Hogan Development Survey Manual

Hogan DevelopmentSurvey Manual

Robert Hogan, Ph.D.Joyce Hogan, Ph.D.

Hogan Assessment SystemsTulsa, OK 741521997

Copyright 1997 by Robert Hogan, Ph.D. and Joyce Hogan, Ph.D.All rights reserved.

No part of this manual may be reproduced in any form of printing or by any othermeans, electronic or mechanical, including, but not limited to, photocopying,audiovisual recording and transmission, and portrayal or duplication in any informa-tion storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from Hogan As-sessment Systems, Inc.

Acknowledgements

Over the last five years, a number of people have assisted us with the development of theHogan Development Survey (HDS). We are grateful for their contributions and it is a plea-sure to acknowledge them. Paul Babiak and Tom-Erik Dybwad commented on the item pool.John Thompson created the computer program for the interpretive report and has continuedto refine the scoring systems. Kimberly Brinkmeyer, Doug Klippel, Suzan Rybicki, RobertSmither, and Ron Walker helped gather the original data sets. Suzan Rybicki developed andmaintained the HDS archive and computed the statistical analyses. Heather Heidelberg andDallas Stovall contributed technical assistance and test scoring. Ann Ferguson providedproduction support, and day-to-day help has come from M. Gooch, B. Dings, M. Paddy, andL. M. Gracie. At the University of Tulsa, Judy McHenry produced the written material, includ-ing design, layout, and graphics. We thank all of them for their assistance.

Robert HoganJoyce Hogan

Tulsa1997

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Conceptual Background............................................................................ 1Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1

Hypotheses .................................................................................................................................... 2

Development Guidelines ................................................................................................................. 4

Chapter 2: Inventory Construction .............................................................................. 7Development .................................................................................................................................. 7

Definitions of the Scales ................................................................................................................. 8

Composition of the HDS ................................................................................................................. 9

Chapter 3: Validity ....................................................................................................... 13Construct Validity ..........................................................................................................................13

Correlations with Other Measures ..................................................................................................13

Excitable .............................................................................................................................14

Skeptical .............................................................................................................................15

Cautious ..............................................................................................................................16

Reserved .............................................................................................................................19

Leisurely ..............................................................................................................................19

Bold .....................................................................................................................................21

Mischievous .........................................................................................................................22

Colorful ................................................................................................................................23

Imaginative ..........................................................................................................................26

Diligent ................................................................................................................................26

Dutiful ..................................................................................................................................27

Chapter 4: Interpretations and Uses.......................................................................... 29Scale by Scale Interpretation.........................................................................................................29

Excitable .............................................................................................................................29

Skeptical .............................................................................................................................30

Cautious ..............................................................................................................................31

Reserved .............................................................................................................................31

Leisurely ..............................................................................................................................32

Bold .....................................................................................................................................33

Mischievous .........................................................................................................................33

Colorful ................................................................................................................................34

Imaginative ..........................................................................................................................35

Diligent ................................................................................................................................35

Dutiful ..................................................................................................................................36

Sample HDS Profile Interpretations ...............................................................................................37

“Moving Away“ Profile ..........................................................................................................39

“Moving Against“ Profile .......................................................................................................40

“Moving Toward“ Profile ........................................................................................................41

Corporate Stalker Profile ......................................................................................................42

Litigious Profile ....................................................................................................................43

Fear-driven Salesman Profile ...............................................................................................44

Uses ............................................................................................................................................45

Chapter 5: Administering and Scoring ...................................................................... 47Paper-and-pencil Administration ....................................................................................................47

How to Administer Paper-and-pencil HDS Forms...........................................................................47

Materials .............................................................................................................................47

Completing the Answer Sheet ..............................................................................................47

Conducting the Testing Session ....................................................................................................49

Administrator’s Script for Conducting a Testing Session ................................................................49

How to Administer Computer On-line Testing .................................................................................51

Materials .............................................................................................................................51

Using the On-line System ....................................................................................................51

How to Score the HDS Answer Sheets..........................................................................................52

Keyed Data Entry ................................................................................................................52

Optical Scanning of Answer Sheets .....................................................................................52

Mail-in or FAX Scoring .........................................................................................................52

References ................................................................................................................... 55

List of Tables, Figures, and Appendices

Tables

Table 2.1 Descriptive Statistics and Reliabilities for the HDS ..............................................................10

