Using Theory to Evaluate Personality and Job-Performance Relations

Abstract

The authors used socioanalytic theory to understand individual differences in people's performance at work. Specifically, if predictors and criteria are aligned by using theory, then the meta-analytic validity of personality measures exceeds that of atheoretical approaches. As performance assessment moved from general to specific job criteria, all Big Five personality dimensions more precisely predicted relevant criterion variables, with estimated true validities of .43 (Emotional Stability), .35 (Extraversion-Ambition), .34 (Agreeableness), .36 (Conscientiousness), and .34 (Intellect-Openness to Experience).

Full text

Using Theory to Evaluate Personality and Job-Performance Relations:
A Socioanalytic Perspective
Joyce Hogan and Brent Holland
Hogan Assessment Systems
The authors used socioanalytic theory to understand individual differences in people’s performance at
work. Specifically, if predictors and criteria are aligned by using theory, then the meta-analytic validity
of personality measures exceeds that of atheoretical approaches. As performance assessment moved from
general to specific job criteria, all Big Five personality dimensions more precisely predicted relevant
criterion variables, with estimated true validities of .43 (Emotional Stability), .35 (Extraversion–
Ambition), .34 (Agreeableness), .36 (Conscientiousness), and .34 (Intellect–Openness to Experience).
Since 1990, meta-analytic reviews have shown that personality
measures are useful predictors of job performance. Although these
results represent a substantial revision in how applied psychology
views personality assessment (cf. Guion & Gottier, 1965; Locke &
Hulin, 1962), there is still no agreed theoretical account for the
findings. A theory of individual differences in work effectiveness
that links assessment to performance would enhance the value of
personality measures for forecasting occupational outcomes.
The current study organized criterion measures into the broad
themes of (a) getting along and getting ahead and (b) Big Five
personality content categories. The correlations between the crite-
rion measures and the personality predictors were meta-analyzed,
and the results were compared with earlier findings. The results
suggest that there is some practical utility for theory-driven
research.
Applying Socioanalytic Theory to Performance at Work
Socioanalytic theory (R. Hogan, 1983, 1991, 1996) is rooted in
interpersonal psychology (Carson, 1969; Leary, 1957; Sullivan,
1953; Wiggins, 1979) and is intended to explain individual differ-
ences in career success. The theory is based on two generalizations
relevant to organizational behavior: People always live (work) in
groups, and groups are always structured in terms of status hier-
archies. These generalizations suggest the presence of two broad
motive patterns that translate into behavior designed to get along
with other members of the group and to get ahead or achieve status
vis-a`-vis other members of the group. Getting along and getting
ahead are familiar themes in personality psychology (cf. Adler,
1939; Bakan, 1966; Rank, 1945; Wiggins & Trapnell, 1996). Their
importance is justified in Darwinian terms: People who cannot get
along with others and who lack status and power have reduced
opportunities for reproductive success.
Socioanalytic theory specifies that personality should be defined
from the perspectives of the actor and the observer. Personality
from the actor’s view is a person’s identity, which is defined in
terms of the strategies a person uses to pursue acceptance and
status; identity controls an actor’s social behavior. Personality
from the observers’ view is a person’s reputation, and it is defined
in terms of trait evaluations—conforming, helpful, talkative, com-
petitive, calm, curious, and so forth. Reputation reflects the ob-
server’s view of an actor’s characteristic ways of behaving in
public. Reputation is the link between the actor’s efforts to achieve
acceptance and status and how those efforts are evaluated by
observers. Reputation describes a person’s behavior; identity ex-
plains it.
From the lexical perspective (Goldberg, 1981), the Big Five
personality factors represent the structure of observers’ ratings on
the basis of 75 years of factor analytic research from Thurstone
(1934) to Goldberg (1993). These factors are a taxonomy of
reputation (cf. Digman, 1990; John, 1990; Saucier & Goldberg,
1996) and are labeled as follows: Factor I, Extraversion or Sur-
gency; Factor II, Agreeableness; Factor III, Conscientiousness;
Factor IV, Emotional Stability; and Factor V, Intellect–Openness
to Experience (John, 1990). Because reputations are a rough index
of the amount of acceptance and status a person enjoys (E. B. Foa
& Foa, 1980; U. G. Foa & Foa, 1974; Wiggins, 1979) and because
reputations are encoded in Big Five terms (Saucier & Goldberg,
1996), it follows that the Big Five factors are also evaluations of
acceptance and status (Digman, 1997). Digman (1997) concluded
that two higher order factors organize the Big Five model; he noted
that these two broad factors precisely parallel earlier dichotomies,
such as social interests versus superiority striving (Adler, 1939),
communion versus agency (Bakan, 1966; Wiggins, 1991), union
versus individualism (Rank, 1945), status versus popularity (R.
Hogan, 1983), and intimacy versus power (McAdams, 1985).
Occupational life consists of episodes (Motowidlo, Borman, &
Schmit, 1997) organized according to agendas and roles—what
will be done and who will do it. Efforts to get along and get ahead
take place during these episodes. Although most people try to get
along and get ahead while working, there are substantial individual
Joyce Hogan and Brent Holland, Hogan Assessment Systems, Tulsa,
Oklahoma.
An earlier version of this article was presented as the Saul B. Sells
invited address at the 47th annual convention of the Southwestern Psycho-
logical Association, Houston, Texas. Our sincere thanks go to the col-
leagues and reviewers who provided helpful comments for improving this
article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Brent
Holland, Hogan Assessment Systems, 2622 East 21st Street, Tulsa, Okla-
homa 74114. E-mail: bholland@hoganassessments.com
Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 2003 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.
2003, Vol. 88, No. 1, 100–112 0021-9010/03/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.100
100

differences in how their efforts are evaluated by others. On the one
hand, to get along, people must cooperate and seem compliant,
friendly, and positive. When successful, they are evaluated by
others as good team players, organizational citizens, and service
providers (Moon, 2001; Mount, Barrick, & Stewart, 1998). On the
other hand, to get ahead, people must take initiative, seek respon-
sibility, compete, and try to be recognized. When successful, they
are described by others as achieving results, providing leadership,
communicating a vision, and motivating others toward goals (Con-
way, 1999).
The foregoing discussion suggests a model for understanding
motivation and for assessing individual differences in performance
at work. People seek acceptance and status in the workgroup, and
their behavior reflects these efforts. Individual differences in per-
formance criteria can be organized in terms of the themes of
getting along and getting ahead. The Big Five factors can also be
interpreted in terms of efforts to gain approval and status (cf.
Digman, 1997; Wiggins & Trapnell, 1996).
Measurement: Personality Assessment and the
Big Five Factors
There is considerable debate concerning the number of person-
ality factors needed to predict and understand work behavior.
Hough and Ones (2001, pp. 233–238) provided a detailed review
of this debate, and they made the following points: Tupes and
Christal’s (1961) analysis of trait ratings is the contemporary
foundation for the Big Five. Substantial research has supported the
robustness and generalizability of the five factors across different
types of assessments, rating sources, language, and culture. Nev-
ertheless, some researchers have criticized the Big Five factors as
an incomplete taxonomy and have suggested that important rela-
tionships are obscured when analyses are limited to the Big Five
rather than a seven-factor model. Tellegen and Waller (1987), R.
Hogan and Hogan (1995), Hough (1992), and Saucier and Gold-
berg (in press) all found seven factors, five of which corresponded
to the Big Five, and two additional factors. Saucier and Goldberg
concluded that the satisfactoriness of the Big Five can be ques-
tioned in light of new criteria for judging the adequacy of struc-
tural models for personality attributes.
Measurement: Assessing Job Performance by Using
Multidimensional Models
The metaconcepts of getting along and getting ahead are latent
in such phrases as instrumental and expressive roles, initiating
structure and providing consideration, task and socioemotional
inputs, production-oriented versus service-oriented groups, and
task performance versus contextual performance. Consider how
the following job-performance models reflect, in part, the themes
of getting along and getting ahead. Campbell, McHenry, and Wise
(1990) proposed that performance in entry-level jobs in the U.S.
Army can be evaluated in terms of five dimensions: core profi-
ciency, general soldier proficiency, effort and leadership, personal
discipline, and physical fitness–military bearing. Campbell, Mc-
Cloy, Oppler, and Sager (1993) subsequently expanded this tax-
onomy into a general model of job performance consisting of eight
factors for job-specific task proficiency, non-job-specific task pro-
ficiency, written and oral communication task proficiency, dem-
onstrating effort, maintaining personal discipline, facilitating peer
and team performance, supervision–leadership, and management–
administration. In these models, proficiency and leadership con-
cern getting ahead, whereas personal discipline and facilitating
peer and team performance concern getting along.
Borman and Motowidlo (1993) distinguished between task per-
formance and contextual performance—nontask performance that
is important in all jobs. Task performance corresponds to getting
ahead, and contextual performance corresponds to getting along
with others. Similarly, Hunt (1996) proposed a nine-factor model
of entry-level job performance, with the factors differentially ap-
propriate for a variety of jobs. Hunt’s model highlights the impor-
tance of technical proficiency for job success (getting ahead), but
it also emphasizes contextual performance, organizational citizen-
ship, and prosocial behavior. These three dimensions are indices of
getting along at work. Finally, Tett, Guterman, Bleier, and Murphy
(2000) synthesized 12 models of managerial performance includ-
ing both published and practitioner models. Tett et al. (2000)
identified 53 dimensions of performance in managerial jobs. An
inspection of these dimensions suggests the presence of the ubiq-
uitous factors of structure and consideration (Bass, 1990; Fiedler,
1967; Fleishman, 1953). Initiating structure concerns trying to help
the group get ahead; being considerate of others is the prerequisite
for getting along.
Personality-Based Meta-Analyses
Barrick and Mount (1991) classified personality measures by
using the Big Five model and found corrected mean validities for
at least two dimensions that were large enough to suggest they are
significant predictors of overall job performance. These included
Conscientiousness (
␳
⫽.22) and Extraversion (
␳
⫽.13). Tett,
Jackson, and Rothstein (1991) found corrected mean validities
between the Big Five factors and job-performance ratings ranging
from .16 for Extraversion to .33 for Agreeableness. They attributed
their larger validities to the use of confirmatory research strategies,
job analysis, and published versus unpublished studies. With the
exception of Emotional Stability (
␳
⫽.19), Salgado (1997, 1998a)
replicated the Barrick and Mount results by using data from the
European community. Hurtz and Donovan (2000) estimated the
criterion-related validities of explicit Big Five measures for pre-
dicting overall job performance and contextual performance. Their
results for Conscientiousness (
␳
⫽.22) were consistent with those
reported by Barrick and Mount, although true validities for Emo-
tional Stability (
␳
⫽.14) and Extraversion (
␳
⫽.09) differed.
Other scale validities were equal to or less than .10. The Big Five
dimensions predicted overall performance somewhat better than
contextual job performance. Other useful meta-analyses (e.g., Frei
& McDaniel, 1998; Mount & Barrick, 1995a; Ones, Hough, &
Viswesvaran, 1998; Ones & Viswesvaran, 2000; Ones, Viswesva-
ran, & Schmidt, 1993; Vinchur, Schippmann, Switzer, & Roth,
1998; Viswesvaran & Ones, 2000) focused on specific occupations
or personality construct measures.
Previous meta-analyses of the personality–job performance re-
lationships had four constraints in the source data that may have
limited their findings. First, none were based on an explicit model
of personality, in part because there are few personality theories
designed to understand occupational performance. Hurtz and Don-
ovan (2000) suggested that future research should match person-
101
PERSONALITY THEORY AND JOB PERFORMANCE

