Original Research

Exploring leadership personality: A key for higher education transformation

Tessie H.H. Herbst

Received: 21 Mar. 2025; Accepted: 22 May 2025; Published: 28 July 2025

Copyright: © 2025. The Author(s). Licensee: AOSIS.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Leadership plays a critical role in organisational transformation and is strongly shaped by leaders’ personalities and the organisational culture of collective behaviours, attitudes, and values. Literature has indicated that executives’ personalities are an important factor impacting organisational strategy and structure. Organisational culture, often considered the ‘fingerprint’ of leadership, reflects the organisation’s collective personality. This article examines leadership and organisational personality through the combined results of the iEQ9 Enneagram personality assessment, conducted with 89 middle and senior academic leaders at a South African university between 2020 and 2022. This research, conducted as part of a leadership development programme, examined how leader personality influences efforts to drive organisational transformation. The Enneagram personality framework was utilised as a lens for analysis. Quantitative descriptive analysis was used to interpret and discuss leader personalities and their potential impact on organisational culture and strategic leadership in transformation.

Contribution: By integrating leadership, organisational culture, and strategic insights, this article offers practical guidance for higher education institutions (HEIs) aiming to strengthen leadership development programmes and manage transformational change effectively. As such, it makes a valuable contribution to the field of leadership personality and its implications for organisational effectiveness, especially within the South African higher education system, where transformation has redefined leadership.

Keywords: leader personality; culture; strategy; leading transformation; higher education; Enneagram; leadership development.

Introduction

In today’s dynamic organisational landscape, achieving leadership excellence is a significant challenge (Moldoveanu & Narayandas 2019). Globally, leaders are confronted with perplexing uncertainties and conflicting priorities, further complicating the leadership context (Heifetz, Grashow & Linsky 2009). Leaders’ consciousness and focus affect how their organisations respond to these challenges (Scharmer & Kaufer 2013). Leaders may either respond in a mechanistic way, characterised by limited self-awareness and maturity, or adopt a more holistic, systemic approach that fosters meaningful organisational change. These worldviews, comprising the ideas, values, and assumptions that shape leaders’ perspectives, are crucial for navigating complexity. Systemic thinkers recognise their thoughts, feelings, and vision, enabling them to identify how their mental models might inhibit their approach and adaptation to complexity (Bolden & Gosling 2022). Recent research suggests that leadership development focused on adaptive capacity and emotional intelligence is key to overcoming barriers in the face of disruption (Mrig & Sanaghan 2017). Moreover, leaders must embrace the ambiguity of modern challenges and balance short-term results with long-term vision to lead effectively in times of change (Kark 2023).

Leadership and collective personality

Hogan (1991) defines personality as the structures, dynamics, processes, and tendencies that produce consistent behaviour patterns or shape how individuals are perceived by others (p. 873). This description translates collectively into group or team routines, habits, norms, and path dependencies (Hofmann & Jones 2005). Collective personality emerges from interpersonal interactions and is susceptible to external influences (Hogan 1991). The ‘Big Five’ personality traits – openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism – can be applied to teams and collectives (Hofmann & Jones 2005; Judge et al. 2008). Leadership traits can thus significantly shape strategy formulation, strategic direction, and goal setting within an organisation (Nadkarni & Herrmann 2010).

Leaders who promote exploration and creativity foster collective openness to behaviours and contribute to organisational learning and improvement. However, autonomy that is granted inconsistently can cause emotional instability, undermining the collective personality and escalating organisational stress. Negative interactions trigger interpersonal conflict and undermine team functioning (Hofmann & Jones 2005).

Leadership challenges in higher education transformation

Amid growing pressure for transformation, higher education institutions (HEIs) often face challenges such as ineffective leadership, rigid bureaucratic structures, unsuccessful change interventions, and centralised decision-making (Ngcamu 2017; Watson & Watson 2014). These obstacles hinder the transformation agenda, making it essential for HEI leaders to transition from traditional leadership approaches to those that embrace volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity (VUCA) (Herbst 2021). As global higher education systems continue to experience disruption, leaders must shift priorities, foster collaborative team dynamics, and adapt their leadership styles to navigate organisational change (Narayan 2023). In this context, proactive thinking, risk tolerance, open-mindedness, and resilience are critical for fostering transformation (Els & Oosthuizen 2022; Mrig & Sanaghan 2017).

