Recombinant Personality Measures for Predicting Leadership Competence. Scott Davies, Joyce Hogan, Jeff Foster, and Fabian Elizondo

Transcription

1 Recombinant Personality Measures 1 Recombinant Personality Measures for Predicting Leadership Competence Scott Davies, Joyce Hogan, Jeff Foster, and Fabian Elizondo Hogan Assessment Systems Paper presented at the 20 th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Los Angeles, California. April 16, 2005.

2 Recombinant Personality Measures 2 Abstract Building on work to predict leadership and managerial competence from the bright side (Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhart, 2002) and dark side of personality (Bentz, 1985; Hogan & Hogan, 2001; Lombardo, Ruderman, & McCauley, 1988; McCall & Lombardo, 1983), and combined with the Domain Model of Performance (a synthesis of the existing performance criteria models: Leadership Skills, Work Skills, Interpersonal Skills, and Intrapersonal Skills; Hogan & Warrenfeltz, 2003), we evaluate a model of leadership and managerial success. Building on meta-analytic results from 40 criterion-related validity studies (total n > 6,000) which used the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI; Hogan & Hogan, 1995), and 20 criterion validity studies (total n > 3,000) which used the Hogan Development Survey (HDS; Hogan & Hogan, 1997), incremental validities of combining bright and dark side personality measures to predict the four competency domains were tested using five criterion-related studies (total n > 800) which used both the HPI and HDS in leadership and managerial samples. HDS scales add significant incremental validity to the HPI scales for predicting criteria in each of the four domains, with the largest increments found for Leadership and Work Skills Domains, as well as for measures of overall performance.

3 Recombinant Personality Measures 3 Recombinant Personality Measures for Predicting Leadership Competence Leadership and management competence are validly predicted from both the bright side (Hogan, 2002; Judge et al., 2002) and the dark side of personality (Hogan & Hogan, 2001). The bright side of personality is comprehensively defined by the five factor model of personality (Tupes & Christal, 1961), and its advancements, including the 7-factor solution supported by current research (Ashton, Lee, & Goldberg, 2004; Davies & Wadlington, 2005) and measured by the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI; Hogan & Hogan, 1995). Definitions of the seven factors measured by the HPI are presented in Table 1. As presented in Figure 1, the HPI is closely related to other five factor models. Bright side characteristics describe an individual s propensity to get along or get ahead in life. These postulates are grounded in socioanalytic theory (Hogan, 1983), which explains interpersonal behavior according to three core motives: (a) getting along gain acceptance from other people; (b) getting ahead achieve status and recognition; and (c) maintaining order have predictability and structure. A plethora of research supports the predictive validity of the bright side of personality for competence across occupations including leadership and management competence (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Hogan & Holland, 2003; Salgado, 1997; Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991), with population estimates for relationships supported by several large scale meta-analyses. Predicting leadership and management competence from the dark side of personality has a less lengthy history than bright side measures. Dark side characteristics represent flawed behavioral strategies that (a) reflect inaccurate beliefs about others and (b) may negatively influence an individual s career (Hogan & Hogan, 1997). We believe

4 Recombinant Personality Measures 4 that these characteristics may represent extensions of bright side dimensions by reflecting extreme characteristics of normal personality that can be a detriment to performance. Due to a lack of measurement work in this area, little large-scale research to date has explored the validity of predicting performance from dark side characteristics in applied settings. An exception is the Hogan Development Survey (HDS; Hogan & Hogan, 1997), which was designed to reliably measure dark side characteristics along 11 dimensions (see Table 2). Hogan (1994) and Hogan & Hogan (2001) assert that these dark side characteristics coexist with an individual s well-developed social skills, which explains why people with these qualities sometimes ascend to leadership roles despite the propensity for dysfunction. Interpersonal flaws related to dark side characteristics will emerge in stressful situations and impede an individual s ability to work with or lead others effectively. Regardless of talent and social skill, dark side characteristics ultimately derail careers (Bentz, 1985). Fleming and Holland (2002) conducted a meta-analysis where supervisor job performance was correlated with the 11 HDS scales. Overall, 82% of HDS scales generalized based on 90% credibility values, indicating that dark side characteristics reflect important themes across jobs and organizations. Specifically, the results suggest that characteristics associated with emotionality (Excitable), inaction (Cautious), aloofness (Reserved), and mistrustful (Skeptical) predict performance across jobs and organizations. Najar, Holland, and Van Landuyt (2004) examined the effect of leaders flawed interpersonal characteristics on multisource feedback ratings. The most consistent relationships across ratings were with the Excitable, Skeptical, Cautious, Leisurely, and