ality constructs and dimensions of job performance on theoretical
grounds. Second, it is difficult to classify the scales of various
personality inventories into the Big Five categories because most
of the inventories used in earlier analyses were not developed with
the Big Five model in mind. These studies included measures of
psychopathology, personality disorders, values, and career inter-
ests. In addition, some scale classifications relied on as few as two
raters. Two important exceptions are the studies by Hurtz and
Donovan, which used only Big Five inventories, and the studies by
Mount et al. (1998), which used a single inventory. Third, the
earlier reviews define job performance almost exclusively in terms
of ratings of overall job performance. Hurtz and Donovan used
ratings for both contextual and task performance and found a
pattern of correlations similar to that for overall job performance
criteria. Campbell (1990) and others argued that job performance
is multidimensional, but unfortunately, few studies actually report
dimensional correlates. Fourth, with one exception, none of the
earlier reviews aligned predictors with criterion measures by using
the underlying performance constructs, as recommended by Camp-
bell. Hough (1992) aligned predictor and criterion measures and
demonstrated the usefulness of measurement alignment for esti-
mating validity. The difficulties faced by earlier meta-analyses
probably attenuated validities, restricted the generality of the find-
ings, and reduced the usefulness of results for practitioners.
Current Research
We used socioanalytic theory to define the links between per-
sonality and job performance and used meta-analysis to evaluate
the links. Overall, the analyses investigate the following four
claims:
1. Experts can classify job criteria reliably in terms of the degree
to which they reflect efforts to get along or get ahead. For example,
we expect such behavior as coming to work early and staying late
reflects attempts to get ahead; we expect that assisting a coworker
with a deadline reflects attempts to get along. In addition, experts
can evaluate the personality-based performance requirements of
jobs (see also Raymark, Schmit, & Guion, 1997). Identifying the
personality characteristics that underlie dimensions of job perfor-
mance is necessary to align predictors and criteria by using Camp-
bell’s (1990) strategy.
2. The most robust Big Five predictors of subjective perfor-
mance criteria (e.g., overall job-performance ratings) are Emo-
tional Stability and Conscientiousness. Persons who seem calm,
self-confident, and resilient (Emotional Stability) or dependable
and disciplined (Conscientiousness) will be evaluated more posi-
tively than those who do not seem calm and dependable. Tett et al.
(1991) provided evidence for the generalized validity of Emotional
Stability and Conscientiousness measures by using data from
North America; Salgado (1997, 1998a) provided data from the
European community. Although they used overall job performance
as their criteria, we believe that similar results will be obtained
when specific indicators of getting along and getting ahead criteria
are aggregated. The question of how well the Big Five predict
overall or aggregated performance criteria has not received a
definitive answer (i.e., Barrick & Mount, 1991; Hough, 1992;
Hurtz & Donovan, 2000; Salgado, 1997; Tett, Jackson, & Roth-
stein, 1991).
3. When performance criteria are classified in terms of getting
along and getting ahead, we hypothesized that a more nuanced
pattern of personality–performance links would emerge. When
successful job performance requires getting along, Emotional Sta-
bility, Conscientiousness, and Agreeableness should predict per-
formance because persons with elevations on these dimensions are
rewarding to deal with—they are positive (i.e., Emotional Stabil-
ity; George, 1990; Mount et al. 1998; Staw, Sutton, & Pelled,
1994), predictable (i.e., Conscientiousness; Hough, 1992; Para-
suraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1986), and sensitive to others (i.e.,
Agreeableness; Barrick, Stewart, & Piotrowski, 2000; R. Hogan,
Hogan, & Busch, 1984). Digman (1997) provided additional jus-
tification for this hypothesis. From 14 studies evaluating the Big
Five model, Digman found two super factors. The first was defined
by Emotional Stability, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness.
Digman concluded that this factor (a) reflected social desirability
and the socialization process (impulse restraint and conscience vs.
hostility, aggression, and neurotic defense), and (b) could be
interpreted in socioanalytic terms as a basic human aim “toward
peer popularity”(p. 1251).
When successful job performance requires getting ahead, the
dimensions of Emotional Stability, Extraversion (Ambition), and
Intellect–Openness to Experience will predict performance. This is
because getting ahead is associated with being confident (i.e.,
Emotional Stability; Gough, 1990; Stogdill, 1948), ambitious and
hardworking (i.e., Extraversion–Surgency; R. Hogan, Curphy, &
Hogan, 1994; McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell, 1953; Vin-
chur et al. 1998), and curious and eager to learn (i.e., Intellect–
Openness to Experience; Barrick & Mount, 1991; Costa & Mc-
Crae, 1992; McCrae & Costa, 1997). Digman’s (1997) second
super factor is defined by Extraversion and Intellect–Openness to
Experience. He concluded that this factor (a) reflected personal
growth (vs. personal constriction) and surgency, and (b) could be
interpreted in socioanalytic terms as a basic human aim “toward
status”(p. 1251).
4. When predictors and performance criteria are aligned by
using their common personality constructs, mean validities will
increase compared with previous meta-analytic studies (Ashton,
1998; J. Hogan & Roberts, 1996; Paunonen, Rothstein, & Jackson,
1999). Several researchers have speculated that criterion specific-
ity may moderate the validity of personality measures (Tett et al.,
1991; Warr & Conner, 1992). Other researchers have interpreted
the small validities of personality measures as the result of using
global (vs. narrow) criteria, which masks specific relations (Rob-
ertson & Kinder, 1993; Salgado, 1997). We expected that aligning
predictors and criteria in terms of underlying constructs would
provide evidence for both the convergent and discriminant validity
of the personality variables. These analyses should answer the
question of whether validity increases as the bandwidth of the
criterion measures moves from broad (multiple constructs) to
narrow (single construct).
Method
Case Selection
We identified 43 independent samples (N⫽5,242) from published
articles, chapters, technical reports, and dissertations between 1980 and
2000 that were catalogued in Hogan Assessment Systems’archive. The
102 HOGAN AND HOLLAND

