Futurists and business leaders spend enormous amounts of time trying to improve the quality of their information. We study weak signals, emerging technologies, demographic shifts, economic trends, geopolitical risks, consumer behavior, and scientific breakthroughs. We build scenarios, hire experts, analyze data, and increasingly ask artificial intelligence to help us recognize patterns that humans might miss.
But there is another variable sitting quietly inside every forecast: the personality of the person doing the forecasting.
We tend to assume that when two intelligent people look at the same evidence and reach very different conclusions about the future, one of them must have misunderstood the evidence. Sometimes that is true. But personality research suggests something more interesting may also be happening. People may be psychologically inclined to notice different kinds of evidence, tolerate different levels of uncertainty, prefer different time horizons, and imagine different ranges of possibility.
That makes personality another important lens through which we see the future.
The Future We Can Imagine
The Big Five model of personality gives us a useful way to think about this. It describes personality across five broad dimensions: openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and what psychologists often call neuroticism or negative emotionality.
These are not fixed personality types. We all possess all five traits in different proportions. More importantly, none of the traits makes someone a good or bad leader or futurist. Each can reveal something about the future while simultaneously hiding something else.
Openness may have the most obvious connection to foresight. People higher in openness tend to be more curious, imaginative, comfortable with novelty, and willing to entertain unconventional ideas. When confronted with artificial general intelligence, radical longevity, autonomous organizations, synthetic biology, new forms of governance, or dramatically different economic arrangements, their first reaction may be, “What if?”
People lower in openness may instinctively ask a different question: “What evidence do we have that this will really happen?”
Both questions are valuable.
High openness can expand the possibility space, which is essential when the world is changing quickly. But it can also produce fascination with novelty, speculative enthusiasm, and futures that are interesting precisely because they are unusual. Lower openness can provide a valuable anchor in history, precedent, and tested experience, yet it can also make discontinuous change seem implausible until the evidence becomes overwhelming.
This presents an interesting problem for leaders and futurists. The future does not distribute itself equally across our imaginations.
Some People Imagine. Others Prepare.
Conscientiousness changes the equation again. Highly conscientious people tend to value organization, discipline, planning, reliability, and completion. They are often very good at taking a possibility and asking what must actually be done about it.
The highly open person may imagine ten possible futures. The highly conscientious person begins building the contingency plan.
That combination can be enormously valuable. Organizations need people capable of imagining a future that does not resemble the present, but they also need people who will translate that possibility into budgets, capabilities, timelines, responsibilities, and preparations.
Yet conscientiousness has its own danger. Plans have gravity. Once people invest enormous effort in building a strategy, organizational structure, or operating model, they may become reluctant to abandon it. The discipline that makes someone an excellent planner can sometimes make it harder to admit that the plan itself rests on assumptions that are disappearing.
One personality expands the future. Another organizes it. Foresight and leadership requires both.
Who Sounds the Alarm?
Negative emotionality deserves more respect in foresight than it usually receives.
Organizations often celebrate optimism. Leaders are expected to be confident, reassuring, decisive, and enthusiastic about opportunity. The person who repeatedly points out risks can easily become known as the pessimist in the room.
But evolution probably gave humans sensitivity to danger for a reason.
People higher in negative emotionality may notice vulnerability, instability, unintended consequences, emerging threats, and worst-case possibilities earlier than others. In a leadership team filled with confident optimists, such a person can function as a risk sentinel.
The danger is equally obvious. Possibility can begin to feel like probability. The person who sees every potential storm may eventually assume that every cloud contains one.
People lower in negative emotionality bring another important capability: calm. They may be able to function effectively while others are frightened, maintain perspective during crisis, and keep uncertainty from becoming paralysis. Their weakness is the mirror image of their strength. Because the threat produces less emotional response, they may underestimate its urgency.
One person may see the storm first. Another may be better able to steer through it.
We need both.
Who Gets Included in the Future?
Agreeableness influences foresight in a different way. Highly agreeable people tend to pay attention to relationships, cooperation, compassion, trust, and the consequences decisions have for other people.
When discussing automation, for example, one executive may immediately ask about productivity, efficiency, and competitiveness. Another may ask what happens to the people whose jobs change, whether workers can adapt, how communities will be affected, and whether the organization will retain trust.
Those are not competing questions. They are different dimensions of the same future.
