201335883-026

7/25/2019 201335883-026

1/20

619

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/14343-028APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology: Vol. 4. Personality Processes and Individual Differences,M. Mikulincer and P. R. Shaver (Editors-in-Chief)Copyright 2015 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.

C H A P T E R 2 8

PERSONALITY AND CAREER SUCCESS

Robert Hogan and Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic

Freud defined maturity as the capacity to love and to

work; a successful career often does wonders for a

persons love life, and for Freud, that was all that

mattered. Although academics trace modern person-

ality psychology back to Allports (1937) textbook,

applied psychologists have been studying personality

and career success for more than 80 years (May,

1932), and books by Stagner (1937) and Murray

(1938) were equally important foundations of mod-

ern personality psychology. Stagner (president of

the American Psychological Association Division 8

[Society for Personality and Social Psychology] and

Division 14 [Society for Industrial and Organiza-

tional Psychology]) studied personality and labor

relations; Murray brought to United States the

assessment center method developed by the German

Army for elite personnel selection (Wiggins, 1973).

David McClelland, best known in academic circles

for work with Murrays Thematic Apperception Test

(1943), is famous in applied psychology for creating

the modern competency movement in performance

appraisal (McClelland, 1973; Boyatzis, 2008). Finally,

Holland (1985), arguably the most important occupa-

tional psychologist of the 20th century, considered his

work to be nothing more than an extension of personal-

ity psychology into the study of careers (cf. Armstrong,

Sue, & Rounds, 2011). Thus, there is a long-standing

connection between personality and occupational psy-

chology (Cronbach, 1957; Kelly & Fiske, 1951).

Although Mischels (1968) book stifled personal-

ity research for almost 20 years, the study of the

practical consequences of individual differences in

personality rebounded in the early 1990s (Ozer &

Benet-Martinez, 2006). Consider the major prob-

lems facing modern society: dropout rates in educa-

tion, unemployment, poverty, substance abuse,

crime, financial fraud, managerial failure, military

incompetence, low rates of technological innova-

tion, and corporate misbehavior. For each issue,

there are well-established analytical methods and

bodies of empirical findings in personality psychol-

ogy relevant to their understanding. Thus,

assessment-based personality research is an indis-

pensable resource for discussions of public policy.

The subject of personality and career success

combines the core features of personality research:

technically competent assessment methods, a focus

on individual differences, and the search for

guidelines to enhance individual and organizational

performance. This chapter summarizes what we

know about the topic.

The next section defines our terms and outlines a

conceptual model intended to account for individual

differences in career success. The model provides an

overview that should be useful for interpreting the

literature on personality and occupational perfor-

mance in the third section. The final section offers

some generalizations and summarizes this

somewhat-complex argument.

DEFINING TERMS

Research on personality and career success exploded

in the early 1990s, but the literature lacks a coherent

definition of the key term (personality). How

personality is defined drives all subsequent analyses

7/25/2019 201335883-026

2/20

Hogan and Chamorro-Premuzic

620

and discussion. Our view is as follows. First, it is

important to distinguish between intrapersonaland

interpersonaltheories of personality because they

lead to very different interpretations of research

results. For intrapersonal theories from Freud to

Allport, the big problem in life concerns learning to

live with oneselfa prerequisite for being able tolive with other people. For interpersonal theories

from Mead to Kelly, the big problem in life concerns

learning to live with other peoplewhich makes it

possible to live with oneself (R. Hogan, 2007). For

intrapersonal theories, social interaction is a conse-

quence of intrapsychic processes; for interpersonal

theory, intrapsychic processes are the result of past

social interaction.

These two traditions also conceptualize traits

quite differently. Following Allport (1937), intraper-

sonal theory assumes traits are real neuropsychicstructures that cause behavior (including how peo-

ple endorse items on personality questionnaires).

We find this view problematical for two reasons.

First, neuropsychic structures are hard to study,

although researchers are studying physiological cor-

relates of personality test scores (Hammon-Jones &

Beer, 2009). But more important, intrapersonal the-

ory uses traits both to predict and to explain behav-

ior, which is a tautology.

In contrast, interpersonal theory defines traits as

terms that people use to describe others, based onobserved regularities in their behavior. In this view,

people use trait terms to (a) predict how others will

behave and (b) characterize other peoples reputa-

tions or construct their psychological profiles. Thus,

intrapersonal theory equates prediction and expla-

nation, whereas interpersonal theory distinguishes

between them. Consider, for example, Mike Tyson,

the former heavy-weight boxing champion of the

world. Mike Tyson is known to be aggressive. Intra-

personal theory would say that Mike Tyson is

aggressive because he has a trait for aggression(which might be found in particular brain-imaging

patterns); interpersonal theory would say only that

Mike Tyson has a reputation for being aggressive;

the explanation for this lies elsewhere (but it might

include biological factors).

Intrapersonal theory (Allport, 1937; Freud,

1943) represents the mainstream of personality

psychology, and few textbooks mention interper-

sonal theory (cf. R. Hogan & Smither, 2008;

Larsen & Buss, 2010), perhaps because it is

associated with sociology (cf. Sarbin, 1954). None-

theless, interpersonal theory represents a robust

intellectual tradition extending from Smith

(1759/1959) to the present day (R. Hogan & Blickle,in press); moreover, because it is concerned with

individual differences in effective social behavior,

interpersonal theory lends itself nicely to the

analysis of careers.

Following May (1932) and MacKinnon (1944),

we define personality from two perspectives:

(a) how people think about themselves (their identity),

and (b) how others think about them (their reputa-

tion; R. Hogan & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2011).

Research on identity, with the exception of Hol-

lands (1985) work, has been rather unproductive.The reason seems obviousto study identity, we

must rely on peoples reports about how they think

about themselves, but these reports are, by defini-

tion, unverifiable. Our solution is to define identity

in terms of values (which includes career interests);

we do this for three reasons. First, scores on mea-

sures of values and career interests are surprisingly

stable over time (Low & Rounds, 2007). Second,

people seem proud of their values and pleased to

talk about them (Holland, 1985). And third, peo-

ples values determine how well they fit with theculture of a team or an organization where they

must work (Schneider & Smith, 2004), and this

then will affect their career success.

Nonetheless, reputation predicts career success

better than identity. Because the best predictor of

future behavior is past behavior and because reputa-

tion is a summary of a persons past behavior, repu-

tation is the best data source we have regarding a

persons future behavior. Reputation is relatively

easy to study using observer descriptions: rating

forms, Q-sorts, 360 appraisals, and assessment cen-ter exercises. In addition, reputation is immensely

consequentialit is the basis on which people hire

you, promote you, loan you money, confide in you,

or reject you (cf. Hofstee, 1994). Smart players in

the game of life take pains to keep their reputations

in good shape, and bad things happen when they do

not. In addition, we have a robust taxonomy of

7/25/2019 201335883-026

3/20

Personality and Career Success

621

reputation: the Five-Factor Model (FFM; Wiggins,

1996), which is based on factor-analytic studies of

observer ratings. Applied personality research

organized in terms of the FFM has been quite pro-

ductive since the early 1990s (Chamorro-Premuzic &

Furnham, 2010).

The concepts of identity and reputation frameour definition of the structureof personality. Our

definition of the dynamicsof personality, as shown

in Table 28.1, requires a quick sojourn into sociol-

ogy, anthropology, and evolutionary theory, one

that reveals three important generalizations: (a)

people always live in groups, (b) every human group

has a status hierarchy, and (c) every society has a

religion or formal system of meaning (Boehm, 1999;

Wade, 2006, 2009). These universal characteristics

of human societies have survival significance and are

underpinned by human motivation. Specifically, webelieve that people share three universal needs:

(a) social acceptance and approval; (b) status, power,

and the control of resources; and (c) structure,

meaning, and predictability. It follows that people

are inherently stressed by (a) rejection, (b) loss of

status, and (c) uncertainty. We can summarize our

model of personality dynamics by saying that the

major goals in life concern getting along, getting

ahead, and finding meaning. In industrial nations,

these three goals often are attained at workand

when work is not available, people suffer badly.

Moreover, economic changes have transformed thenature of employment for millions of people in the

industrial world in uncomfortable ways. Thus, jobs

have become more short-term, unpredictable, and

sporadicwhich means that, for employees, being

employable is more important than being employed

(R. Hogan & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2013). Perhaps

more important, career success and subjective

well-being are inseparable.

CAREER SUCCESS

Careers can be analyzed in terms of the two phases

of employability: (a) getting a job and (b) keeping a

job (Baruch & Bozionelos, 2011). To get a job

requires having something that employers want;

to keep a job requires making a boss happy.