Furthermore, the acceleration of disruption in higher education presents complex challenges, including managing conflict, disorder, and ambiguity. Leaders must ensure that such disruptions lead to constructive rather than detrimental outcomes, requiring a delicate balance between maintaining stability and fostering innovation (Bourton, Lovoie & Vogel 2018; Heifetz et al. 2009). The demand for transformation calls for a new type of higher education leader – one who adopts a transformative rather than a transactional leadership style. These leaders excel in envisioning the broader context, aligning organisational strategy with mission and vision, and avoiding the pitfalls of micromanaging operational details (Fernandez & Shaw 2020). Recent studies have shown that the quality of leadership in HEIs is often a significant barrier to effective transformation. In South Africa, for example, challenges such as the insufficient development of leadership capacity, resistance to change, and poor communication structures continue to impede progress towards more inclusive and dynamic higher education systems (Bunting 2022; Jansen & Taylor 2003). Globally, similar issues are evident, with studies highlighting the need for more adaptive, collaborative, and forward-thinking leadership to effectively lead institutions through the complexities of modernisation (Bolden & Gosling 2022; Kark 2023).

Developing leaders for transformation

During organisational growth and cultural transformation, the focus often rests solely on changing systems and structures, while neglecting policies and leaders’ personal development—ultimately hindering change initiatives (Boaz & Fox 2014). South African HEI leaders’ ability to alter their culture (collective behaviours, attitudes, and values) relies on understanding how their roles and practices shape organisational culture (Venter, Du Plessis & Stander 2024). Change efforts often fail because senior leaders ignore the need for fundamental change within themselves (Boaz & Fox 2014; Herbst 2021).

Covey (1985) argued that individual transformation must precede institutional change; the key leadership challenge is to develop a mindset that strengthens inner agility and supports visionary, empathic, and creative leadership (Herbst 2021). Therefore, organisations must combine outward strategic and systemic interventions with inward self-development to achieve collective performance and cultural transformation. These steps help leaders to increase self-awareness and responsiveness to inner complexities (Boaz & Fox 2014; Fernandez & Shaw 2020).

Impact of leaders’ personalities on transformation

Research has shown that leaders’ personalities significantly influence key aspects of organisational performance, including job satisfaction, team effectiveness, job attitudes, and coping mechanisms (Dababneh et al. 2022; Hogan, Hogan & Kaiser 2011; Judge et al. 2008; Kaiser & Hogan 2011). Furthermore, a leader’s personality plays a critical role in decision-making processes, strategic alternatives, and agenda-setting (Kauer, Waldeck & Schäffer 2007). Leaders who exhibit more cautious decision-making tendencies are often more successful and open to constructive feedback (Peterson et al. 2003). A leader’s personality also shapes strategy formulation, strategic direction, and goal setting. For instance, an extraverted leader is more likely to focus on visionary goal setting and promoting innovation, while a conscientious leader might emphasise structured planning and goal-setting processes (Judge et al. 2008; Pointing & Foot 2022).

Understanding the importance of leaders’ personalities is crucial, as leadership behaviour – whether consciously or unconsciously – shapes organisational culture (Pointing & Foot 2022). A leader’s behaviour, language, and tone establish the cultural boundaries within which employees operate. When leaders prioritise emotion and inspiration over rigid processes, the organisation’s culture tends to become transformational. In contrast, leaders who focus on structure and process tend to cultivate a more transactional organisational culture (Covey 1985).

In the context of higher education, research has increasingly shown that leadership effectiveness is deeply tied to personality traits, particularly in promoting organisational transformation (Bunting 2022; Jansen & Taylor 2003). Higher education leaders with high emotional intelligence and openness to change tend to be more successful in navigating institutional challenges and driving effective transformation (Bolden & Gosling 2022). Additionally, leadership development programmes within universities often prioritise the development of personal capacities such as self-awareness, resilience, and adaptability. These capacities play a critical role in shaping how leaders manage change and align their institutions’ strategic objectives with broader societal needs (Els & Oosthuizen, 2022; Kark, 2023). Thus, understanding the different personalities of leaders within HEIs is essential for cultivating the type of leadership that is both adaptive and transformational, helping institutions thrive in times of disruption.

What is leadership culture and self-awareness?

Hofstede (2011) defines culture as ‘the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from others’ (p. 3). Similarly, leadership culture depicts members’ shared behaviours, attitudes, and values that shape organisational culture and transformation. This research was conducted at Tshwane University of Technology (TUT), a large South African university of technology. According to Kets de Vries and Miller (1986), senior leaders’ psychological orientations may influence neurotic styles, impacting organisational strategy, structure, and decision-making. Neurotic behaviours are associated with organisational failure that aligns with dysfunctional organisational cultures, such as persecution, grandiosity, control, detachment, and helplessness or hopelessness (Kets de Vries & Miller 1986).

