Predicting Leadership Effectiveness 1

Predicting Leadership Effectiveness: Contributions of Critical Thinking, Personality and Derailers

William D. Fleming
Hogan Assessment Systems

Paper presented at the 19th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
Chicago, Illinois. April 2, 2004.

This study evaluated the effect of critical thinking, personality and derailment characteristics on
predicting four dimensions of leadership performance (i.e., Business, Results, People, and Self
Leadership). Results (n=326) indicated that personality (in particular stress tolerance [i.e., Adjustment],
achievement orientation [i.e., Ambition], and seeming somewhat restrained [i.e., lower Sociability]) and
derailment characteristics (in particular, composure [i.e., lower Excitable], and honoring commitments
[i.e., lower Leisurely] uniquely contributed to predicting performance after accounting for critical
thinking. Additionally, HDS Diligent scale was, in general, positively predictive across performance
ratings, particularly those concerned with Business and Results Leadership. This can possibly be
ascribed to the organization’s emphasis on keeping schedules and making prompt, cost-efficient
deliveries. How these characteristics contribute to our understanding of leadership performance is
discussed.

This paper examines the characteristics necessary for having a strategic focus, simplifying complex issues
successful leadership. Emler and Cook (2001) note into actionable plans, and having long time frames
that psychology has treated leadership as somewhat (rather than relying on short term goals for short term
suspect in their position that (1) leaders are no gain). Interestingly, Collins notes that companies
different from those they lead (thus leadership is with long-term growth are lead by highly capable
based on contingencies and situations), (2) what individuals who focus on working hard to build a
leaders can do depends largely on what followers will company and a legacy for others to follow rather than
accept (leadership power is illusory), and (3) that finding fulfillment in self-aggrandizement. Collins
although leaders possess different characteristics than also notes that effective leaders synthesize complex
other organizational members, it had very little effect information from various, and sometimes conflicting,
on organizational effectiveness (Pfeffer, 1978). sources into basic, actionable principles and
History shows that leadership matters in determine who could realize these principles.
defining the character of an organization and how it Therefore, effective leadership includes having great
defines its successes (e.g., driving innovation at 3M) insight and understanding of business processes (i.e.,
or its eventual failures (e.g., questionable business how to do it) and people (i.e., who can do it).
practices at Enron). Effective leadership may be Collins’ finding is similar to Hogan’s (1983)
defined as the ability to create a shared vision and a general roles of managerial behavior: 1) building
strategy to fulfill that vision. Poor leadership, relationships and 2) achieving results (cf. Hogan,
however, is a widespread problem that may be more 1983). The relationship role (i.e., the manager’s
symptomatic of leaders’ interpersonal limitations ability and skill in building and maintaining
than technical ability. Unfortunately, leadership relationships) is probably the most fundamental
incompetence appears to be the norm according to aspect of any manager’s job. Most managers must
statistics, which suggest between 50% and 75% of achieve results through others, so convincing others
managers are ineffective (DeVries, 1992; Hogan, to work hard and produce quality products is
Raskin, & Frazzini, 1990; Shipper & Wilson, 1991). essential. Moreover, a manager who communicates
Therefore effective leadership may be generally more effectively and gets along with others may be
defined by not only possessing the requisite personal capable of building a more effective team than
characteristics and technical ability, but also the managers with interpersonal defects (Hogan &
relative lack of interpersonal limitations, or derailers. Hogan, 1997). In summary, a leader’ interpersonal
In contrast to above critique noted by Emler characteristics (i.e., social skill) and strategic thinking
& Cook (2001), Collins (2001) asserts that leadership defines how he or she gets along (working with
is the key factor in transforming good companies into various constituencies), get ahead (furthering the
exceptional companies with sustainable growth. organization by getting others to work together), and
Notable characteristics among leaders of exceptional create structure within his or her organization
companies include a drive to succeed for the (strategically aligning resources with vision). This
organization, having connectedness with others, paper argues that effective leadership may be built on
 Predicting Leadership Effectiveness 2

