Integral personality is formed by genotypic and phenotypic aspects. At birth, personality is predominantly genotypic, with natural impulses assuming the central role of meeting biological needs and ensuring survival. At this early stage, the baby’s interactions are limited to a basic repertoire, sufficient to express their needs. As development progresses, more specific manifestations related to temperament begin to emerge, leading to comments such as: “Look how calm he is” or “Look how restless she is.”

In childhood, interactions begin to appear that already reflect signs of the central conduct. One child may seek more physical contact and affection; another may demonstrate greater motor ability and move with more intensity; another may reveal intellectual interests, such as drawing, observing, or organizing objects. In assessments conducted with children between 8 and 12 years old, we notice the prominence of two aspects of personality: the prevalent temperament impulse and some traits associated with the central conduct. At this stage, children still have limited interaction resources, which translates into a certain initial adaptive limitation. This limitation, however, is compensated by the natural charm of their spontaneous expressions.

These first interactions are part of the process of communication and connection, also representing the first movements of adaptation to the environment in search of security. We consider the central conduct in formation to be the first phenotypic aspect of personality, strongly related to the child’s central motivational needs.

When analyzing adolescents and adults, we observe that behavioral development remains oriented toward adaptation. Some behavioral traits become more stable, while others change according to circumstances and external demands. In some people, there is greater recurrence and stability of certain traits; in others, greater oscillation. Over the years, we have observed that the vast majority of people tend toward the stabilization of central traits, with some alternation of secondary traits.

Regarding the structural origin of the central conduct, we observe three basic patterns. In the first, there is a prevalence of the central need to preserve satisfaction and the sense of pleasure associated with one’s own natural impulses. In the second, the attempt to exert greater control over external situations and over people’s reactions prevails. In the third, the construction of internal references — or internal standards — stands out, based on what is perceived as correct and valid in the external context, building a conduct aligned with these ideals.

Thus, in the first pattern, we have a predominantly genotypic response, responding to one’s own nature, within an axis we call the search for Structuring; in the second pattern, a predominantly phenotypic response, responding to the social environment, within the axis we call the search for Sustentation; and, in the third pattern, the predominance of an idealistic response, oriented by ideals, within the axis we call the search for Development.

Within these patterns, we observe different lines of central conduct, combined with interaction conducts that we call modulating traits of the central conduct. This composition of traits aims to improve interactions with people and connections with reality, with adaptation as its final objective. This adaptation is not restricted to the simple maintenance of survival, but also involves the search for connection and belonging.

When analyzing the development process of behavioral adaptation, we identify clear and recurring stages in people, according to their patterns and central conducts. We call these stages the basic behavioral dynamic. For didactic purposes, we divide this developmental dynamic into two categories: Functional Development and Structural Development.

Functional Development is related to the management of one’s own impulses and behaviors, with the objective of minimizing stressors and preventing collapses. Structural Development, in turn, seeks to understand one’s own cyclical functioning, favoring the expansion of awareness and greater freedom of choice, insofar as it minimizes the incidence and impact of conditioned and repetitive behavioral patterns. Both categories are related to the development of maturity.

Therefore, the APOGEO method evaluates integral personality as composed of genotypic factors, related to natural impulses — vital energy and temperament —, phenotypic factors, related to behaviors that aim to preserve the connection with the social environment and also transform it, and aspects of human development related to maturity.

We translate these concepts into the business environment through the analysis of Potential and Delivery, associated, respectively, with natural competencies and built competencies. We also consider performance indicators associated with Delivery and directly related to maturity. We further understand leadership as a result of this equation — or algorithm — that composes integral personality.