Empirical Operationalization of the Personhood Effectiveness Model in the Human-Centered Paradigm (using young leaders’ cases)

The article is devoted to the study of personhood effectiveness and its empirical operationalization within the human-centered paradigm, which serves as a conceptual reflection of the transition from adaptive compliance with external requirements to the individual’s ability to function holistically with a conscious subjective position and semantic determination of activity. In the context of the lack of research identifying the structural and factorial composition of personhood effectiveness as a systemic formation that overcomes the limitations of classical concepts of personhood effectiveness, namely self-efficacy, personal effectiveness, and personal potential, the aim of this study was to empirically identify and verify its factor structure. Personhood effectiveness is understood as realized subjectivity — an external manifestation and result of the implementation of a subjective position in activity while maintaining integrity and well-being. Based on a sample of 107 respondents, contrasting models of personhood effectiveness organization were identified using cluster and factor analysis. The results of the study confirm that personhood effectiveness has an integrative nature, manifested in the dynamic interrelation of three key components: conscious activity, ensuring proactive self-regulation; Reflexive stability, which creates value-semantic stability; and emotional-cognitive plasticity, which allows for flexible adaptation to change. In contrast, the structure of personal inefficiency demonstrates systemic limitations expressed in emotional-social rigidity, imitative proactivity, and paradoxical autonomy. The obtained results indicate that personhood efficacy as an indicator of the fullness of subjectivity goes beyond external achievements and includes deep processes of self-determination, reflection, and internal flexibility, which opens up prospects for the development of systemic development programs based on the principles of a holistic approach to personality.

1. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117–148. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3

2. Bumpus, M. A., & Munchus, G. (1996). Values in the workplace: Diversity in meaning and importance. International Journal of Value-Based Management, 9, 169–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00440153

3. Liu, Q., Wang, L., & Luo, M. (2025). When seeing is not believing: Self-efficacy and cynicism in the era of intelligent media. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599–025–04594–5

4. Maddi, S. R., & Khoshaba, D. M. (2005). Resilience at work: How to succeed no matter what life throws at you. AMACOM.

5. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2023). Self-Determination Theory. In F. Maggino (Ed.), Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research. Springer, Cham.

6. Simonton, D. K. (2000). Creativity: Cognitive, personal, developmental, and social aspects. American Psychologist, 55(1), 151–158. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003–066x.55.1.151

7. Suyatno, S., Pambudi, D. I., Wantini, W., Abdurrohim, A., & Mardati, A. (2022). The mediating role of meaning at work in promoting teacher commitment and reducing burnout. Frontiers in Education, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.962163

8. Townsend, M., & Romme, A. (2024). The emerging concept of the human-centered organization: A review and synthesis of the literature. Humanistic Management Journal, 9, 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41463–024–00168-w

9. Yang, Y. Y., & Delgado, M. R. (2025). The integration of self-efficacy and response-efficacy in decision making. Scientific Reports, 15, 1789. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598–025–85577-z