Table 2.2 Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations for HDS Scales by

Demographic Group ............................................................................................................. 11

Table 2.3 HDS Scale Intercorrelations ................................................................................................. 11

Table 2.4 Principal Components Analysis of HDS Scales ...................................................................12

Table 3.1 Correlations Between the Hogan Personality Inventory and the HDS ....................................15

Table 3.2 Correlations Between the MMPI Standard Scales and the HDS ...........................................17

Table 3.3 Correlations Between the MMPI Personality Disorder Scales

and the HDS ........................................................................................................................17

Table 3.4 Correlations Between the Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory

and the HDS ........................................................................................................................18

Table 3.5 Correlations Between the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal

and the HDS ........................................................................................................................20

Table 3.6 Correlations Between the Industrial Reading Test and the HDS ............................................21

Table 3.7 Correlations Between Observers’ Description Ratings

and the HDS ........................................................................................................................24

Table 3.8 Principal Components Analysis of the HPI, MVPI, and HDS ................................................28

Figures

Figure 1.1 Overlapping Themes from HDS and DSM-IV, Axis 2 Personality Disorders .......................... 5

Figure 4.1 A Quick Guide for Interpreting the HDS ................................................................................37

Figure 4.2 Average HDS Profile ............................................................................................................38

Figure 4.3 Average HPI Profile ..............................................................................................................38

Figure 4.4 “Moving Away“ HDS Profile ..................................................................................................39

Figure 4.5 “Moving Away“ HPI Profile ....................................................................................................39

Figure 4.6 “Moving Against“ HDS Profile ...............................................................................................40

Figure 4.7 “Moving Against“ HPI Profile .................................................................................................40

Figure 4.8 “Moving Toward“ HDS Profile ................................................................................................41

Figure 4.9 “Moving Toward“ HPI Profile ..................................................................................................41

Figure 4.10 Corporate Stalker HDS Profile ..............................................................................................42

Figure 4.11 Corporate Stalker HPI Profile ...............................................................................................42

Figure 4.12 Litigious HDS Profile ............................................................................................................43

Figure 4.13 Litigious HPI Profile .............................................................................................................43

Figure 4.14 Fear-driven Salesman HDS Profile .......................................................................................44

Figure 4.15 Fear-driven Salesman HPI Profile .........................................................................................44

Figure 5.1 Sample Answer Sheet .........................................................................................................48

Figure 5.2 HDS Data File Variable Specifications .................................................................................53

Appendices

Appendix A: HDS Norms for the Total Sample ...........................................................................................59

Appendix B: Sample HDS Interpretive Report ............................................................................................61

Conceptual Background 1

C H A P T E R

1Conceptual Background

Introduction

The Hogan Development Survey (HDS) is designed to assess eleven common dysfunctionaldispositions. These dispositions: (a) are caused by people’s distorted beliefs about how otherswill treat them; and (b) negatively influence people’s careers and life satisfactions. Before de-scribing the development of the HDS, some background comments may help the reader betterunderstand the purpose of this inventory.

Sigmund Freud, Alfred Adler, Karen Horney, and H. S. Sullivan all studied self-defeating behav-ior. However, they explained this behavior very differently. Freud was concerned exclusively withintrapsychic processes—events occurring inside the mind—whereas the others were concernedwith interpersonal processes—events occurring between people. Consequently, the others areknown as interpersonal theorists. Freud thought everyone (who has not been psychoanalyzed) isneurotic; the interpersonal theorists thought that the problems most people have are much lesssevere than a neurosis. Freud thought people could be characterized in terms of how they man-age their neuroses; the others thought people could be characterized in terms of their expecta-tions about how others will treat them. Because some of these expectations are wrong, they tendto behave in ways that others find annoying and that, over time, may interfere with their life goals.

Freud’s view that everyone is somewhat neurotic is surely incorrect—people who are neuroticare severely impaired and most people are not deeply disturbed. Nonetheless, his view pre-vailed and inspired the early history of personality measurement; that, in turn, led to the develop-ment of instruments such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI; Hathaway &McKinley, 1943; MMPI 2, Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989).