Senior leadership culture can thus significantly influence organisational culture, as reflected in Schein’s (1985) assertion that a leader’s primary role is ‘to create and manage the culture’ (p. 2). According to social learning theories, leaders employ normative impact mechanisms to shape organisational culture and influence employees’ perceptions, effectively guiding the negotiation of reality within established boundaries for ‘how we do things around here’ (Drennan 1992; Schein 1985).

Effective leadership culture change relies on self-awareness, which shifts the focus from external to internal forces, observing unconscious behaviours and motivations (Fernandez & Shaw 2020; Herbst 2021). Leaders’ ingrained predispositions influence key areas such as budget management, decision-making, and reward allocation, for example, whether to reward innovation or compliance. Individual defence mechanisms become collective self-protection and default conflict management strategies (Brown 2012). Entrenched behaviour patterns can create a form of fixation, akin to wearing blinders, causing leaders to perceive challenges through a narrow lens, ultimately hindering their effectiveness in complex environments (Dababneh et al. 2022). Leaders who show up with insight into how their worldviews, thinking, and behaviour impact those they lead can shift organisational culture.

Aim and objectives

Although the theory has emphasised the importance of senior leadership personality development in HEI transformation, empirical evidence has not yet appropriately supported the resolution (Dababneh et al. 2022; Da Fonesca et al. 2022; Fernandez & Shaw 2020; Narayan 2023; Peterson et al. 2003; Singeltary 2020; Wagner 2021). This study addresses the historical neglect of leadership personality in HEI leadership development programmes by providing empirical evidence. Therefore, the study focuses on the Enneagram to assist leaders in recognising their personality patterns to enhance self-awareness and understanding of the behaviours of others.

Despite its effectiveness, there is a lack of empirical research on the Enneagram’s practical implementation in leadership personality skills development (Tlemsani et al. 2023). Conversely, its integrative approach to personality, validated by Sutton, Allinson and Williams (2013), positions the Enneagram as a valuable tool for introspection and self-discovery, strategy development and decision-making, and team effectiveness (Cusack 2020; Kam & Fluit 2021; O’Hanrahan 2020; Tlemsani et al. 2023). In addition, it facilitates ego development according to Loevinger’s (1976) stage theory, promoting psychological and spiritual growth and organisational well-being (Daniels et al. 2018). Because organisational culture reflects different leadership personalities and complexities, applying the Enneagram at a systemic level could provide significant insights into leadership dynamics.

Therefore, the key research question was: How can leadership personality be explored in a HEI by integrating the Enneagram personality framework with a leadership development programme?

The aim was to assess whether organisational development leaders could effectively leverage the Enneagram to gain insights for implementing leadership strategies at the Tshwane University of Technology (TUT), a large South African university of technology. TUT is one of the largest residential universities of technology in South Africa, serving a diverse student population across multiple campuses. Figure 1 illustrates the nine Enneagram lenses or perspectives on the world. Wagner (2021) provides a detailed discussion in his book, The Enneagram spectrum of personality styles.

FIGURE 1: The Enneagram - Nine personality types with each personality type having a dynamic relationship with four other types, wings influencing behavior, stress number (arrow away) drawn upon under duress, and security number (arrow towards) used for a sense of security.

The Enneagram as a personality diagnostic?

Research has indicated that the Enneagram is an effective tool for training, developing and stimulating self-awareness (Daniels et al. 2018; Richmer 2011; Roh et al. 2019; Sutton et al. 2013). Insights gained on the Enneagram’s cultural and strategic implications can help organisations adapt leadership development initiatives for higher levels of consciousness and self-awareness (Daniels et al. 2018). Increased self-awareness enables leaders to overcome the constraints of ingrained thoughts and behaviour patterns unique to each personality type (Chestnut 2013) (Figure 1), making them more effective transformational leaders (Da Fonseca, Myres & Hofmeyr 2022).

Flexibility and adaptability are crucial for personality analysis and leadership development as they reduce personal bias and minimise subjective blind spots (Daniels et al. 2018). This is illustrated in the Enneagram’s typology in Figure 1, which analyses personality and interpersonal patterns (Wagner 2021). It consists of nine equidistant points, each representing a fundamental pattern or lens on the world. These patterns encompass unique perceptual filters, including core beliefs, adaptive strategies, attentional habits, and motivating emotions (Daniels et al. 2018).

Apart from the nine personality types, the Enneagram includes three triads or Centres of Intelligence (Figure 1), namely, Feeling (Types 2, 3, and 4), Thinking (Types 5, 6, and 7), and Instinctive or action (Types 8, 9, and 1) (Roh et al. 2019; Wagner 2021). These triads delineate psychological orientations related to emotions, cognitive processes and instinctual reactions. The core focus of adaptive or transformative leadership, which explicitly focuses on self-awareness, aligns with the three functional centres: the head, heart and gut (Dotlich, Cairo & Rhinesmith 2006). Linsky (2011) rationalises that transactional leadership primarily relies on cognitive reasoning (thinking centre), while adaptive leadership incorporates emotional understanding (feeling centre) and instinctual intuition (gut or action centre). Accordingly, Chestnut (2017) and Singletary (2020) stress the importance of leaders’ mindfulness and attuning to their thoughts, emotions and gut reactions.