decision-making and strategic ability, but long-term general mental ability measures plus specific abilities
success is defined by a combination of requisite or knowledge (i.e., s) when making predictions about
personal characteristics as well as the relative lack of employment. Results showed that while g and s
interpersonal limitations. independently predicted job performance criteria, s
As stated above, personality has been shown added incrementally to the accuracy of prediction
to be related to leadership performance. Leadership already obtained by g. Results also indicated that
effectiveness was conceptualized in the present study when using g and s to predict job performance
from work by Collins (2001) as encompassing four criteria, g yielded validity coefficients with a larger
dimensions: Business Leadership, Results magnitude (r = .21). In addition to supporting the
Leadership, People Leadership and Self Leadership. validity of general mental ability measures, the Ree et
First, successful leadership requires the ability to al. study also points out the potential value of
think through issues, plan, and consider important incorporating additional predictors to augment
business issues from multiple perspectives (Business indicators of general mental ability.
Leadership). Second, successful companies are led
by individuals who have the ability to take initiative, H1: Critical thinking will be positively related
be persistent, communicate clearly, and accomplish to leadership effectiveness ratings.
results (Results Leadership). Third, working well
with others and getting work done through others Furthermore, Schmidt and Hunter (1998)
requires the ability to motivate, build relationships, found that using a cognitive ability and personality
build trust, develop talent, and influence (People test in combination yielded the highest overall
Leadership). Fourth, it is critical for leaders control validity (r = .65) when predicting job performance.
to their emotions, act with integrity, take Similar to the Ree et al. (1994) study, Schmidt and
responsibility for their own actions, and respond Hunter found that measures of general mental ability
resourcefully to change (Self Leadership). possess the strongest estimated true validity
The aforementioned leadership coefficients of any predictors, but that the validity of
characteristics and skills point to both critical general mental ability measures could be improved
thinking skills and personal characteristics necessary substantially by including a measure of personality.
for success. Personal characteristics, those factors
that allow individuals to get along and get ahead, are The Relationship between Personality and
best described and predicted with personality Leadership Effectiveness
assessment. Selecting those who have the ability to
think strategically, get along, and get ahead, and have Collins (2001) asserts that effective leaders
a relative lack of interpersonal flaws calls for a work first and foremost for the company, rather than
combination of both critical thinking assessment and purely for their own interests. Similarly, in applying
personality assessment in the selection process. The personality theory to leadership assessment and
following sections detail the validity of both selection, Hogan and Tett (2002) define leadership as
cognitive ability and personality assessment for the ability of an individual to persuade others to set
leadership effectiveness. aside their personal agenda, at least temporarily, and
work toward fulfilling the organizational agenda.
The Importance of Critical Thinking in Leadership Furthermore, Hogan (1982) defines personality as
Effectiveness deriving from the actor’s point of view (identity) and
from what others think of the actor (reputation).
Schmidt and Hunter (1998) summarized the Assessing a leader’s identity concerns comparing the
practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of values, hopes and aspirations of the leader to those of
research in personnel selection regarding 19 different non-leaders. Assessing a leader’s reputation
selection measures. The results showed that concerns measuring the evaluations of those who
measures of general mental ability predicted job observe the leader’s behavior by using the Big-Five
performance (r = .51), exceeding the validity of other (Digman, 1990; John, 1990; Saucier & Goldberg,
predictors. Hunter and Hunter’s (1984) meta- 1996).
analysis supported the relation between general Recent research has supported the
mental ability and job performance (r = .45) across a relationship between personality (i.e., Big-Five
broad range of job families. The authors concluded model) and job performance (Hough, Eaton,
that general mental ability predicts job performance Dunnette, Kamp, & McCloy, 1990; Barrick &
better than tests of any other single attribute Ree, Mount, 1991; Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991;
Earles, & Teachout (1994) investigated the separation Salgado, 1997; Hogan & Holland, 2001). The
of general mental ability (i.e., g) measures from estimated true correlations are strong and
 Predicting Leadership Effectiveness 3