Adler, Horney, Sullivan and the later interpersonal theorists are probably right in their view that,although everyone is not neurotic, the nature of experience in childhood is such that almost every-one feels inadequate about something. That is, childhood is almost inevitably stressful and mostpeople develop expectations of being criticized in certain situations; they

also develop methods for dealing with the criticism. For Freud, all neuroses have a single cause—a failure to resolve the Oedipus complex; for the interpersonal theorists there are many reasonsfor feeling inadequate, and almost everyone feels insecure about something—few of us hadperfect childhoods.

The interpersonal theorists have had far less influence on personality assessment than Freud,despite the importance of the problems they analyze. Other than research on the interpersonalcircumplex inspired by Leary (1957) and elaborated brilliantly by Wiggins (1979), there has beenlittle systematic effort to classify the key interpersonal processes. In our judgment, the first step instudying these processes is to develop a taxonomy of what we call “dysfunctional dispositions”.Horney (1950) identified 10 “neurotic needs” which seem to be the first taxonomy of flawedinterpersonal tendencies. She later summarized these needs in terms of three themes: (1) mov-ing toward people—i.e., managing one’s insecurities by building alliances; (2) moving awayfrom people—i.e., managing one’s feelings of inadequacy by avoiding contact with others; and(3) moving against people—i.e., managing one’s self-doubts by dominating and intimidatingothers. We believe that Horney’s taxonomy is a useful first step in classifying the dysfunctionaldispositions; moreover, it is implicit in the classification of personality disorders contained inDSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association, 1994).

Hypotheses

We would like to propose—as a hypothesis—that the DSM-IV, Axis 2 personality disorders canserve as a provisional taxonomy of flawed interpersonal strategies. Like all taxonomies, it issubject to revision as data emerge that cannot be interpreted or incorporated into the taxonomy.

We would like to propose a second hypothesis, one that concerns the structure of personality.Researchers often organize personality variables in a hierarchy defined by many specific behav-iors and/or narrow traits at the bottom and by a few broad and/or general traits at the top. Al-though this is sensible, there is a second natural hierarchy of personality concepts that extendsfrom terms characterizing people with good interpersonal skills, to terms describing flawed skills,to terms referring to non-existent skills. This second hierarchy reflects the fact that interpersonalcompetency is probably normally distributed; thus, a few people at one end of the distribution areself-assured and highly effective in interaction, and a corresponding few at the other end areprofoundly self-doubting and incompetent—even neurotic. In the middle of this distribution is themajority of the population—people whose development included failure, disappointment, loss,fights, accidents, illness, injury, family discord, experiments with forbidden behaviors, and feel-ings of guilt, loneliness, powerlessness, humiliation, inadequacy and betrayal—about whoselives Adler, Horney, and Sullivan wrote so perceptively.

2 Conceptual Background


In our view, the Five-Factor Model (Wiggins, 1996) is a cross-section of this personality hierar-chy at the competent end of the distribution. At the incompetent end, Harkness, McNulty, andBen-Porath (1995) propose what they call the “PSY-5,” where agreeableness turns into hostilityand conscientiousness turns into delinquency. Finally, then, the personality disorders can be seenas a cross-section in the middle of the distribution, a cross-section that has not been well-de-fined in psychometric terms.

The two foregoing hypotheses suggest that the personality disorders occupy a psychologicalspace half-way between the domain mapped by measures of normal personality such as theCalifornia Psychological Inventory (CPI; Gough, 1987) or the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI;R. Hogan & Hogan, 1995), and measures of abnormal personality such as the MMPI. This sug-gests one justification for developing the HDS—the personality disorders concern a region ofinterpersonal behavior that has not been adequately mapped or measured. But the most impor-tant reason for paying attention to the personality disorders, in our judgment, is that they occur sofrequently at every level of society and have detrimental effects on interpersonal and career ef-fectiveness. Consider the following two examples.

First, R. Hogan worked for two years as a probation officer; he investigated five or six cases oftroubled adolescents each week and then wrote evaluations. In this process, he found the stan-dard categories of psychiatric diagnosis unhelpful because they fit so few cases. Instead, herelied on the personality disorders to make sense of his investigations. Thus, most juvenile delin-quents—who are only somewhat disturbed in a psychiatric sense—are more easily classified interms of the personality disorders than in terms of the standard psychiatric categories becausethe problems they have are usually unrelated to neurosis or psychosis.