studies met the following criteria: (a) They used job analysis to estimate
personality-based job requirements, (b) they used a concurrent (k⫽41) or
predictive (k⫽2) validation strategy with working adults, (c) the criteria
were content explicit and not just ratings of overall job performance, and
(d) the predictor variables were scales of the Hogan Personality Inventory
(HPI; R. Hogan & Hogan, 1995). We excluded studies using (a) clinical
patients and therapists, (b) undergraduate or graduate students, (c) self-
reported performance criteria, (d) performance criteria other than ratings
and objective productivity–personnel measures, (e) only an overall perfor-
mance criterion, (f) laboratory or assessment center studies, and (g) studies
unrelated to work contexts.
Table 1 lists the distribution of studies (k⫽43) by job title and Holland
(1985) occupational type. Most job titles correspond to the Holland Real-
istic, Social, Enterprising, and Conventional types; no studies involved
Investigative and Artistic occupations. Ideally, every Holland type would
be present in the analysis, but our sample composition reflected the base
rate of occupations in the U.S. economy. Gottfredson and Holland (1989,
1996) reported that the majority of occupations are Realistic (66.7%),
Conventional (13.4%), and Enterprising (11.1%) and that Social (4.6%),
Investigative (3.0%), and Artistic (1.2%) occupations are less common.
The jobs in Table 1 represent the most frequent types in the U.S. economy.
Job Analysis
All studies included one or more types of job analyses during the initial
stages of the research. Approximately 30% of the studies (k⫽13) used the
critical incidents method (Flanagan, 1954) to define exceptional behavior
(for example, see J. Hogan & Lesser, 1996). Over half of the studies (k⫽
27) used worker-oriented methods to determine the knowledge, skills, and
abilities required for successful job performance. These job analyses gen-
erally followed the Goldstein, Zedeck, and Schneider (1993) method for
content validation research (cf. R. Hogan & Hogan, 1995, p. 75). The
remaining studies (k⫽18) used the Performance Improvement Charac-
teristics job analysis approach (J. Hogan & Rybicki, 1998). This
personality-based job analysis uses a 48-item Performance Improvement
Characteristics checklist to profile jobs in terms of the Big Five factors.
Raymark et al. (1997) described a similar method for evaluating
personality-based job requirements. Although job analysis results are often
used to justify predictor measures, these results were used to develop
criterion dimensions.
Measures
Predictors. All studies used the HPI; this eliminated the need to
classify predictors by construct. The HPI is a 206-item true–false inventory
designed to predict occupational performance. The inventory contains
seven primary scales that align with the Big Five as seen in Figure 1.
Although there is no universal consensus on the optimal number of per-
sonality attributes, the Big Five is a useful method for organizing the scales
on most inventories, including the HPI. Note that the Big Five Extraversion
factor splits (conceptually and empirically) into Ambition and Sociability
(cf. R. Hogan & Hogan, 1995, p. 11). The Big Five Intellect–Openness to
Experience factor splits into Intellectance—which reflects creativity—and
School Success—which reflects achievement orientation. The internal con-
sistency reliability and test–retest reliability, respectively, for each scale is
as follows: Adjustment (.89/.86), Ambition (.86/.83), Sociability (.83/.79),
Likeability (.71/.80), Prudence (.78/.74), Intellectance (.78/.83), and
School Success (.75/.86).
The HPI is based on the Big Five personality model; findings using the
HPI could generalize to other Big Five inventories, depending on the
magnitude of scale-to-scale correlates. Data are available concerning the
relationship between the HPI and the following measures: Goldberg’s
(1992) Big Five factor markers (R. Hogan & Hogan, 1995, p. 24), the NEO
Personality Inventory—Revised (NEO–PI–R; Costa & McCrae, 1992,
1995) as reported by Goldberg (2000), the Interpersonal Adjective Scales
(R. Hogan & Hogan, 1995, p. 24; Wiggins, 1991), the International
Personality Item Pool (Goldberg, 1999), the Personal Characteristics In-
ventory (Mount & Barrick, 1995b), and the Inventario de Personalidad de
Cinco Factores (IP/5F; Salgado, 1998b, 1999; Salgado & Moscoso, 1999).
Criteria. Subject matter experts (SMEs) reviewed the criterion vari-
ables used in each archived study and made two judgments. First, they
classified each performance criterion as getting along or getting ahead.
Getting along was defined as behavior that gains the approval of others,
enhances cooperation, and serves to build and maintain relationships.
Getting ahead was defined as behavior that produces results and advances
an individual within the group and the group within its competition. SMEs
were asked not to classify criteria about whose meaning they were uncer-
tain. Second, SMEs were also asked to identify the HPI personality
construct most closely associated with each performance criterion. The
seven HPI scale constructs were defined, and SMEs were asked to nomi-
nate only one scale for each criterion listed. Definitions of each perfor-
Table 1
Distribution of Studies on the Basis of Holland Code
and Job Title
Holland code DOT code DOT job title No.
studies
Conventional
(10 studies)
CES 239.367-010 Customer service
representative 5
CSE 211.362-010 Cashier I 1
CSE 209.362-010 Clerk, general 3
CSE 243.367-014 Post office clerk 1
Enterprising
(16 studies)
ECS 369.467-010 Manager, branch store 2
ERS 250.357-022 Sales representative 3
ERS 239.167-014 Telephone/telegraph
dispatcher 1
ESA 189.167-022 Manager, department 6
ESC 299.357-014 Telephone solicitor 1
ESR 187.117-010 Administrator, hospital 1
ESR 189.117-022 Manager, industrial
organization 1
ESR 184.167-114 Manager, warehouse 1
Realistic
(10 studies)
RCS 905.663-014 Truck driver, heavy 3
REI 891.684-010 Dockhand 1
REI 590.382-010 Operator, automated process 2
RES 913.463-010 Bus driver 1
RES 910.363-014 Locomotive engineer 1
RIE 019.061-022 Ordnance engineer 1
RSE 962.362-010 Communications technician 1
Social
(7 studies)
SEC 193.262-014 Dispatcher, governmental
services 1
SER 372.667-018 Corrections officer 1
SER 377.677-018 Deputy sheriff, civil
division 1
SER 355.674-014 Nurse aide 1
SER 375.263-014 Police officer I 2
SIE 168.267-014 Claims examiner, insurance 1
Note. Classifications are based on work by Gottfredson and Holland
(1989, 1996). DOT ⫽Dictionary of Occupational Titles. Holland codes:
R⫽Realistic; I ⫽Investigative; A ⫽Artistic; S ⫽Social; E ⫽Enter-
prising; C ⫽Conventional.
103
PERSONALITY THEORY AND JOB PERFORMANCE

mance criterion came from the original validation study. The results
allowed us to align the criteria with the predictors on the basis of their
common meaning (Campbell, 1990). Table 2 shows representative vari-
ables from each work motive and each personality construct.
SMEs (N⫽13) had their doctorate (n⫽7) and master of arts degree
(n⫽6) and were industrial–organizational psychologists experienced in
validation research using the HPI. Criterion classification was based on the
absolute level of rater agreement. Classification required 10 of the 13 raters
(77%) to agree. Of the 139 criteria, 115 (83%) were classified as either
getting along or getting ahead, and 95 (68%) were classified in terms of a
single personality construct.
An alternative method for evaluating the correspondence among multi-
ple raters is to compute an index of agreement by using Cohen’s (1960)
kappa. On the basis of procedures outlined by Hubert (1977), interrater
agreement estimates ranged from K⫽.48 (Big Five aligned criteria) to
K⫽.60 (getting along and getting ahead criteria). Although there are
several benchmarks for interpreting kappa (Altman, 1991; Fleiss, 1981;
Landis & Koch, 1977), they all indicate that kappa values between .40 and
.60 indicate moderate to good interrater agreement. On the basis of per-
centage agreement and the values of kappa, we considered the raters’
judgments to be sufficiently reliable to justify aggregating them to define
the criteria and to align them with the personality constructs. These results
also support the view that SMEs can reliably classify criteria as work
motives and personality-based performance requirements.
Meta-Analytic Procedures, Statistical Corrections, and
Within-Study Averaging
We used the meta-analytic procedures specified by Hunter and Schmidt
(1990) to cumulate results across studies and to assess effect sizes. All
studies used zero-order product–moment correlations, which eliminated the
need to convert alternative statistics to values of r. Corrections were made
for sampling error, unreliability in the measures, and range restriction.
Reliability of the personality measures was estimated by using within-
study coefficient alpha, M⫽.78, range ⫽.71 (Prudence) to .84 (Adjust-
ment), rather than by relying exclusively on the values reported in the HPI
manual. Although some researchers (e.g., Murphy & De Shon, 2000) have
argued against the use of rater-based reliability estimates, we followed
procedures outlined by Barrick and Mount (1991) and Tett et al. (1991) and
used the .508 reliability coefficient proposed by Rothstein (1990) as the
estimate of the reliability of supervisory ratings of job performance. For
objective criterion data, we (conservatively) assumed perfect reliability,
following Salgado’s (1997) method. Note that Hunter, Schmidt, and Ju-
diesch (1990) recommended a reliability estimate of .55 for objective
criteria. The frequency-weighted mean of the job performance reliability
distribution was .59, which is comparable with the value of .56 reported by
Barrick and Mount (1991), and the mean square root reliability of .76
corresponded with the value of .778 reported by Tett et al. (1991). We also
computed a range restriction index for HPI scales. Following procedures
described by Hunter and Schmidt (1990), we divided each HPI scale’s
Figure 1. Links between dimensions of the Big Five and the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI). Median
correlation coefficients summarize HPI relations with the NEO Personality Inventory—Revised (NEO–PI–R;
Goldberg, 2000), Goldberg’s (1992) Big Five Markers (R. Hogan & Hogan, 1995), Personal Characteristics
Inventory (Mount & Barrick, 1995b), and the Inventario de Personalidad de Cinco Factores (Salgado &
Moscoso, 1999). The ranges of correlates are as follows: Adjustment–Emotional Stability–Neuroticism (.66 to
.81), Ambition–Extraversion–Surgency (.39 to .60), Sociability–Extraversion–Surgency (.44 to .64),
Likeability–Agreeableness (.22 to .61), Prudence–Conscientiousness (.36 to .59), Intellectance–Openness–
Intellect (.33 to .69), and School Success–Openness–Intellect (.05 to .35).
104 HOGAN AND HOLLAND

