Allocentric and Idiocentric Persuasion: Characteristics of Leadership Personality

Scholars such as Hofstede and Triandis have suggested the discussion of a collective or individual society ever since the year 1980. However, evaluating these terms has led the business community to comprehend the psychological aspects behind leaders. Therefore, what is it about leaders that allow them to interact with different kind of people to successfully drive them into a same objective? The concepts of allocentrism and idiocentrism suggest that examining the personality of a subject, in this case a leader will describe whether or not this person reflects a better performance as a team contributor or as an individual contributor. Understanding the variables behind allocentrism (i.e. interdependence, collective orientation, subordination of personal interest, and allocation) and idiocentrism (i.e. independence, self-orientation, self-sufficiency and control, and individual goals) reflects the nature of leadership and human behavior. To this instance, Triandis explained the following “Collectivism and individualism are cultural syndromes that have some common cores. Allocentrism and idiocentrism are constructs at the individual level that correspond to collectivism and individualism respectively at the cultural level” (Triandis, Chan & Bhawuk, 1995). This investigation examines the implication of leadership as a cross-cultural factor influenced by an individual’s personality. The importance behind drafting the study, is to fill a gap in current research of specific studies or theories to prove that leaders, and hence managers are able to perform in different environments according to their personality and shaped under a human behavior that we believe is already given within their collective or individual characteristics. Through scales and measurements, the study promises to expand and propose a new concept of the study of leadership that takes into account the intrinsic value of the person.