-
Profile Analyses 1
Running Head: PROFILE ANALYSES OF PERSONALITY
Profile Analyses of Personality-Leadership Performance
Relations
Jeff Foster and Joyce Hogan
Hogan Assessment Systems
Paper presented in M. Ingerick & L. M. Hough (symposium
chairs) What Makes a Great
Leader? Refining the Personality-Leadership Relationship. 21st
Annual Conference of Society
for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, May 2006, Dallas,
Texas.
-
Profile Analyses 2
Abstract
We examine the effects of both bright side and dark side
personality characteristics on
leadership performance. Specifically, three profiles are
evaluated using meta-analyses from
datasets (K = 6; N = 881) containing bright side personality
variables, dark side personality
variables, and leadership performance ratings. Using three
leadership models, we created
profiles using: (a) bright side marker HPI scales only; (b) dark
side marker HDS scales only; and
(c) a combination of HPI and HDS scales. All profiles produced
positive results, with
individuals who fit the profiles receiving significantly higher
leadership ratings than those who
did not. Standardized group mean difference scores were .33 for
the bright side profile, .36 for
the dark side profile, and .44 for the combination leadership
profile. These results demonstrate
the value of selecting for positive personal characteristics
while selecting out characteristics
detrimental to effective leadership performance. Implications
and directions for future research
are discussed.
-
Profile Analyses 3
Profile Analyses of Personality-Leadership Performance
Relations
Leadership requires taking personality seriously because
leadership, personality, and
personality assessment are necessarily related. How leaders view
themselves is difficult to
measure with any scientific certainty; how observers view them
is easy, reliable, and valid. Prior
to the appearance of Judge, Bono, Ilies, and Gerhardts (2002)
meta-analysis of five-factor model
personality measures and leadership effectiveness, the
literature suggested that personality
factors had only modest influence on leadership effectiveness.
Because of the difficulties
involved in measuring leadership effectiveness, we approached
the topic from the opposite
viewincompetence. This tactic has several advantages since there
is no shortage of failed
managers/leaders, they can be identified by observers, and their
characteristics can be mapped
empirically using well-validated personality assessments.
The assertion that there are flawed leaders has gone from the
unthinkable to the obvious.
Issues of contemporary business journals describe the practices
of failed executives; entire
volumes appear on personality factors associated with leader
derailment (cf. Dotlich & Cairo,
2003). Some of these writings are a rediscovery of Bentzs (1985)
research on management
incompetence among failed Sears executives. Bentz identified
seven themes in flawed managers
who were otherwise bright, socially skilled, and identified as
high-potential: (1) unable to
delegate or prioritize; (2) being reactive rather than
proactive; (3) unable to sustain relationships;
(4) unable to build a team; (5) having poor judgment; (6) being
a slow learner; and (7) having an
overriding personality defect.
Center for Creative Leadership researchers replicated and
refined Bentzs original
findings. McCall, Lombardo, and Morrison (1988) and Leslie and
Van Velsor (1996) summarize
their findings about managerial failure with four themes: (1)
problems with interpersonal
-
Profile Analyses 4
relations; (2) failure to meet business objectives; (3)
inability to build a team; and (4) inability to
adapt to transitions.
Since Judge et al.s (2002) definitive identification of positive
personality factors
associated with leadership effectiveness and an emerging
literature on negative personality
characteristics associated with ineffectiveness, it is possible
to assimilate these perspectives into
a comprehensive character model of leadership competence. The
current research investigated
and compared three approaches for predicting leadership
outcomes: (a) predicting leadership
with bright side personality measures; (b) predicting leadership
with dark side personality
measures; and (c) predicting leadership with a combination of
both. We anticipated that each
type of measure would predict performance but, because both have
implications for distinct
components of leadership behavior, the greatest degree of
overall leadership effectiveness
prediction would be achieved when both bright side and dark side
measures were used
simultaneously. Specifically, we proposed and tested the
following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: A profile constructed from bright side personality
measures will be
significantly related to leadership performance.
