The Big Five Model Of Leadership

There is no agreed-upon definition of leadership. Most definitions, however include some common ingredients: the leader, the team, and the project or purpose. What if the project is not a transactional task but is, instead, one of personal, professional, and/or spiritual development? Does the guide in this type of relationship deserve to be considered a leader? Is mentorship more than just a tool used by leaders, instead constituting its own unique category of leadership?
The following review presents a discussion of five articles related to leadership. This discussion will identify themes shared by the five articles followed by a presentation of the author’s recommendations for applications of the concepts presented in the articles.
The first

An Attempted Synthesis through the Big Five Model of Personality Lens by Stuti Saxena (2014). Saxena (2014) differentiates between leaders who are creative, leaders who are experts, leaders who are transformational, and leaders who possess all of these attributes. According to author, leadership is understood in the context of the Big Five Model of Personality. The Big Five Model of Personality defines leadership in terms of five personality traits: neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness (Saxena, 2014). The author identified that the more overlap there was between creative leadership and transformational leadership in the same leader, the more likely it was for followers to perceive the leader as an ideal role model. Saxena (2014) specified that how transformational and creativity traits interact shape how a leader is

by Birgit Leidenfrost, Barbara Strassnig, Marlene Schultz, Claus-Christian Carbon, and Alfred Schabmann (2014). Leidenfrost et al (2014) explored the mentoring relationships in the academic setting to determine a baseline for mentoring effectiveness. According to the authors, mentoring, which includes both formal and informal, follows a predictable path with four phases: initiation, cultivation, separation and redefinition by the mentee, and preparation for separation by the mentor. Leidenfrost et al (2014) identified that although mentoring relationships with a high level of activities and an equal number of motivating and informing messages rated the highest, any mentoring relationship resulted in improved academic performance by the mentees over no mentoring relationship at all. The authors identified an opportunity for the ongoing development and continuing education of