KENDRA CHERRY, a psychology expert, writes that “personality is made up of the characteristic pattern of thoughts, feelings and behaviours that make a person unique. Personality arises from within the individual and remains consistent throughout life”.
Feist and Feist tell us that “although no single definition is acceptable to all personality theorists, we can say that personality is a pattern of relatively permanent traits and unique characteristics that give both consistency and individuality to a person’s behaviour”.
It should be noted that the words “consistent”, “individual” and “unique” appear in both definitions. Also “permanent” is mentioned by Feist and Feist while Cherry concurs by saying “throughout life”.
There are different theories about how personality develops. The “trait” theories view personality as “the result of internal characteristics that are genetically based”, whereas the behavioural theories suggest that “personality is a result of interaction between the individual and the environment”.
If we were to use these theories as a guide, coupled with the preceding definitions, we would deduce that the personality of an individual is mostly developed at birth and then further influenced by the environment. Our personality makes us who and what we are as people.
It is clear that a person’s personality is embedded long before he or she decides on a career. The personality comes before the profession. This being the case, should we ridicule an individual for behaviour which is in keeping with his personality but not befitting his profession? Should someone try to change their personality, which is really the true them, to fit the profession? Or, should they try to get a profession that fits their personality? In essence, should your profession change you?
These thoughts came to my mind recently because of the alleged inappropriate behaviour of people in professions that are traditionally held to high standards and expectations. Lawyers, politicians, doctors, teachers, policemen, businessmen, postal workers and even priests have all been accused of practices which could bring severe embarrassment to their respective professions.
My first questions, to myself, were, “Why are such hallowed professions suddenly being brought to shame? Is it due to the lack of morality that seems to be pervading the world? Is it the erosion of values? Is it blatant greed? Or is it simply a case of the personality of the individual? Hence the quest to understand the intricacies of people’s personalities.
Personality traits can be both positive and negative. Since we are dealing with negative behaviour, let us look at negative traits in relation to some professions.
Suppose an individual with the negative trait of “dishonesty, deceit, and lying”, ended up being a lawyer. Is that individual expected to completely overcome who and what he is, and do his job flawlessly? Is he expected to be dishonest, deceitful and lying as he would be if he were not in that hallowed profession? Or is he expected to combine his education with his innately acquired personality and be cleverly and surreptitiously dishonest, deceitful and lying?
And if a person with the negative trait of “rude and impolite” became a priest, surely you would expect him or her, in the execution of those godly duties, not to exhibit such qualities. But can they manage to mask their true selves forever? And should they?
Should the profession change the natural you? Some may say that as long as it is a positive change, then it should not be a problem. However, it is a known fact that the personality trait, being innate, will come to the fore sooner or later. When that inevitably happens, what do we do? Do we understand it as what it is or do we castigate and label the individual?
What I find interesting is that people in some professions have licence to exhibit negative traits without reprimand. For instance, a cane-cutter can be rude, impolite and indifferent and there is no major upheaval. What is this saying? Is this suggesting that the cane-cutter is not important? Are we saying that there are no standards for a cane-cutter?
Most alarming of all the professions, as it relates to personality, is the politician. During political campaigns, political candidates degrade opponents in public, make verbal attacks on opponents’ families, use off-colour language and generally behave in a manner that encompasses many of the established negative personality traits. Yet listeners cheer and subsequently choose them as their leaders.
Those chosen then carry that same behaviour to Parliament. Then there is complaint about their behaviour. Should not these leaders display leadership qualities? Should they not be setting the example for us to follow?
They showed you their personalities during the election campaign. Conclusion: intense due diligence should be done on a person’s personality before offering them any form of employment.
• Mac Fingall is an entertainer and retired secondary schoolteacher. Email scouds@yahoo.com.