Hypothesis 2: A profile constructed from dark side personality
measures will be
significantly related to leadership performance.
Hypothesis 3: A profile constructed from both bright side and
dark side personality
measures will be significantly related to leadership
performance.
Hypothesis 4: A profile constructed from both bright side and
personality measures will
be more highly predictive of leadership performance than
profiles that use only one type
of personality measure.
-
Profile Analyses 5
Method
Measures
Bright Side Personality. Most important bright side personality
characteristics can be
described in terms of the Five-Factor Model (FFM; cf. De Raad
& Perugini, 2002; Digman,
1990; Goldberg, 1992; John, 1990, p. 72; McCrae & Costa,
1987; Wiggins, 1996). The FFM is
comprised of five dimensions that represent how we think about
and describe people (Goldberg,
1990):
I. Surgency/Extraversion - the degree to which a person seems
outgoing and talkative.
II. Agreeableness - the degree to which a person seems pleasant
and rewarding to deal with.
III. Conscientiousness the degree to which a person complies
with rules, norms, and standards.
IV. Emotional Stability - the degree to which a person appears
calm and self-accepting.
V. Intellect/Openness to Experience - the degree to which a
person seems creative and open-
minded.
The Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI; R. Hogan & Hogan,
1995) was used for this
study to assess bright side characteristics of personality. The
HPI was developed specifically to
predict real-world outcomes such as job performance and assesses
the FFM in occupational life
within a normal population. The HPI contains seven primary
scales that are aligned with the
FFM as follows:
I. Adjustment the degree to which a person is steady in the face
of pressure, or conversely,
moody and self-critical (FFM: Emotional Stability).
II. Ambition the degree to which a person seeks status and
values achievement (FFM:
-
Profile Analyses 6
Extraversion).
III. Sociability the degree to which a person needs and/or
enjoys social interaction (FFM:
Extraversion).
IV. Interpersonal Sensitivity the degree to which a person is
socially sensitive, tactful, and
perceptive (FFM: Agreeableness).
V. Prudence the degree to which a person is concerned with
self-control and
conscientiousness (FFM: Conscientiousness).
VI. Inquisitive the degree to which a person seems imaginative,
adventurous, and analytical
(FFM: Intellect/Openness).
VII. Learning Approach the degree to which a person enjoys
academic activities and values
education as an end in itself (FFM: Intellect/Openness).
The seven dimensions of the HPI are assessed using 206
true-false items. The internal
consistency and test-retest reliability of the scales are as
follows: Adjustment (.89/.86),
Ambition (.86/.83), Sociability (.83/.79), Interpersonal
Sensitivity (.71/.80), Prudence (.78/.74),
Inquisitive (.78/.83), and Learning Approach (.75/.86).
Dark Side Personality. The Hogan Development Survey (HDS; R.
Hogan & Hogan,
1997) was used for this study to assess dark side
characteristics of normal personality. The dark
side personality characteristics measured by the HDS represent
flawed interpersonal strategies
that (a) reflect peoples distorted beliefs about others, and (b)
negatively influence careers and
life satisfaction (Bentz, 1985; R. Hogan & Hogan, 1997;
Leslie & Van Velsor, 1996).
Behavioral manifestations of dark side personality measures
emerge during times of stress or
-
Profile Analyses 7
when people let their guard down. These dispositions reflect
maladaptive behaviors that coexist
with bright side personality characteristics.
In the context of personnel selection, the HDS identifies
applicants whose behavior, over
time, will erode relationships with others because of flawed
interpersonal strategies. The HDS is
designed to assess 11 dysfunctional dispositions that can impede
job performance and lead to
career difficulties:
I. Excitable concerns being initially enthusiastic about people
or projects, and then becoming
disappointed with them. Result: seems to lack persistence.
II. Skeptical concerns being socially insightful, but cynical,
mistrustful, and overly sensitive
to criticism. Result: seems to lack trust.