within-study standard deviation by the standard deviation reported by R.
Hogan and Hogan (1995). This procedure produced an index of range
restriction for each HPI scale, M⫽.87, range ⫽.81 (Ambition) to .94
(School Success), within each study, and we used this value to correct each
predictor scale for range restriction.
Hunter and Schmidt (1990) pointed out that meta-analytic results can be
biased unless each sample contributes about the same number of correla-
tions to the total. To eliminate such bias, we averaged correlations within
studies so that each sample contributed only one point estimate per pre-
dictor scale. For example, if more than one criterion from any study was
classified as getting along, the correlations between each predictor scale
and those criteria were averaged to derive a single point estimate of the
predictor–criterion relationship. Note that this procedure uses both nega-
tive and positive correlations rather than mean absolute values for averag-
ing correlations. This is the major computational difference between the
current analyses and those presented by Tett et al. (1991, p. 712). We did
not correct correlation coefficients to estimate validity at the construct
level. Although some (e.g., Mount & Barrick, 1995a; Ones, Schmidt, &
Viswesvaran, 1994) have argued that this is an artifact that can be cor-
rected, we believe that it is premature to estimate the validity of perfect
constructs when there is no agreement regarding what they are. That is,
scales on different personality measures that purportedly assess the same
construct are nuanced and extend the boundaries of those constructs in
directions beyond the central theme.
Results
Table 3 shows the sample-weighted criterion category intercor-
relations. The diagonal in the matrix represents the average cor-
relation between different scales classified into the same perfor-
mance category. In general, Table 3 results support the convergent
validity of the criterion categorizations. For example, criteria clas-
sified as getting along correlated more highly among themselves
than with criteria from the remaining performance categories (e.g.,
Adjustment). The same pattern occurs for all performance catego-
ries, with the exception of getting ahead- and Ambition-based
criteria. Other results in the off diagonals of the matrix, including
generally strong correlations among the various criterion types
(e.g., Likeability and Prudence), suggest that the criterion catego-
ries overlap more than we expected. The median intercorrelations
between the criterion categories ranged from .47 to .72 with an
average of .60.
Table 4 presents the results for the HPI scales when the criterion
themes of getting along and getting ahead were combined as global
measures of job performance. As seen in Table 4, the uncorrected
sample-weighted validities and estimated true validities for HPI
Adjustment, Ambition, and Prudence are .19 (.32), .13 (.22), and
.14 (.24), respectively. The estimated validity of the Adjustment
scale exceeds previously reported values for the Emotional Stabil-
ity construct, which are .15 (Neuroticism; Tett et al., 1991) and .09
(Emotional Stability; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000; Salgado, 1997).
Table 2
Example Criteria Representing Getting Along, Getting Ahead,
and Personality Constructs
Theme/construct Sample criteria
a
Getting along Demonstrates interpersonal skill
Works with others
Shows positive attitude
Shares credit
Getting ahead Works with energy
Exhibits effort
Values productivity
Shows concern for quality
Adjustment Remains even tempered
Manages people, crisis, and stress
Shows resiliency
Demonstrates patience
Ambition Exhibits leadership
Demonstrates effectiveness
Takes initiative
Generates new monthly accounts
Likeability Shows interpersonal skill
Exhibits capacity to compromise
Demonstrates tactfulness and sensitivity
Shares credit
Prudence Stays organized
Works with integrity
Abides by rules
Follows safety procedures
Intellectance Achieves quality with information
Analyzes finances/operations
Seems market savvy
Displays good judgment
School Success Capitalizes on training
Exhibits technical skill
Makes progress in training
Possesses job knowledge
a
All example criteria are ratings except for “Generates new monthly
accounts.”
Table 3
Sample-Weighted Correlation Coefficients Among Criterion Classifications Across Studies
Theme/construct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Getting along .68 (3,065)
2. Getting ahead .54 (2,641) .69 (2,737)
3. HPI Adjustment .67 (1,479) .66 (1,736) .70 (2,732)
4. HPI Ambition .65 (1,218) .72 (1,820) .65 (1,281) .79 (2,878)
5. HPI Likeability .67 (2,120) .60 (1,303) .61 (1,297) .59 (985) .68 (2,899)
6. HPI Prudence .63 (1,875) .62 (1,077) .55 (1,002) .60 (716) .59 (1,851) .69 (1,858)
7. HPI Intellectance .64 (295) .68 (659) .55 (314) .57 (260) .64 (211) .66 (211) .66 (1,731)
8. HPI School Success .54 (617) .67 (874) .58 (849) .70 (874) .48 (411) .47 (337) .66 (944)
Note. All values reported in the table reflect sample-weighted average correlations among criteria classified into each performance category. The number
of studies ranges from 3 (Hogan Personality Inventory [HPI] prudence and school success) to 20 (getting along and getting ahead). Sample sizes are
presented in parentheses. Correlations in boldface type on the diagonal represent average correlations between scales classified in the same performance
category.
105
PERSONALITY THEORY AND JOB PERFORMANCE

The Big Five Extraversion factor is represented by HPI Ambition
and Sociability scales. Similar to results reported by Vinchur et al.
(1998), Ambition, not Sociability (
␳
⫽.01), predicted the criteria.
In previous meta-analyses, the estimated true validity of Extraver-
sion for predicting global performance ranged from .13 (Barrick &
Mount, 1991) to .16 (Tett et al., 1991), but these analyses combine
facets of ambition with sociability. The estimated true validity of
HPI School Success is less than Tett et al’s. (1991) finding for
Openness (
␳
⫽.27) but larger than the reported estimates from
other omnibus meta-analyses. Moreover, the results for Sociabil-
ity, Likeability, and Intellectance do not generalize on the basis of
the 90% credibility values, which is consistent with results re-
ported by Hurtz and Donovan (2000) and Tett et al. (1991).
Table 4 validities represent the most global level of analysis.
Table 5 presents 14 meta-analyses using HPI scales to predict
getting along or getting ahead criteria considered separately. As
seen, between 22 (N⫽2,553) and 42 (N⫽5,017) studies were
used in these analyses. Getting along criteria were best predicted
by HPI Adjustment, Prudence, and Likeability, with uncorrected
sample-weighted validities and estimated true validities of .19
(.34), .14 (.31), and .12 (.23), respectively. HPI Sociability and
Intellectance scales were unrelated to criteria for getting along.
Getting ahead criteria were best predicted by the HPI Ambition
(r
obs
⫽.15;
␳
⫽.26), Adjustment (r
obs
⫽.14;
␳
⫽.22), and
Prudence (r
obs
⫽.12;
␳
⫽.20) scales. Again, note that Ambition,
not Sociability, predicted getting ahead. Validities and the credi-
bility intervals for the HPI Sociability and Likeability scales indi-
cated that they are not practically useful for predicting getting
ahead criteria. Although the patterns of variances differ, the results
in Table 5 suggest that the HPI Adjustment, Prudence, and Am-
bition scales are generally valid for predicting criteria that reflect
getting along and getting ahead at work.
Table 6 presents validity results for HPI scales aligned by
construct-classified criteria. Forty-two meta-analyses were com-
puted; there were too few studies with criteria categorized as
Sociability-related to compute meta-analyses for the HPI Socia-
Table 4
Meta-Analysis Results Across Getting Along and Getting Ahead Criteria Combined
Construct kNavg Nr
obs
SD
r
␳
v
␳
SD
␳
%VE 90% CV
Adjustment 43 5,242 122 .19 .147 .28 .32 .191 35 .08
Ambition 43 5,242 122 .13 .129 .20 .22 .153 48 .02
Sociability 43 5,242 122 .00 .122 .00 .01 .134 55 ⫺.16
Likeability 43 5,242 122 .09 .128 .13 .17 .156 50 ⫺.03
Prudence 43 5,242 122 .14 .132 .20 .24 .168 45 .03
Intellectance 43 5,242 122 .05 .101 .08 .08 .070 80 ⫺.01
School Success 33 4,222 128 .09 .095 .12 .14 .061 85 .06
Note. k ⫽number of studies; N⫽number of participants across kstudies; avg N⫽average number of
participants within each study; r
obs
⫽mean observed validity; SD
r
⫽SD of observed correlations;
␳
v
⫽
operational validity (corrected for range restriction and criterion unreliability only);
␳
⫽true validity at scale
level (corrected for range restriction and predictor–criterion reliability); SD
␳
⫽SD of true validity; %VE ⫽
percentage of variance explained; 90% CV ⫽credibility value.
Table 5
Meta-Analysis Results for Getting Along and Getting Ahead Criteria Separated
Theme and construct kNavg Nr
obs
SD
r
␳
v
␳
SD
␳
%VE 90% CV
Getting along
Adjustment 26 2,949 113 .19 .093 .31 .34 .034 92 .30
Ambition 26 2,949 113 .10 .101 .15 .17 .060 89 .09
Sociability 26 2,949 113 .01 .099 .01 .01 .047 93 ⫺.05
Likeability 26 2,949 113 .12 .088 .19 .23 .000 100 .23
Prudence 26 2,949 113 .14 .105 .21 .31 .106 72 .18
Intellectance 26 2,949 113 .02 .098 .03 .03 .038 95 ⫺.02
School Success 22 2,553 116 .08 .096 .12 .12 .024 98 .09
Getting ahead
Adjustment 42 5,017 129 .14 .138 .20 .22 .167 42 .01
Ambition 42 5,017 129 .15 .130 .23 .26 .155 47 .06
Sociability 42 5,017 129 .02 .123 .04 .04 .132 56 ⫺.13
Likeability 42 5,017 129 .07 .127 .09 .11 .000 52 .11
Prudence 42 5,017 129 .12 .138 .17 .20 .177 43 ⫺.03
Intellectance 42 5,017 129 .07 .105 .11 .12 .081 75 .02
School Success 32 4,211 132 .09 .095 .13 .15 .060 83 .07
Note. k ⫽number of studies; N⫽total number of participants across kstudies; avg N⫽average number of
participants within each study; r
obs
⫽mean observed validity; SD
r
⫽SD of observed correlations;
␳
v
⫽
operational validity (corrected for range restriction and criterion reliability only);
␳
⫽true validity at scale level
(corrected for range restriction and predictor–criterion reliability); SD
␳
⫽SD of true validity; %VE ⫽
percentage of variance explained; 90% CV ⫽credibility value.
106 HOGAN AND HOLLAND