TABLE 28.1

Dynamics of Personality and Career Success: The Big Picture

Universals

of human

society

Universal human

needs

(master motives)

Universal

human

stressors

Individual differences

in personality: reputation

taxonomies

Career

implications

I/O criteria

(corporate

assessments)

HPI FFM Digman

Living ingroups

Socialacceptanceand approval;Getting along

Rejection Adjustment,interpersonalsensitivity,sociability,prudence

Agreeableness,neuroticism,conscientiousness

Alpha Rewardingto deal with

Pleasingyour boss;Subjective

performance

Groupswith a

hierarchyand leader

Status,power,and resourcecontrol;

Getting ahead

LossofStatus

Ambition Gets stuffdone

Productivity;Objective

performance

Religion orformalsystem ofmeaning

Structure,order, andpredictability;Finding

meaning

Uncertainty Inquisitive,learningapproach

Extraversion,openness

Beta Sharesorganizationalvalues

Personenvironmentfit; Engagementsurveys

Note.FFM = Five-Factor Model; HPI = Hogan Personality Inventory.

7/25/2019 201335883-026

4/20


622

The empirical literature on Phase 1 of employability

can be quickly reviewed; the literature on Phase 2,

which concerns career success, is more complicated.

Getting a JobGetting a job requires having something that

employers want. What do employers want? Twopapers provide some data. First, Boudreau, Boswell,

and Judge (2001) reported that a search firms rat-

ings of a candidates employability were the best

single predictor of that persons subsequent com-

pensation (N1885; r.22). This suggests that

(a) employability is something that can be rated

reliably based on interviews, (b) ratings of employ-

ability are valid predictors of career outcomes, and

(c) employability can be studied empirically. But

what must candidates do to signal their

employability?Noe, Hollenbeck, Gerhart, and Wright (1994)

noted that organizations often recruit job applicants

using want ads, and the ads tell us what employers

look for in new hires. J. Hogan and Brinkmeyer (1994)

subscribed to newspapers (Los Angeles Times, Dallas

Morning News) from the nine U.S. Census Bureau

regions for 6 months and copied every employment

ad (N6326). They then content analyzed the ads.

Overall, 47% of the ads required good interpersonal

skills, and these were deemed essential for 71% of

the jobs involving client contact, 78% of the jobsrequiring coworker interaction, 83% of the jobs

involving subordinate interaction, and 84% of the

jobs requiring management interaction. Thus,

from the employers perspective, the most

important characteristic affecting employability is

interpersonal skill.

As P. Brown and Hesketh (2004) noted, employers

understand that self-presentational skills are the key

to employability, and these include posture, ges-

ture, use of personal space, facial characteristics and

eye contact (p. 96) during interviews and meetings.Similarly, a survey of the top 222 U.K. graduate

recruiters revealed that (a) employers focus more on

soft skills (e.g., teamwork, interpersonal skills,

and cultural awareness) than academic credentials,

and (b) there are not enough graduates with ade-

quate interpersonal skills to fill the jobs available

(Taylor, 2006).

Employers want employees (at every level) who

know how to get along with coworkers and clients.

And individual differences in the ability to get along

can be inferred validly from employment interviews

or can be assessed using various psychometric

procedures.

Keeping a JobThe literature on personality and career success is

extensive and most reviews are atheoretical. The lit-

erature can be best understood by specifying models

of the predictor and the criterion space. Specifically,

if the principle dynamic in occupational life con-

cerns efforts to get along and get ahead, then the

best predictors should assess individual differences

in the ability to do just that. Similarly, the underly-

ing structure of criterion variables should reflect

evaluations of a persons success at getting along andgetting ahead.

On the basis of extensive meta-analytic data,

Ackerman and Heggestad (1997) proposed that the

predictor space should contain measures of cogni-

tive ability, personality, and values. Cognitive ability

measures are essentially interchangeablethey are

highly intercorrelated and predict the same out-

comes. With regard to personality, the FFM (Wig-

gins, 1996) is a useful taxonomy, although it ignores

ambition. Many people believe that ambition is just

extraversion and conscientiousness. Ambition, how-ever, predicts competitiveness (getting ahead),

whereas extraversion predicts talking and socializ-

ing (getting along) and conscientiousness predicts

diligence and conformity (more getting along; cf.

R. Hogan & Hogan, 2007; see also Table 28.1). A

personality predictor battery should consist of the

FFM plus a measure of ambition.

We also agree with Digmans (1997) view that

the FFM can be reduced to two general factors,

which he calls alphaand beta. Digmans alpha factor

contains conscientiousness, agreeableness, and emo-tional stability, which he equated with getting

along. Digmans beta factor contains extraversion

and openness, which he equated with getting

ahead, but which we interpret as finding meaning

because openness predicts intellectual curiosity

(von Stumm, Hell, & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2011)

and extraversion predicts the tendency to seek

7/25/2019 201335883-026

5/20


623

environmental stimulation (Chamorro-Premuzic,

2011). Thus, two (theoretically expected) factors

underlie the personality predictor space: alpha,

which measures getting along, and beta, which

measures efforts to find meaning (via interest in

things and people). Again, personality researchers

traditionally have ignored ambition, which concernsgetting ahead, and it is not represented adequately

at any level in the FFM.

With regard to values, there is no agreed-upon

assessment methodology. Options include the

Strong Vocational Interest Inventory; the Holland

Self-Directed Search (Holland, 1985); and the

Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory ( J. Hogan &

Hogan, 2010). But values measures rarely are used

to study occupational performance, despite the fact

that they are powerful predictors of that perfor-

mance (cf. Chamorro-Premuzic, 2011).It is equally important to define the criterion

space, a problem that was ignored for a long time.

For example, in the 1950s and 1960s, several large-

scale assessment projects, which Wiggins (1973)

called the American milestone studies, yielded

mediocre results. Mischel (1968) used these results

to support his influential critique of personality

research. A careful review, however, suggests that

the mediocre results were almost entirely due to

poor criterion definition. James (1973) highlighted

the need to define the criterion space, and Campbell,McHenry, and Wise (1990) provided the first

systematic analysis, based on Project A, which at

that time, was the largest federally funded selection

project in U.S. history (Campbell, 1990). Since then,

researchers have thoroughly analyzed the criterion

space (for a review, see Motowidlo, 2003).

In business organizations, the criterion space is

defined by performance appraisals (supervisors

ratings). As noted earlier, modern performance

appraisal begins with McClellands (1973) paper

on competency. Today, every U.S. organizationemploying more than 300 people uses a competency-

based performance appraisal system (Boyatzis,

2008). Bartram (2005) argued that (a) all compe-

tency models ultimately concern individual differ-

ences in the ability to get along and get ahead, and

(b) all competency models can be reduced to the

same eight dimensions. R. Hogan and Warrenfeltz

(2003) refined this model by arguing that all

existing performance appraisal systems reflect the

same four underlying themes: (a) self-management,

(b) relationship management, (c) business compe-

tencies, and (d) leadership competencies. In short,

performance in major organizations typically is

evaluated using lists of competencies stipulated tobe crucial for a particular job. To this we add that

every existing competency model can be reduced

to the same four underlying dimensions, and that

the entire competency movement is based on

personality.

In our view, however, performance ratings

(which usually are provided by supervisors) ulti-

mately depend on how rewarding a person is to deal

with, regardless of the job or organization. This is

why, when properly analyzed, ratings for job perfor-

mance form a single factor (Viswesveran, Schmidt, &Ones, 2005). Ones and Viswesveran (2011)

suggested that the construct of job performance is

organized hierarchically, with overall performance

at the top. The next level down is composed of three

factors: (a) task performance, (b) organizational citi-

zenship behavior, and (c) avoidance of

counterproductive work behaviors. We agree but

would reframe the labels as follows: (a) task

performancewhich concerns efforts to get ahead,

and (b) organizational citizenship and avoiding

counterproductive behaviorwhich concern gettingalong. Thus, people may advance their careers

through task performance (getting stuff done) or

good organizational citizenship (being rewarding to

deal with), and doing these things is moderated by a

persons organizational fit or level of engagement

with the job (see Table 28.1).

Summarizing this discussion, we think the litera-

ture on personality and occupational performance

can be best understood by specifying the predictor

and criterion space in advance. We think the predic-

tor space is defined by cognitive ability, the FFMplus ambition, and values. We think the criterion

space can be defined in two ways: (a) ratings on

various organizational competencies, which can

be reduced to four underlying dimensions; or

(b) ratings for overall performance, which can be

further decomposed into evaluations of the ability

to get ahead and get along.

7/25/2019 201335883-026

6/20


624

With these definitions in place, we now turn to

the literature on keeping a jobor career success.

For ease of understanding, this review is organized

in terms of nine lessons learned.