III. Cautious concerns being overly worried about making
mistakes and being criticized.
Result: seems resistant to change and reluctant to take
chances.
IV. Reserved concerns seeming tough, remote, detached, and hard
to reach. Result: seems to
be a poor communicator.
V. Leisurely concerns being independent, ignoring others
requests, and becoming irritable if
they persist. Result: seems stubborn, procrastinating, and
uncooperative.
VI. Bold concerns seeming entitled and having inflated views of
ones competence and worth.
Result: seems unable to admit mistakes or share credit.
VII. Mischievous concerns being charming, but manipulative and
ingratiating. Result: seems to
have trouble maintaining relationships and learning from
experience.
-
Profile Analyses 8
VIII. Colorful concerns being dramatic, engaging, and
attention-seeking. Result: seems
preoccupied with being noticed and may lack sustained focus.
IX. Imaginative concerns thinking and acting in interesting,
unusual, and even eccentric ways.
Result: seems creative but often lacking good judgment.
X. Diligent concerns being conscientious, perfectionistic, and
hard to please. Result: tends to
disempower staff and subordinates.
XI. Dutiful concerns being eager to please and reluctant to act
independently. Result: tends to
be pleasant and agreeable, but reluctant to support subordinates
and co-workers.
The eleven dimensions of the HDS are assessed using 168
agree-disagree items that have
no psychiatric or mental health content. Principal components
analysis of the HDS yields three
clearly defined factors that support interpreting the inventory
in terms of Horneys (1950)
taxonomy of flawed interpersonal characteristics (R. Hogan &
Hogan, 2001). The average alpha
for the scales is .67 and test-retest reliabilities range from
.58 to .87. The test manual documents
the instruments development and psychometric properties.
Leadership Performance. The criteria used for this study was
leadership performance.
Although performance ratings varied by sample, each contained at
least one item for assessing
global leadership performance (e.g., leads by example) or
multiple items used to construct an
overall leadership scale. All ratings were provided by
supervisors who were knowledgeable of
the targets job performance.
-
Profile Analyses 9
Profile Construction
We constructed and subsequently evaluated three
personality-based predictor profiles.
The first profile, which was consistent with Judge et al.s
(2003) approach of focusing on
leadership bright side characteristics, used bright side
personality scales that have been found to
be predictive of leadership performance. The second profile
corresponded to Bentzs (1985) and
McCall et al.s (1998) approach of focusing on derailing
behaviors, particularly those
characterizing problems with interpersonal relations (i.e.,
volatile, aloof, cold, overly ambitious,
and arrogant). The final profile used both bright side and dark
side personality scales to predict
leadership performance.
Bright Side Profile. In reviewing the Hogan Archive, which
contains results from over
200 criterion studies conducted over the past three decades,
Foster and Hogan (2005) identified
35 studies using the HPI to predict performance for leadership
jobs. Results from applying
Hunter and Schmidts (1990) meta-analysis methods to validation
studies (K = 35; N =3751)
indicated that four HPI scales had correlations with overall
performance for managers and
executives at = .10 or higher: Adjustment ( = .22), Ambition ( =
.31), Interpersonal
Sensitivity ( = .15) and Prudence ( = .13). These results
provided the architecture for
constructing a leadership profile based upon bright side
personality characteristics.
The HPI technical manual (R. Hogan & Hogan, 1995) stipulates
that, in evaluating scores
on the HPI, one rule of thumb is to interpret scores above the
65th percentile high and scores
below the 35th percentile low (p. 49). Because the four scales
used to construct the Bright Side
Profile are positively related to job performance, we labeled
individuals falling above the 35th
percentile on each scale as having high leadership potential
whereas those falling below the 35th
percentile on any of the four scales were labeled as having low
leadership potential.