bility scale. However, there were sufficient studies available to
compute meaningful analyses for the other scales. The sample-
weighted mean correlations and the estimated true validities across
scales were consistently larger than validities associated with the
more global criteria of getting along and getting ahead. The esti-
mated true validities ranged from .25 (HPI School Success, r
obs
⫽
.15) to .43 (HPI Adjustment, r
obs
⫽.25). These findings support
Campbell’s (1990) strategy of organizing the predictor and crite-
rion domains on the basis of their latent structure. In fact, aligning
predictors and criteria increases the sample-weighted validities
over the aggregate performance index, M⫽43%, range ⫽24%
(Adjustment) to 75% (Intellectance); getting along criteria, M⫽
47%, range ⫽24% (Adjustment) to 90% (Intellectance); and
getting ahead criteria, M⫽47%, range ⫽25% (Ambition) to 65%
(Intellectance). The lower bound credibility intervals were all
greater than .20, except for School Success, which suggests that
Table 6
Meta-Analysis Results for Criteria Aligned by Personality Construct
Construct kNavg Nr
obs
SD
r
␳
v
␳
SD
␳
%VE 90% CV
Adjustment
Adjustment 24 2,573 107 .25 .114 .37 .43 .117 62 .28
Ambition 24 2,573 107 .08 .153 .13 .16 .201 39 ⫺.10
Sociability 24 2,573 107 ⫺.06 .131 ⫺.08 ⫺.10 .151 53 ⫺.29
Likeability 24 2,573 107 .09 .081 .13 .16 .000 100 .16
Prudence 24 2,573 107 .18 .114 .27 .32 .109 69 .18
Intellectance 24 2,573 107 ⫺.00 .132 ⫺.00 ⫺.00 .150 51 ⫺.19
School Success 21 2,311 110 .08 .091 .13 .14 .000 100 .14
Ambition
Adjustment 28 3,698 132 .11 .115 .18 .20 .130 53 .03
Ambition 28 3,698 132 .20 .077 .31 .35 .000 100 .35
Sociability 28 3,698 132 .04 .106 .07 .08 .096 71 ⫺.04
Likeability 28 3,698 132 .06 .069 .09 .10 .000 100 .10
Prudence 28 3,698 132 .10 .105 .15 .17 .112 63 .03
Intellectance 28 3,698 132 .07 .076 .11 .12 .000 100 .12
School Success 25 3,448 138 .09 .080 .14 .15 .000 100 .15
Likeability
Adjustment 17 2,500 147 .16 .101 .23 .28 .114 59 .14
Ambition 17 2,500 147 .07 .095 .09 .11 .086 77 ⫺.00
Sociability 17 2,500 147 .05 .081 .06 .08 .000 100 .08
Likeability 17 2,500 147 .18 .094 .25 .34 .100 68 .21
Prudence 17 2,500 147 .12 .087 .17 .21 .040 93 .16
Intellectance 17 2,500 147 ⫺.00 .067 ⫺.00 ⫺.00 .000 100 ⫺.00
School Success 15 2,399 150 .06 .237 .08 .10 .390 11 ⫺.40
Prudence
Adjustment 26 3,379 130 .18 .130 .24 .28 .158 41 .08
Ambition 26 3,379 130 .07 .133 .08 .10 .159 45 ⫺.10
Sociability 26 3,379 130 ⫺.04 .098 ⫺.07 ⫺.07 .062 84 ⫺.15
Likeability 26 3,379 130 .09 .141 .12 .17 .184 40 ⫺.07
Prudence 26 3,379 130 .22 .113 .31 .36 .125 55 .20
Intellectance 26 3,379 130 ⫺.01 .120 ⫺.03 ⫺.02 .125 56 ⫺.18
School Success 20 2,603 130 .07 .108 .09 .10 .096 69 ⫺.02
Intellectance
Adjustment 7 1,190 170 .05 .116 .07 .08 .150 44 ⫺.11
Ambition 7 1,190 170 .13 .082 .20 .23 .046 90 .17
Sociability 7 1,190 170 .06 .132 .09 .11 .191 34 ⫺.14
Likeability 7 1,190 170 ⫺.02 .073 ⫺.03 ⫺.03 .000 100 ⫺.03
Prudence 7 1,190 170 ⫺.03 .078 ⫺.04 ⫺.05 .000 100 ⫺.05
Intellectance 7 1,190 170 .20 .037 .29 .34 .000 100 .34
School Success 3 643 214 .10 .017 .14 .17 .000 100 .17
School Success
Adjustment 9 1,366 152 .11 .103 .17 .20 .119 57 .05
Ambition 9 1,366 152 .14 .098 .22 .27 .110 63 .13
Sociability 9 1,366 152 .02 .102 .03 .03 .103 67 ⫺.10
Likeability 9 1,366 152 .04 .076 .07 .07 .000 100 .07
Prudence 9 1,366 152 .09 .096 .14 .17 .107 65 .03
Intellectance 9 1,366 152 .03 .083 .05 .05 .000 100 .05
School Success 9 1,366 152 .15 .132 .22 .25 .184 34 .01
Note. k ⫽number of studies; N⫽total number of participants across kstudies; avg N⫽average number of
participants within each study; r
obs
⫽mean observed validity; SD
r
⫽SD of observed correlations;
␳
v
⫽
operational validity (corrected for range restriction and criterion reliability only);
␳
⫽true validity at scale level
(corrected for range restriction and predictor–criterion reliability); SD
␳
⫽SD of true validity; %VE ⫽
percentage of variance explained; 90% CV ⫽credibility value.
107
PERSONALITY THEORY AND JOB PERFORMANCE

