very particular group remain unattended to. For the majority of senior executives, accurate assessment of their own levels of stress continues to be overlooked. A destructive, yet understandable taboo persists amongst corporate leaders in both identifying and addressing their own overwhelming stress. Psychological research attributes this largely to the fact that executives themselves see any such admission as a sign of weakness. From time to time, a manager, HR specialist or an executive coach may pick up on some behavioural signs of severe stress, such as substance abuse, anxiety or severe tiredness. However, unless the intervening professional is either a medical doctor or has psychological training they are unlikely to be equipped to assess masked stress behaviours, let alone effectively encourage acknowledgement of the issue. Furthermore, coaches and HR specialists whilst helpful, are rarely trained in the psychodynamic protocols required to assist the executive in dealing adequately with concealed stress. Thus, senior executives require the support of professionals familiar with the areas in which executive stress often arises, and who are then able to evaluate veiled stress levels and promote self-awareness. Most crucially though, they must be able to do this in a group of people for whom ‘stress’ is simply not a topic for discussion.  Research suggests that the wellbeing of our corporate leaders is being neglected due to an unwillingness and inability to recognise and manage workplace stress. Our industry captains are trained at an early age in the art of concealing imperfections and later on, in obscuring professional struggles. After all, who would respect a leader who admitted to feeling tired, anxious or overworked in today’s competitive corporate environment? Surely a competent leader should be the ‘ideal’, void of all weakness and represent the epitome of strength? It is this common perception which necessitates self-deception and impression management tactics in leaders, and which deters senior professionals from seeking even secretive assistance. It is unrealistic however to expect people to cast off the natural human desire to be led by idealistically strong or perfect executives, or the desire of executives to embody that. We can nonetheless assist leaders in the discreet identification and recognition of this organisational enemy which has been shown to constrain both corporate and personal growth. So why and how should we approach the ‘unnamed scourge’ of the boardroom?  The challenge faced by executives and corporations due to stress is increasing under the perpetually evolving face of global business. Life in the fast lane is more challenging than ever. It now encompasses colleagues who work on opposite sides of the globe, relationships conducted solely electronically, frequent mergers and acquisitions, far flung loved ones and social media which demands a greater portion of our cognitive energy than our actual day jobs. Executives nowadays have a broad burden to bare. Professionals who experience stress related depression and exhaustion are worryingly common and well researched (Nyberg et al., 2015) with awareness raised only periodically by high profile cases such as that of the 2013 suicide of Zurich Financials CEO. No less than five top executives at the largest Swiss financial institutions took their own lives over a period recently of eight years. Understanding and promoting the psychological wellbeing of an organisations top performers not only avoids human tragedy, but also has a profound and more materialistic impact on a company. In 2012 as news was released that the CEO of AkzoNobel went on sick leave due to fatigue and work stress, the company’s shares dropped by 4%. The day his return was announced several months later, share prices rose by 3.7%. Senior executives well-being and health problems inarguably impact not only the support of employees, but also that of shareholders and investors. It’s also no wonder that research by a leading U.S University puts the cost of stress to American business at $344 Billion a year in medical bills and absenteeism. Thus, and as the social taboo surrounding stress in our leaders is not likely to disappear any time soon, stress management can and must be considered in all leadership performance forums. If not, and as history has foretold companies will reap not only human but also corporate misfortune.  As far as the executives themselves are concerned, it has been observed that this group have a tendency to wear ‘stress’ as something of a badge of honour: If you don’t have it, then you are probably not working hard enough. Senior executives have a propensity to acknowledge that stress is there, whilst forbidding themselves from acknowledging its true impact, to themselves or to others. “Got to suck it up” or “All part of the territory”. It is seen as normal for executives to survive on five hours of sleep a night, to be under constant pressure and to be glued to their emails every day of the week. This high performing, highly paid body of workers are thus particularly susceptible to stress and illness, but have neither the social permission, nor the time or self-awareness to identify and to deal with this dynamic. Thus, whilst executive stress is apparently ‘accepted’ it is nonetheless ‘normalised’ which further exacerbates the taboo: “Stress is normal for people like me, everyone else manages, so should I”. So how can performance professionals and leadership development interventions best take this issue in hand, allowing for the social requirement for organisational resistance and self-deception in executives?  Given the above landscape, most executive coaches and HR professionals are ill equipped to deal with executive stress. Performance Psychologists and those extensively trained in mental wellbeing are able to identify stress issues and particularly those relating to self-deception and the unconscious aspects of an individual’s perception at work. For example, research suggests that positive results are achieved through employment of a psychodynamic approach to stress in executives, permitting a more subjective examination of work and wellbeing. In other words, stress is a highly unique experience for each individual and is most effectively analysed when situated in the context of an individuals own life circumstances and experiences. After all, some executives may well enjoy or receive a relative ‘pay off’ from stressful situations. (Driver, 2014, Bricknell, 2010). A challenge, whether it be physical or emotional will include a neurological reaction – an adrenaline rush resulting in a potentially positive emotional sense of accomplishment. Many Police professionals or those in the Military opt to return to intensely stressful scenarios time after time as they profess to receiving emotional reward or subjective benefits to doing so. (Kets de Vries, 2010). So another question which a performance psychologists might ponder is how stress in executives can be harnessed and re-routed down just such a positive, versus a negative path. How can executives be trained to focus their perception of stress towards a mindset more a kin to ‘relishing challenge’ or ‘opportunity for positive change’ rather than ‘fearing failure’ or ‘be afraid of negative consequences’. Any psychology professional experienced in leadership psychology and applied neuroscience will tell you that such cognitive behavioural change is achievable. The potential for altering the pathway and impact of stress in an executive is vast, but only once it’s existence has been acknowledged and assessed.  Whatever the interventions employed in managing behavioural pathways relating to stress in corporate leaders, it is vital that professionals are able to employ tools which assist the executive in the accurate analysis of stress indicators, despite the existence of self-deception, impression management or poor self-awareness. Executive stress effects a group for whom self-deception is a common and often necessary survival technique. Performance psychology consultants will work with organisations to engage the requisite psychodynamic lens in identifying the infamous ‘Dark lord’ of the corporate world. The proper naming of which has a powerful dual benefit: improvement of both organisational performance and the personal wellbeing of a company’s most valued professionals.

A Humanistic View of Personality

by Malindi Arengo-Jones • 5 March 2019
The Rogers and Maslow Legacy

BLOG: The Same, But Manageably Different...

by Suzanne Bourner • 4 March 2019
Motivation: Getting The Best Out of Different Personalities. As Hutt W. asserts, ‘motivation is internal; people are responsible for motivating themselves, and they can't motivate you any more than you could motivate them. As any mentor, parent or executive will tell you, simply 'instructing' people to become motivated or engaged, rarely yields the desired, long lasting result.

RESEARCH: Self-esteem And The Pursuit of Happiness

by Suzanne Bourner • 4 March 2019
Exploration of self-esteems moderating and mediating role, in the relationship between strengths use and subjective well-being.

ARTICLE: Our Electric Personalities

by Suzanne Bourner • 4 March 2019
Today we find ourselves less bound to the physical presence of our colleagues and social interactions, as the internet has, and continues to change the way we work, learn, shop and socialise. This essay considers how the internet assists in sharing otherwise hidden elements of an individual’s identity and enables stigmatised individuals to express and even to cultivate a more genuine version of their identities.