-
Profile Analyses 10
Dark Side Profile. Foster (2006) applied Hunter and Schmidts
(1990) meta-analysis
methods to studies from the Hogan Archive (K = 12; N = 1,058) to
determine relationships
between HDS scales and managerial job performance. Six HDS
scales were related to
performance at = .10 or higher: Excitable ( = -.18), Skeptical (
= -.19), Cautious ( = -.17),
Bold ( = -.10), Mischievous ( = -.15), and Imaginative ( =
-.20). These results provided the
architecture for constructing a leadership profile based upon
dark side personality characteristics.
According to the HDS technical manual (R. Hogan & Hogan,
1997), scores at or above
the 90th percentile are considered high on the HDS. The
implications of high scores on the HDS,
in general, are undesirable. Because each of the six scales used
to construct the Dark Side
Profile are negatively related to job performance, we labeled
individuals falling below the 90th
percentile on each scale as having high leadership potential
whereas those falling above the 90th
percentile on any of the six scales were labeled as having low
leadership potential.
Total Leadership Profile. To determine the effectiveness of both
bright side and dark
side personality measures in predicting leadership performance,
a comprehensive leadership
profile was constructed using scales from both the HPI and HDS.
Previous research indicates
incremental validity of the HDS measures over the HPI in
predicting leadership performance,
with multiple Rs ranging from .31 to .56 (Davies, Hogan, Foster,
& Elizondo, 2005).
Davies et al. (2005) explored the predictive power of both
bright side and dark side
personality measures for use with the Leadership Domain Model
(R. Hogan & Warrenfeltz,
2003; Warrenfeltz, 1995). This model synthesizes existing
competency models into the domains
of Intrapersonal Skills, Interpersonal Skills, Technical Skills,
and Leadership Skills. These four
domains form a hierarchy of trainability, with earlier skills
being harder to train than later skills,
-
Profile Analyses 11
and serve as the a basis for personnel selection, training, and
performance evaluation (J. Hogan,
Davies, & Hogan, in press; R. Hogan & Warrenfeltz).
The structure of this performance model is presented in Table 1.
Previous research
outlining relationships between personality predictors and job
performance (Davies et al., 2005;
Foster & Hogan, 2005; J. Hogan, Davis, & Hogan, in
press) was used to align both HPI and HDS
scales with performance competencies specific to each of the
four domains and these appear in
Table 2.
As seen in Table 2, each of the HPI and HDS scales used to
construct the first two
profiles relate to specific areas of leadership performance. The
Total Leadership Profile was
constructed using cutoff scores at the 35th percentile for four
HPI scales (Adjustment, Ambition,
Interpersonal Sensitivity, and Prudence) and the 90th percentile
for six HDS scales (Imaginative,
Excitable, Skeptical, Reserved, Bold, and Cautious). Individuals
falling above the 35th percentile
on each of the HPI scales and below the 90th percentile on each
of the HDS scales were coded as
having high leadership potential whereas those failing to meet
any of these cuts were coded as
having low leadership potential.
Analytical Approach
A series of meta-analyses (Hunter and Schmidts, 1990) were
conducted to determine the
leadership predictiveness of each profile. Studies included in
the Hogan Archive met six criteria:
(a) data were gathered from job incumbents for the purpose of
criterion validation; (b) job
incumbents held leadership positions; (c) HPI data were
collected; (d) HDS data were collected;
(e) job performance data were collected; and (f) job performance
rating data included a rating of
leadership ability.
-
Profile Analyses 12
Six studies were identified meeting these criteria (N = 810).
For each dataset, individuals
were coded as high leadership potential versus low leadership
potential based on: (a) the Bright
Tide Profile; (b) the Dark Tide Profile; and (c) the Total
Leadership Profile. Group mean
differences, expressed in standard deviations [i.e., Cohens
(1962) d], were calculated based on
each profile. Then, these effect sizes were meta-analyzed to
determine the predictability of each
profile.
Results
Table 3 shows the group mean differences for each profile
examined in each of the six
datasets used for this study. As seen, the results for all three
profiles were in a positive direction
across nearly all six studies, indicating that each profile
effectively predicted leadership ratings.