scale validity generalizes across samples when criteria are classi-
fied by construct. In every case, the credibility intervals supported
the targeted validity coefficients.
Table 6 also shows the convergent and discriminant validity of
the HPI scales. For each dimension, except for HPI School Suc-
cess, the correlations were highest between personality scales and
the aligned, construct-specific criterion variables, indicating con-
vergence. The estimated true validity for HPI Adjustment (.43) is
the largest in the table. Similarly, validity coefficients are smallest
for the personality scales that are not aligned with specific con-
structs. For example, HPI Intellectance is unrelated to Adjustment,
Likeability, and Prudence criteria; HPI Sociability predicts none of
the construct-based criteria. This pattern of lower correlations for
the off-diagonal scales supports discriminant validity. Another
index of discriminant validity comes from the overlap of the
credibility values among scales. Except for HPI School Success,
no lower bound credibility values for construct-aligned measures
overlap any other scale, which suggests independence. This pattern
of findings further supports the discriminant validity of the pre-
dictor scales.
The off-diagonal correlations in Table 6 show the magnitude of
relations between Adjustment, Prudence, and, to a lesser extent,
Ambition with nonaligned performance criteria. Adjustment’s es-
timated true validity met or exceeded .20 across 80% of the
criterion dimensions, with the exception of the Intellectance-based
criteria. Although the magnitude of the relations between Adjust-
ment and nonaligned criteria exceeded previous estimates for the
Emotional Stability construct, the generally consistent pattern cor-
responded to some previous results (cf. Hurtz & Donovan, 2000).
The HPI Prudence scale was related to Adjustment (.32) and
Likeability (.21) criteria. Prudence, Adjustment, and Likeability
concerned interpersonal aspects of work (Hurtz & Donovan,
2000), which may have accounted for the circular predictive pat-
tern among these scales. Finally, the Ambition scale predicted
criteria classified into the Intellectance (.23) and School Success
(.27) categories; this is sensible because the Intellectance criteria
reflected intellectual striving, and the School Success criteria re-
flected academic achievement.
Discussion
This study extends previous personality meta-analyses in three
ways. First, it used a theory of personality to organize the variables
and to interpret the results. From this perspective, personality scale
scores capture elements of individual reputation. Criterion ratings
are observers’evaluations of an incumbent’s reputation. Reputa-
tion provides the conceptual link between personality and job
performance. This supports Guion and Gottier’s (1965) advice to
use theory to align personality and job-performance criteria.
Second, we eliminated the problem of classifying predictor
scales into the correct Big Five dimensions by using a single
inventory to assess personality. Although this is a methodological
strength, it is also a potential limitation because, one might argue,
the meta-analysis results concern a particular instrument and not
construct measures. However, Figure 1 shows that the HPI scales
and other Big Five measures converge; although not perfect, the
correlations between many scales are sufficient to suggest that
results from one construct measure will generalize to another of
the same construct. Moreover, some influential meta-analyses are
based on a single test. For example, Hunter’s (1980; Hunter &
Hunter, 1984) meta-analysis of cognitive ability and job perfor-
mance is based entirely on the General Aptitude Test Battery and
Mount, Barrick, and Stewart’s (1998) meta-analysis of personality
and performance in jobs requiring interpersonal skill is based
entirely on the Personal Characteristics Inventory. Third, the reli-
ability of the criterion classifications was determined empirically,
and the classifications used multirater judgments as opposed to
consensus based on a few (usually two) SMEs (e.g., Hurtz &
Donovan, 2000; Tett et al., 1991).
This study provides insight into some persistent methodological
questions. For example, these data strongly support the utility of
Campbell’s (1990) strategy of aligning predictors and criteria by
using the underlying construct. Concerning the fidelity–bandwidth
debate (see Spector, 1996), our results support the J. Hogan and
Roberts (1996), Mount and Barrick (1995a), and Schneider,
Hough, and Dunnette (1996) view that validity is enhanced when
the bandwidth of predictors and criteria are matched—broadband
predictors assess global criteria better than specific criteria and
vice versa (also see Erez & Judge, 2001). Finally, if predictors and
criteria are matched for construct and bandwidth, then personality
measures (both predictors and criteria) should show convergent
and discriminant validity. The results in Table 6 support this claim.
The results of this study also support our claim that the Big Five
dimensions of Extraversion and Intellect–Openness to Experience
are too broad. When developing the HPI, we believed that Extra-
version and Ambition were components of the larger construct of
Surgency. We knew lazy extraverts and ambitious introverts, and
we consistently found that Ambition and Extraversion correlated
only about .30 (R. Hogan & Hogan, 1995, p. 18). The current
meta-analytic results show that it is the Ambition, not the Socia-
bility, component of Surgency that predicts performance. This may
account for the discrepancies between our results and those re-
ported by Tett et al. (1991) and by Hurtz and Donovan (2000).
Interestingly, several researchers have noted the inconsistent va-
lidity of Extraversion measures. Hough (1992) found that when
Extraversion was split into potency and affiliation, only potency
(r⫽.08) was related to teamwork. Barrick and Mount (1993)
reported that Extraversion was uncorrelated with performance as a
wholesale sales representative. Stewart and Carson (1995) found
an inverse relation between Extraversion and performance in ser-
vice jobs. Salgado (1997) reported that Extraversion was the only
personality factor in his meta-analysis for which the unexplained
variance was greater than the explained variance in overall job
performance. Mount, Barrick, and Stewart (1998, pp. 150–151)
concluded that Extraversion inconsistently predicted performance,
even for jobs involving substantial interpersonal interaction. Fi-
nally, Vinchur et al. (1998) found that Big Five subdimensions of
potency and achievement substantially outperformed the affiliation
subdimension for predicting both objective and subjective sales
criteria. The distinction between Ambition and Extraversion is
conceptually and empirically important.
Similarly, the Big Five Intellect–Openness to Experience factor
combines creativity, curiosity, cultural taste, achievement orienta-
tion, and desire for knowledge. In developing the HPI, this factor
split into an intellect component and a component defined by
interest in learning and achievement. We called the former com-
ponent Intellectance and the latter School Success. Except for the
results presented by Tett et al. (1991), the meta-analytic validities
108 HOGAN AND HOLLAND

for the Intellect–Openness to Experience are weak. Although some
researchers consider Intellect–Openness to Experience as the Big
Five dimension that is the least important for predicting occupa-
tional outcomes, we disagree. Again, the results in Table 6 show
the predictive utility of separating Intellectance from School Suc-
cess. Judge and Bono (2000) showed that Intellect–Openness
predicted ratings for transformational leadership, which, in turn,
predicted effectiveness, at r⫽.20. When the criteria are appro-
priate, HPI Intellectance and School Success scales yield zero-
order correlations in the .30 range (Driskell, Hogan, Salas, &
Hoskins, 1994; Gregory, 1992). The need to predict criteria in-
volving continuous learning may provide the test bed for new
performance models that include both cognitive ability and per-
sonality components.
The foregoing observations concern methodological issues. We
believe this article makes three useful conceptual contributions.
The first concerns the fact that raters can reliably sort performance
criteria in terms of personality constructs, including getting along
and getting ahead, the dimensions of the Big Five model, or the
seven scales of the HPI. Sorting criteria in terms of the underlying
personality constructs represents a methodological advance that
should inform and improve subsequent research in this area.
Second, correlations between predictor variables and criterion
data steadily increase as the criterion data become more specific,
moving from ratings for overall performance, to ratings for getting
along and getting ahead, to ratings defined in terms of more
specific, job-relevant personality constructs. This finding should
also inform subsequent research on this topic.
Third, these analyses suggest that measures of Emotional Sta-
bility—for example, the HPI Adjustment scale—are much more
potent and general predictors of occupational performance than
previously realized. Judge and his colleagues (Erez & Judge, 2001;
Judge & Bono, 2001; Judge, Locke, Durham, & Kluger, 1998)
made precisely this argument with regard to what they call core
self-evaluations, a construct that seems quite similar to the con-
struct underlying the HPI Adjustment scale. Consistent with our
findings, Erez and Judge (2001) reported a correlation of .42
between core self-evaluations and a composite measure of job
performance. These findings are an important qualification to the
view (cf. Schmidt & Hunter, 1992) that conscientiousness is the
personality variable of greatest practical importance in applied
psychology. The broad domain of neuroticism, widely studied in
clinical psychology, may also prove useful for understanding such
occupational outcomes as job satisfaction, commitment, and
productivity.
In closing, it is important to note what we are not saying. We are
not saying that all motivation or personality may be represented by
two factors, getting along and getting ahead, nor are we saying that
all performance may be represented by these two factors. Factors
such as interests, values, mental ability, hand–eye coordination,
health, and opportunity are also obviously important determinants
of occupational performance, but measures of personality, in gen-
eral, and the Emotional Stability construct, in particular, are im-
portant predictors of a surprising variety of outcomes.
References
*References marked with an asterisk indicate studies used in the meta-
analysis.
*Abalos, A., McDaniel, S., & Shelton, D. (2000). Validity of the Hogan
Personality Inventory for selecting bus operators (Tech. Rep. No. 203).
Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.
Adler, A. (1939). Social interest. New York: Putnam.
Altman, D. (1991). Practical statistics for medical research. New York:
Chapman and Hall.
Ashton, M. C. (1998). Personality and job performance: The importance of
narrow traits. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 289–303.
Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: Isolation and commun-
ion in Western man. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimen-
sions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44,
1–26.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1993). Autonomy as a moderator of the
relationships between the Big Five personality dimensions and job
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 111–118.
Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., & Piotrowski, M. (2000, April). Personality
and sales performance: Test of the mediating effects of motivation. Paper
presented at the fifteenth annual meeting of the Society for Industrial–
Organizational Psychology, Inc., New Orleans, LA.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory,
research, and managerial applications. New York: Free Press.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion
domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt,
W. C. Borman, & Associates (Eds.), Personnel selection in organiza-
tions (pp. 71–98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
*Brinkmeyer, K. (1999). Customer service employee profiling and validity
study using the Hogan Personality Inventory, the Hogan Development
Survey, and the Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (Tech. Rep. No.
164). Tulsa, OK: CDR Assessment Group.
*Brinkmeyer, K., & Hogan, J. (1995). Validity of the Hogan Personality
Inventory for selecting police communications operators (Tech. Rep.
No. 72). Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.
*Brinkmeyer, K., & Hogan, R. (1997). Validity of the Hogan Personality
Inventory for selecting field representatives (Tech. Rep. No. 107). Tulsa,
OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.
*Brinkmeyer, K., Hogan, R., & Heidelberg, H. (1997). Preemployment
screening preliminary report for manufacturing workers (Tech. Rep.
No. 136). Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.
Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in
industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M.
Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology
(2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 39–74). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
Press.
Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H., & Sager, C. E. (1993). A
theory of performance. In N. Schmitt, W. C. Borman, & Associates
(Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 35–70). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Campbell, J. P., McHenry, J. J., & Wise, L. L. (1990). Modeling job
performance in a population of jobs. Personnel Psychology, 43, 313–
333.
Carson, R. C. (1969). Interaction concepts of personality. Chicago: Aldine.
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educa-
tional and Psychological Measurement, 1, 37–46.
*Connolly, P. M. (1996). Relations between Overseas Assignment Inven-
tory ratings and Hogan Personality Inventory scores (Tech. Rep. No.
193). Old Saybrook, CT: Performance Programs.
Conway, J. M. (1999). Distinguishing contextual performance from task
performance for managerial jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84,
3–13.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality
Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI)
professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Domains and facets: Hierarchical
109
PERSONALITY THEORY AND JOB PERFORMANCE