Although the Enneagram is known for assessing personality types and their relationships with others, the Enneagram iEQ9 online tool provides insights into levels of interwoven patterns that may create complex educational system dynamics and challenges during leadership development and transformation (Cloete 2019). The Enneagram framework can be used to explore HEI transformation by posing questions such as, ‘What are the key issues and challenges’? Human attributes and non-technical language replace organisational psychology terms, such as ‘the [organisational] culture is high on restraint’ (Hofstede’s indulgence/restraint dimension). Respondents can describe organisational culture more clearly as tough, easy-going, or meticulous (Type 3 Enneagram style). Interpersonal dynamics are described as warm and caring (Type 2), highly competitive and results-driven (Type 3), or emotionally expressive and open (Type 4). In the thinking centre, organisational thinking is characterised as highly data-driven and analytical (Type 5), approval-seeking and cautious (Type 6), or expansive and innovative (Type 7). These descriptions correspond to the nine Enneagram types referred to by their numbers, as numbers do not indicate something positive or negative.

Table 1 defines the nine types, providing a basis for understanding the Enneagram structure. Highlighting the dynamic nature of personality, the Enneagram explores interrelationships, transformation and personal development. It includes wings, integration/disintegration lines and defence mechanisms to describe conflict resolution styles. The Tritypes connect with the intelligence centres: thinking, feeling and action (Riso & Hudson 1996; Singletary 2020) (Figure 1). Apart from the dominant centre, one of the other centres may become less functional or repressed within the personality (Singletary 2020). Identifying the repressed centre provides leadership style insights and opens the door to behaviour change. Stabile (2018) extends this model, emphasising the importance of addressing the repressed centre for balance and wholeness.

The framework covers development spectrums for each type, including unhealthy, average and high-functioning states. Stress or security points connect each type to two others, illustrating integration levels. Lapid-Bogda (2004) notes disintegration tendencies under stress. For example, under stress, Type 1 may shift to Type 4, as illustrated in Figure 1 (Stabile 2018). Integration involves individuals gravitating towards security, such as Type 1 and adopting favourable Type 7 attributes (Daniels et al. 2018). In conclusion, greater flexibility and adaptability help mitigate bias, fostering progression toward healthier psychological states and ego development.

The Enneagram thus uncovers the interplay and dynamics between individuals, teams and groups interacting within a system (Wagner 2021). The connecting lines represent energy flow and offer exploration, development, and movement directions. Compared to Loevinger’s theory on ego development, the Enneagram features higher levels of functioning, increased empathy, and an expanding worldview (Daniels et al. 2018). No personality type is inherently more favourable than another; they have unique assets and capabilities to work together to become the best possible person, group or organisation. Each type is distinct with its own ego fixation, strengths, limitations, core beliefs, basic fears, desires, vice/passions, and virtues, and no type is gender-biased (Stabile 2018).

Research methods and design

The study employed a quantitative research design for data collection and analysis (Zikmund et al. 2010). Data were collected from 89 middle and senior managers who chose to complete a computerised iEQ9 Enneagram online assessment as part of their internal academic leadership development programme. The respondents were invited to complete the questionnaire before attending the leadership programme. Participation in the leadership programme and completion of the iEQ9 Enneagram assessment were voluntary. When enrolling in the leadership programme, delegates were informed about the online survey and asked to provide informed consent if they wished to participate.

Sample

The research sample comprised 89 academic managers from Tshwane University of Technology (TUT), a South African HEI, who enrolled in the university’s internal leadership development programme between 2020 and 2022 and voluntarily completed the iEQ9 Enneagram assessment. Therefore, the results apply only to this sample and cannot be generalised. However, the findings can be viewed as informative for further research in HEI transformation, especially in TUT. The sample included 57 (64%) males and 32 (35%) females.

Data collection and analysis

The computerised integrative Enneagram questionnaire (iEQ9) was used as an online personality map in which the three dimensions of educational leadership: feeling, thinking and doing were captured for further research on strengthening educational leadership (Singletary 2023). Reliability was measured using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), a method suited for complex models with small to medium sample sizes (Hair et al. 2014). Validity was confirmed according to the accuracy of measure – the extent to which a score accurately represents a concept and the consistency with which the research reflects the same results over multiple attempts. These procedures are central to any quantitative study (Kirk & Miller 1986). The reliability and validity of the iEQ9 have been consistently tested through statistical analyses conducted by independent psychometrists (Cloete 2019). The computerised responses collected via the online survey were captured in an Excel spreadsheet and analysed as descriptive statistics.