The one exception to this finding came from using the Bright
Side Profile for a single small
sample study; it is likely that a lack of power contributed to
the discrepancy associated with this
result. The results presented in Table 4 indicate that the
Bright Side Profile, the Dark Side
Profile, and the Total Leadership Profile all effectively
predicted leadership performance, with
effect sizes frequently nearing or falling within the moderate
range, described by Cohen (1962)
as .50 to .80.
Meta-analytical results for difference scores are presented in
Table 4, which indicates
positive effects were found with both the Bright Side and Dark
Side Profiles, with estimated
population parameters of = .33 and = .36 respectively. To test
Hypotheses 1 and 2, 95%
confidence intervals were reviewed. Lower limit confidence
intervals for both profiles were
greater than .00 (.24 and .26, respectively), thereby supporting
Hypotheses 1 and 2.
Results for the Total Leadership Profile were higher, with a
population parameter of =
.44. To test Hypothesis 3, 95% confidence intervals were again
reviewed. As seen in Table 4,
-
Profile Analyses 13
the lower limit confidence interval for the total leadership
profile was greater than .00 (.35),
thereby supporting Hypothesis 3. Population parameters were
examined for Hypothesis 4. As
shown in Table 4, the population parameter estimating the group
mean leadership rating scores
was higher for the Total Leadership Profile than for either the
Bright Side or Dark Side Profiles,
thereby supporting for Hypothesis 4.
Together, these results clearly support the usefulness of both
bright side and dark side
personality measures in predicting leadership performance.
Furthermore, the greatest
predictability was obtained using the Total Leadership Profile
representing both bright side and
dark side personality characteristics.
Discussion
These results demonstrate that both bright side and dark side
personality measures can be
used to construct leadership profiles identifying high
performers at both practically and
statistically significant levels. Furthermore, a profile
consisting of scales from both inventory
types produced the greatest predictability, indicating that both
bright and dark side personality
measures should be used to develop comprehensive leadership
profiles. These results are
particular impressive given that a standard, generic set of
cutoff scores was used to assess each
profile across each of the six datasets examined for this
study.
In most applied settings, the validity of a specific set of
cut-scores will vary based upon
job characteristics. Best practices in validity research require
a full job analysis and the
development of a specific selection profile based upon a number
of contextual factors relating to
the KSAs required for successful job performance and the context
in which the job is performed
(J. Hogan, Davies, & Hogan, in press). The variability of
difference scores presented in Table 3,
along with the percentage of variance accounted for from each
profile presented in Table 4,
-
Profile Analyses 14
suggest that the profiles used for this study were more
effective at predicting leadership
performance for some jobs than others. From a meta-analytical
perspective, these results
indicate the presence of moderators that influence the
relationship between the profiles examined
and job performance across samples. From a practical
perspective, these results indicate that
more effective profiles could be constructed for some, if not
all, of the jobs examined in this
study.
The purpose of the current study was not, however, to
demonstrate methods for obtaining
the largest possible effect size through the use of personality
profiles. Instead, we sought to
compare standardized, generic profiles constructed using bright
side, dark side, and a
combination of the two types of personality measures. As
expected, both bright side and dark
side personality measures were effective at predicting
leadership performance. Moreover, a
combination of both types of personality measures resulting in
the greatest predictability,
suggesting that traits associated with both effective leadership
behaviors and those associated
with ineffective or maladaptive behaviors are useful in
predicting leadership performance in
organizational settings.
This study provides a number of directions for future research.
First, as noted above, it
would be worthwhile to examine other profiles that may be more
effective in predicting
leadership performance. Although it is almost certain that
profiles customized to fit the needs
and context related to a specific job would produce greater
effect sizes in the forms of group
mean performance differences, it is also possible that
alternative generic profiles would also be
more effective across jobs. For example, the current profiles
employed equal cut-scores to each
scale found to be predictive of performance from both the HPI
(greater than or equal to the 35th
percentile on each scale) and the HDS (less than the 90th
percentile on each scale). It may be
-
Profile Analyses 15
beneficial to explore other possibilities, such as giving
greater weight (i.e., more stringent cuts)
to scales that have higher correlations with job
performance.
