Use Big Five Traits to Review Leadership Behavior, Not Predict Who Will Be a Good Leader

Replace “What Kind of Leader Am I?” with an Observable Question

“Leadership” easily draws discussion toward broad evaluations: decisiveness, ability to lead people, or presence. Such terms are hard to review because they do not say what happened or who was affected.

A better unit for Big Five self-reflection is an event that has already happened:

The Big Five model describes broad tendencies and their hierarchical dimensions, rather than providing a “manager qualification certificate.” Soto and John’s BFI-2 research discusses domain and facet levels. Such research helps explain why different behaviors can occur within the same broad dimension. It does not validate FermatMind scores or turn a score into leadership success or a job judgment.[1]

A Complete Review Looks for Both “Help” and “Cost”

The same behavior is often neither purely a strength nor purely a weakness. Collect only pleasing examples and trait language becomes self-praise. Collect only problems and it becomes self-rejection.

Use this record card for a real decision made within the past two weeks.

The point is not to attribute behavior to “how I was born,” but to leave a checkable record of a decision. If you write only “I am decisive” or “I care for people,” you still will not know next week which action to keep or stop. Leadership research discusses personality and leadership phenomena, but overall research associations cannot replace judgments about an individual, a decision, or a team.[2]

Three Scenarios: Bring Trait Language Back to Behavior, Not Conclusions

Scenario One: Moving Quickly Can Also Close the Door Early

In a product-direction meeting, a lead habitually proposes several alternatives quickly and chooses a direction at the peak of discussion. This helps the team avoid prolonged uncertainty. The cost is that quieter colleagues may not yet have described constraints.

Instead of “I am extraverted, so I can lead a team,” write:

After I proposed a conclusion at minute 20, who had not spoken? Did I invite someone who disagreed with me and would directly carry out the subsequent work?

A reversible exercise next time is to ask, before announcing the choice: “If this proposal fails three weeks from now, what have we most likely overlooked?” Give everyone a choice: answer aloud, add written input afterward, or decline to participate. Afterward, record only whether new risk information emerged, without labeling anyone “engaged” or “disengaged.” This is not a test of people or screening for management suitability.

Scenario Two: Caring for Relationships Can Also Avoid Necessary Disagreement

Another lead sees a conflict escalate, reassures both parties privately, and delays the disputed decision. The action may help people settle emotionally. It may also leave the team unclear about boundaries, responsibilities, and next steps.

Record both kinds of evidence:

• A helpful example: after the private conversation, participants were willing to return to the meeting;
• A counterexample showing cost: because the disagreement was not clarified in the meeting, people carrying out the work received contradictory instructions.

The reversible exercise is not “be tougher next time.” First obtain the parties’ consent, then use specific wording:

“I want to clarify where we disagree: A is the risk you are concerned about, and B is my current judgment. Would you first add whether I have misunderstood anything? If you would rather not discuss it here, you can add written input afterward.”

This leaves the other person room to decline and correct you. It returns the review to whether information was heard, clarified, and recorded in an actionable way.

Scenario Three: Detailed Planning Can Also Slow Adjustment

Some people invest substantial effort in breaking down tasks, assigning responsibilities, and planning for risks. This can clarify handovers. When external conditions change, however, an established process can also discourage alternatives.

Do not translate “conscientious” into “strong management ability.” More informative records ask:

1. Which plan actually reduced rework?
2. After a change in circumstances, how long did it take the team to allow the original plan to be revised?
3. Did those carrying out the work have a low-cost way to say “this assumption no longer holds”?

Try a reversible practice: identify just one assumption in each key plan that can be “reopened this week.” During review, discuss only whether the evidence has changed, not whose traits are better.

Feedback Checks Your Observations; It Does Not Score People

The consequences you cannot see are easiest to miss in self-review. When inviting feedback, focus on voluntary, specific, and open to refusal, rather than asking colleagues or direct reports for a “leadership score.”

Ask only two questions about one event, making the choice clear at the outset:

“If you are willing, I would like to review that scope-change discussion. It is completely fine if answering is inconvenient.”

“In that discussion, what did I do that made participating or moving forward easier for you?”

“Was there a moment when my way of moving things forward made it harder for you to share information? If you are willing, could you describe a specific moment?”