5 Recombinant Personality Measures 5 Imaginative scales. These two studies show that dark side personality measures are negatively related to job performance. The meta-analysis by Fleming and Holland (2002) provides evidence for derailment across jobs, and the Najar, et al. (2004) study provides evidence for derailment specific to leadership. Domain Model of Performance Leadership and management competence has often been ill-defined in previous theoretical and applied work and lacked consistency of definition. In the current research, we use a Domain Model of Performance that is a synthesis of existing performance criteria models: Leadership Skills, Work Skills, Interpersonal Skills, and Intrapersonal Skills (Hogan & Warrenfeltz, 2003; Warrenfeltz, 1995). This model provides a useful taxonomy for all performance criteria regardless of occupation or status. The Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, and Work Skills competency domains mirror Strupp s (1996) tripartite model of human functioning (cf. intrapersonal functioning, or getting along with ones self; interpersonal functioning, or getting along with others; and personal productivity, or getting things done). The Leadership Skills domain is added to the present model to include functioning specific to organizational life. In business terminology, the concept of skill has morphed into the concept of competence. As originally discussed by McClelland and his colleagues (e.g., McClelland & Boyatzis, 1982), a competency is a performance capability that distinguishes effective from ineffective personnel in a particular organization. McClelland defined competencies empirically, and they were specific to the requirements of a particular job in a particular context. This clear, specific, and rigorous definition has given way to ad hoc lists of

6 Recombinant Personality Measures 6 organizational competencies defined by committees. Rather than criticize the confusions surrounding the modern enthusiasm for competencies, we simply observe that all lists of competencies can be organized in terms of the Domain Model of Performance (Warrenfeltz, 1995). Specifically, every current competency model can be organized in terms of the four competency domains mentioned above: (1) Intrapersonal Skills, (2) Interpersonal Skills, (3) Work Skills, and (4) Leadership Skills. In our view, these four domains define the content of a career progression; they provide a basis for personnel selection, training, and performance evaluation. The domains also form a hierarchy of trainability, in which the earlier skills are harder to train and the later skills are easier to train. Intrapersonal Skills. The domain of Intrapersonal Skills is the traditional subject matter of psychoanalysis, but a detailed explication of that claim would take us too far afield. Intrapersonal skills develop early and have important consequences for career development in adulthood. This domain seems to have three natural components. The first can be described as core self-esteem (cf. Bowlby, 1969; Judge & Bono, 2001), emotional security, or perhaps resiliency. People with core self-esteem are self-confident, they have stable, positive moods, they are not easily frustrated or upset, and they bounce back quickly from reversals and disappointments. Persons who lack core self-esteem are self-critical, moody, unhappy, easily frustrated, hard to soothe, and need frequent reassurance and positive feedback. Core self-esteem is easily assessed using any wellvalidated measure of Big-Five emotional stability. Moreover, measures of core self-

7 Recombinant Personality Measures 7 esteem predict a wide variety of career outcomes, including job satisfaction and performance evaluations (Judge & Bono, 2001). The second component of Intrapersonal Skills concerns attitudes toward authority (Freud, 1921). Persons with positive attitudes toward authority follow rules and respect procedures; they are compliant, conforming, socially appropriate, and easy to supervise. Persons with negative attitudes toward authority ignore rules and violate procedures; they are rebellious, refractory, and hard to supervise. Attitudes toward authority are easily assessed using specific facets from well-validated measures of Big-Five emotional stability and conscientiousness (Hogan & Hogan, 1989) and predict a wide variety of career outcomes, including supervisors ratings of satisfactoriness. The third component of Intrapersonal Skills is self-control, the ability to restrain one s impulses, curb one s appetites, stay focused, maintain schedules, and follow routines. Persons with good self-control are self-disciplined, buttoned down, and abstemious. Persons with poor self-control are impulsive, self-indulgent, and undisciplined. Self-control is easily assessed using specific facets of Big-Five extraversion and conscientiousness, and measures of self-control predict a wide variety of career outcomes (Hogan & Holland, 2003). Intrapersonal Skills are the foundation on which many careers are built. Persons high on Intrapersonal Skills tend to project integrity, the first and perhaps the most important characteristic in employability. Intrapersonal Skills are the foundation for getting along with others because persons who act with integrity gain the reputation of being responsible, dependable, and trustworthy.

8 Recombinant Personality Measures 8 Interpersonal Skills. The domain of Interpersonal Skills is the traditional subject matter of role theory (Sarbin & Rosenberg, 1955), and, minimally, every social interaction requires an agenda and roles to be played. People high on the Interpersonal Skills domain seem poised, socially adept, approachable, and rewarding to deal with. There are four components to Interpersonal Skills. The first is a disposition to put oneself in the place of another person, to try to anticipate how that person sees the world and what he/she expects during an interaction. Mead (1934) referred to this as taking the role of the other. The second component is a skill and not a disposition; it involves getting it right when one tries to anticipate another person s expectations. This is the topic of accuracy in interpersonal perception (Funder, 2001), and it seems to be related to cognitive ability and social experience bright extraverts are more accurate than dull introverts. The third component of Interpersonal Skills involves incorporating the information about the other person s expectations into one s subsequent behavior. And the final component of Interpersonal Skills involves having the self-control to stay focused on the other person s expectations here the Interpersonal Skills domain overlaps with the Intrapersonal Skills domain. Interpersonal skills are concerned with initiating, building, and maintaining relationships with a variety of people who might differ from oneself in terms of age, gender, ethnicity, social class, or political agendas. Interpersonal skills are easily measured, and good measures of the interpersonal skills domain predict a wide range of occupational outcomes, including supervisory performance (cf. Hogan & Hogan, 2001;