Lesson 1: Typical validities for psychological

assessment exceed those found in most medi-

cal research. The first lesson concerns the rela-

tive validity of personality measures for predicting

practical outcomesincluding career success.

Meyer et al. (2001) provided a comprehensive sum-

mary of the validity of various assessment proce-

dures, and Table 28.2 is adapted from their article.

As shown, validities in medical research tend to

be modest relative to validity coefficients in psy-

chological research. In a related analysis, Roberts,

Kuncel, Shiner, Caspi, and Goldberg (2007) showed

that personality measures predict important life

outcomes (mortality, divorce, and occupational

attainment), as well as cognitive ability and socio-

economic status (SES), and therefore have the same

practical significance as these historically better

regarded alternatives. Focusing specifically on job

performance, Schmidt and Hunter (1998) reported

that general mental ability (intelligence quotient

[IQ]) is the best single test predictor of overall job

performance (p.51), followed by integrity tests

(p.41), employment interviews (p.38), assess-

ment center performance (p.37), and biographical

data measures (p.35). These correlations provide

a useful benchmark for evaluating validity coeffi-

cients in personality research.

Lesson 2: Personality scales are valid predic-

tors of occupational performance. Concerning

the second lesson, it is important to recall that

between 1950 and 1990, most academic psycholo-

gists believed that personality measures were not

valid predictors of occupational performance (cf.

Ghiselli & Barthol, 1953; Guion & Gottier, 1965).1

In a climate of almost unrelieved skepticism regard-

ing the validity of personality measures, Mischels

(1968) book can be seen as a symptom rather than

a cause. In this context, the paper by Barrick and

Mount (1991) quickly became a citation classic

because it provided the data that Ghiselli and Guion

lacked. The study combined the results of 117 stud-ies (162 samples and 23,994 individuals) published

between 1952 and 1988. The authors organized the

personality predictors in terms of the FFMthe

first time this had been done. They organized the

results in terms of five job families (professionals,

police, managers, sales, and skilledsemiskilled

jobs). Their results varied by job family and

outcomefor example, openness predicted training

success, extraversion predicted sales and managerial

performancebut they reported the following cor-

relations with rated overall job performance:

TABLE 28.2

Typical Correlations Reported In Medical Studies

Procedure Correlation (Pearsons r) Sample size used

Coronary bypass surgery and survival rate .08 2,649

Smoking and lung cancer within 25 years .08 3,956

Antihistamines and reduces phlegm .11 1,023

Effect of ibuprofen on pain reduction .14 8,488Effect of Viagra on headaches and flushing .25 861

Viagra and improved sexual functioning .38 779

Height and weight of U.S. adults .44 16,948

Note.From Psychological Testing and Psychological Assessment: A Review of Evidence and Issues, byG. J. Meyer, S. E. Finn, L. D. Eyde, C. G. Kay, K. L. Moreland, R. R. Dies, E. J. Eisman, T. W. Kubiszyn, and G. M. Reed,2001,American Psychologist, 56,p. 130. Copyright 2001 by the American Psychological Association.

1In defense of Ghiselli and Guion, in private conversations, they told the senior author that they believed personality was the most importantdeterminant of career success but that the existing data did not support their belief.

7/25/2019 201335883-026

7/20


625

extraversion.14; emotional stability.10;

agreeableness.10; conscientiousness.26;

openness.05. Conscientiousness was the best

predictor of performance across all categories. The

multiple correlation between the five personality

dimensions and rated overall job performance was

.27 (Ones, Dilchert, Viswesvaran, & Judge, 2007).The validity coefficients reported in this study

are modest; we believe they should be considered

minimal dependable estimates for four reasons.

First, the results were quickly replicated in the

United States (Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991)

and in Europe (Salgado, 1997). Second, the authors

updated their analyses 10 years later (Barrick,

Mount, & Judge, 2001) and essentially replicated

their earlier findings. Third, constraints of the data

prevented the authors from aligning predictors with

criteria, which necessarily would have enhancedvalidity. And fourth, the meta-analysis combines

data from a variety of existing personality invento-

ries and this is, in principle, impossible to do with

any precision. For example, the agreeableness scale

on the NEO Personality Inventory (NEOPI) and

the interpersonal sensitivity scale on the Hogan

Personality Inventory (HPI) correlate to about .6

(R. Hogan & Hogan, 1995) and do not predict the

same outcomes: The NEOPI agreeableness scale

concerns not giving offense, whereas the HPI inter-

personal sensitivity scale concerns being charming.Nonetheless, Barrick and Mount (1991) put person-

ality measurement firmly on the empirical map.

Lesson 3: The essence of integrity is successful

socializationbeing willing to follow rules. The

third lesson begins with Goughs research on

socializationthe willingness to follow rules

and behave in a socially appropriate manner (for

a review, see Gough, 1993). Over a period of 50

years, Gough provided evidence for the validity of

personality measurement in general and the impor-tance of the socialization dimension in particular;

several features of his research are noteworthy.

For example, he conceptualized his research in

terms of folk concepts 20 years before the lexical

hypothesis (Goldberg, 1981) formally appeared.

More important, his validity data is impressive by

any standards. For example, Gough (1965) tested

10,296 adjudicated male delinquents and nondelin-

quents from several countries (United States, Korea,

India, Puerto Rico, Japan) in several languages

and reported an uncorrected, cross-validated point

biserial correlation of .73 (Gough, 1965) with the

delinquency criterion; moreover, in no one sample

was the mean score for delinquents higher thanthe mean score for nondelinquents in any other

sample. Gough (1993) presented a table compar-

ing 14,977 nondelinquents (35 different samples)

and 5,810 delinquents (34 different samples).

The nondelinquent samples included psychology

graduate students, medical students, military school

cadets, and a large sample of high school students.

The delinquent sample included college students

arrested for shoplifting, exhibitionists, alcoholics,

and residents of homes for troubled boys, along with

some criminal groups. No delinquent sample had amean score higher than the mean score for any non-

delinquent sample. Why are these results so robust?

On the one hand, the California Psychological

Inventory socialization scale is composed of items

that discriminate between known delinquents and

nondelinquentswhich means it is a composite

variable (i.e., it captures several themes including

hostility toward rules, thrill seeking, impulsiveness,

social insensitivity, and alienation), and real-world

criteria are best predicted with composites. On the

other hand, the criterion data are quite reliableknown delinquents versus nondelinquents. The final

noteworthy feature of this research is the degree to

which it has been overlookedperhaps because the

research does not contain any business samples.

But the psychological processes underlying delin-

quent behavior are the same regardless of the

contextschool, business, military service, politics,

and so forth.

Building on this research, J. Hogan and Hogan

(1989) used the HPI (R. Hogan & Hogan, 1995) to

construct a composite scale by comparing theresponses of known delinquents with a sample of

nondelinquent blue-collar men. This empirically

derived composite captured the same themes as

Goughs socialization scale (hostility toward rules,

etc.) and yielded comparable validity coefficients.

For example, J. Hogan and Hogan (1989), across 13

independent studies, report uncorrected validities

7/25/2019 201335883-026

8/20


626

ranging from .16 (course completion time for 135

Navy electronic technician students) to .62

(blood alcohol level for 320 adults arrested for

drunk driving)validities go up monotonically as

the criterion approaches pure delinquency.

J. Hogan and Ones (1997) reviewed this litera-

ture and noted that the Conscientiousness dimen-sion led the personality assessment revival in

applied psychology. . . . Conscientiousness is the

only dimension of personality to show consistent

validities across organizations, jobs, and situations

(pp. 850851). They also pointed out that every

mainstream personality inventory has a scale

corresponding to conscientiousness and that these

scales correlate .47 among themselves (N288,512;

K226), but for inventories based on the FFM, the

average disattenuated correlation is .71.

Ones (1993) conducted the most comprehensiveevaluation to date of the construct validity of mea-

sures of conscientiousness and integrity. She noted

(correctly) that integrity measures are composites of

which conscientiousness is a key component, and

that the validity of integrity measures necessarily

will be higher than the validity for conscientious-

ness scales. Ones, Viswesvaran, and Schmidt

(1993), in a detailed meta-analysis of integrity tests,

reported that the criterion-related validity for pre-

dicting supervisors ratings of overall job perfor-

mance was .41 (N7550; K23). Ones (1993)reported the correlation between overt integrity tests

averaged .85 and the correlation between personality-

based integrity tests averaged .75. Confirmatory fac-

tor analyses revealed one factor underlying these

measures. To determine how the FFM is related to

integrity tests, Ones (1993) formed a linear compos-

ite of seven integrity tests and the five dimensions of

the FFM. She reported correlations between the

integrity composite and conscientiousness, agree-

ableness, and emotional stability of .91, .61, and .50,

respectively. These results lead to two overall con-clusions. First, Freud (1943) argued that the super-

ego is the first and most important nonbiological

structure in personality. In Freuds terms, conscien-

tiousness and integrity reflect superego strength; the

validities for these measures seem to support Freuds

claim. Second, integrity measures are based on the

dimensions of conscientiousness, agreeableness, and

emotional stabilityDigmans (1997) alpha factor,

which concerns getting along.