If the person declines, do not press or interpret silence as agreement. Put their words beside your own record first: are they describing the same action, moment, and consequence? Check before deciding on a small experiment. Do not use feedback to assess management suitability or record or disclose someone else’s private assessment results.

A 15-Minute Review Process

Each week, choose a small, real decision and follow this sequence:

1. Minute 1: Choose the event: Pick one decision, not broad impressions of the whole week.
2. Minutes 2–4: Write the actions: Replace “I was forceful/accommodating” with “what I said and what I did, in sequence.”
3. Minutes 5–7: Write both kinds of evidence: One helpful example and one counterexample showing cost. If either column is empty, withhold a conclusion.
4. Minutes 8–10: Find a stakeholder: With consent, send a feedback invitation they can decline.
5. Minutes 11–13: Plan a reversible experiment: Specify one action to try at the next meeting, during the next week, or at a project milestone. Exclude personnel, evaluation, or role decisions.
6. Minutes 14–15: Schedule the follow-up: Write down when to review the experiment after it has occurred and what consequences, costs and exceptions to record. Until then, leave its outcome open.

If your Big Five results suggest a tendency, put it at the edge of the card as a reminder of “what to notice next,” not in the conclusion field. That field should contain only this behavior and its consequences, plus what you plan to check next time. One record cannot establish that a person “is like this.” Several records indicate only a pattern worth observing further, not a judgment of ability, potential, or personnel suitability.

What This Article Explicitly Does Not Do

• Identify leadership potential or decide who will become a good leader;
• Support recruitment, screening, scheduling, performance evaluation, discipline, promotion, appointment, or job fit;
• Predict team outcomes, career outcomes, income, or job performance from Big Five results;
• Treat FermatMind results as evidence for any personnel decision;
• Claim that FermatMind has specific predictive validity for leadership or work outcomes. These product psychometric values are Unknown in current public information.

Personality assessments in employment screening require additional standards and validation considerations. For example, public U.S. EEOC materials specifically discuss employment tests and selection procedures, including personality tests. Those materials do not validate FermatMind or provide legal conclusions across jurisdictions.[3]

Frequently Asked Questions

Can Big Five Traits Tell Me Whether I Am Suited to Leadership?

Not from a FermatMind result alone. Research has found associations between Big Five traits and leadership emergence and effectiveness across samples, but those associations do not establish an individual’s suitability.[2] This article uses traits as a vocabulary for reviewing recurring behavior. Taking on a role, developing capabilities, and assigning responsibilities cannot be decided by one assessment or trait.

Can I Ask Team Members to Take a Big Five Test and Assign Work Based on It?

This article and FermatMind should not be used for personnel screening, work allocation, scheduling, performance, promotion, or fit conclusions. To improve collaboration, prioritize specific tasks, visible behavior, authority, and resources, while allowing people to give feedback or decline.

If Feedback Differs from My Own Impressions, Which Should I Trust?

Do not rush to choose a side. Put both accounts of the event together and check whether they concern the same moment, action, and consequence. Then collect new observations through a small, reversible behavioral change.

Next Step: Replace Labels with an Event Record Card

If you are learning about the Big Five, read the Big Five model, then decide whether a dimension might prompt self-observation. If you try the Big Five personality test, use results for voluntary, educational self-reflection, rather than conclusions about your own or others’ abilities, identities, or work prospects.

Sources and Boundaries

1. Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2017). The Next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and Assessing a Hierarchical Model With 15 Facets to Enhance Bandwidth, Fidelity, and Predictive Power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000096. This article uses it only to describe Big Five domains and facets, not to validate FermatMind or infer leadership, performance, promotion, recruitment, or work outcomes.
2. Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765–780. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.765. This article uses it only to establish that reviews and meta-analyses address personality and leadership, not to turn overall research into individual predictions, selection, or product evidence.
3. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. EEOC Issues Fact Sheet on Employment Tests and Selection Procedures to Screen Applicants, Workers. https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-issues-fact-sheet-employment-tests-and-selection-procedures-screen-applicants-workers. It only highlights separate rules and risks in employment testing, not legal advice across jurisdictions or validation of any assessment product.