All iEQ9 scales for the nine Enneagram types had Cronbach’s alpha values greater than 0.70, which is considered acceptable (Hair et al. 2014). Additionally, item correlations were examined to ensure that all items associated with each Enneagram profile (Types 1 to 9) were appropriately related, with no unrelated or erroneous correlations present. The results demonstrated that the average inter-item correlations for all nine scales lay within the acceptable range for a dependable scale, exceeding the limit of 0.5.

The majority of item-total correlations fell within the acceptable range. Of the nine item-total correlations, only five were less than 0.3, while the maximum was 0.662. Eliminating items with lower item-total correlations would not result in a significant improvement in reliability. This suggests that the iEQ9 instrument is sufficiently reliable in its current form. Exploratory factor analysis showed that the iEQ9 closely aligned with the theoretically intended scales, indicating acceptable construct validity (Statistical Manual: iEQ9 Integrative Enneagram Questionnaire 2019).

Ethical considerations

The iEQ9 Enneagram online assessment formed part of a leadership development programme within TUT, and participation was voluntary. When enrolling in the programme, delegates were asked to provide informed consent by selecting YES or NO in response to the following statement:

By participating in the programme, I consent to any data gathered during the program being used for research purposes, e.g. articles in professional journals and conference presentations. All data will be collated and presented only in summary form, and your name and identifying information will never be used in any report on this research. Consent is voluntary, and your decision will not affect the outcome of your application.

The test administrator informed participants that their responses would be confidential and anonymous and that all identifiable data would be carefully disguised or omitted. This study was approved by the TUT’s Research Ethics Committee (reference no: HREC2024=08=015 [MS]).

Results

As observed in Table 2, the dominant type among participants was Type 1 (26%), followed by Type 3 (16%) and Type 5 (12%), with Type 4 (2%) being in the minority. In addition to the main types, the Enneagram spoke to the three Social Interaction Styles – also known as Hornevian styles, referencing the works of psychoanalyst Karen Horney on internal conflict. Her concept of the three dominant ways of engagement was applied to the Enneagram through the work of Riso and Hudson (1996). These three styles move against, towards or away from, describing how people get what they want and need and what energises them in relationships. As shown in Table 2, the predominant social interaction style of the participants fell within the Compliant triad (46%), given the predominance of 1 (56%) and 2 (42%) in the Tritype. Overall, only 33% (29 of 89) of all primary-type respondents were in the Assertive or Aggressive triad (8, 3, 7), with 21% being in the Withdrawn triad (9, 4, 5).

Dependability and compliant style

Type 1 leaders exhibited dependability and a compliant social style, adhering to conventions and regulations. In Horney’s terms, they move towards others, ‘freeze’ when overwhelmed, and focus on the present, often neglecting future possibilities and past experiences. Despite inner turmoil, they project calmness and responsibility. As illustrated in Table 2, their thinking centres may be repressed, exhibiting misuse, underuse or overuse, leading to non-productive or anxious thinking (Singletary 2020). These leaders may suffer from ‘analysis paralysis’ and rely on external processing of thoughts and experiences. The results suggest that these leaders are loyal and cooperative, prefer following established procedures, and may exhibit resistance to new ideas.

Regarding Tritype representation, Type 1 was the most prevalent overall and dominant in the Instinctual or action centre. Type 2 showed dominance (42%) in the Feeling centre, while Type 7 was dominant (37%) in the Thinking centre, suggesting a prevalent organisational leadership Tritype of 1-2-7.

Defence mechanisms

Type 1 leaders employ Reaction Formation as a defence mechanism to avoid expressing socially inappropriate emotions such as anger. This strategy aims to maintain control and involves overcompensating with excessive self-control and outward calmness (Riso & Hudson 1999). While this approach helps Type 1 leaders feel in control, it may impact organisational culture by masking resentment and fostering an environment of unconscious rage, frustration, conflict and burnout. Reaction-formation defences, such as portraying the organisation as a ‘family’ or ‘caring,’ may hide underlying fears and vulnerabilities. While an emphasis on rules and perfectionism may enhance ethics and quality, it can also foster a rigid work environment that limits adaptability. High stress can overwhelm Type 1s, leading to emotional distress and depression (stress line to 4) when self-expression is repressed for an extended period (O’Hanrahan 2020).