Lesson 4: Conscientiousness is not as important as

you may think. The fourth lesson learned from the

study of personality and occupational performance

is one that needs to be unlearned, because it is not

true. The validity coefficients associated with mea-

sures of conscientiousness and integrity suggest that

conscientiousness always enhances performance,

and this is not true. In fact, mainstream personal-

ity psychologists (FFM theorists) exaggerate the

positive impact of conscientiousness in organiza-

tional settings. For example, conscientiousness is

correlated negatively with creativity and innovation

(Barron, 1965; Chamorro-Premuzic, 2011), and

higher scores on conscientiousness are associated

with rigidity, inflexibility, intolerance of ambiguity,

ethnocentrism, and compulsive tendencies

(R. Hogan & Hogan, 2007). As Kaufman (2011)

noted,

When people are closely monitored,

those who are high on Conscientious-

ness will produce less creative results. In

addition, people who are highly consci-

entious may be more likely to nitpick, be

generally unhelpful, and create a nega-

tive work environment; these factors will

then interact to produce a strikingly lowlevel of creativity. (p. 682)

Furthermore, several large-scale studies reported

negative associations between conscientiousness

and cognitive ability (Ackerman & Heggestad,

1997; Moutafi, Furnham, & Crump, 2003; Poropat,

2009; von Stumm, Chamorro-Premuzic, &

Ackerman, 2011).

Lesson 5: IQ is not as important as you may

think. The fifth lesson learned concerns the

conventional wisdom that IQ is the best singlepredictor of overall job performance (cf. Ones &

Viswesvaran; 2011). Judge, Bono, Ilies, and

Gerhardt (2002) used the FFM to organize the

literature on personality and leadership perfor-

mance. They meta-analyzed 222 correlations from

73 samples and reported the following correlations:

(a) neuroticism k48; N8025;p.24;

7/25/2019 201335883-026

9/20


627

(b) extraversion k60; N11,705;p.31;

(c) openness k37; N7221;p.24; (d)

agreeableness k42; N9801;p.08; and

(e) conscientiousness k35; N7510;p.28.

The multiple correlation, based on these values,

was .48. In comparison, the meta-analytic correla-

tion between IQ and the overall leadership criterionwas .23. Some people might argue that the correla-

tion for IQ is attenuated by restriction in range, but

the range was restricted equally for the personality

variables. This study provides a clear demonstra-

tion of the links between personality and leadership,

a demonstration all the more remarkable because

ambition was not included as a predictor. In con-

trast, IQ appears to be relatively less important when

predicting leadership.

Lesson 6: Aligning predictors and criteria, andusing the same personality measures in meta-

analyses, yields higher predictive validities. The

sixth lesson is found in a paper by J. Hogan and

Holland (2003). This study represents an advance

over earlier research in two ways. First, the authors

aligned the personality predictors with the relevant

criteria, rather than using overall job performance

as the sole criterion. For example, emotional sta-

bility was aligned with ratings for remains even-

tempered and shows resiliency; ambition was

aligned with exhibits leadership; openness wasaligned with seems market savvy; learning style

was aligned with possesses job knowledge; and

conscientiousness was aligned with stays orga-

nized. Second, the authors used data from a single

personality inventory (the HPI; R. Hogan & Hogan,

2007), thereby avoiding the classification prob-

lems that plague earlier research. The HPI splits

the FFM dimension of extraversion into sociability

and ambition; it splits the FFM openness dimen-

sion into inquisitive and learning approach; thus,

the HPI has seven scales. The authors identified43 independent samples (N5,242) published

between 1980 and 2000 catalogued in the archives

of Hogan Assessment Systems. The results of their

meta-analysis appear as the J. Hogan and Holland

(2003) entry in Table 28.3, which shows the value

of aligning predictors with criteria and using one

personality inventory in the meta-analysis. Not

noted in Table 28.3 is the fact that the HPI sociabil-

ity scale essentially is uncorrelated with job perfor-

mance; however, Table 28.3 does show that the FFM

dimension of extraversion is a weak predictor of job

performance, but if the ambition component were

removed from FFM extraversion, the correlations

would be further reduced.

Lesson 7: Observer ratings predict job perfor-

mance better than self-ratings. The seventh lesson

is provided by Connelly and Ones (2010); they use

observer ratings, organized in terms of the FFM, to

predict job performance. In a meta-analysis based

on 44,178 target individuals rated across 263 inde-

pendent samples, they found that observer ratings

are strong predictors of job performance, and the

validities are significantly better than those typically

found with personality inventories. The Connelly

and Ones (2010) entry in Table 28.3 summarizes

their findings, which strongly support Hofstees

(1994) view that our personalities essentially

belong to other people. These findings also sup-

port our view that reputation, which is captured

by observer ratings, is the best data source we have

regarding personality and career performance. Table

28.3 summarizes our discussion thus far regarding

the validity of personality measures for predicting

occupational performance.

Lesson 8: Career failure depends on the darkside of personality. The eighth lesson comes

from research on what we call the dark side of

personality. We came to this topic while studying

leadership. In the mid-1980s, there was no consen-

sus regarding the characteristics of effective leaders,

so we asked, what about ineffective leaders? Bentz

(1967) pioneered this research; as vice president for

human resources at Sears Roebuck and Company, he

hired new managers using well-validated measures

of IQ and normal personality, thereby ensuring that

new Sears managers were smart and interperson-ally skilled. Summarizing 30 years of data, Bentz

(1985) reported that more than 50% of his new

managers failed because they (a) lacked business

skills, (b) were unable to deal with complexity, (c)

were reactive and tactical (rather than proactive

and strategic), (d) were unable to delegate, (e) were

unable to build a team, (f) were unable to maintain

7/25/2019 201335883-026

10/20


628

relationships with a network of contacts, (g) let emo-

tions cloud their judgment, (h) were slow to learn,

and (i) had an over-riding personality defect.

Drawing on Bentzs findings, McCall and

Lombardo (1983) interviewed 20 senior executives

regarding

people who were very successful intheir careers (spanning 2030 years and

reaching very high levels) but who, in

the eyes of the organization, did not live

up to their full potential. . . . One thing

they had in common, however, was

that their halted progression was not

voluntary. (pp. 12)

The successful and the derailed executives were

bright, with outstanding records of achievement and

few faults, and were ambitious and willing to sacri-

fice. The successful executives had more diverse

accomplishments, handled stress and mistakes with

grace, involved others in problem solving, and could

get along with a wide range of people. In contrast,

the derailed executives failed for 10 reasons: (a) spe-cific business problems; (b) insensitivity (abrasive,

intimidating, bullying); (c) being cold, aloof, arro-

gant; (d) betraying trust; (e) unable to delegate;

(f) overly ambitious; (g) failing to staff effectively;

(h) unable to think strategically; (i) unable to adapt

to a boss with a different style; and (j) overly dependent

on an advocate or mentor. McCall and Lombardo

TABLE 28.3

Personality and Job Performance: Meta-Analytic Results

Dimension Number of samples Total N robserved Corrected r

Emotional stability

Barrick et al (2001) 224 38,817 .06 .12*J. Hogan & Holland (2003) 24 2,573 .25 .43*

Connelly & Ones (2010) 7 1,990 .14 .37*

Extraversion/ambition

Barrick et al (2001)(Extraversion)

222 39,432 .06 .12

J. Hogan & Holland (2003)(Ambition)

28 3,698 .20 .35*

Connelly & Ones (2010)(Extraversion)

6 1,135 .08 .18*

Openness/learning approach

Barrick et al (2001) (Openness) 143 23,225 .03 .05

J. Hogan & Holland (2003)(Openness)

7 1,190 .20 .34*

J. Hogan & Holland (2003)(Learning approach)

9 1,366 .15 .25*

Connelly & Ones (2010)

(Openness)

6 1,135 .18 .45*

Agreeableness

Barrick et al (2001) 206 36,210 .06 .13

J. Hogan & Holland (2003) 18 2,500 .18 .34*

Connelly & Ones (2010) 7 1,190 .13 .31*

Conscientiousness

Barrick et al (2001) 239 48,100 .12 .23*

J. Hogan & Holland (2003) 26 3,379 .22 .36*

Connelly & Ones (2010) 7 1,190 .23 .55*

Note. N= total sample size (of combined studies); robserved = sample size observed mean correlations; correctedr= true score correcting for unreliability in the predictor and criterion and for range restrictionConnelly & Ones(2010, p. 112) did not correct for range restriction in the criteria. * = 90% credibility interval does not include zero.