9 Recombinant Personality Measures 9 Riggio, 1989). It is important to incorporate feedback about various interpersonal skills in training and career development initiatives. Work Skills. The domain of Work Skills differs from the preceding two domains in several ways. Work skills can be taught given requisite cognitive abilities, and in an important way, are the least dependent on the ability to deal productively with other people. Work Skills involve such activities as comparing, analyzing, synthesizing, operating, planning, organizing, instructing and the like. For the most part, these activities can be assessed using work simulations and assessment center exercises. They depend on cognitive ability rather than on interpersonal skill, and this is the reason people believe cognitive ability is important for learning most jobs with skill demands. To the degree that organizations select and evaluate employees on the basis of cognitive ability and technical skills, and ignore the other three competency domains, they ignore the human side of enterprise. Leadership Skills. The domain of Leadership Skills is perhaps the most extensively studied topic in management science (for a detailed review, see R. Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan, 1994). We believe that Leadership Skills can be understood in terms of five components which depend on intra- and interpersonal skills. Leadership skills involve building and maintaining effective teams. The first component of the Leadership Skills domain concerns attracting and recruiting talented people for a team. This involves identifying the talent the team actually needs and then persuading people with the requisite talent to join. The second component involves retaining talented personnel after they have been recruited and simply throwing money at people won t suffice. The third

10 Recombinant Personality Measures 10 component of Leadership Skills concerns motivating a team other things being equal, a motivated team will outperform a more talented but less motivated group. Recruiting, retaining, and motivating team members depend on building positive relationships with each team member a capability that vitally builds on the interpersonal skills developed earlier. The fourth component of the Leadership Skills domain concerns developing, projecting, and promoting a vision for the team. The vision legitimizes the team enterprise, and interpersonal skills are needed to sell it. Projecting and promoting a vision is the core of charisma; it is through the process of adopting a vision that people are able to transcend their selfish interests and develop what Durkheim (1925) called impersonal ends for their actions. Durkheim considered developing impersonal ends for one s actions to be an essential feature of moral conduct. Being persistent and hard to discourage encompass the final component of leadership skills. Persistence depends on core selfesteem, part of the Intrapersonal Skills domain. Relationship of the Domain Model to Other Models. The Domain Model subsumes other performance models. For example, we performed a search of leadership and managerial jobs on the Occupational Information Network (O*NET). The O*NET search resulted in 44 supervisory and managerial jobs, from which the most commonly listed job components were identified. These job components included Oral Communication, Reading Comprehension, Coordination, Critical Thinking, Management of Personnel Resources, Judgment and Decision Making, Written Communication, Problem Sensitivity, Active Listening, Mathematical Skills, Time Management, Social

11 Recombinant Personality Measures 11 Perceptiveness, Active Learning, and Creativity. In addition, numerous areas of technical and job knowledge, each specific to the particular type of supervisory job, were identified as important job components. These job components parallel criteria considered in the literature to be important components of supervisory performance. One well-known taxonomy of managerial performance was developed by Borman and Brush (1993). These authors grouped 18 important supervisory criteria into four broader categories of performance: (a) useful personal behavior and skills, (b) interpersonal dealings and communications, (c) leadership and supervision, and (d) technical activities and the mechanics of management. Table 3 maps the dimensions of the four domains for each performance taxonomy, as well as the job components identified through the O*NET review that conceptually correspond with each performance category. Alignment with the Domain Model. The Domain Model works well to categorize criteria predicted by bright side personality measures (e.g., HPI) as shown in Table 4. This table shows HPI factors that have been found to correlate with performance criteria that fit within each of the four dimensions of the Domain Model (Hogan & Holland, 2003). Additionally, the Domain Model provides a taxonomy for categorizing criteria predicted by dark side measures. The derailment literature (McCall & Lombardo, 1983; Bentz, 1985; Leslie & Van Velsor, 1996) suggests that failure can be classified in terms of at least four themes, each of which is represented in the Domain Model of Performance. Building on previous research (Fleming & Holland, 2004; Najar, Holland, & Van Landuyt, 2004; Hogan & Hogan, 1997), dark side characteristics, as measured by the HDS, are related to criteria mapped to the Domain Model as presented in Table 5. These