encouraging, as shown in Table 1. Two findings are strategies typically occur during novel or stressful
notable. First, Salgado’s (1997) meta-analysis events. Moreover, the role of personality problems in
noted that personality related to managerial limiting the effectiveness of some managers is well
performance: Emotional Stability (.12), Extraversion documented (Bentz, 1985). Quite often capable
(.05), Openness (.03), Agreeableness (-.04), and leaders fail because of personality defects such as
Conscientiousness (.16). Secondly, Hogan and arrogance, competitiveness, or aloofness (Bentz,
Holland’s (2001) meta-analysis reported relations 1985; Lombardo, Ruderman, & McCauley, 1988;
between HPI scales and overall performance ratings McCall & Lombardo, 1983). Hogan (1994) asserts
as proving stronger than previous Big-Five research. that these “dark side” interpersonal tendencies
For this analysis, Hogan and Holland aligned HPI coexist with well-developed social skills, which also
scales with criterion measures reflecting Big-Five explains why some people with these maladaptive
themes. The corrected correlation coefficients ranged qualities sometimes ascend to leadership roles.
from .25 (HPI Learning Approach) to .43 (HPI Dark side personality characteristics reflect
Adjustment). flawed interpersonal strategies people use to
negotiate for status and acceptance. These tendencies
Table 1. Summary of Meta-Analytic Findings of the Relation
between Personality and Job Performance
develop during childhood as ways in which to deal
with criticism or feelings of inadequacy. According
Study C ES A E O to Horney (1950), there are three major strategies to
Barrick & Mount .23 .07 .06 .10 -.03 manage personal inadequacies: (a) by avoiding others
(1991) (i.e., moving away from people), (b) by dominating
Tett, Jackson, & .18 .22 .33 .16 .27
Rothstein (1991) or intimidating others (i.e., moving against people),
Salgado (1997) .26 .18 -.02 .14 .02 and by forming alliances (i.e., moving toward
Hurtz & Donovan .22 .14 .10 .09 .05 people).
(2000) Fleming & Holland (2002) evaluated the
Barrick, Mount, & .27 .13 .11 .15 .07
Judge (2001) validity of dark side personality characteristics in
Hogan & Holland .31 .37 .28 .30 .31 applied settings with a measure of flawed
(2001) characteristics (Hogan Development Scale; R. Hogan
Note. C = Conscientiousness, ES = Emotional Stability, & Hogan, 1997). The HDS scales associated with the
A = Agreeableness, E = Extraversion, and O = Openness to
Experience. Coefficients are corrected for predictor and Horney strategies are the following: moving away
criterion unreliability. (Excitable, Skeptical, Cautious, Reserved, and
Leisurely), moving against (Bold, Mischievous,
H2: Personality characteristics, particularly Colorful, and Imaginative), and moving toward
those representing composure (e.g., HPI (Diligent and Dutiful). The results suggested that
Adjustment), the drive to achieve goals (HPI characteristics associated with emotionality (HDS
Ambition), and structure and following rules Excitable), worry (HDS Cautious), aloofness (HDS
(HPI Prudence) will be positively related to Reserved), and being a micro-manager (HDS
leadership effectiveness ratings. Diligent) consistently predicted performance and
generalized across jobs and organizations. Horney’s
The Importance of Derailment Characteristics in (1950) Moving Away factor, followed by the Moving
Leadership Effectiveness Towards factor, demonstrated the largest average
effect sizes across scales. In contrast to recent
Over the last decade, most personality research portraying the bright side personality
research focused on the Big-Five (Barrick & Mount, predictors (e.g., Hogan & Holland, 2001), this
1991; Hogan & Holland, 2001; Salgado, 1997; Tett, research clearly shows that there is a dark side and it
Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991) or related constructs negatively affects performance.
(e.g., integrity: Ones, Viswesvaran, & Schmidt,
1993), reflecting “bright side” characteristics that H3: Dark side characteristics, particularly
promote an individual’s ability to get along or get those associated with Moving Away and
ahead (Hogan, 1983). Conversely, “dark side” Moving Toward factors, will be negatively
characteristics represent flawed interpersonal related to leadership performance ratings.
strategies that (a) reflect people’s distorted beliefs
about others and (b) negatively influence careers and In addition to the positive relations between
life satisfaction (Hogan, 1994). personality and leadership performance, personality
Over time, flawed behavioral strategies assessment will uniquely and incrementally
become associated with a person’s reputation and contribute to predicting leadership performance
eventually lead to derailment. Flawed interpersonal
 Predicting Leadership Effectiveness 4

above and beyond critical thinking (cf. Mount, Witt, between Forms A and B, is .75. Watson and Glaser
Barrick, & Mount, 2000). (1980) present the validity of the WGCTA in terms
of correlations with other measures of general mental
H4: Personality assessment will increment the ability; correlations range between .41 (WGCTA and
prediction of leadership performance above Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale) and .55 (Miller
and beyond the contribution of critical Analogies, Form H).
thinking. Hogan Personality Inventory. The HPI (R.
Hogan & Hogan, 1995) is based on the Big-Five
As stated above, derailment characteristics model and is designed to predict performance in real
have not yet been studied in relation to predicting world settings. The HPI is an untimed, 206-item,
leadership performance above and beyond the self-report measure that contains seven primary
contribution of critical thinking and “bright side” scales (see Table 2) and one validity scale; it is
personality characteristics. Considering that designed to assess the personal characteristics that
derailment characteristics negatively affect an facilitate or inhibit an individual’s ability to get along
individual’s ability to work with others, it offers a with others and achieve occupational goals. Overall,
unique contribution to understanding the relationship HPI scales demonstrate adequate psychometric
between personality and performance. qualities (Lobello, 1996), with internal-consistency
reliability coefficients ranging between .71
H5: Dark side characteristics will (Interpersonal Sensitivity) and .89 (Adjustment), and
incrementally contribute to the validity of test-retest reliability coefficients (assessed over a 4-
leadership performance, above and beyond week period) ranging from .74 (Prudence) to .86
critical thinking and bright side personality (Adjustment). In addition, the HPI is a rigorously
assessment. validated instrument that predicts job performance
across occupations and organizations (Axford, 1996;
Methods Hogan & Holland, 2001).
Table 2. Hogan Personality Inventory Scale Names and
Participants Definitions