7/25/2019 201335883-026

11/20


629

(1983) noted that the most frequent cause for

derailment was insensitivity to others. Under stress,

the derailed managers became abrasive and intimi-

dating (p. 6).

These findings have been replicated extensively

(cf. Eichinger & Lombardo, 2003; Lombardo, Rud-

erman, & McCauley, 1988; McCall & Hollenbeck,2002; McCauley & Lombardo, 1990; Van Velsor &

Leslie, 1995; and see especially Rasch, Shen, Davies, &

Bono, 2008). This line of research established sev-

eral interesting facts: (a) The base rate of bad man-

agement is at least 50% across all industry sector,

business and government, charitable, education, and

the military; (b) bad female managers are as com-

mon as bad male managers; (c) the base rate of bad

management generalizes across the worldto

China, India, and Brazil; and (d) in business, bad

management is astonishingly expensive in terms ofemployee turnover, absenteeism, theft, sabotage,

lost productivity, and poor customer service. Dark-

side tendencies coexist with well-developed bright-

side behaviorwhich is why so many bad managers

are hired and subsequently fired (for reviews, cf.

J. Hogan, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2010). The dark-side

tendencies leading to managerial derailment take

different formsmicromanagement, sexual harass-

ment, bullying, exploitation, and so forthbut they

have one common theme: an inability to build or

maintain relationships.These themes appear consistently in qualitative

reviews of managerial derailment. R. Hogan and

Hogan (2008) concluded that these themes resem-

bled the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental

Disorders(4th ed.) axis 2 personality disorders and

developed a multidimensional personality inventory

(the Hogan Development Survey [HDS]) to assess

them. Hogan Assessment Systems has archival data

on about 650,000 managers, and 26 validity studies

with a total Nof 2,200 cases. A factor analysis of the

correlations between the 11 HDS scales yields arobust three-factor solution (R. Hogan & Hogan,

2008). The three factors can be interpreted in terms

of Horneys (1950) model of three prototypical ways

of managing interpersonal or social anxiety, which

she labels moving toward, moving away, or moving

against people (p. 49). Moving toward people

relates to the HDS scales of dutiful and diligent;

moving away from people relates to the HDS scales

of excitable, reserved, cautious, leisurely, and

skeptical; moving against people relates to the HDS

scales of bold, colorful, mischievous, and

imaginative.

Although dark-side behaviors clearly erode man-

agerial effectiveness, it is a mistake to think thatthey are only important in organizational life. The

dark side concerns poor relationship management in

general and that includes relations between roman-

tic partners, parents and children, teachers and stu-

dents, and neighbors. How are the bright and dark

side related? From the perspective of interpersonal

theory, life is about social interaction and efforts to

gain (or avoid losing) status and social acceptance

(i.e., getting along and getting ahead). The bright

side, as reflected in the FFM, concerns peoples

behavior when they are at their best. The dark sideconcerns peoples behavior when they are not pay-

ing attention to how they are perceived. When

would that be? Usually when they are tired, stressed,

sick, or drunk, but also when they think they can

afford to just be themselves. In organizations, this

usually occurs when people are dealing with their

subordinates. R. Hogan and Kaiser (2005) showed

that, as people rise in organizations, they have

increasing discretion, and this releases their dark-

side propensities. Thus, strong situations suppress,

and weak situations release, dark-side tendencies(see Ackerman, Chamorrro-Premuzic, & Furnham,

2011, for a discussion of situational press effects

on performance).

Lesson 9: Faking is not as important as the crit-

ics claim. The final lesson learned concerns the

impact of faking on the validity of personality

measurement. A long, complicated, and contentious

literature extending from Kelly, Miles, and Terman

(1936) to Murphy and Dzieweczynski (2005) has

argued that personality measurement lacks signifi-cant validity because the measures can be faked

or that scores are distorted by socially desirable

responding. Because this literature has such seri-

ous consequences for the personality assessment

enterprise, we review it at some length. Our discus-

sion is in two parts: We begin with a review of the

faking literature as it applies to employee selection,

7/25/2019 201335883-026

12/20


630

and then we focus more closely on the meaning and

measurement of faking itself.

Before the faking literature can be interpreted,

three issues need to be specified: (a) the definition

of faking, (b) what is going on when a person

endorses an item on a personality measure, and

(c) whether job applicants change their scores whenthey have an incentive to do so. With regard to the

definition of faking, from the perspective of person-

ality measurement, faking can be defined only as a

motivated and statistically significant change from a

natural baseline of responding.

The second issuewhat people do when they

respond to an itemconcerns item response theory;

here there are two competing views: self-report the-

ory and impression management (IM) theory. Self-

report theory is related to trait theory. It maintains

that, when people read an item on an inventory (Iam always too hot or too cold), they then compare

the item with a memory videotape of past manifesta-

tions of a trait and then report the results of the

comparison. Self-report theory also assumes that

when people report the result of their memory

search, they provide veridical accounts of the match

between the item and their memory search. Faking

involves providing inaccurate reports about the

match. There are two problems with this account of

item responding. First, most memory researchers

believe that memories are self-serving reconstruc-tions of the past, not veridical accounts (Bartlett,

1932/1961; A. S. Brown & Marsh, 2008; Schacter,

1999). Second, the modern view of communication

is that it involves trying to control the behavior of

others rather than accurately reporting on the world

(Dunbar, 1997). That is, the modern consensus is

that people construct their memories in accordance

with private agendas and use communication to fur-

ther those agendas. And this undermines the self-

report view of faking.

IM theory, which is related to interpersonal the-ory, assumes that, during social interaction, most

people behave in ways that are intended to convey a

positive image of themselvesso that they can get

along and get ahead. Thus, when job seekers

respond to items on a personality scale, questions in

an employment interview, or assessment center

exercises, they do what they normally do during

social interactionthey respond in ways that are

intended to create a favorable image of themselves.

Thus, in this view, faking involves changing the way

one typically presents oneself during social

interaction.

Regarding faking and employee selection, Hough

and Furnham (2003) provided careful reviews of theliterature that can be summarized in terms of four

points. First, when instructed, some people can

change their personality scores as compared with

their scores when not so instructed. Second, the

base rate of faking among job applicants is minimal.

Third, faking seems not to affect criterion-related

validity (Ones, Viswesvaran, & Reiss, 1996); rather,

individual differences in socially desirable respond-

ing is a substantive personality variable (whose

nature only recently has been defined). And fourth,

in the history of faking research and employee selec-tion, no study has used a research design that is fully

appropriate for the problem. A proper design would

use data from real job applicants (not students in a

psychology experiment), in a repeated measure

design, in which the applicants are encouraged to

improve their scores on the second trial. Noting

this, J. Hogan, Barrett, and Hogan (2007) conducted

a study with the proper design.

J. Hogan et al. (2007) tested 266,582 people who

were applying for a customer service job with a

nationwide U.S. employer in the transportationbusiness using the HPI. Six months later, a sample

of 5,266 people who had failed the employment test

earlier then reapplied. It is fair to assume that they

were motivated to improve their HPI scores on the

second trial. The researchers computed change

scores for this retest sample by subtracting their T1

raw scores from their T2 raw scores for each of five

HPI scales used in the study. A positive score indi-

cated a scale increase and vice versa. The researchers

report that 5.2% of the sample (or less) changed

their scores on any scale on the second occasion;moreover, scale scores were as likely to go down as

to go up. Only three applicants changed their score

beyond a 95% confidence interval on all five HPI

scales in either direction. Finally, the statistically

significant changes in scores could be predicted with

a measure of social skillscores for those with low

social skill went down, and scores for those with

7/25/2019 201335883-026

13/20


631

high social skill went up. The authors concluded

that faking on personality measures is not a signifi-

cant problem in the real-world settings.

The preceding discussion concerns whether fak-

ing invalidates using personality measures for

employee selection. We now turn to the meaning

and the measurement of faking per se. Our argu-ment parallels the excellent review of this topic by

Uziel (2010).

The argument that faking invalidates personality

assessment is almost 100 years old. Edwards (1953)

launched the modern debate by proposing that one

factor drives how people endorse items on personal-

ity scales (and this factor invalidates their

responses); it is the tendency for people to describe

their true selves in overly positive terms. Edwards

was referring to what is now known as the social

desirability response bias, and his argument led to thedevelopment of a large number of scales designed to

assess individual differences in the tendency to

respond to personality items in a socially desirable

manner.