12 Recombinant Personality Measures 12 relationships are based on sample weighted correlations for job components from synthetic validation research conducted with the Hogan Assessment System Archive. To date, no studies have examined the combined validities of bright and dark side measures. While the validity of measures of normal personality (i.e., bright side measures) has been established through extensive research, dark side measures not only assess characteristics that fall outside of the range of normal personality, but have also been found to be predictive of job performance. HDS scales that are predictive of behaviors that fall within a specific domain, therefore, contribute to the variance in job performance accounted for by HPI measures that also are predictive of behaviors within the same domain. We propose that for each of the relationships between the HPI scales and the competency domains in Table 4, adding the aligned HDS dimensions from Table 5 to the predictive model will add incremental validity to the prediction of competence in the given domain. Predicted Relationships First, the Adjustment and Prudence dimensions of the HPI are aligned predictors of criteria in the Intrapersonal Skills domain. This is supported empirically through the meta-analytic research (Hogan & Holland, 2003) and conceptually by psychoanalytic and socioanalytic theories. Low scores on these dimensions indicate an inability to get along with ones self. Likewise, the Excitable, Skeptical, Cautious, Reserved, Leisurely, Bold, Mischievous and Imaginative dimensions of the HDS are aligned predictors of criteria in the Intrapersonal Skills domain. These aligned dark side dimensions add incrementally to

13 Recombinant Personality Measures 13 the predictive value of the aligned bright side dimensions for criteria prediction in this domain. H 1 : The aligned HDS dimensions will add incremental validity over aligned HPI dimensions in the prediction of job behaviors within the Intrapersonal Skills domain. Second, the Adjustment, Interpersonal Sensitivity and Prudence dimensions of the HPI are aligned predictors of criteria in the Interpersonal Skills domain. This is supported empirically through the meta-analytic research (Hogan & Holland, 2003) and conceptually by psychoanalytic and socioanalytic theories. Excitable, Skeptical, Cautious, Reserved, Leisurely, Bold, Imaginative and Diligent are aligned dimensions of the HDS that predict criteria in the Interpersonal Skills domain. These aligned dark side dimensions add incrementally to the predictive value of the aligned bright side dimensions for criteria categorized as getting along with others. H 2 : The aligned HDS dimensions will add incremental validity over aligned HPI dimensions in the prediction of job behaviors within the Interpersonal Skills domain. Third, the Prudence and Learning Approach dimensions of the HPI are aligned predictors of criteria in the Work Skills domain. These relationships are supported empirically through meta-analytic research (Hogan & Holland, 2003) and by socioanalytic theory. Leaders and managers with higher performance in this domain will be more conscientious and trainable. Excitable, Skeptical, Cautious, Reserved, Leisurely, Mischievous, Colorful, Imaginative, Diligent, and Dutiful are aligned dimensions of the

14 Recombinant Personality Measures 14 HDS that predict criteria in the Work Skills domain. These aligned dark side dimensions add incrementally to the predictive value of the aligned bright side dimensions for criteria categorized as getting things done. H 3 : The aligned HDS dimensions will add incremental validity over aligned HPI dimensions in the prediction of job behaviors within the Work Skills domain. Fourth, the Ambition and Inquisitive dimensions of the HPI are aligned predictors of criteria in the Leadership Skills domain. These relationships are supported empirically through meta-analytic research (Hogan & Holland, 2003) and by our experiences in leadership development studies. Excitable, Skeptical, Cautious, Reserved, Leisurely, Bold, Mischievous, Imaginative, and Diligent are aligned dimensions of the HDS that predict criteria in the Leadership Skills domain. These aligned dark side dimensions add incrementally to the predictive value of the aligned bright side dimensions for criteria categorized within leadership competence. H4: The aligned HDS dimensions will add incremental validity over aligned HPI dimensions in the prediction of job behaviors within the Leadership Skills domain. Methods The Hogan Personality Inventory Based on the Big Five and designed to predict occupational performance, the HPI (R. Hogan & Hogan, 1995) is an un-timed, 206-item personality measure. The HPI is composed of seven primary scales and one validity scale (the HPI scales were defined previously in Table 1). R. Hogan and Hogan point out that the HPI measures

15 Recombinant Personality Measures 15 characteristics that facilitate or inhibit a person s ability to get along with others and achieve job-relevant goals i.e., get ahead. The seven primary scales are composed of 41 Homogenous Item Composites (HICs). A HIC consists of a small group of items that forms a sub-theme of a broader scale. The number of HICs per scale ranges from four (Learning Approach) to eight (Adjustment). HPI scales demonstrate adequate psychometric qualities (Lobello, 1998), with internal-consistency reliability coefficients ranging between.71 (Interpersonal Sensitivity) and.89 (Adjustment), and test-retest reliability coefficients (assessed over a 4-week period) ranging from.74 (Prudence) to.86 (Adjustment). In addition, the HPI is a rigorously validated instrument that predicts job performance across organizations (Axford, 1996; R. Hogan & Hogan, 1995; J. Hogan & Holland, 2003). In addition to the HPI s psychometric properties and its demonstrated validity in occupational settings, the HPI relates closely to other Big Five measures (see Figure 1). The Hogan Development Survey The HDS (Hogan & Hogan, 1997) is a self-report measure that consists of 154 items across 11 scales (see Table 2) that measure dysfunctional interpersonal dispositions (Hogan & Hogan, 1997). Respondents indicate whether they agree or disagree with items. Items are written at a fifth-grade reading level. The HDS possesses psychometric properties with coefficient alphas ranging between.50 (Dutiful) and.78 (Excitable). Additionally, test-retest reliabilities range between.58 (Leisurely) and.87 (Excitable).