Management-level employees (n = 326) Scale Definition

from an international shipping company participated The degree to which a person…
in a validation and management development project. Adjustment Seems calm and self-accepting or, conversely,
self-critical and tense.
Of those who reported, managers possessed at least Ambition Seems socially self-confident, leaderlike,
some college education (89.3%) and most were competitive, and energetic.
domestic workers (i.e., U.S., 84.9%). Most managers Sociability Needs and/or enjoys interacting with others.
were male (83.1%) and Caucasian (69.9%). Interpersonal Seems perceptive, tactful, and socially
Sensitivity sensitive.
Prudence Seems conscientious, conforming, and
Measures dependable.
Inquisitive Seems bright, creative, and interested in
The Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking intellectual matters.
Learning Enjoys academic activities and values
Appraisal. The Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Approach educational achievement.
Appraisal (WGCTA) is an 80-item assessment that
addresses the theoretical concept of critical thinking; The Hogan Development Survey. The HDS
these items produce a single score based upon an (Hogan & Hogan, 1997) is a self-report measure that
assessment of five critical thinking skills: (1) consists of 154 items across 11 scales (see Table 3)
Inference, (2) Recognition of Assumptions, (3) that measure dysfunctional interpersonal dispositions.
Deduction, (4) Interpretation and (5) Evaluation of Respondents indicate whether they “agree” or
Arguments. The examinee is asked to evaluate “disagree” with items. The HDS show adequate
passages that include problems, statements, psychometric properties with coefficient alphas
arguments, and interpretations. The WGCTA helps ranging between .50 (Dutiful) and .78 (Excitable).
evaluate an individual's ability to think critically and Additionally, test-retest reliabilities range between
whether employees have improved their critical .58 (Leisurely) and .87 (Excitable). Hogan and
thinking from training and instructional programs. Hogan (2001) classify the 11 interpersonal flaws into
The WGCTA possesses adequate three large factors: (1) tendency to blow up (i.e.,
psychometric properties, with split-half reliabilities “move away from people” or Excitable, Skeptical,
ranging between .69 and .85 and a test-retest Cautious, Reserved, and Leisurely), (2) show off (i.e.,
reliability of .73. The alternative-form reliability, “move against people” or Bold, Mischievous,
 Predicting Leadership Effectiveness 5

Colorful, and Imaginative) and (3) Conform when Table 4. Leadership Effectiveness Dimensions and Descriptors
under pressure (i.e., “move towards people” or Performance Definition
Diligent, Dutiful). Dimension
Business The ability to think through issues, plan,
Table 3. Hogan Developmental Scale Themes and Descriptors Leadership generate innovative ideas, understand
financial implications of issues, and
Description Definition consider important business issues from
Excitable Moody and hard to please; intense but short multiple perspectives.
lived enthusiasm for people, projects, or things.
Skeptical Cynical, distrustful, and doubting others’ true People Leadership The ability to work well with others,
intentions. motivate, inspire, build relationships,
Cautious Reluctant to take risks for fear of being rejected network, build trust, get work done
or negatively evaluated. through others, develop talent and
Reserved Aloof, detached, and uncomfortable; lacking influence others.
interest in or awareness of the feelings of
others. Results Leadership The ability to take initiative, have a drive
Leisurely Independent; ignoring people’s requests and for achievement, be willing to take charge,
becoming irritated or argumentative if they be persistent, communicate clearly, and
persist. accomplish results.
Bold Unusually self-confident; feelings of
grandiosity and entitlement; over-evaluations of Self Leadership The ability to control one’s emotions, act
one’s capabilities. with integrity, take responsibility for own
Mischievous Enjoying risk taking and testing the limits; actions, respond resourcefully to change,
needing excitement; manipulative, deceitful, develop oneself, and perform effectively
cunning, and exploitative. under stress.
Colorful Expressive, animated, and dramatic; wanting to
be noticed and needing to be the center of
attention.
Results
Imaginative Acting and thinking in creative and sometimes
odd or unusual ways. Table 5 shows the intercorrelations among
Diligent Meticulous, precise, and perfectionistic; the WGCTA, HPI and HDS scales.
inflexible about rules and procedures; critical of
others’ performance.
Partial support for Hypothesis 1 was
Dutiful Eager to please and reliant on others for support demonstrated through significant positive
and guidance; reluctant to take independent relationships between the WGCTA and Business
action or go against popular opinion. Leadership (r = .15), People Leadership (r = .13), and
Self Leadership (r = .13), as shown in Table 6.
Criteria. A rating scale of Leadership Critical Thinking was not significantly related to
effectiveness consists of 21-item and was developed Results Leadership.
by Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) of leadership and The second hypothesis, relating the HPI
management practices. The SMEs were represented with leadership performance, was partially supported.
by two Ph.D.s and four Masters in Table 6 shows that Adjustment, Ambition, Prudence
Industrial/Organizational Psychology, one MBA, and and Learning Approach were positively related
22 Managers. Leadership criteria, in Table 4, were across the four performance dimensions (r = .13 to
composed of four dimensions: Business Leadership, .26). Adjustment and Ambition were most strongly
People Leadership, Results Leadership, and Self related to performance ratings, suggesting that
Leadership. seeming stress tolerant and driven to succeed will
generally result in higher ratings. Sociability,
Procedure however, was negatively associated with Self
Leadership (r = -.12), suggesting that those who are
Managers were asked to complete the highly sociable may seem to lack focus and self-
WGCTA, HPI, HDS, and their supervisors were control. Interpersonal Sensitivity was significantly
asked to complete the Leadership Effectiveness form. related to People Leadership (r = .16) and Self
Forms were returned and coded into the archival Leadership (r = .12), suggesting that those who seem
database, screening for invalid tests. diplomatic and team-oriented are more likely to be
rated highly on those interpersonal and intrapersonal
criteria.
Hypothesis 3 was partially supported as four
of the five Moving Away characteristics (e.g.,
Excitable, Skeptical, Cautious and Leisurely) were
negatively related to performance (r = -.13 to -.25), as
shown in Table 6. Two of the four Moving Against
 Predicting Leadership Effectiveness 6