personality assessment using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 64, 21–50.
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five factor
model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417–440.
Digman, J. M. (1997). Higher order factors of the Big Five. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1246–1256.
Driskell, J., Hogan, J., Salas, E., & Hoskins, B. (1994). Noncognitive
predictors of training performance in basic electronics and electricity.
Journal of Military Psychology, 6, 31–46.
Erez, A., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations to
goal setting, motivation, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 86, 1270–1279.
Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological
Bulletin, 51, 327–358.
Fleishman, E. A. (1953). The measurement of leadership attitudes in
industry. Journal of Applied Psychology, 37, 153–158.
Fleiss, J. (1981). Statistics methods for rates and proportions. New York:
Wiley.
Foa, E. B., & Foa, U. G. (1980). Resource theory. In K. J. Gergen, M. S.
Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory
and research (pp. 77–94). New York: Plenum Press.
Foa, U. G., & Foa, E. B. (1974). Societal structures of the mind. Spring-
field, IL: Thomas.
Frei, R. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (1998). Validity of customer service
measures in personnel selection: A review of criterion and construct
evidence. Human Performance, 11, 1–27.
George, J. M. (1990). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 80, 500–509.
Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Language and individual differences: The search
for universals in personality lexicons. In L. W. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of
personality and social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 141–165). Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers of the Big Five factor
structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–42.
Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits.
American Psychologist, 48, 26–34.
Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public-domain, personality
inventory measuring the lower level facets of several five factor models.
In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendort (Eds.), Personality
psychology in Europe: Vol. 7 (pp. 7–28). Tilburg, the Netherlands:
Tilburg University Press.
Goldberg, L. R. (2000). [Hogan Personality Inventory and NEO PI-R
correlation coefficients]. Unpublished raw data based on International
Personality Item Pool Project.
Goldstein, I. L., Zedeck, S., & Schneider, B. (1993). An exploration of the
job analysis-content validity process. In N. Schmitt, W. Borman, &
Associates (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 3–34). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gottfredson, G. D., & Holland, J. L. (1989). Dictionary of Holland occu-
pational codes (2nd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Re-
sources.
Gottfredson, G. D., & Holland, J. L. (1996). Dictionary of Holland occu-
pational codes (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Re-
sources.
Gough, H. G. (1990). Testing for leadership with the California Psycho-
logical Inventory. In K. E. Clark & M. B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of
leadership (pp. 355–379). West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of
America.
Gregory, S. (1992, May). Noncognitive measures for Army technical
training placement. Paper presented at the seventh annual meeting of the
Society for Industrial–Organizational Psychology, Inc., Montreal, Que-
bec, Canada.
Guion, R. M., & Gottier, R. F. (1965). Validity of personality measures in
personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 18, 135–164.
*Hayes, T. L., Roehm, H. A., & Castellano, J. P. (1994). Personality
correlates of success in total quality manufacturing. Journal of Business
and Psychology, 8, 397–411.
*Hogan, J., & Hogan, R. (1984). Development and validation of a sales
representative selection inventory (Tech. Rep. No. 7). Tulsa, OK: Hogan
Assessment Systems.
*Hogan, J., & Hogan, R. (1993). Validity of Hogan Inventory for selecting
drivers in transportation industry (Tech. Rep. No. 56). Tulsa, OK:
Hogan Assessment Systems.
*Hogan, J., Hogan, R., & Briggs, S. (1984). Psychological and physical
performance factors associated with attrition in explosive ordnance
disposal training (Tech. Rep. No.3). Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment
Systems.
*Hogan, J., Hogan, R., & Busch, C. (1981). Development and validation of
the Nursing Aide Inventory (Tech. Rep. No. 2). Tulsa, OK: Hogan
Assessment Systems.
*Hogan, J., Hogan, R., & Klippel, D. (2000). Validity of the Hogan
Personality Inventory for selecting locomotive engineer trainees in the
transportation industry (Tech. Rep. No. 185). Tulsa, OK: Hogan As-
sessment Systems.
Hogan, J., & Lesser, M. (1996). Selecting personnel for hazardous perfor-
mance. In J. Driskell & E. Salas (Eds.), Stress and human performance
(pp. 195–222). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
*Hogan, J., Michel, R., & Hogan, R. (1997). Validity of personality
measures for entry-level jobs: Final report (Tech. Rep. No. 137). Tulsa,
OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.
*Hogan, J., Najar, M., & Holland, B. (1999). Validity of the Hogan
Personality Inventory of selecting managers in construction supply
industry (Tech. Rep. No. 158). Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.
Hogan, J., & Roberts, B. W. (1996). Issues and non-issues in the fidelity-
bandwidth trade-off. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 627–637.
*Hogan, J., & Rybicki, S. (1997). Validity of correctional officer selection
procedures (Tech. Rep. No. 119). Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Sys-
tems.
Hogan, J., & Rybicki, S. (1998). Performance improvement characteristics
job analysis manual. Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.
*Hogan, J., Rybicki, S., Heidelberg, H., & Shelton, D. (1997). Validity of
the Hogan Personality Inventory for selecting offshore anchor handlers
(Tech. Rep. No. 126). Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.
Hogan, R. (1983). A socioanalytic theory of personality. In M. M. Page
(Ed.), 1982 Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp. 55–89). Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press.
Hogan, R. (1991). Personality and personality measurement. In M. D.
Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organiza-
tional psychology (Vol. 2, 2nd ed., pp. 327–396). Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Hogan, R. (1996). A socioanalytic perspective on the five-factor model. In
J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factor model of personality (pp. 163–179).
New York: Guilford Press.
*Hogan, R., & Brinkmeyer, K. (1996). Preemployment screening for
drivers (Tech. Rep. No. 96). Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.
Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about
leadership. American Psychologist, 49, 493–504.
*Hogan, R., & Gerhold, C. (1995). Validity of the Hogan Personality
Inventory for selecting financial consultants. (Tech. Rep. No. 66). Tulsa,
OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.
*Hogan, R., & Gerhold, C. (1995). Validity of the Hogan Personality
Inventory for selecting managers and assistant managers (Tech. Rep.
No. 67). Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.
Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (1995). The Hogan Personality Inventory manual
(2nd ed.). Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.
110 HOGAN AND HOLLAND

Hogan, R., Hogan, J., & Busch, C. (1984). How to measure service
orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 157–163.
*Hogan, R., Hogan, J., Lock, J., & Brinkmeyer, K. (1994). Validity of the
Hogan Personality Inventory for selecting managers (Tech. Rep. No.
61). Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.
*Hogan, R., Hogan, J., & Stovall, D. (1995). Validity of the Hogan
Personality Inventory for selecting drivers (Tech. Rep. No. 76). Tulsa,
OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.
*Holland, B., & Hogan, J. (1999). Validity of the Hogan Personality
Inventory for selecting clerical support aides II and III (Tech. Rep. No.
167). Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.
*Holland, B., Shin, H., & Hogan, J. (2000). Selecting project managers,
superintendents, and estimators using the Hogan Personality Inventory,
Hogan Development Survey, and Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory
(Tech. Rep. No. 182). Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.
Holland, J. L. (1985). Making vocational choices: A theory of careers.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hough, L. M. (1992). The “Big Five”personality variables—construct
confusion: Description versus prediction. Human Performance, 5, 139–
156.
Hough, L. M., & Ones, D. S. (2001). The structure, measurement, validity,
and use of personality variables in industrial, work, and organizational
psychology. In N R. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C.
Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of work psychology (pp. 233–377). New
York: Sage.
Hubert, L. (1977). Kappa revisited. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 289–297.
Hunt, S. T. (1996). Generic work behavior: An investigation into the
dimensions of entry-level, hourly job performance. Personnel Psychol-
ogy, 49, 51–83.
Hunter, J. E. (1980). Validity generalization for 12,000 jobs: An applica-
tion of synthetic validity and validity generalization to the General
Aptitude Test Battery (GATB). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Labor, Employment Service.
Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative
predictors of job performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72–98.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L., & Judiesch, M. K. (1990). Individual
differences in output variability as a function of job complexity. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 75, 28–42.
Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance:
The Big Five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 869–879.
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 and research (pp. 66–100). New York:
Guilford Press.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and
transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 751–
765.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations
traits—self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emo-
tional stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 80–92.
Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham, C. C., & Kluger, A. N. (1998).
Dispositional effects on jobs and life satisfaction: The role of core
evaluations. Journal of Applied psychology, 83, 17–34.
Landis, J., & Koch, G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for
categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.
*Landy, F. (1994). Validity of the Hogan Personality Inventory for select-
ing police officers (Correlation matrices only; Tech. Rep. No. 81).
University Park, PA: Landy, Jacobs & Associates.
Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New York: Ro-
nald Press.
*Lock, J. (1995). Using Hogan Personality Inventory for selecting cus-
tomer and policy service representatives, data entry operators, and
document processors (Tech. Rep. No. 138). Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assess-
ment Systems.
Locke, E. A., & Hulin, C. L. (1962). A review and evaluation of the
validity studies of activity vector analysis. Personnel Psychology, 15,
25–42.
McAdams, D. P. (1985). Power, intimacy, and the life story: Psychological
inquiries into identity. Homewood, IL: Dow-Jones-Irwin.
McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., & Lowell, E. L. (1953).
The achievement motive. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1997). Conceptions and correlates of
openness to experience. In R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs
(Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 825–847). San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
*McDaniel, S., & Hogan, J. (1997). Validity of the Hogan Personality
Inventory Form-S for selecting correctional deputy sheriffs (Tech. Rep.
No. 120). Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.
Moon, H. (2001). The two faces of Conscientiousness: Duty and
achievement-striving within evaluation of commitment dilemmas. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 86, 533–540.
Motowidlo, S. J., Borman, W. C., & Schmit, M. J. (1997). A theory of
individual differences in task and contextual performance. Human Per-
formance, 10, 71–83.
Mount, M. K., & Barrick, M. R. (1995a). The Big Five personality
dimensions: Implications for research and practice in human resource
management. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Manage-
ment, 13, 153–200.
Mount, M. K., & Barrick, M. R. (1995b). The Personal Characteristics
Inventory manual. Unpublished manuscript.
Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Stewart, G. L. (1998). Five-factor model
of personality and performance in jobs involving interpersonal interac-
tions. Human Performance, 11, 145–165.
*Muchinsky, P. (1987a). Development and validation of a service opera-
tions dispatcher selection inventory (Tech. Rep. No. 20). Tulsa, OK:
Hogan Assessment Systems.
*Muchinsky, P. (1987b). Validation documentation for the development of
personnel selection test batteries for telecommunications service jobs
(Tech. Rep. No. 20). Ames: Iowa State University.
*Muchinsky, P. M. (1993). Validation of personality constructs for the
selection of insurance industry employees. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 7, 475–482.
Murphy, K. R., & De Shon, R. (2000). Interrater reliability correlations do
not estimate the reliability of job performance ratings. Personnel Psy-
chology, 53, 873–900.
Ones, D. S., Hough, L. M., & Viswesvaran, C. (1998). Validity and adverse
impact of personality-based managerial potential scales. Paper pre-
sented at the thirteenth annual meeting of the Society for Industrial–
Organizational Psychology, Inc., Dallas, TX.
Ones, D. S., Schmidt, F. L., & Viswesvaran, C. (1994, April). Examination
of construct validity with linear composites and generalizability coeffi-
cient corrected correlations. Paper presented at the annual conference of
the Society for Industrial–Organizational Psychology, Nashville, TN.
Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (2000, August). Personality-based stress
tolerance scales used in personnel selection. Paper presented at the
108th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association,
Washington, DC.
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.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1986). Servqual: A
multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service qual-
ity. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.
Paunonen, S. V., Rothstein, M. G., & Jackson, D. N. (1999). Narrow
111
PERSONALITY THEORY AND JOB PERFORMANCE