16 Recombinant Personality Measures 16 Hogan and Hogan (2001) classify the 11 interpersonal flaws into three large factors: (1) tendency to blow up (i.e., move against people or Excitable, Skeptical, Cautious, Reserved, and Leisurely), (2) show off (i.e., move against people or Bold, Mischievous, Colorful, and Imaginative) and (3) Conform when under pressure (i.e., move towards people or Diligent, Dutiful). Sample To test the combined validities of the bright and dark side characteristics, studies from the Hogan Assessment Systems criterion-related validity archive were sampled. Publications, conference presentations, technical reports, chapters, and dissertations conducted between 1995 and 2005 were reviewed. Studies met four criteria for inclusion. First, all were criterion-related validity studies involving management level positions or above and included the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI; Hogan & Hogan, 1995) and the Hogan Development Survey (HDS; Hogan & Hogan, 1997). Given the scarcity of criterion-related validity studies using dark side measures, particularly those that also included a bright side measure, no studies other than those using the HDS and HPI were available. Second, samples consisted of employees of the organization in which the research occurred. This step prevented inclusion of students and clinical patients, which could have limited the generalizability of the results. Third, studies included productivity/personnel indices (e.g., absenteeism, productivity, or commendations) or supervisor evaluations of job performance. Finally, studies contained criteria that could be mapped to the Domain Model of Performance and did not rely solely on an overall performance index (cf. Hogan & Holland, 2003). Based upon these criterion, a total of 5

17 Recombinant Personality Measures 17 studies were used to provide data for this research (N = 838). Table 6 presents Information relating to each of the studies from which data was obtained. Table 7 presents correlations between measures of the HPI and HDS from the largest dataset used for this project. Performance Criteria Each of the five studies in the sample included n > 1 criteria none of which were single item measures. For each study, available criteria were mapped to the four domains in the competency model based on expert judgments. While measures varied by sample, each dataset provided criteria fitting within at least three of the four competencies in the Domain Model. Two Ph.D. level I/O psychologists independently assigned the criteria to domains. Two disagreements were resolved through a consensus process. Four of the five studies also included an overall performance criterion; these criteria were used to test the incremental validity of the HDS over that of HPI in predicting overall job performance. Procedures for Combining HPI with HDS Based on the relationships reported in Tables 4 and 5, a hierarchical linear regression model was developed to test the incremental validity of adding the HDS to the HPI for predicting leadership and managerial competence in each of the four domains. For each criterion in each of the studies, the apriori model was tested. The aligned HPI dimensions were entered in the first step of the model and the aligned HDS dimensions were entered in the second step of the regression model. Hypotheses were tested by examining incremental validities associated with the second step of the model, thereby

18 Recombinant Personality Measures 18 reflecting the percentage of variance accounted for by related HDS dimensions above and beyond the variance accounted for by related HPI dimensions for each domain. Results Results of testing our apriori regression models are presented in Table 8, which displays results for regression analyses conducted on criterion variables examined from each of the five datasets. These results are sorted by domain. Average R 2 coefficients for step 1 of each regression equation (associated with results using all related HPI scales), step 2 of each equation (associated with results from adding all related HDS scales to the equation), and incremental validity (showing the increase from step 1 to step 2) are presented. As shown in Table 8, average incremental validity increases resulting from adding HDS measures were higher for each of the four domains than for validity accounted by HPI measures alone. Examination of corrected validity coefficients reveals that average incremental validity increases (R 2 -Change =.27) were more than twice as high as the variance predicted from HPI scales alone (R 2 =.11) for the Intrapersonal Skills domain, thereby supporting Hypotheses 1. Similar results were found for the Interpersonal Skills domain, with average incremental validity (R 2 -Change =.26) being more than three times as high as validity predicted using HPI scales along (R 2 =.07), thereby supporting Hypotheses 2. Average incremental validity increases (R 2 -Change =.29) were again more than twice as high as the variance predicted from HPI scales alone (R 2 =.11) for the Work Skills domain, thereby supporting Hypotheses 3. Finally, average incremental validity increases (R 2 -Change =.20) were again twice as high as the variance predicted from HPI

19 Recombinant Personality Measures 19 scales alone (R 2 =.10) for the Leadership Skills domain, thereby supporting Hypotheses 4. Results for overall performance criterion variables were also examined. These results showed a similar pattern, with average incremental validity increases (R 2 -Change =.31) that were more than twice as high as the variance predicted from HPI scales alone (R 2 =.14). Taken together, these results strongly indicate that the use of HDS scales could dramatically improve prediction of a variety of job performance variables as compared to using HPI scales alone. Discussion In managerial and leadership positions, potential augmentations to the predictive relationships for aligned HPI dimensions presented in Table 3 are the HDS constructs. The HDS constructs identify breaking points and dysfunctional dispositions that can derail an individual s career, and the tendencies that appear after prolonged exposure, during stress, or as a result of heavy workloads. We have found in several validity studies that the HDS scales are powerful predictors of performance in management and leadership positions usually in a negative direction. Based on previous meta-analytic research, we posited a regression model for each of four competency domains. Each model included aligned HPI dimensions in the first step and aligned HDS dimensions in the second step. We found, as expected, that the aligned HPI dimensions predicted significant amounts of variance in criteria within each of the four domains. Further, we found that in most cases, the aligned HDS scales predicted significant amounts of variance in criteria within each of the four domains. Finally, the HDS dimensions accounted for over twice as much variance in criteria within