dimensions (i.e., Mischievous and Imaginative) were Discussion and Limitations

negatively related to performance (r = -.14 to -.18).
Hypotheses 4 and 5 were tested using Results supported the use of the HPI and
hierarchical regression. After controlling for HDS for predicting most aspects of leadership
demographic characteristics by entering the Gender performance, after considering WGCTA scores. The
and race variables in Level 1, the relative WGCTA was predictive of Business Leadership
contributions of the WGCTA (Level 2), the HPI ratings. Considering that People, Results, and Self
(Level 3), and the HDS (Level 4) were tested, as Leadership reflect more volitional than cognitive
shown in Table 7. The WGCTA was shown to be aspects of performance, this result, although not
predictive of one of four performance dimensions, expected, is interpretable and not surprising.
namely Business Leadership (R =.17, β = .15, p < Results with the HPI showed that effective
.05). This suggests that critical thinking skills are leaders seemed stress tolerant (Adjustment), driven
most associated with performance related to strategic (Ambition), and task focused (lower Sociability),
planning and idea generation. especially for Business Leadership. This empirically
Hypotheses 4 and 5 were partially supported supports Collins’ (2001) assertion that effective
across the four leadership performance dimensions leaders seem strategic and focused, task oriented and
with the addition of bright side and derailment reluctant to bring attention to oneself.
characteristics (i.e., HPI and HDS). For Business Including the HDS in analyses yielded
Leadership, the HPI increased the Multiple R from interesting results. For example, maintaining
.17 to .41 (∆R2 = .13, p < .05). Adjustment, composure (lower Excitable) and being responsive to
Ambition, and Sociability were predictive above and others’ needs (i.e., lower Leisurely) contributed to
beyond WGCTA scores (β = .21, .19, and -.21). higher Leadership performance ratings. Contrary to
Adding the HDS increased the Multiple R from .41 to expected relations, possessing exceptionally high
.51 (∆R2 = .09, p < .05), with the HDS Diligent scale standards and seeming meticulous (i.e., Diligent) was
predicting Business Leadership (β = .22). For People generally helpful across performance dimensions.
Leadership, the HPI increased the Multiple R from This is in contrast to Fleming & Holland’s (2002)
.14 to .36 (∆R2 = .11, p < .05). Adjustment and meta-analytic findings that the Diligent scale was
negatively related to managerial ratings. While
Ambition had significant beta weights (β = .23 and
seeming like a micromanager hampers getting along
.15). Adding the HDS to the equation increased the
and getting ahead in many careers, for effectiveness
Multiple R from .36 to .45, yet this was not
in a delivery business (i.e., meeting customer
significant (∆R2 = .09, p > .05). HDS Excitable (β =
demands and tight deadlines), being hard working
-.18) and Leisurely (β = -.16) were negatively and careful yet critical and demanding may
predictive of performance while and the Diligent contribute to ensuring that others perform tasks
scale (β =.17) was positively predictive. For Results correctly and shipments are delivered in a timely and
Leadership, the HPI increased the Multiple R from efficient manner.
.14 to .36 (∆R2 = .11, p < .05). Adjustment and lower There were limitations of this study to note.
Sociability (β = .20, -.16) were predictive of higher First, only single measures for each predictor type
Results Leadership ratings. The HDS significantly (e.g., using the HPI for measuring personality) were
added to the predictiveness by increasing the used with a single sample. Ideally, applying different
Multiple R from .36 to .48 (∆R2 = .10, p < .05). HDS measures of each type to other jobs (e.g., sales,
Excitable and Leisurely were negatively predictive of political) and organizational types (e.g., banking,
performance (β = -.19 and -.15) whereas the Diligent governmental) would help generalize the present
scale was positively predictive (β = .23). For Self findings. More and varied occupational groups
Leadership, the HPI increased the Multiple R from should contribute to a greater understanding of these
.12 to .39 (∆R2 = .14, p < .05). Similar to Business three predictors operate within leadership
Leadership, HPI Adjustment, Ambition, and effectiveness.
Sociability were predictive of performance (β = .25, This study represents a first step toward
.17, and -.24). Adding the HDS increased the understanding the contribution of critical thinking,
Multiple R from .39 to .48 (∆R2 = .08, p < .05). personality and dark side characteristics in predicting
Similar to People and Results Leadership, HDS effective leadership. Results illustrate the value of
Skeptical, Leisurely, and Diligent were predictive of assessing more factors than cognitive ability when
performance (β = -.18, -.17, and .20). predicting leadership performance. Unlike most
applied personality research over the last decade, this
study represents a change in focus—using both
“types” of personality measures in addition to
 Predicting Leadership Effectiveness 7