Several studies have indicated that Enneagram training benefits self-awareness (Daniels et al. 2018; Richmer 2011; Roh et al. 2019; Sutton et al. 2013). Thus, the Enneagram serves as an effective tool for stimulating self-awareness. The Enneagram personality framework and understanding cultural and strategic implications can help organisations tailor their leadership development initiatives to cultivate higher levels of consciousness and self-awareness among their leaders (Daniels et al. 2018). Increased self-awareness allows leaders to break free from the constraints of ingrained thought and behaviour patterns that are unique to each personality type (Chestnut 2013; Riso & Hudson 1999). This heightened awareness makes them more effective as transformational leaders (Da Fonseca et al. 2022). It is important to note that while personalities do not change during leadership development, behaviours can shift as self-awareness improves. Therefore, the goal of leadership development is not to change one’s personality but to enhance self-awareness and the ability to adapt behaviours (Day 2000).

Discussion

This study aimed to understand leaders’ psychological processes and integrate the Enneagram’s personality framework with cultural and strategic implications. Examining leadership characteristics across Enneagram types within different cultural contexts offers insights into the strengths, challenges and strategies of leading transformational change. Kaiser and Hogan (2011) state that leaders’ behaviours depend on their self-awareness. Leaders with low self-awareness exhibit unconscious, personality-driven behaviour, while those with higher self-awareness make deliberate, situationally driven choices.

The results indicate that most leaders exhibited a Type 1 preference during the iEQ9 assessment in TUT, striving for perfection and doing the right thing to improve the world. According to Wagner (2021), Type 1s aim to realise their highest potential, addressing imperfections in themselves and others. They pursue perfection, excellence, and quality with conscientiousness and purpose. Moreover, they are highly reliable and hardworking in achieving an ideal state. They should approach these goals with relaxation and serenity, letting go of what is beyond their control.

However, under stress and at lower levels of adult ego development, Type 1 may exaggerate their goodness and become rigidly judgemental about themselves and others. They often express hidden anger and frustration through passive aggression, visible in their body language. Such action damages relationships by making people feel nervous, wrong or inadequate. Their emphasis on rules and perfectionism can create a restrictive workplace, reducing flexibility and increasing employees’ resistance to change. Although such behaviour may improve organisational ethics and quality, it does not increase work satisfaction (Lapid-Bogda 2010; Riso & Hudson 1999).

Type 1 leaders risk micro-management, stifling creativity and causing stress and exhaustion by over-emphasising administrative compliance and control instead of strategic focus. They can alienate employees by controlling agendas, time and attendance rather than offering freedom and trust. Research by Kaiser and Hogan (2011) detected a negative relationship between Prudence (reflecting the conscientiousness of Enneagram 1) and enabling interpersonal leader behaviour, highlighting that prudent, detail-oriented managers are prone to micromanagement.

Enneagram Type 1 leaders’ personality traits significantly impact leadership, team dynamics, and organisational culture. Perfectionism causes leaders to fear failure and mistakes (Kets de Vries 2005). This overly cautious leadership style can quickly spread throughout the organisation, causing severe consequences. The result is that strengths can become weaknesses, affecting the entire organisation. Some implications for Type 1 leaders include:

High standards and attention to detail

Type 1 leaders demand precision and adherence to rules, fostering organisational excellence and responsibility (Cameron & Quinn 2011). Moderate perfectionism drives excellence (Kets de Vries 2005). However, unhealthy Type 1 leaders may unintentionally harm their organisations due to their ambition, which can manifest as unpleasantness, aggressiveness, and strained relationships. High turnover, absenteeism, and other difficulties may affect the bottom line (Ocampo, Gu & Heyden 2022).

Ethical and moral orientation

Type 1 leaders typically possess a strong ethical compass. They prioritise integrity, fairness and justice in decision-making, fostering ethical values within the organisation (Schaubroeck et al. 2012).

Striving for improvement

Type 1 leaders naturally improve procedures and systems and may prioritise inefficiency reduction, innovation, and continual improvement (Schaubroeck et al. 2012). Kets de Vries (2005) claims that ‘absolute’ perfectionists create unreasonable ambitions and self-destruct when they fail. They believe they are not good enough but can improve if they try harder and become workaholics. To disguise their ‘fraudulence’, they overwork and struggle with work-life balance. Perfectionists do not realise that overworking oneself and others can hurt institutions. Severe self-exploitation can cause early burnout.

Attention to detail and risk aversion

Type 1 leaders are meticulous at planning and risk mitigation. However, excessive perfectionism and risk aversion may hamper flexibility and adaptability in uncertain times (Cameron & Quinn 2011; Ocampo et al. 2022). Cautious senior leaders may stifle entrepreneurial spirit, creativity, and innovation. Punitive workplaces amplify this behaviour. Without acceptance of mistakes, these leaders can grow into anxious, neurotic, and paralysing perfectionists who fear failure, become risk-averse and, as such, harm the organisation (Kets de Vries 2005).