20 Recombinant Personality Measures 20 a domain, over and above the aligned HPI dimensions, in each of the four domains. These findings support all four hypotheses posited in this study. The same pattern of results was also found when measures of overall performance were used as criteria. These results strongly suggest that dark side personality constructs could be used to dramatically improve the percentage of variance in job performance accounted for in leadership positions when used in conjunction with more common bright side personality measures. While the results of this study were very promising, a number of limitations and directions for future research should be noted. First, three of the five datasets used in this study contained sample sizes of less than 100 individuals. While the fact that the pattern of results found across studies was similar regardless of sample size is encouraging, future research should focus on obtaining and evaluating the use of HDS scales with data from a greater number of individuals. In addition, we would encourage future research to utilize meta-analytical methods for combining results from multiple studies regardless of sample size as data from more studies becomes available. Larger sample sizes from a greater number of individual studies could also be used to specify HDS scales that are most relevant to various performance domains. While the results of the current study indicate that a synthetic validation procedure is one way in which HDS scales can be adequately aligned with performance domains, other procedures, such as meta-analysis and regression, may also be useful. Future research should examine such techniques to determine if specific HDS measures that have the highest utility in predicting job performance within given domains can be identified.

21 Recombinant Personality Measures 21 Limiting the number of HDS scales that can be used to predict specific areas of performance could prove valuable in generalizing results from one sample to another. It would also be worthwhile for future research to utilize analytical techniques for combining correlations, such as meta-analyses, that would allow for the significance testing of coefficients produced from multiple samples. While the R 2 averages presented in Table 8 are adequate for supporting the hypotheses proposed in this study, the degree to which HDS scales provide incremental validity over HPI scales for each of the four competency domains examined could be more adequately assessed through conducting meta-analyses from a larger number of studies. Our results clearly indicate that further work is warranted in this area.

22 Recombinant Personality Measures 22 References Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & Goldberg, L. R. (2004). A hierarchical analysis of 1,1710 Engilsh Personality-Descriptive Adjectives. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 87, Axford, S. N. (1996). Review of the Hogan Personality Inventory (Revised). In J. C. Impara & J. C. Coloney (Eds.), The Supplement to the Twelfth Mental Measurements Yearbook. Lincoln, NB: The University of Nebraska Press. Barrick, M. R. & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Selection, 44, Bentz, V. (1985). A view from the top: A thirty year perspective of research devoted to the discovery, description, and prediction of executive behavior. Paper presented at the 92 nd Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles, August. Borman, W. C., & Brush, D. H. (1993). More progress toward a taxonomy of managerial performance requirements. Human Performance, 6, Bowlby, J. (1969). Disruption of affectional bonds and its effects on behavior. Canada s Mental Health Supplement, 59, 12. Davies, S., & Wadlington, P. (2005). A 7-Factor Model for Personality. Manuscript in progress for publication. Durkheimh, E. (1925). L Educational morale. Paris: Libraries Felix Alcan. Fleming, B., & Holland, B. (2002, April). How dark side personality factors impact performance ratings: A meta-analysis. Paper presented at the 17 th Annual

23 Recombinant Personality Measures 23 Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Freud, S. (1921). One of the difficulties of psycho-analysis. Journal of Mental Science, 67, Funder, D. C. (2001). Accuracy in personality judgment. In B.W. Roberts & R. Hogan (Eds.), Personality psychology in the workplace: Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Harkness, A. R., McNulty, J. L., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (1995). The personality psychopathology five (PSY-5): Construct and MMPI-2 scales. Psychological Assessment, 7, Hazucha, J. F., (1991). Success, jeopardy, and performance: Contrasting managerial outcomes and their predictors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. Hogan, J., & Hogan, R. (1989). How to measure employee reliability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, Hogan, J. & Holland, B. (2003). Using theory to evaluate personality and job-performance relations: A socioanalytic perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, Hogan, R. (1983). A socioanalytic theory of personality. In M. M. Page (Ed.), 1982 Nebraska Symposium on motivation (pp 55-89). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

24 Recombinant Personality Measures 24 Hogan, R. (1994). Trouble at the top: Causes and consequences of managerial incompetence. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research. 46, Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership: Effectiveness and personality. American Psychologist, 49, Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (1995). Hogan Personality Inventory manual. (2nd ed.). Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems. Hogan, R. & Hogan, J. (1997). Hogan Developmental Survey Manual. Tulsa: Hogan Assessment Systems. Hogan, R. & Hogan, J. (2001). Assessing leadership: A view from the dark side. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, Hogan, R. & Warrenfeltz, W. (2003). Educating the modern manager. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2, Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Illies, R., & Gerhart, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits selfesteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, Leslie, J. & Van Velsor, E. (1996). A look at derailment today: North America and Europe. Greensboro: Center for Creative Leadership.