Wiggins (1964) factor analyzed the various mea-

sures of socially desirable response tendencies and

found two dimensions; he labeled one anxietyand

the other social desirability role playing. Paulhus

(1984) replicated Wigginss results and gave the two

dimensions their modern labels: (a) IM and

(b) self-deception (SD). Responding in a sociallydesirable manner is only faking if it involves lying

conscious efforts to deceive. The SD dimension

contains items like, I have a good sense of humor.

Most people think they have a good sense of humor

(in fact they do not) and endorse this item posi-

tivelybut doing so is not a conscious effort to

deceive, it is optimistic self-delusion. The IM dimen-

sion contains such items as I have never told a lie

or I have never farted in public. People who

endorse such items cannot be telling the literal

truth, but their answers can be given a substantiveinterpretation: They are somewhat ashamed of lying

or farting in public. Uziel (2010) correctly focused

his review on IM scales because their content logi-

cally entails an untruth.

Defining faking in terms of high scores on a mea-

sure of IM allows us systematically to evaluate the

effects of faking on item responses and test validity.

The first question concerns the degree to which

individual differences in IM invalidate scores on

standard personality scales. One way to evaluate this

issue is to compare scores on personality scales with

observers ratings for the same dimensions. If IM

distorts validity, and if its influence is controlled sta-

tistically, then the correlations between scale scoresand observer ratings should increase; empirically

this does not happen (McCrae & Costa, 1983). In

fact, controlling for IM typically reduces the correla-

tions between scale scores and observers ratings,

indicating that IM captures substance not artifact

(Borkenau & Zaltauskas, 2009). Controlling for IM

does not enhance the criterion related validity of

personality measures (Ones et al., 1996), which

suggests that IM scales assess something other than

lyingdespite their content. Other research has

suggested that what it captures is a substantivedimension of personalitydescribed next.

In addition, if people are asked to fake good on

personality scales, they often change their scale

scores more than the scores on the IM measures

(Paulhus & Reynolds, 1995). Moreover, IM scales

do not predict cheating (Eid & Diener, 2006), but

high scores on IM scales have important real life

correlates: religiosity, being married, and age. As

Uziel (2010) noted, IM scales . . . are not successful

in measuring response style most of the time and for

most people (p. 247).If IM scales do not assess deliberate faking, then

what do they assess? The data suggest they capture a

substantive component of personalitythey are

internally consistent (Paulhus, 1984), are stable

over time (Paulhus & Reynolds, 1995) and across

cultures (Barrett, Petrides, Eysenck, & Eysenck

1998), and have an identifiable genetic profile (Gil-

lespie et al., 2008). The basic psychometrics are

obviously sound, so what do they predict? A large

number of studies have correlated IM with the stan-

dard FFM dimensions: These studies report correla-tions between IM and agreeableness scales between

.08 and .58 (more than 80% of the correlations are

above .10); they report correlations between.08

and .60 between IM and observers ratings for agree-

ableness; and they report virtually no significant

correlation with measured or rated extraversion. IM

scores predict endorsing communal values and

7/25/2019 201335883-026

14/20


632

social harmony and avoiding disruptive or competi-

tive behavior (i.e., getting along and not getting

ahead). IM predicts developing and maintaining sta-

ble relationships and also getting and staying mar-

ried, and it negatively predicts destructive forms of

marriage (for a review, see Uziel, 2010). IM also is

associated with self-control; Tangney, Baumeister,and Boone (2004) reported correlations between

self-control and various measures of IM ranging

between .54 and .60, and these correlations were

particularly pronounced in social contexts. The data

also show that IM is correlated negatively with neu-

roticism, aggression, anxiety, and depression and

positively correlated with feelings of subjective well-

being. Finally, people with high scores for IM pursue

conservative lifestyles, with low levels of alcoholism,

risk taking, impulsivity, and criminal behavior (Furn-

ham, Petrides, Sisterson, & Baluch 2003). More than2,500 published studies have compared measures of

IM with other criteria; they can be summarized as

showing that IM predicts interpersonally oriented

self-control (Uziel, 2010) and little else.

CONCLUSION

Research on personality and career performance

depends on assessment methods. Many people

believe the goal of personality assessment is to mea-

sure traits; in contrast, we believe the goal of assess-ment is to predict outcomes. In addition, most

textbooks define the meaning of test scores in terms

of their relationship to true scores (Cronbach,

1957); in contrast, we define the meaning of test

scores in terms of what they predict. Many people

think scores on personality measures reflect the

strength of traits; in contrast, we think scores on

personality measures reflect the likelihood of a

people behaving in a particular way, based on what

they have done in the past. Although our views on

assessment contrast with trait theory at every point,they are consistent with an interpersonal perspective

on personality.

Trait theory assumes that the validity of self-

report inventories depends on respondents willing-

ness to provide veridical information about their

true personalities. Using experiments with college

students, critics have demonstrated that, when

instructed, some students can change their

responses to personality scales compared with a

prior reference point, and they have claimed that

this fact undermines test validity. This line of rea-

soning, however, assumes that true personalities

actually exist; this is a metaphysical, not an empiri-

cally verifiable, assumption. It is much simpler toassume that the goal of personality measurement is

to predict behavior and proceed from there.

Consistent with interpersonal theory, we believe

that when people endorse items on personality

scales, they are telling us about themselves, which is

by definition self-presentation, something that nor-

mal adults know requires some degree of dissimula-

tion or faking good. More important, the degree to

which people fake good when responding to items

on a personality scale indicates their tendency to do

so in other social contextsbecause social interac-tion largely concerns adjusting ones behavior to

influence others (Dunbar, 1997). Being unwilling

(or unable) to fake good is also diagnostic and also

predicts a range of negative outcomes. The fact

that certain personality scales predict specific

nontest behaviors is a sign of consistency in self-

presentational style across contexts. Moreover,

personality scales that have been validated against

observers ratings capture peoples reputations

they predict how people will be described by others

in the future (which renders moot the question ofwhat their true personality might be).

Although there are several taxonomies of reputa-

tion, they essentially refer to the same concepts and

can be summarized in terms of the FFM, the main

factors of which are neuroticism, agreeableness,

conscientiousness, extraversion, and openness

(Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2010). As we

have noted repeatedly, however, this standard tax-

onomy lacks a potent predictor of career success

ambition. Table 28.1 illustrates our view of the

dynamics of personality and career success.The right-hand column of Table 28.1 shows

the three major criteria for career success in the

industrialorganizational research literature.

Researchers prefer the middle criterion, productivity

or objective performance, because they think it is

more reliable. Two additional criteria can be used to

assess career success, namely, subjective (or rated)

7/25/2019 201335883-026

15/20


633

performance and personenvironment fit. Subjective

(or rated) performance is as important for career

success as objective performance, in part because

performance in high-level jobs often is hard to

assess objectively. High-level jobs involve dealing

with ideas and abstract products; evaluating this

performance is typically subjective, and the essenceof subjective performance is pleasing ones boss. The

final criterion for evaluating career performance is

personenvironment fithow well people fit with

the culture of their work group and organization.

Better fit leads to increased engagement with the job

and organization; thus, personenvironment fit

affects subjective and objective performance indi-

rectly, via higher levels of engagement. That is,

engaged employees are more likely to work hard, be

productive, and please their boss than are those who

are disengaged.Each career criteria described in Table 28.1 is a

function of a different aspect of personality. Subjec-

tive (or rated) performance is a function of individ-

ual rewardingness (how rewarding a person is to

deal with); objective performance is a function of

productivity (getting things done); person

organizational fit depends on people sharing the

values of their work group and larger organization.

Moreover, these three personality-based themes also

determine employabilitywhether someone can

gain and maintain employment (R. Hogan &Chamorro-Premuzic, 2013). Conversely, individual

differences in normal personality (defined as

reputation) predict these three employability themes.

Being rewarding to deal with can be predicted

using Digmans (1997) alpha factor, which contains

the FFM dimensions of neuroticism, agreeableness,

and conscientiousness, or the HPI dimensions of

adjustment, interpersonal sensitivity, prudence, and

sociability. The ability to get stuff done can be pre-

dicted using measures of cognitive ability and ambi-

tion (although ambition is not part of the Digman orFFM models). The degree to which a person shares

the values of an organization depends on the person

and the organizational culture. Only a small amount

of research has examined how congruence between

corporate and employee values affects performance

(in part because there is no agreed-upon taxonomy

of organizational values or method for profiling

them); nonetheless, personality characteristics also

influence an employees tendency to find meaning

at work. In Digmans terms, this is part of the beta

factor, the FFM dimensions of extraversion and

openness, or the inquisitive and learning approach

scales of the HPI.