Need for order and structure

Type 1 leaders value order and structure, establishing clear guidelines, processes, and systems to enhance efficiency. They favour rigorous goal setting to achieve high standards. However, excessive rigidity may hinder creativity and adaptability (Nario 2024). Employees might avoid working with perfectionists because of their adverse effects on the team climate. Perfectionist leaders can be more controlling and less forgiving, impeding trust in relationships (Otto, Geibel & Kleszewski 2021).

Self-critical tendencies

Type 1 leaders have a strong internal critic that drives self-reflection and improvement. While their perfectionism fosters motivation and conscientiousness, which can lead to personal growth, self-imposed pressure and self-doubt can result in burnout, job dissatisfaction, depression, workaholism and anxiety (Cameron & Quinn 2011; Swider et al. 2018). Under stress, they may exhibit behaviours associated with Type 4, disintegrating into melancholy, self-doubt, and isolation.

It is essential to observe that these implications reflect the general tendencies of Enneagram Type 1 leaders; however, individual differences always exist. Organisational dynamics are complex and influenced by multiple factors beyond personality types alone. Therefore, specific points for consideration in developing the organisation, aside from the restrictions of the dominant Enneagram type, are discussed. The focus is on what was found in the Enneagram assessment of leaders in TUT and what the development administrators can attend to.

Who participates in decision-making?

Peterson et al. (2003) found that cautious executives succeed more frequently, while Song et al. (2022) argues that perfectionism can indirectly impede team decision-making. Accordingly, Malik (2023) argues that perfectionist leaders may cause followers to procrastinate due to ego issues and psychological depletion caused by discomfort and alienation. Type 1 leaders may struggle to acknowledge that others have valid perspectives or responses, particularly when they feel righteous (Otto et al. 2021). Acknowledging Type 1 leaders’ tendency for over-control can foster innovation through shared or distributed leadership (Pointing & Foot 2022).

How do they communicate?

Type 1 leaders exert control with a meta-message: ‘Understand and attain my standards, as they are correct and superior’. They communicate clearly and explain the world in black and white to rectify errors, offer guidance, and set boundaries. Their language often includes moral obligations like ‘should’, ‘must’, and ‘ought’. They can improve their communication by becoming aware of their tendency to categorise thoughts as good or bad, running the risk of oversimplifying complex matters. Instead, they should engage in discussions considering diverse perspectives and factual information (Otto et al. 2021).

How is criticism handled?

Controlling Type 1 leaders often adopt a checkbox-driven or ‘fix it’ mindset. They prefer operational details above fostering an environment for emotional participation, disagreement, and debate. Perfectionists usually discourage arguments by suggesting, ‘Let’s agree to disagree’, rather than valuing contradiction and polarity, which can be problematic in a VUCA society. If these leaders want to be successful, they should be open to giving criticism and accepting criticism (Peterson et al. 2003).

Learning orientation and curiosity

Even though Type 1 leaders provide teams with clarity, discipline, and structure, they might be derailed by their binary mindsets (Hogan et al. 2011). They may strive for unrealistic perfection and dread being evaluated or making mistakes, hindering innovation and advancement. Type 1 leaders must learn to be flexible, value team contributions, and allow deviations from plans. Mrig and Sanaghan (2017) claim that HEIs need leaders who are anticipatory thinkers, risk-tolerant, creative, innovative, effective conveners or facilitators, gutsy decision makers, and resilient enough to ‘bounce forward’ after a catastrophe. Such a step involves going to Type 7, their line of integration or evolution, letting go of one correct answer, embracing many creative options, open-mindedness, and fluidity. The best Type 7 brings spontaneity, less judgement and physical tension, and more positivity to add to the natural integrity of Type 1 (O’Hanrahan 2020).

Because Type 1 leaders and teams often struggle to accept and appreciate criticism, they quickly blame, criticise, or ‘kill the messenger’, maintaining their sense of being right while concealing painful self-doubt. Type 1 was the most commonly represented Enneagram type among participants (26%), making it the first or dominant style in the sample. This was followed by Type 3 (16%) and Type 5 (12%). This behaviour exacerbates the Type 3 feeling style, the second most common Enneagram type (16%), linked to an idealised self-image of being unique and preferring to hear only ‘good news’. In a dominant Type 1 leadership culture with the defence mechanism being reaction formation, issues may not be discussed openly and thoroughly. However, by gaining self-insight, these leaders might revisit organisational and leadership issues with a greater appreciation of paradox, polarity, and ambiguity. They will find that they can discuss them in a sensitive forum that practices high epistemic justice (Fricker 2009).