25 Recombinant Personality Measures 25 Lombardo, M. M., Ruderman, M. N., & McCauley, C. D. (1988). Explanations of success and derailment in upper-level management positions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 2, McCall, M. & Lombardo, M. (1983). Off the track: Why and how successful executives get derailed (Tech. Rep. No. 21). Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership. McClelland, D. C., & Boyatzis, R. E. (1982) Leadership motive pattern and long-term success in management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Najar, M. J., Holland, B. D., & Van Landuyt, C. R. (2004, April). Individual differences in leadership derailment. Paper presented at the 19 th annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago, Illinois. Riggio, R. E. (1989). Social skills inventory manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Salgado, J. F. (1997). The five factor model of personality and job performance in the European community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, Sarbin, T. R., & Rosenberg, B. G. (1955) Contributions to role-taking theorgy: IV. A method for obtaining a qualitative estimate of the self. Journal of Social Psychology, 42, Strupp, H. H. (1996). The tripartite model and the Consumer Reports study. American Psychologist, 51, Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N. & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as predictors of job performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 44,

26 Recombinant Personality Measures 26 Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1961). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings (ASD-TR-61-97). Lackland Air Force Base, TX: Aeronautical Systems Division, Personnel Laboratory. Warrenfeltz, R. B. (1995). An executive-level validation of the Borman and Brush taxonomy. Paper presented at the 10 th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL.

27 Recombinant Personality Measures 27 Figure 1. Relation between HPI and Big-Five Inventories Figure 1. Relation between HPI and Big-Five Inventories Neuroticism Median r =.73 Adjustment Extraversion Median r =.56 Median r =.62 Ambition Sociability Agreeableness Median r =.50 Interpersonal Sensitivity Conscientiousness Median r =.51 Prudence Openness Median r =.57 Median r =.30 Inquisitive Learning Approach Note: Median correlation coefficients summarize HPI relations with the NEO PI-R (Goldberg, 2000), Goldberg s (1992) Big-Five Markers (R. Hogan & Hogan, 1995), Personal Characteristics Inventory (Mount & Barrick, 2001), and the Inventario de Personalidad de Cinco Factores (Salgado & Moscoso, 1999). The ranges of correlates are as follows: Adjustment/Emotional Stability/Neuroticism (.66 to.81); Ambition/Extraversion/Surgency (.39 to.60); Sociability/ Extraversion/Surgency (.44 to.64); Interpersonal Sensitivity/Agreeableness (.22 to.61); Prudence/Conscientiousness (.36 to.59); Inquisitive/Openness/Intellect (.33 to.69); Learning Approach/Openness/Intellect (.05 to.35).

28 Recombinant Personality Measures 28 Table 1. HPI Scale Definitions Scale Name Definition The degree to which a person seems. Adjustment Ambition Sociability Interpersonal Sensitivity Prudence Inquisitive Learning Approach calm and self-accepting self-confident and competitive to need or enjoy social interaction perceptive, tactful, and sensitive conscientious and conforming creative and interested in problems to value learning for its own sake

29 Recombinant Personality Measures 29 Table 2. HDS Scale Definitions Scale Name Definition Concerns seeming. Excitable moody and inconsistent Skeptical cynical and distrustful Cautious reluctant to change or take calculated risks Reserved socially withdrawn Leisurely autonomous and indifferent to requests Bold unusually self-confident Mischievous willing to take risks and test the limits Colorful expressive, dramatic, and attention seeking Imaginative to act and think in creative and unusual ways Diligent careful, precise, and critical of others Dutiful eager to please and reliant on others The HDS Manual (R. Hogan & Hogan, 1997)

30 Recombinant Personality Measures 30 Table 3. Conceptual Similarity of Managerial Performance Taxonomies and Leadership and Managerial Job Components Performance Taxonomies Borman & Brush (1993) Hogan & Warrenfeltz (2003) Intrapersonal Skills: Personal behavior and skills: Self-confidence Persisting to reach goals Resiliency Handling crises and stress Integrity Organizational commitment Compliance/Conformity Compliance Self-control/Self-discipline/Focus Job Components Identified through O*NET Review Time management Interpersonal dealings and communication: Communicating effectively Representing the organization to customers and the public Maintaining good working relationships Selling/Influencing Interpersonal Skills: Perspective-taking/Empathy Initiating, building, and maintaining relationships Respect for diversity Oral communication Written communication Active listening Social perceptiveness Leadership and supervision: Guiding, directing, and motivating subordinates Providing feedback Training, coaching, and developing subordinates Coordinating subordinates and other resources Leadership Skills: Building and maintaining effective teams Identifying talented team members Recruiting, retaining, and motivating team members Developing, projecting, and promoting a vision Coordination Management of personnel resources Technical activities and the mechanics of management : Planning and organizing Technical proficiency Administration and paperwork Decision making/problem solving Staffing Monitoring and controlling resources Delegating Collecting and interpreting data Work Skills: Planning and organizing Monitoring Forecasting Mapping strategies Evaluating performance Running meetings Technical knowledge and skill Trainability Problem recognition and identification Judgment and problem solving Reading comprehension Critical thinking Judgment and decision making Problem sensitivity Math skills Active learning Creativity Technical skills Job knowledge

