Can personality be changed?
Personality is often described as relatively stable patterns in thoughts, feelings and behaviour. At the same time, “relative stability” is not the same as being unchangeable. The research is clear that personality traits develop over the course of a lifetime, even though the changes are often moderate and vary considerably between individuals.
The crucial question, therefore, is not whether change is possible, but how it actually happens – and how it can be influenced.
This article draws on a case the author knows intimately – himself. In the aftermath of a deeply demanding life situation, and the subsequent mapping of his own patterns, it became clear that development was not merely desirable, but necessary. The question was how this development could be realised in a way that actually had an effect over time.
When insight is not enough
The research offers a nuanced picture of personality change. Even in the face of major life events, the effects on fundamental traits are often small and inconsistent. At the same time, many people experience significant development during such periods. The explanation rarely lies in the event itself, but in the actions that follow.
This points towards a more precise understanding:
Personality is rarely changed directly, but is influenced over time through changes in behaviour
Small disciplines that create development
For a period, the author worked within network marketing – a context where practical principles for personal development carry considerable weight, and where, among others, Jim Rohn’s formulation came to mean a great deal:
“Success is nothing more than a few simple disciplines practiced every day.”
This perspective was put into practice. Behavioural change was not understood as a question of major breakthroughs, but as the establishment of simple disciplines – small, concrete actions carried out consistently over time.
In practice, this means identifying which actions sustain unwanted patterns, and defining behaviour that is incompatible with them, for example:
- asking follow-up questions before offering your own answers
- admitting mistakes and inaccuracies immediately (“Listen, what I said isn’t quite right”)
- starting tasks without delay, however small the first action may be (I should have called that contact – call them NOW)
Behaviour that challenges established patterns
For example, a tendency to be more preoccupied with one’s own perspectives than those of others was met with one concrete rule: in every conversation, follow-up questions were to be asked before one’s own assessments were presented. Similarly, an inclination to explain away or smooth over one’s own mistakes was addressed through the opposite practice – mistakes were to be admitted immediately, without explanation. Situations of this kind have a particular learning effect, precisely because they challenge established patterns directly and immediately and cause considerable discomfort.
These kinds of behavioural corrections were not understood as one-off actions, but as exactly what Jim Rohn describes as “simple disciplines” – small, consistent actions that, through repetition, shape both how you come across and how you eventually experience yourself and are experienced by others.
This appears modest. The effect lies in repetition.
From reflection to execution
For us at Habberstad, this has clear implications for how we work with leadership and leadership team development. Reflection and insight are of course important elements, but in themselves they have limited effect unless they are translated into concrete practice. Development only happens when new actions are actually adopted – and maintained over time. This does not mean that insight, reflection or an understanding of personality are without value, but that lasting change in practice depends on these being translated into concrete behaviour.
This shifts the focus from understanding to execution:
From “what have you learnt?” to “what are you doing differently in practice?”
How do you measure real change?
A related question is how change can be measured.
Personality tests can provide a useful language for understanding your own preferences and patterns, and have considerable value for reflection and for mapping. They are, however, of limited use as pre- and post-measurements in change work.
The explanation is not primarily that you remember the questions, but that you largely remember how you understood yourself the first time you answered – which concrete situations you took as your starting point, and which inner examples you used. These frames of reference are often stable and are reactivated when you answer again later. The result can be an apparently stable profile, even when actual behaviour has changed and this is also visible to those around you.
If the aim is to capture real development, it will often be more accurate to measure observable behaviour as it is experienced by others.
In this context, 360-degree analyses, despite their limitations, are in our experience often the most accurate tool. They capture not so much your self-perceived identity, but how your behaviour actually comes across to others in practice – and therefore whether it has changed.
Change happens where the actions happen
In summary: if you want to influence development, the effort – and the measurement – must be directed at the level where the change actually happens. Personality can be influenced. Change, however, happens primarily through behaviour – as practised disciplines, repeated again and again over time. The challenge is to find the right behaviours.
Written by psychologist and advisor Frank Vikan