reasoning about the use of broad measures for personnel selection.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 639–655.
*Piotrowski, M. (1996). Validity of the Hogan Personality Inventory for
selecting customer service representatives (Tech. Rep. No. 171). Tulsa,
OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.
Rank, O. (1945). Will therapy and truth and reality. New York: Knopf.
Raymark, P. H., Schmit, M. J., & Guion, R. M. (1997). Identifying
potentially useful personality constructs for employee selection. Person-
nel Psychology, 50, 723–735.
Robertson, I. T., & Kinder, A. (1993). Personality and job competencies:
The criterion-related validity of some personality variables. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 59, 45–57.
*Ross, R. (2000). Hogan Personality Inventory correlations for managers
and food sales representatives (Correlation matrices only; Tech. Rep.
No. 219). Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.
*Ross, R., Rybicki, S., & Hogan, J. (1997). Validity of the Hogan Person-
ality Inventory for selecting office clerks and office managers (Tech.
Rep. No. 142). Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.
Rothstein, H. R. (1990). Interrater reliability of job performance ratings:
Growth to asymptote level with increasing opportunity to observe.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 322–327.
*Ryan, A. M., & Ployhart, R. E. (1997). A criterion-related validation
study of the Hogan Personality Inventory for police officers (Tech. Rep.
No. 194). Perrysburg, OH: AMR.
*Rybicki, S., Brinkmeyer, K., & Hogan, R. (1997). Validity of the Hogan
Personality Inventory for selecting customer service representatives,
drivers, and delivery and installation/service (Tech. Rep. No. 102).
Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.
*Rybicki, S., & Hogan, R. (1996). Validity of the Hogan Personality
Inventory for selecting salespersons (Tech. Rep. No. 99). Tulsa, OK:
Hogan Assessment Systems.
*Rybicki, S., & Hogan, R. (1997). Validity of the Hogan Personality
Inventory for selecting facility administrators (Tech. Rep. No. 118).
Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.
Salgado, J. F. (1997). The five factor model of personality and job perfor-
mance in the European community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82,
36–43.
Salgado, J. F. (1998a). Big Five personality dimensions and job perfor-
mance in army and civil occupations: A European perspective. Human
Performance, 11, 271–288.
Salgado, J. F. (1998b). Manual tecnico del Inventario de Personalidad de
Cinco Factores (IP/5F) [Technical manual for the Personality Inventory
of Five Factors (IP/5F)]. Santiago de Compostela, Spain: Torculo.
Salgado, J. F. (1999, May). Predicting job performance using personality
measures based explicitly on the five-factor model. Paper presented at
the fourteenth annual meeting of the Society for Industrial–
Organizational Psychology, Inc., Atlanta, GA.
Salgado, J. F., & Moscoso, S. (1999, May). Construct validity of two
personality inventories based upon the five-factor model (FFM). Paper
presented at the fourteenth annual meeting of the Society for Industrial–
Organizational Psychology, Inc., Atlanta, GA.
Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (1996). The language of personality:
Lexical perspectives on the five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The
five-factor model of personality (pp. 21–50). New York: Guilford Press.
Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (in press). The structure of personality
attributes. In M. Barrick & A. M. Ryan (Eds.), Personality and work.
New York: Jossey-Bass-Pfeiffer.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1992). Development of a causal model of
processes determining job performance. Current Directions in Psycho-
logical Science, 1, 89–92.
Schneider, R. J., Hough, L. M., & Dunnette, M. D. (1996). Broadsided by
broad traits: How to sink science in five dimensions or less. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 17, 639–655.
*Shelton, D., Holland, B., & Hogan, J. (1999). Selecting terminal manag-
ers using the Hogan Personality Inventory, Hogan Development Survey,
and Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (Tech. Rep. No. 200). Tulsa,
OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.
*Shelton, D., Holland, B., & Hogan, J. (2000). Validity of the Hogan
Personality Inventory for selecting managers (Tech. Rep. No. 192).
Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.
*Sinangil, H. K., Ones, D. S., & Cemalcilar, Z. (1997). Personality
characteristics of expatriate managers working in Turkey (Tech. Rep.
No. 122). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
*Society for Industrial–Organizational Psychology, Inc. (1987). Principles
for the validation and use of personnel selection procedures (3rd ed.).
Washington, DC: Author.
Spector, P. E. (1996). Point/counterpoint introduction. Journal of Organi-
zational Behavior, 17, 607.
Staw, B. M., Sutton, R. I., & Pelled, L. H. (1994). Employee positive
emotion and favorable outcomes at the workplace. Organizational Sci-
ence, 5, 51–71.
Stewart, G. L., & Carson, K. P. (1995). Personality dimensions and
domains of service performance: A field investigation. Journal of Busi-
ness and Psychology, 9, 365–378.
Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A
survey of the literature. Journal of Personality, 25, 35–71.
*Stovall, D., Rybicki, S., Hogan, R., & Hauxwell, R. (1997). Validity of
Hogan Personality Inventory for selecting cashiers (Tech. Rep. No.
103). Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.
Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York:
Norton.
Tellegen, A., & Waller, N.G. (1987). Re-examining basic dimensions of
natural language trait descriptors. Paper presented at the 95th annual
convention of the American Psychological Association, New York.
Tett, R. P., Guterman, H. A., Bleier, A., & Murphy, P. J. (2000). Devel-
opment and content validation of a “hyperdimensional”taxonomy of
managerial competence. Human Performance, 13, 205–251.
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.
Thurstone, L. L. (1934). The vectors of the mind. Psychological Re-
view, 41, 1–32.
Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1961). Recurrent personality factors based
on trait ratings (ASD-TR-61-97). Lackland Air Force Base, TX: Aero-
nautical Systems Division, Personnel Laboratory.
Vinchur, A. J., Schippmann, J. S., Switzer, F. S., III, & Roth, P. L. (1998).
A meta-analytic review of predictors of job performance for salespeople.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 586–597.
Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2000, August). Personality-based cus-
tomer service scales used in personnel selection. Paper presented at the
108th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association,
Washington, DC.
Warr, P., & Conner, M. (1992). Job competencies and cognition. In L.
Cummings & A. Staub (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior
(Vol. 14, pp. 91–127). New York: JAI Press.
Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms:
The interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 37, 395–412.
Wiggins, J. S. (1991). Manual for the Interpersonal Adjective Scales.
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Wiggins, J. S., & Trapnell, P. D. (1996). A dyadic-interactional perspective
on the five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factor model of
personality (pp. 88–162). New York: Guilford Press.
Received June 26, 2001
Revision received April 19, 2002
Accepted April 20, 2002 䡲
112 HOGAN AND HOLLAND