Finally, because strengths of the current research were the use
of multiple samples and
meta-analytical methods, it also may be beneficial to reexamine
these analyses on more samples
as they become available. The increasing use of both the HPI and
HDS for the prediction of
leadership performance, as well as other personality
assessments, should provide a rich source of
data for the further examination of the issues presented in this
research and the generalizibility of
these findings in the future.
-
Profile Analyses 16
References
Bentz, V. J. (1985, August). 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
93rd Annual Convention of the American Psychological
Association, Los Angeles, CA.
Cohen, J. (1962). The statistical power of abnormal-social
psychological research: A review.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 65, 145-153.
Davies, S., Hogan, J., Foster, J. L., & Elizondo, F. (2005).
Recombinant personality measures for
predicting leadership performance. Paper presented at the 20th
Annual Conference of the
Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Los
Angeles, CA.
De Raad, B., & Perugini, M. (Eds.). (2002). Big Five
assessment. Seattle, WA: Hogrefe &
Huber.
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the
five-factor model. Annual
Review of Psychology, 41, 417-440.
Dotlich, D. L., & Cairo, P. C. (2003). Why CEOs fail. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative description of
personality: The Big-Five factor
structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59,
1216-1229.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the
Big-Five factor structure.
Psychological Assessment, 4, 26-42.
Foster, J. L. (2006). Validity of the Hogan Development Survey:
Meta-analytical results from the
Hogan Archive. Technical Report. Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment
Systems.
Foster, J. L., & Hogan, J. (2005). Validity of the Hogan
Personality Inventory for job family
profiles. Technical Report. Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment
Systems.
-
Profile Analyses 17
Hogan, J., Davies, S., & Hogan, R. (in press). Generalizing
personality-based validity evidence.
In S. M. McPhail (Ed.), Alternative validation strategies. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (1995). Hogan Personality Inventory
manual. Tulsa, OK: Hogan
Assessment Systems.
Hogan, R. & Hogan, J. (1997). Hogan Development Survey
manual. Tulsa, OK: Hogan
Assessment Systems.
Hogan, R., & Warrenfeltz, W. (2003). Educating the modern
manager. Academy of Management
Learning and Education, 2, 74-84.
Horney, K. (1950). Neurosis and human growth. New York:
Norton.
Hunter, J. E. & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of
meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in
research findings. New York: Sage.
John, O. P. (1990). The Big-Five factor taxonomy: Dimensions of
personality in the natural
language and in questionnaires. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook
of personality theory
and research (pp. 66-100). New York: Guilford.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W.
(2002). Personality and leadership: A
qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87, 765-780.
Leslie, J. B., & Van Velsor, E. (1996). A look at derailment
today: North American and Europe.
Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
McCall, M. W., Jr., Lombardo, M. M., & Morrison, A. M.
(1988). Lessons of experience.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Press.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1987). Validity of the
five-factor model of personality across
instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 52, 81-90.
-
Profile Analyses 18
Warrenfeltz, R. B. (1995, May). An executive-level validation of
the Borman and Brush
taxonomy. Paper presented at the 10th Annual Conference of the
Society for Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL.
Wiggins, J. S. (1996). The Five-Factor Model of personality. New
York: Guilford.