As noted earlier, most people in industrial societ-ies use their careers to fulfill important psychologi-

cal needsin particular, the needs to get along,

get ahead, and find meaning. These needs are satis-

fied when people are rewarded for getting along

(acceptance), for getting stuff done (status), and for

being engaged in their jobs and organizations (find-

ing meaning). Conversely, people become stressed

when they are criticized, demoted, or find their

work alienating. These fundamental human needs,

once again, reflect the fact that people have always

lived in groups, groups always have status hierar-chies, and groups always have religious or formal

systems of meaning (R. Hogan & Chamorro-

Premuzic, 2011).

The foregoing discussion is prolix, but the

underlying argument can be summarized in terms of

five points. Our first point is that many people

define personality in terms of trait theory (Allport,

1937), but interpersonal theory represents a plausi-

ble alternative with equal empirical support. Trait

theory proposes a tautological model of explanation;

interpersonal theory avoids the tautology by distin-guishing between identity and reputation (reputa-

tion concerns behavior; identity concerns the

reasons for the behavior). Trait theory maintains

that the goal of assessment is to measure traits;

interpersonal theory maintains that the goal of

assessment is to predict performance. Trait theory

assumes the existence of true selves and defines

faking as misrepresenting those true selves; interper-

sonal theory assumes that normal people shape their

behavior to be accepted by others. Interpersonal the-

ory ignores faking because it believes that sincerityis a carefully constructed performance.

Our second point concerns fakingthe oldest

and most persistent criticism of personality assess-

ment. We reviewed the evidence regarding the

degree to which faking affects preemployment

screening and concluded that the base rate of faking

in job applicants is low to nonexistent. Then we

7/25/2019 201335883-026

16/20


634

reviewed the literature concerning individual differ-

ences in the tendency to present oneself in a socially

desirable manner and concluded that people who

tend to describe themselves in a socially desirable

manner do better in life than people who will not or

cannot describe themselves in a socially desirable

manner.Our third point concerns validity. Contrary to

Mischels (1968) well-known critique, the evidence

shows that well-constructed measures of normal

personality predict important life outcomes

including career successas well as measures of IQ

and SES.

Our fourth point concerns distinguishing

between the bright and the dark sides of personality.

Measures of normal personality capture the bright

sidepeoples performance when they are paying

attention to others feedback. Dark-side tendenciesemerge when people are just being themselves and

these behaviors potentially can disrupt career

success.

Our final point concerns employability. Career

success depends on being able to gain and retain

employment. Long-term employment is a function

of three factors: (a) being rewarding to deal with,

(b) being able to get things done, and (c) fitting in

with the culture of ones work group and organiza-

tion. The first element, rewardingness, is predicted

by Digmans alpha factor (emotional stability,agreeableness, and conscientiousness) and minimal

dark-side tendencies. The second element is pre-

dicted by IQ and ambition. The third element is

predicted by values. Ultimately, then, personality

plays a major role in career success. In addition, as

interpersonal theory would predict, career success

depends on how other people evaluate a persons

performance, not on how that person feels about

him- or herself.

References

Ackerman, P., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A.(2011). Trait complexes and academic achievement.British Journal of Educational Psychology,81, 2740.doi:10.1348%2F000709910X522564

Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence,personality, and interests. Psychological Bulletin, 121,219245. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.121.2.219

Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychologicalinterpretation.New York, NY: Holt.

Armstrong, P. I., Su, R., & Rounds, J. (2011). Vocationalinterests. In T. Chamorro-Premuzic, S. von Stumm,& A. Furnham (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbookof individual differences(pp. 608631). Singapore:Blackwell-Wiley.

Barrett, P. T., Petrides, K. V., Eysenck, S. B. G., &Eysenck, H. J. (1998). The Eysenck PersonalityQuestionnaire: An examination of the factorialsimilarity of P, E, N, and L across 34 countries.Personality and Individual Differences,25, 805819.doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00026-9

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. (1991). The Big Fivepersonality dimensions and job performance: Ameta-analysis. Personnel Psychology,44, 126.doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x

Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001).Personality and performance at the beginning of thenew millennium. International Journal of Selection and

Assessment,9, 930. doi:10.1111/1468-2389.00160

Barron, F. X. (1965). The psychology of creativity. InT. M. Newcomb (Ed.), New directions in psychologyII(pp. 1134). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, &Winston.

Bartlett, F. C. (1961). Remembering. A study in experi-mental and social psychology. Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press. (Original work pub-lished 1932)

Bartram, D. (2005). The great eight: A criterion-centricapproach to validation.Journal of Applied Psychology,90, 11851203. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1185

Baruch, Y., & Bozionelos, N. (2011). Career issues. InS. Zedeck (Ed.),APA handbook of industrial andorganizational psychology: Vol. 2. Selecting anddeveloping members for the organization(pp. 67113). Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological Association.

Bentz, V. J. (1967). The Sears experience in the inves-tigation, description, and prediction of executivebehavior. In F. R. Wickert & D. E. McFarland (Eds.),Measuring executive effectiveness(pp. 147206).New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Bentz, V. J. (1985, August).A view from the top: A 30-yearperspective on research devoted to discovery, descrip-

tion, and prediction of executive behavior. Paper pre-sented at the 93rd Annual Meeting of the AmericanPsychological Association, Los Angeles, CA.

Boehm, C. (1999). Hierarchy in the forest.Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.

Borkenau, P., & Zaltauskas, K. (2009). Effects of self-enhancement on agreement on personality pro-files. European Journal of Personality,23, 107123.doi:10.1002/per.707

7/25/2019 201335883-026

17/20


635

Boudreau, J. W., Boswell, W. R., & Judge, T. A. (2001).Effects of personality on executive career success inthe United States and Europe.Journal of VocationalBehavior,58, 5381. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2000.1755

Boyatzis, R. E. (2008). Competencies in the 21st cen-tury.Journal of Management Development,27, 512.doi:10.1108/02621710810840730

Brown, A. S., & Marsh, E. J. (2008). Evoking false beliefsabout autobiographical experience. PsychonomicBulletin and Review, 15, 186190. doi:10.3758/PBR.15.1.186

Brown, P., & Hesketh, A. (2004). The mismanagementof talent: Employability and jobs in the knowledgeeconomy.Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199269532.001.0001

Campbell, J. P. (1990). An overview of the ArmySelection and Classification Project (ProjectA). Personnel Psychology,43, 231239.doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1990.tb01556.x

Campbell, J. P., McHenry, J. J., & Wise, L. I. (1990).Modeling job performance in a populationof jobs. Personnel Psychology,43, 313333.doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1990.tb01561.x

Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2011). Personality and individualdifferences(2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell-Wiley.

Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2010).The psychology of personnel selection.New York,NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511819308

Connelly, B. S., & Ones, D. S. (2010). An other perspectiveon personality: Meta-analytic integration of observersaccuracy and predictive validity. Psychological Bulletin,136, 10921122. doi:10.1037/a0021212

Cronbach, L. J. (1957). Essentials of psychological testing.New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Digman, J. M. (1997). Higher-order factors of the BigFive.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,73,12461256. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.6.1246

Dunbar, R. (1997). Grooming, gossip and the evolution oflanguage. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Edwards, A. L. (1953). The relationship between thejudged desirability of a trait and the probabilitythat the trait will be endorsed.Journal of AppliedPsychology,37, 9093. doi:10.1037/h0058073

Eichinger, R. W., & Lombardo, M. M. (2003). Knowledgesummary series: 360-degree assessment. HumanResource Planning,26(4), 3444.

Eid, M., & Diener, E. (2006). Handbook of psycho-logical assessment.Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological Association.

Freud, S. (1943).A general introduction to psychoanalysis.Garden City, NY: Garden City Publishing.

Furnham, A., Petrides, K. V., Sisterson, G., & Baluch,B. (2003). Repressive coping style and positive self-presentation. British Journal of Health Psychology,8,223249. doi:10.1348/135910703321649187

Ghiselli, E. E., & Barthol, R. P. (1953). The valid-ity of personality inventories in the selection ofemployees.Journal of Applied Psychology,37, 1820.

doi:10.1037/h0059438Gillespie, N. A., Zhu, G., Evans, D. M., Medland, S. E.,

Wright, M. J., & Martin, N. G. (2008). A genome-wide scan for Eysenckian personality dimensions inadolescent twin sibships.Journal of Personality,76,14151446.

Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Language and individual differ-ences: The search for universals in personality lexi-cons. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of personality andsocial psychology(Vol. 2, pp. 141165). Beverly Hills,CA: Sage.