Second, in reviewing the literature on leadership, the authors (R. Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan, 1994)noticed that there is little agreement regarding the characteristics that define effective leader-ship, but there is considerable agreement regarding the characteristics of managerial incompe-tence. Bentz (1985) identifies leadership styles associated with managerial derailment in theretail industry (e.g., playing politics, moodiness, and dishonesty). Researchers at the Center forCreative Leadership and at Personnel Decisions International similarly conclude that managerswho are technically competent but who fail are variously perceived as arrogant, vindictive, un-trustworthy, selfish, emotional, compulsive, overcontrolling, insensitive, abrasive, aloof, too am-bitious, or unable to delegate (Hazucha, 1991; Lombardo, Ruderman, & McCauley, 1988; McCall& Lombardo, 1983). Bentz’s observations overlap substantially with those from the Center forCreative Leadership—managers who are typified by dysfunctional dispositions are unable tobuild a constituency to support them in the pursuit of their agendas. Our point is that the themesthat predict managerial incompetence strongly resemble the personality disorders. Like the Five-Factor Model, which is reliably replicated in various languages and cultures, the standard per-sonality disorders seem to reflect common themes in the lives of people who are getting by butperhaps gradually failing, or at least not realizing their potential.

The empirical literature clearly indicates that measures of psychopathology such as the Ror-schach and the MMPI are uncorrelated with indices of effective occupational performance (Kelly& Fiske, 1951). In 1992 as an experimental exercise, we included a measure of personalitydisorders in a study of insurance claims examiners; we discovered, to our great surprise, thatseveral scales of the inventory were robust predictors of performance in the negative direction(Arneson, Millikin-Davies, & Hogan, 1993). In fact, these scales predicted job performance bet-ter than the HPI—an inventory of normal personality—although they predicted in the negativedirection. We concluded that measures of personality disorders, unlike measures of neurosisand psychosis, will predict (negative) reliable occupational outcomes. At this point we decidedto develop the HDS.

Development Guidelines

In developing the HDS, we were guided by four considerations. The first concerns what to mea-sure. We regard the personality disorders described in the DSM-III-R and DSM-IV as lists de-signed by committees; as such, they are inevitably somewhat arbitrary and generally not foundedin science. The construction of the HDS departs from the DSM-IV, Axis 2 taxonomy in two ways.First, we retained the category of Passive-Aggressive personality—because we think it is animportant theme in the behavior of some normal, employed adults. Second, our measure of theAntisocial personality is designed to assess classic psychopathic tendencies—manipulation,deceitfulness, and exploitation—rather than a delinquent lifestyle. Table 1.1 presents the 11HDS scales, their descriptors, and the personality disorders they most closely resemble.

The second consideration concerns how to conceptualize the constructs listed in Table 1.1.Many people define the personality disorders as types; each construct, they believe, refers to adistinctive cluster of behaviors that characterize certain types of people. A person with a highscore on a narcissism scale, for example, will manifest more tendencies typical of a narcissistthan a person with a low score. In our view, however, the constructs are dimensions. Each per-sonality disorder refers to a distinct theme—a dysfunctional disposition—appearing in interper-sonal relations. People are normally distributed on these dimensions, and any single personmay have high or low scores on any of the dimensions.

The third consideration we used in developing the HDS has to do with how to measure thevarious personality disorders. The standard approach to constructing these scales is to writeitems for each personality disorder using the diagnostic criteria listed in the DSM-IV. For ex-ample, the criteria for the Avoidant personality include sensitivity to criticism, anxiety proneness,fearfulness, and low self-confidence. To develop an Avoidant scale, therefore, a test author wouldwrite items reflecting each of these themes. The problem is that the DSM-IV assigns many of thesame attributes to more than one personality disorder. For example, being sensitive to criticismis a criterion for diagnosing four of the standard 10 disorders, and items concerning being sen-sitive to criticism would appear on four of an inventory’s scales



Figure 1.1

Overlapping Themes from HDS and DSM-IV, Axis 2 Personality Disorders

HDS Themes DSM-IV Personality Disorders Themes

Excitable Moody and hard to please; Borderline Inappropriate anger; unstableintense but short lived and intense relationshipsenthusiasm for people, alternating between idealizationprojects, or things. and devaluation.

Skeptical Cynical, distrustful, and Paranoid Distrustful and suspicious ofdoubting others’ true others; motives are interpretedintentions. as malevolent.