-
Profile Analyses 19
Table 1
Leadership Domain Model of Job Performance, Example
Competencies, and Personality Measures
Metaconcept Domain Example Competency FFM Measurement
Leadership
Achievement Building Teams Business Acumen Decision Making
Delegation Employee Development Initiative Leadership Managing
Performance Resource Management
Surgency/Extraversion Emotional Stability Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Getting Ahead
Technical
Analysis Creating Knowledge Decision Making Political Awareness
Presentation Skills Problem Solving Safety Technical Skill Training
Performance Written Communication
Openness to Experience Conscientiousness
Interpersonal
Building Relationships Communication Consultative Skills
Cooperating Influence Interpersonal Skill Organizational
Citizenship Service Orientation Teamwork Trustworthiness
Agreeableness Surgency/Extraversion Emotional Stability
Getting Along
Intrapersonal
Dependability Detail Orientation Flexibility Following
Procedures Integrity Planning Respect Risk Taking Stress Tolerance
Work Attitude
Conscientiousness Emotional Stability Surgency/Extraversion
-
Profile Analyses 20
Table 2
Predictor Alignment with the Leadership Domain Model
Domain Predictor Scale Example Behaviors p
Leadership Skills HPI Adjustment Leading and Building Teams
0.31
HPI Ambition Employee Development 0.29
HPI Interpersonal Sensitivity Leading and Building Teams
0.24
HPI Prudence Leading and Building Teams 0.23
HDS Imaginative Leadership -0.23
HDS Mischievous Leading and Building Teams -0.13
HDS Bold Leading and Building Teams -0.09
HDS Excitable Leadership -0.19
HDS Skeptical Leading and Building Teams -0.15
HDS Cautious Delegation -0.23
Technical Skills HPI Learning Approach Training Performance
0.25
HPI Prudence Safety 0.21
HPI Inquisitive Decision Making 0.20
HDS Imaginative Safety -0.22
HDS Skeptical Technical Skill -0.34 Continued on the next
page.
-
Profile Analyses 21
Table 2 (Cont.)
Predictor alignment to the Leadership Domain Model
Domain Predictor Scale Example Behaviors p
Interpersonal Skills HPI Interpersonal Sensitivity Influence
0.25
HPI Adjustment Building Relationships 0.17
HPI Sociability Influence 0.21
HDS Bold Trustworthiness -0.22
HDS Cautious Communication -0.17
HDS Imaginative Influence -0.21
HDS Reserved Customer Service -0.30
HDS Mischievous Teamwork -0.20
Intrapersonal Skills HPI Adjustment Work Attitude 0.36
HPI Ambition Flexibility 0.21
HPI Prudence Respects Others 0.23
HDS Leisurely Planning -0.19
HDS Skeptical Work Attitude -0.20
HDS Excitable Stress Tolerance -0.23
HDS Imaginative Work Attitude -0.26
-
Profile Analyses 22
Table 3
Group Mean Differences for the Bright Side, Dark Side, and Total
Leadership Profiles
Archive Study # N Bright Side Profile Difference Dark Side
Profile Difference Total Leadership Profile Difference
182 107 .39 .15 .43
267 23 -.10 .57 .01
291 63 .11 .40 .47
324 295 .29 .35 .38
330 69 .26 .62 .34
375 253 .16 .02 .16
Note. All difference scores were calculated by subtracting the
group mean score of those not fitting the profile
from those fitting the profile expressed in standard
deviations.
-
Profile Analyses 23
Table 4
Meta-Analytic Results for the Bright Side, Dark Side, and Total
Leadership Profiles
Profile k N dobs SDd v %VE 90% CV 95% CI Bright Side HPI
Profile
6 810 .24 .11 .33 53 .16 .24
Dark Side HDS Profile
6 810 .24 .22 .36 11 -.11 .26
Total Leadership Profile
6 810 .31 .13 .44 33 .19 .35
Note. k = number of studies; N = number of participants across k
studies; dobs = observed group mean difference; v = operational
difference (corrected for criterion reliability only); %VE =
percentage of variance explained; 90% CV
= lower limit credibility value; 95% CI = lower limit confidence
interval
-
Profile Analyses 24
Participant information: Presenter: Jeff Foster, Hogan
Assessment Systems 2622 E. 21st St. Tulsa, OK 74114 Tel:
918-749-0632 Email: [email protected] SIOP Member
Coauthor: Joyce Hogan, Hogan Assessment Systems 2622 E. 21st St.
Tulsa, OK 74114 Tel: 918-749-0632 Email:
[email protected] SIOP Fellow