cognitive ability, to assess their impact on Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice

performance. The results of this study are & Research. 46, 9-15.
encouraging and demand that future research Hogan, R. & Hogan, J. (1995). Hogan Personality
continue to evaluate the cumulative effects of critical Inventory manual. (Tulsa, OK: Hogan
thinking, bright side characteristics and dark side Assessment Systems).
characteristics on leadership performance. Hogan, R. & Hogan, J. (1997). Hogan Development
Survey manual. (Tulsa, OK: Hogan
References Assessment Systems).
Hogan, J., & Holland, B. (2001). Meta-analysis
Axford, S. N. (1996). Review of the Hogan results for Hogan Personality Inventory
Personality Inventory (Revised). In J. C. scales and job performance criteria. Tulsa,
Impara & J. C. Coloney (Eds.), The OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.
Supplement to the Twelfth Mental Hogan, R., Raskin, R. & Fazzini, D. (1990). The
Measurements Yearbook. Lincoln, NB: The dark side of charisma. (In K. E. Clark & M.
University of Nebraska Press. B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadership (pp.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big 343—354). West Orange, NJ: Leadership
Five personality dimensions and job Library of America.)
performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Hogan, R. & Tett, R. (2002). Leadership
Psychology, 44, 1-26. assessment. In R. Fernancez Ballesteros
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K. & Judge, T. A. (Ed.). Encyclopedia of psychological
(2001). Personality and performance at the assessment. London: Sage.
beginning of the new millennium: What do Horney, K. (1950). Neurosis and human growth.
we know and where do we go next? New York: Norton.
International Journal of Selection & Hough, L. M., Eaton, N. K., Dunnette, M. D., Kamp,
Assessment, 9, 9-30. J. D., & McCloy, R. A. (1990). Criterion-
Bentz, V. J. (1985, August). A view from the top: A related validities of personality constructs
thirty year perspective of research devoted and the effect of response distortion on those
to discovery, description, and prediction of validities. Journal of Applied Psychology,
executive behavior. (Paper presented at the 75, 581-595.
93rd Annual Convention of the American Hunter, J. E.& Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and
Psychological Association, Los Angeles) utility of alternative predictors of job
Collins, J. C. (2001). Good to Great: Why Some performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72-
Companies Make the Leap...and Others 98.
Don't. New York: Harper Collins. Hurtz, G. M.& Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality
DeVries, D. L. (1992). Executive selection: and job performance: The Big Five
Advances but no progress. Issues & revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology,
Observations, 12, 1-5. Emler, N. & Cook, 85, 869-879.
T. (2001). Moral integrity in leadership: John, O. (1990). The “Big-Five” factor taxonomy:
Why it matters and why it may be difficult Dimensions of personality in the natural
to achieve. In Roberts, Brent W. (Ed); language and in questionnaires. In L. A.
Hogan, Robert (Ed). Personality psychology Pervin (Ed.). Handbook of personality
in the workplace. Decade of behavior. theory and research (pp. 66-100). New
Washington, DC: American Psychological York: Guilford.
Association. Lobello, S. G. (1996). Review of the Hogan
Fleming, B., & Holland, B. (April 2002). How dark Personality Inventory (Revised). In J. C.
side personality factors impact performance Impara & J. C. Coloney (Eds.), The
ratings: A meta-analysis. Paper presented Supplement to the Twelfth Mental
at the 17th Annual Conference of the Measurements Yearbook. Lincoln, NB: The
Society for Industrial and Organizational University of Nebraska Press.
Psychology, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Lombardo, M. M., Ruderman, M. N. & McCauley, C.
Hogan, R. (1983). A socioanalytic theory of D. (1988). Explanations of success and
personality. In M. M. Page (Ed.), 1982 derailment in upper-level management
Nebraska Symposium on motivation (pp 55- positions. Journal of Business and
89). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Psychology, 2, 199-216.
Hogan, R. (1994). Trouble at the top: Causes and McCall, M. W. & Lombardo, M. M. (1983). Off the
consequences of managerial incompetence. track: Why and how successful executives
 Predicting Leadership Effectiveness 8