Highly agreeable leaders may help ensure that foresight does not become merely an exercise in technological capability or financial opportunity. They remind us that futures happen to people.
But agreeableness can also make confrontation difficult. A highly agreeable person may soften a warning, hesitate to challenge a powerful executive, underestimate adversarial behavior, or assume cooperation will emerge where competition and power struggles are more likely.
A less agreeable colleague may be the uncomfortable person willing to say, “They are not going to cooperate with us,” or, “This strategy benefits us precisely because someone else loses.”
Again, neither perspective is sufficient alone.
And Then Someone Has to Convince Everyone Else
Extraversion influences the social life of a future.
A possibility can be discovered and still go nowhere. Someone has to communicate it, explain it, build support around it, persuade decision-makers, and mobilize people to act.
Highly extraverted people often bring enthusiasm, assertiveness, social energy, and a willingness to advocate publicly for new ideas. They can turn an obscure signal into an organizational conversation and an emerging possibility into a movement.
That is enormously useful in periods of transition.
It is also one way hype begins.
A charismatic, highly open, highly extraverted person can spread confidence faster than evidence. A speculative possibility can move rapidly from “interesting” to “inevitable” simply because someone tells a compelling story about it.
The quieter analyst may actually have the better argument but lack the social force required to get it heard.
The future, therefore, is not merely discovered. It is also promoted, contested, suppressed, amplified, and sold.
Personality as a Foresight Ecology
This leads to what I think may be the most useful conclusion.
We should stop searching for the ideal visionary leader or futurist personality.
Imagine personality traits distributed across a large population. Most people would sit somewhere in the broad middle, with smaller numbers toward the extremes. If we use a simple statistical thought experiment, roughly 16 percent might fall more than one standard deviation above the average on a trait, about 68 percent somewhere in the broad middle, and roughly 16 percent below.
These are not natural categories. But they help us see something important.
Perhaps societies need unusually open people because they expand the boundaries of what the rest of us consider possible. Perhaps we need less-open people because they protect us from abandoning useful institutions whenever something novel appears. We need conscientious people to prepare, agreeable people to examine human consequences, extraverts to mobilize action, anxious people to detect danger, and emotionally steady people to prevent fear from taking control.
Personality may operate less like a ranking and more like an ecology.
That also raises a provocative hypothesis. If only a minority of the population sits at the extreme high end of openness, genuinely discontinuous futures may be systematically underestimated by the broader population until evidence becomes strong. Most people may not carefully examine a radical future and reject it. They may simply have difficulty imagining it as plausible in the first place.
That would help explain why societies can live beside weak signals of enormous change for years before finally recognizing what is happening.
The Leadership Implication
The goal should not be to eliminate personality from leadership and foresight. We cannot. Personality is part of the instrument doing the observing.
The goal is to understand the instrument.
Leaders should be asking not only, “What future do I believe is coming?” but also, “What kinds of futures am I naturally inclined to believe?”
Am I attracted to disruption because I love novelty? Do I dismiss disruption because continuity feels safer? Do I exaggerate threats because uncertainty makes me uncomfortable? Do I underestimate them because I remain calm? Do I soften difficult conclusions because I value harmony? Do I amplify possibilities because I enjoy persuading others? Do I cling to a strategy because I am disciplined enough to have spent three years building it?
These questions do not weaken leadership and foresight. They make them more disciplined.
Personality is also not destiny. This is where the Virtues of Foresight become important. A person lower in openness can deliberately practice Pluralistic Perception. A highly anxious person can cultivate Equanimity. A highly agreeable executive can develop the Courage of Discomfort necessary to challenge the group. A highly open futurist can practice Intellectual Honesty by abandoning an exciting idea when the evidence no longer supports it.
You can learn more about these in my soon to be released new book, "The Future of Human Leadership."
Traits may describe our starting tendencies. They do not have to determine where our thinking ends.
The strongest leadership and foresight teams, therefore, may not be the ones whose members agree about the future. It may be the one whose members naturally notice different parts of it—and have enough humility to understand that none of them can see the whole thing alone.
*I use AI in all my work.
************************************************************************
Kevin Benedict
Futurist, and Lecturer at TCS
View my profile on LinkedIn
Follow me on X @krbenedict
Join the Linkedin Group Digital Intelligence
***Full Disclosure: These are my personal opinions. No company is silly enough to claim them. I work with and have worked with many of the companies mentioned in my articles.
No comments:
Post a Comment