31 Recombinant Personality Measures 31 Table 4 HPI Factors Correlating with Performance Dimension within the Domain Model Domain HPI Scale Example Behaviors p Intrapersonal Skills Adjustment Shows Resiliency 0.43 Prudence Stays Organized 0.32 Interpersonal Skills Interpersonal Sensitivity Shows Interpersonal Skills 0.34 Adjustment Manages People 0.34 Prudence Works with Integrity 0.31 Work Skills Leadership Skills Learning Approach Makes Progress in Training 0.25 Prudence Abides by Rules 0.36 Inquisitive Achieves Quality with Information 0.34 Ambition Takes Initiative 0.35

32 Recombinant Personality Measures 32 Table 5 HDS Factors Correlating with Performance Dimensions within the Domain Model Domain HPI Scale Example Behaviors r Intrapersonal Excitable Time Management Skills Skeptical Pursinging Self Development Cautious Motivation & Commitment Reserved Driving for Results Leisurely Time Management Bold Pursinging Self Development Mischievous Time Management Imaginative Emotional Maturity Interpersonal Excitable Persuation Skills Skills Skeptical Teamwork Cautious Persuation Skills Reserved Customer Focus Leisurely Persuation Skills Bold Teamwork Imaginative Customer Focus 0.18 Diligent Teamwork Work Skills Excitable Dealing with Complexity Skeptical Dealing with Complexity Cautious Decision Making Reserved Communicating Business Concepts Leisurely Allocating & Leveraging Resources Mischievous Planning & Organizing Colorful Communicating Business Concepts 0.21 Imaginative Dealing with Complexity Diligent Dealing with Complexity Dutiful Reading Comprehension Leadership Skills Excitable Strategic Visioning Skeptical Team Development, Coaching Cautious Strategic Visioning Reserved Problem Sensitivity Leisurely Developing & Supporting People Bold Delegating & Monitoring Mischievous Sponsoring Change 0.17 Imaginative Problem Sensitivity 0.18 Diligent Sponsoring Change -0.20

33 Recombinant Personality Measures 33 Table 6. Distribution of Studies Based on DoL Codes and Job Titles Study Number N O*NET-SOC Codes Job Titles Project Manager, Superintendent, Estimator Industry Description Construction Terminal Manager Freight Transportation Dispatcher, Supervisor Building Materials Account Manager Chemical Distribution Manager Delivery Services

34 Recombinant Personality Measures 34 Table 7 Correlations between HPI and HDS scales from largest dataset Adjustment Ambition Sociability Interpersonal Sensitivity Prudence Inquisitive Learning Approach Excitable ** ** ** ** ** ** Skeptical ** ** 0.27 ** 0.27 ** ** ** Cautious ** ** ** ** ** ** Reserved ** ** ** ** * Leisurely ** ** ** * Bld ** 0.44 ** 0.32 ** ** 0.26 ** Mischievievous ** 0.14 * 0.38 ** 0.19 ** ** 0.19 ** Colorful ** 0.61 ** 0.36 ** ** 0.37 ** 0.11 Imaginative * ** ** 0.06 Diligent * ** ** * 0.33 ** Dutiful ** ** * * ** N = 336 **Correlation is significant at p < 0.01 *Correlation is significant at p < 0.05

35 Recombinant Personality Measures 35 Table 8 Regression Analysis Results Intrapersonal Skills Domain Uncorrected Corrected Uncorrected Corrected Corrected Study S1 S2 # N Criterion Name S1 R R S1 R 2 p S2 R R S2 R 2 p Inc. R 2 p Results Orientation Stress Tollerance Dependability Even Tempered Achievement Orientation Integrity Flexibility MRD Self Leadership Averages Interpersonal Skills Domain Uncorrected Corrected Uncorrected Corrected Corrected Study S1 S2 # N Criterion Name S1 R R S1 R 2 p S2 R R S2 R 2 p Inc. R 2 p People Skills Service Orientation Communication Citizenship Trust Communication Customer Service Citizenship Trustworthiness Team Player Customer Service Communication Averages Work Skills Domain Uncorrected Corrected Uncorrected Corrected Corrected Study # N Criterion Name S1 R S1 R S1 R 2 p S2 R S2 R S2 R 2 p Inc. R 2 p Management / Admin Technical Skills Technical Skills Administration Problem Solving Sales Orientation MRD Results Leadership Averages