Gough, H. G. (1965). The conceptual analysis of psy-chological test scores and other diagnostic vari-

ables.Journal of Abnormal Psychology,70, 294302.doi:10.1037/h0022397

Gough, H. G. (1993). Diagnostic and implicative mean-ings of the CPI socialization scale. In D. Fowles,P. Sutker, & S. Goodman (Eds.), Progress in experi-mental personality and psychopathology research(Vol.17, pp. 97104). New York, NY: Springer.

Guion, R. M., & Gottier, R. F. (1965). Validity of personalitymeasures in personnel selection. Personnel Psychology,18, 135164. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1965.tb00273.x

Hammon-Jones, E., & Beer, J. S. (2009). Methods in socialneuroscience.New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Hofstee, W. K. B. (1994). Who should own the definitionof personality? European Journal of Personality,8,149162. doi:10.1002/per.2410080302

Hogan, J., Barrett, P., & Hogan, R. (2007). Personalitymeasurement, faking, and employment selection.

Journal of Applied Psychology,92, 12701285. doi:10.1037%2F0021-9010.92.5.1270

Hogan, J., & Hogan, R. (1989). How to measureemployee reliability.Journal of Applied Psychology,74, 273279. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.74.2.273

Hogan, J., & Hogan, R. (2010). Motives, values, prefer-ences inventory.Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment

Systems.Hogan, J., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2010). Management

derailment. In S. Zedeck (Ed.),APA handbook ofindustrial and organizational psychology: Vol. 3.Maintaining, expanding, and contracting the organi-zation(pp. 555575). Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological Association.

Hogan, J., & Holland, B. (2003). Using theory to evaluatepersonality and job-performance relations.Journal of

7/25/2019 201335883-026

18/20


636

Applied Psychology,88, 100112. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.100

Hogan, J., & Ones, D. (1997). Conscientiousness andintegrity at work. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S.Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology(pp. 849870). San Diego, CA: Academic.doi:10.1016/B978-012134645-4/50033-0

Hogan, J. C., & Brinkmeyer, K. (1994). What do employerswant?Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.

Hogan, R. (2007). Personality and the fate of organizations.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hogan, R., & Blickle, G. (in press). Socioanalytic theory.In N. D. Christiansen & R. P. Tett (Eds.), Handbookof personality at work.New York, NY: Routledge.doi:10.1002/cd.23219780203

Hogan, R., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2011). Personalityand the laws of history. In T. Chamorro-Premuzic,S. von Stumm, & A. Furnham (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of individual differences(pp. 491511). Singapore: Blackwell-Wiley.

Hogan, R., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2013).Employability and career success.Manuscript submit-ted for publication.

Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (1995). Hogan PersonalityInventory manual(2nd ed.). Tulsa, OK: HoganAssessment Systems.

Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2007). Hogan PersonalityInventory manual(3rd ed.). Tulsa, OK: HoganAssessment Systems.

Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2008). Hogan Development Surveymanual(2nd ed.). Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.

Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2005). What we know aboutleadership. Review of General Psychology,9, 169180.doi:10.1037%2F1089-2680.9.2.169

Hogan, R., & Smither, R. (2008). Personality: Theories andapplications(2nd ed.). Tulsa, OK: Hogan AssessmentSystems.

Hogan, R., & Warrenfeltz, R. (2003). Educating the mod-ern manager.Academy of Management Learning andEducation,2, 7484. doi:10.5465/AMLE.2003.9324043

Holland, J. L. (1985). Making vocational choices.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Horney, K. (1950). Neurosis and human growth: The strug-gle toward self-realization. New York, NY: Norton.

Hough, L. M., & Furnham, A. (2003). Use of personal-ity variables in work settings. In W. C. Borman,D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of

psychology: Vol. 12. Industrial and organizationalpsychology(pp. 131169). New York, NY: Wiley.doi:10.1002/0471264385.wei1207

James, R. R. (1973). Criterion models and constructvalidity for criteria. Psychological Bulletin, 80, 7583.doi:10.1037/h0034627

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W.(2002). Personality and leadership.Journal of AppliedPsychology,87, 765780. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.765

Kaufman, J. (2011). Individual differences in creativ-ity. In T. Chamorro-Premuzic, S. von Stumm, &A. Furnham (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook

of individual differences(pp. 679697). Singapore:Blackwell-Wiley.

Kelly, E. L., & Fiske, D. W. (1951). The predictionof success in the VA training program in clinicalpsychology.American Psychologist,5, 395406.

Kelly, E. L., Miles, C. C., & Terman, L. M. (1936). Abilityto influence ones score on a typical paper-and-penciltest of personality.Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology,4, 206215.

Larsen, R. J., & Buss, D. M. (2010). Personality psychol-ogy: Domains of knowledge about human nature(4thed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Lombardo, M. M., Ruderman, M. N., & McCauley,C. D. (1988). Explanations of success and derail-ment in upper-level management positions.

Journal of Business and Psychology,2, 199216.doi:10.1007%2FBF01014038

Low, K. S. D., & Rounds, J. (2007). Interest change andcontinuity from early adolescence to middle adulthood.International Journal for Educational and VocationalGuidance,7, 2336. doi:10.1007/s10775-006-9110-4

MacKinnon, D. W. (1944).Assessment of men. New York,NY: Rinehart.

May, M. A. (1932). The foundations of personality. InP. S. Achilles (Ed.), Psychology at work(pp. 81101).

New York, NY: London.McCall, M. W., Jr., & Hollenbeck, G. P. (2002).

Developing global executives: The lessons of interna-tional experience. Boston, MA: Harvard BusinessSchool Press.

McCall, M. W., Jr., & Lombardo, M. M. (1983). Off thetrack: Why and how successful executives get derailed.Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadeship.

McCauley, C. D., & Lombardo, M. M. (1990).Benchmarks: An instrument for diagnosing manage-rial strengths and weaknesses. In K. E. Clark & M. B.Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadership(pp. 535545).Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

McClelland, D. C. (1973). Testing for competence ratherthan for intelligence.American Psychologist,28,114.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1983). Social desir-ability scales: More substance than style.Journal ofConsulting and Clinical Psychology,51, 882888.

Meyer, G. J., Finn, S. E., Eyde, L. D., Kay, G. G.,Moreland, K. L., Dies, R. R., Eisman, E. J., Kubiszyn,

7/25/2019 201335883-026

19/20


637

T. W., & Reed, G. M. (2001). Psychological testingand psychological assessment: A review of evidenceand issues.American Psychologist,56, 128165.

Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. NewYork, NY: Wiley.

Motowidlo, S. J. (2003). Job performance. In W. C.Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook

of psychology: Vol. 12. Industrial and organizationalpsychology(pp. 3953). New York, NY: Wiley.

Moutafi, J., Furnham, A., & Crump, J. (2003).Demographic and personality predictors of intel-ligence: A study using the NEO PersonalityInventory and the MyersBriggs Type Indicator.European Journal of Personality,17, 7994.doi:10.1002%2Fper.471

Murphy, K. R., & Dzieweczynski, J. L. (2005). Why dontmeasures of broad dimensions of personality per-form better as predictors of job performance? HumanPerformance,18, 343358. doi:10.1207%2Fs15327043hup1804_2

Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality.NewYork, NY: Oxford University Press.

Murray, H. A. (1943). Thematic Apperception Test manual.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Noe, R. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Gerhart, B., & Wright, P. M.(1994). Human resource management. Burr Ridge, IL:Irwin.

Ones, D. S. (1993). The construct validity of integrity tests.(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University ofIowa, Iowa City.

Ones, D. S., Dilchert, S., Viswesvaran, C., & Judge, T. A.

(2007). In support of personality assessment inorganizational settings. Personnel Psychology,60,9951027.

Ones, D. S., & Viswesveran, C. (2011). Individual dif-ferences at work. In T. Chamorro-Premuzic, S. vonStumm, & A. Furnham (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwellhandbook of individual differences(pp. 379407).Singapore: Blackwell-Wiley.

Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Reiss, A. D. (1996). Roleof social desirability in personality testing in person-nel selection: The red herring.Journal of AppliedPsychology,81, 660679.

Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (1993).Comprehensive meta-analysis of integrity test validi-ties.Journal of Applied Psychology,78, 679703.

Ozer, D. J., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2006). Personality andthe prediction of consequential outcomes.AnnualReview of Psychology,57, 401421.

Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of sociallydesirable responding.Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology,46, 598609.

Paulhus, D. L., & Reynolds, S. R. (1995). Enhancingtarget variance in personality impressions.Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology,69, 344354.

Poropat, A. (2009). A meta-analysis of the Five-FactorModel of personality and academic performance.Psychological Bulletin,135, 322338.

Rasch, R., Shen, W., Davies, S. E., & Bono, J. (2008,

April). The development of a taxonomy of ineffectiveleadership behaviors. Paper presented at the 23rdannual

201335883-026

Documents