get derailed (Tech. Rep. No. 21).

(Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative
Leadership)
Mount, M.K, Witt, L.A. & Barrick, M.R. (2000).
Incremental validity of empirically keyed
Biodata scales over GMA and the Five
Factor personality constructs. Personnel
Psychology, 53, 229-254.
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L.
(1993). Comprehensive meta-analysis of
integrity test validation: Findings and
implications for personnel selection and
theories of job performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 78, 679-703.
Ree, M.J., Earles, J.A., & Teachout, M.S. (1994).
Predicting job performance: Not much more
than g. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79,
518-524.
Salgado, J. F. (1997). The five factor model of
personality and job performance in the
European community. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 82, 36-43.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity
and utility of selection methods in personnel
psychology: Practical and theoretical
implications of 85 years of research
findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262-
274.
Shipper, F. & Wilson, C. L. (1991, July). The impact
of managerial behaviors on group
performance, stress, and commitment.
(Paper presented at the Impact of Leadership
Conference, Center for Creative Leadership,
Colorado Springs, CO)
Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N. & Rothstein, M. (1991).
Personality measures as predictors of job
performance: A meta-analytic review.
Personnel Psychology, 44, 703-742.
 Predicting Leadership Effectiveness 9

Table 5. Intercorrelations between the Watson-Glaser, HPI, HDS, and Leadership Performance Ratings

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Watson-Glaser
Adjustment .13
Ambition .05 .37
Sociability .12 .04 .36
Interpersonal Sensitivity .02 .45 .36 .23
Prudence .00 .47 .24 -.13 .37
Inquisitive .13 .20 .24 .34 .17 .10
Learning Approach .24 .36 .38 .19 .26 .22 .43
Excitable -.18 -.60 -.21 -.03 -.34 -.36 -.16 -.31
Skeptical -.09 -.35 -.08 .08 -.16 -.37 .01 -.13 .34
Cautious -.07 -.54 -.40 -.17 -.28 -.16 -.20 -.35 .32 .20
Reserved .02 -.31 -.31 -.24 -.46 -.24 -.07 -.20 .30 .23 .37
Leisurely -.03 -.22 -.18 -.03 -.13 -.16 -.06 -.07 .15 .25 .30 .09
Bold -.03 -.06 .14 .19 -.06 -.08 .12 .13 .16 .43 -.01 .11 .23
Mischievous -.07 -.21 .08 .28 -.15 -.35 .19 -.02 .15 .37 .02 .06 .22 .39
Colorful .08 .07 .30 .48 .13 -.06 .21 .20 -.02 .20 -.21 -.15 .12 .47 .40
Imaginative -.07 -.18 .09 .30 -.03 -.21 .17 -.02 .14 .28 .03 .07 .12 .36 .33 .31
Diligent -.10 -.07 .08 .05 .05 .27 .11 .10 .10 .02 .06 -.04 .17 .12 -.03 .05 -.01
Dutiful .05 -.02 .02 .06 .22 .18 .07 -.01 -.01 -.10 .17 -.15 -.01 -.03 -.08 .07 .06 .16
Business Leadership .15 .25 .21 -.08 .09 .16 .07 .20 -.22 -.13 -.24 -.04 -.17 -.06 -.13 -.04 -.18 .16 -.02
People Leadership .13 .26 .18 -.05 .16 .15 -.02 .15 -.22 -.14 -.22 -.09 -.17 -.05 -.15 -.01 -.14 .09 .03 .81
Results Leadership .11 .24 .18 -.08 .08 .15 .05 .19 -.25 -.18 -.21 -.05 -.17 -.05 -.13 .00 -.15 .17 .04 .86 .78
Self Leadership .13 .26 .18 -.12 .12 .16 -.02 .13 -.25 -.18 -.19 -.09 -.20 -.11 -.17 -.02 -.14 .08 .06 .75 .80 .74
Note. r > .12, p < .05. 1 = Watson-Glaser, 2 = Adjustment, 3 = Ambition, 4 = Sociability, 5 = Interpersonal Sensitivity, 6 = Prudence,
7 = Inquisitive, 8 = Learning Approach, 9 = Excitable, 10 = Skeptical, 11 = Cautious, 12 = Reserved, 13 = Leisurely, 14 = Bold,
15 = Mischievous, 16 = Colorful , 17 = Imaginative, 18 = Diligent, 19 = Dutiful, 20 = Business Leadership, 21 = People Leadership, 22 = Results
Leadership, 23 = Self Leadership
 Predicting Leadership Effectiveness 10