Limitations

It must be understood that personality predispositions and lenses do not inherently ensure or hinder capabilities and competencies. Each personality style can develop the strengths and skills required by a specific context and compensate for development areas by surrounding themselves with people who have those abilities. The Enneagram should not be used for hiring, promotions, or team formation. However, it is valuable to notice the dominance of certain behavioural tendencies and consciously balance them. This can be achieved by incorporating other perspectives in thinking processes or mitigating bias through consultation with diverse stakeholders.

The conclusions drawn from this study’s data present a limitation. Because of the nature of the study, causal relationships between Enneagram type and leadership behaviour could not be established. While the findings suggest an association between Enneagram type and leadership behaviour, future research is needed to determine the extent of this influence. This can be done by including additional data, such as 360-degree questionnaire feedback. The Enneagram design is variable-centred rather than pattern or individual-centred (Foti & Hauenstein 2007). However, the findings of this study highlighted that the Enneagram-type variables can be associated with diverse leadership behaviours. Since the pattern scores for each leader are unique, it remains unclear how different Enneagram-type configurations relate to leadership behaviour.

The discussion of the Type 1 research results is limited to a small sample as part of a larger development programme at TUT and, thus, cannot be generalised. Moreover, leadership personality represents just one aspect of the broader demand for university transformation within South Africa’s higher education system.

Recommendations

The Enneagram approach to strategy may inform leaders and teams to improve strategic planning and decision-making. Higher education institutions can create a more prosperous and fulfilling work environment by using team members’ distinct strengths and viewpoints, encouraging an organisational culture of self-awareness and growth. This approach also emphasises recognising and addressing the motivations and fears that could influence strategy development (Tlemsani et al. 2023).

Recommendations for organisational culture enhancement include targeted training programmes, coaching interventions, and personality assessments for self-awareness and adaptability. This study laid a foundation for using personality assessments such as the Enneagram in leadership and organisational development. However, the potential for reductionism or oversimplification by the Enneagram as a tool for understanding complex systems may pose a risk (Foti & Hauenstein 2007).

The Enneagram should not be used to reduce unique, complex individuals to simple labels. Instead, its value lies in the depth of accommodating diverse individualities. The research findings may guide leaders in reaching advanced stages of adult ego development by strengthening their levels of consciousness and meaning-making. The inference is that by practising self-awareness, HEI challenges can be addressed more effectively.

The findings have significant implications for leadership theory and sustainability. When creating strategy, leadership researchers often construct framework competency models without considering the differences in leaders’ worldviews, habits, and reality. However, according to Brown (2012), developing a leader’s meaning-making system is crucial for determining leadership effectiveness. The Enneagram has shown potential by revealing the significant differences in leaders’ distinct sense-making approaches to complex changes.

Leadership theories that exclude an ego development perspective should be critically examined. Future research should include ego development insights to challenge conventional leadership theories by revealing new avenues for research and practice. Higher education institutions need leaders with sophisticated meaning-making skills to undertake complex transformational challenges. The Enneagram offers a roadmap for self-awareness by addressing leadership challenges within HEIs (Daniels et al. 2018).

Specific tools that facilitate ego development include the development of self-observation, empathy, insight into motivational and underlying beliefs, and methods that promote further development. According to Saracino (2013), it is conceivable that the use of ‘type panels’ guided by a trained facilitator to explain individuals’ automatic patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving is crucial in advancing ego development (Singletary 2020). Because this study did not include ego development interventions, the recommendation is that future studies assess the effectiveness of type panels in advancing ego development.

Conclusion

Effective leadership is crucial for steering organisational transformation. This study used the Enneagram iEQ9 personality framework to explore leadership culture and the implications of leadership personalities on organisational transformation. The iEQ9 enhances awareness and goes beyond personality types, offering an understanding of intricate system dynamics.

Integrating Enneagram insights into higher education institutions can foster a more nuanced understanding of leadership personality and enable tailored approaches to transformational leadership. The common language describing the nine types enables leaders to discuss challenges, recognise obstacles in their mental models and behaviour, and enhance their ability to think systemically and adapt to complexity. By leveraging this system, organisational development leaders can create strategies that meet the evolving demands of university transformation and redefine what effective leadership entails.

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank the university management for their support and the respondents for participating in the research. The academic leadership development programme of TUT is funded by the University Capacity Development Grant (UCDP) from the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET).

The author declares that she has no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.

T.H.H.H. the sole author of this research article.

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article and its references.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and are the product of professional research. It does not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency or that of the publisher. The author is responsible for this article’s results, findings and content.

References