Personality Differences Across the Australian Government

Authored by: Dr Lynne Cruickshank

While there is often talk about the differences between leaders in the public and private sectors, what has been less frequently explored are differences between leaders working within local, state and federal levels of government. Each level of government has its own unique challenges and issues and understanding what differentiates leaders at the local, state and federal levels can provide valuable insight to support the selection and development of leadership talent.

Overview

PBC recently conducted some research examining differences in personality across leaders within local, state and federal government. Personality has been found to be predictive of leadership performance and proposed to play an important role in shaping a person’s leadership behaviour and style.

By exploring differences in personality amongst local, state and federal government leaders, insights may be obtained into differences in leadership behaviours and styles as well as potential strengths and areas for development.

This research was based on data from approximately 6,000 leaders within the Australian public sector who completed the following personality assessments:

• Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI): Measures day-to-day personality characteristics that impact how a person approaches their work and interactions with others.
• Hogan Development Survey (HDS): Measures personality when not self-managing such as when under pressure or complacent, and describes a person’s strengths which, when overplayed, can potentially derail performance at work.
• Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI): Provides insight into a person’s core values that motivate and drive their behaviour.

Differences in Day-to-Day Personality Tendencies

There were some significant differences found in relation to day-to-day personality tendencies when comparing leaders working in local, state and federal government, which may contribute to differences in leadership styles and behaviours.

Specifically, leaders working within local government were found to be more likely to exhibit tendencies associated with being competitive, driven and results-focused. Leaders working within local government were also found to be relatively more likely to adopt a direct and task-orientated approach when communicating and interacting with others and to be comfortable confronting poor performance.

On the other hand, leaders working within state and federal government were relatively more likely to exhibit tendencies associated with being perceptive and considerate of others and adopting a tactful and diplomatic approach when communicating and interacting with others.

Leaders working within state government were found to score lower on tendencies associated with day-to-day resilience compared to leaders in local and federal government. This indicates that leaders working within the state government may be relatively more susceptible to stress and pressure and may experience a greater need to ensure that they have effective stress management strategies in place. They may require a greater focus on ensuring that they take time to look after themselves to maintain their own wellbeing and considering how they can role model responding constructively to stress and pressure.

Differences in Derailment Tendencies

Significant differences were found in the likelihood of engaging in certain derailment tendencies when comparing leaders in local, state and federal government, which suggests that there are likely to be differences in the likelihood of having certain development opportunities.

Specifically, leaders working within local government were relatively more likely to derail by exhibiting tendencies associated with being cynical, mistrusting and prone to fault-finding; overvaluing one’s independence and being privately resentful of requests and work-related suggestions; and dominating social situations. They may be more likely to have development opportunities in relation to ensuring that others have sufficient opportunity to voice their ideas and concerns, suspending judgement and remaining open to others’ suggestions.

Leaders working within state government were relatively more likely to derail by exhibiting tendencies associated with overreacting emotionally to situations and seeming tense under pressure. This aligns with what was seen in terms of differences in day-to-day personality tendencies with leaders working within state government being more likely to benefit from an increased focus on stress management.

Leaders working within the state government were also found to be relatively more likely to derail by exhibiting tendencies associated with being overly perfectionistic, micromanaging, and experiencing difficulties with delegation compared to leaders working in the local and federal government.

Additionally, leaders working within the state government were found to be significantly more likely to exhibit derailment tendencies associated with communicating ideas that are impractical, overly complicated or hard to understand. They may be relatively more likely to have a development opportunity in relation to communicating their ideas clearly and in a manner others can easily understand to generate buy-in and support for their proposed ideas or solutions.

Leaders working within the federal government were relatively more likely to derail by exhibiting tendencies associated with withdrawing, seeming uncommunicative and indifferent to others’ feelings and concerns. They may have a relatively greater development opportunity around ensuring that they are sufficiently communicative, visible and supportive of others’ during periods of pressure.

Leaders working within the federal government were also relatively more likely to derail by exhibiting tendencies associated with being hesitant to voice strong or contrary opinions, unwilling to go against the status quo, and reluctant to make decisions independently. They may have a relatively greater development opportunity around ensuring hard issues are discussed, challenging others when appropriate, and being a decisive leader.

Differences in Motives and Drivers

Significant differences were found in relation to motivators and drivers which may contribute to differences in the type of work environments or cultures that are fostered as leaders.

Specifically, leaders working within the local government were more inclined to strongly value competition and high performance; respect for rules, structure, and authority; and focusing on commercial outcomes compared to leaders working within state or federal government. This suggests that they may be relatively more inclined to foster a work culture that is competitive, results-orientated, marked by formality and attentive to commercial matters. 

Leaders working within the state government were relatively more likely to strongly value opportunities to help others and contribute to society when compared to leaders in the local and federal government. As a result, they may be relatively more likely to foster a culture that cares about the welfare and wellbeing of others, focuses on providing quality service, and emphasises fair treatment, civil behaviour and respect for others.

Leaders working within the state government were also relatively more likely to strongly value quality, style and innovation. As a result, they may be relatively more likely to foster work environments that encourage exploring creative and innovative ideas and attentiveness to the quality, look and feel of work outputs. 

Leaders working within the federal government were relatively more inclined to strongly value opportunities to engage in social interaction compared to leaders working within local and state governments. As a result, they may be relatively more likely to foster cultures and work environments that encourage collaboration and open communication. That said, during periods of pressure, they may be less inclined to model collaboration and open communication due to the finding that they are more likely to derail by withdrawing during these times.

Concluding Remarks

Overall, the results of the recent research revealed significant differences in the personalities of leaders when comparing leaders working within local, state and federal government. It indicates that there are likely to be differences in the strengths and opportunities that exist amongst leaders across the various levels of government and subsequently important differences when it comes to the selection and development of leadership talent.

For instance, leaders working within local government are more likely to exhibit strengths associated with being driven and results-focused but are more likely to have development opportunities in relation to ensuring others have an opportunity to have their voice heard and being more open to others’ suggestions.

On the other hand, leaders working within state government are more likely to be altruistic and focus on the quality of their work, although they are also more likely to have development opportunities in relation to increasing their resilience and ability to cope with pressure and areas such as delegating work. Leaders working within federal government are more likely to value opportunities to socialise and build relationships with others, although they may be more prone to withdrawing under pressure and seeming more hesitant to voice strong or contrary opinions.

For more information about the Hogan Personality Assessments, Hogan 360 and how PBC can work with your team to improve leadership and maximise performance, please