Table 6. Correlations Between HPI Scales and Ratings of Leadership Performance

Business Leadership People Leadership Results Leadership Self Leadership

Critical Thinking
WGCTA .15* .13* .11 .13*
HPI
Adj .25* .26* .24* .26*
Amb .21* .18* .18* .18*
Soc -.08 -.05 -.08 -.12*
Ips .09 .16* .08 .12*
Pru .16* .15* .15* .16*
Inq .07 -.02 .05 -.02
Lrn .20* .15* .19* .13*
HDS
Exc -.22* -.22* -.25* -.25*
Ske -.13* -.14* -.18* -.18*
Cau -.24* -.22* -.21* -.19*
Res -.04 -.09 -.05 -.09
Lei -.17* -.17* -.17* -.20*
Bol -.06 -.05 -.05 -.11
Mis -.13* -.15* -.13* -.17*
Col -.04 -.01 .00 -.02
Ima -.18* -.14* -.15* -.14*
Dil .16* .09 .17* .08
Dut -.02 .03 .04 .06
Note. * p < .05 WGCTA = Watson-Glaser, Adj = Adjustment, Amb = Ambition, Soc = Sociability, Ips = Interpersonal Sensitivity,
Pru = Prudence, Inq = Inquisitive, Lrn = Learning Approach, Exc = Excitable, Ske = Skeptical, Cau = Cautious, Res = Reserved,
Lei = Leisurely, Bol = Bold, Mis = Mischievous, Col = Colorful , Ima = Imaginative, Dil = Diligent, Dut = Dutiful
 Predicting Leadership Effectiveness 11

Table 7. Hierarchical Regression Analyses for the Watson Glaser, HPI, and HDS in the Prediction of Leadership Performance Ratings

Business Leadership People Leadership Results Leadership Self Leadership

Step R ∆ R2 p β p R ∆ R2 p β p R ∆ R2 p β p R ∆ R2 p β p

1. Demographics .09 .01 .36 .09 .01 .40 .12 .01 .21 .02 .00 .96
Gender -.03 .64 -.01 .94 -.01 .92 .02 .80
Race .09 .17 .09 .17 .12 .08 -.01 .89

2. WGCTA .17 .02 .02 .15 .02 .14 .01 .10 .11 .10 .14 .01 .22 .08 .22 .12 .01 .08 .12 .08

3. HPI .41 .13 .00 .36 .11 .00 .36 .11 .00 .39 .14 .00
Adj .21 .01 .23 .00 .20 .01 .25 .00
Amb .19 .01 .15 .04 .14 .06 .17 .02
Soc -.21 .00 -.13 .08 -.17 .02 -.24 .00
Ips -.07 .31 .03 .69 -.07 .34 .01 .95
Pru -.04 .55 -.05 .51 -.05 .54 -.06 .43
Inq .01 .88 -.07 .31 .01 .94 -.04 .60
Lrn .12 .09 .05 .52 .13 .08 .02 .82
4. HDS .51 .09 .01 .45 .07 .05 .48 .10 .00 .48 .08 .02
Exc -.15 .05 -.18 .02 -.19 .01 -.18 .02
Ske -.01 .93 .01 .94 -.08 .32 -.04 .60
Cau -.14 .09 -.09 .26 -.10 .21 -.02 .78
Res .11 .12 .05 .47 .09 .20 .04 .62
Lei -.12 .07 -.16 .02 -.15 .02 -.17 .01
Bol -.03 .84 .01 .94 .01 .89 -.06 .45
Mis -.02 .81 -.07 .39 -.06 .44 -.08 .31
Col .00 .98 -.01 .88 .07 .36 .07 .41
Ima -.10 .16 -.03 .69 -.06 .40 .01 .91
Dil .22 .00 .17 .01 .23 .00 .20 .00
Dut -.01 .99 -.01 .94 .03 .67 .02 .79