Cautious Reluctant to take risks for Avoidant Social inhibition, feelings offear of being rejected or inadequacy, and hyper-negatively evaluated. sensitivity to criticism or

rejection.

Reserved Aloof, detached, and Schizoid Emotional coldness anduncommunicative; lacking detachment from socialinterest in or awareness of relationships; indifferent tothe feelings of others. praise and criticism.

Leisurely Independent; ignoring Passive- Passive resistance to adequatepeople’s requests and Aggressive* social and occupationalbecoming irritated or performance; irritated whenargumentative if they persist. asked to do something he/she

does not want to do.

Bold Unusually self-confident; Narcissistic Arrogant and haughtyfeelings of grandiosity and behaviors or attitudes;entitlement; over-evaluation of grandiose sense of self-one’s capabilities. importance and entitlement.

Mischievous Enjoying risk taking and testing Antisocial Disregard for the trugh;the limits; needing excitement; impulsivity and failure to planmanipulative, deceitful, cunning, ahead; failure to conform withand exploitative. social norms.

Colorful Expressive, animated, and Histrionic Excessive emotionality anddramatic; wanting to be noticed attention seeking; self-and needing to be the center of dramatizing, theatrical, andattention. exaggerated emotional

expression.

Imaginative Acting and thinking in creative Schizotypal Odd beliefs or magical thinking;and sometimes odd or unusual behavior or speech that is odd,ways. eccentric, or peculiar.

Diligent Meticulous, precise, and Obsessive- Preoccupations withperfectionistic; inflexible about Compulsive orderliness, rules, perfection-rules and procedures; critical of ism, and control; overconscien-others’ performance. tious and inflexible.

Dutiful Eager to please and reliant on Dependent Difficulty making everydayothers for support and decisions without excessiveguidance; reluctant to take advice and reassurance;independent action or go difficulty expressing disagree-against popular opinion. ment out of fear of loss of

support or approval.

Note: *From DSM-III-R

constructed in this manner. This builds in item overlap and necessarily reduces the power ofsuch inventories to discriminate among people. To avoid this problem when developing the HDS,we wrote items directed at the heart of each construct, then carefully reviewed the item contentacross scales to eliminate item overlap and enhance the discriminatory power of the entire in-ventory. Thus, for example, items on the Skeptical (Paranoia) scale concern suspiciousness,mistrust, and a heightened readiness to confront persons suspected of giving offense, whereasitems on the Reserved (Schizoid) scale concern being aloof, insensitive, and indifferent to theproblems of others. The content of each scale is independent of the content of the other scales.

The final consideration shaping the development of the HDS concerns the actual content of theitems. Because the HDS is intended to be used in everyday contexts for career development,job placement, promotion, and other “people decisions”—as opposed to being used to makemental health status or medical evaluations—the items reflect themes from the world of work—e.g., how one is perceived at work, how one relates to supervisors, co-workers, and friends,attitudes toward competition and success, etc. In addition, to further enhance the acceptability ofthe HDS in everyday applications, the scales have been renamed so as to not stigmatize unnec-essarily persons receiving high scores on the various dimensions. Finally, we are aware of theimplications of recent rulings, especially the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA; 1990),as they affect test item content (R. Hogan, Hogan, & Roberts, 1996). To the degree that it waspossible, we eliminated items with obvious medical or psychiatric content.


Inventory Construction 7

C H A P T E R

2Inventory construction

Development

As noted in Chapter 1, the scales of the Hogan Development Survey (HDS) have their roots inthe taxonomies of the personality disorders. The original model for the HDS is the PROFILE,developed by Warren Jones (1988) shortly after the appearance of the DSM III, Axis 2 personal-ity disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 1987). Jones intended to use the PROFILE asa psychometrically defensible alternative to the inventories of personality disorders available toclinical psychologists at the time. We used the PROFILE for about five years with our clients inbusiness and industry and conducted several validity studies. We began to see associationsbetween PROFILE scores and problem managers, and other indications that personality dys-function is related to failures in the achievement of career potential.

We concluded that there is a role for the assessment of “dysfunctional dispositions” in the work-place. However, we were concerned about the overt clinical content of the PROFILE and itsemphasis on anxiety and depression. With the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act of1990 (ADA; 1990), it became clear that scales of the PROFILE would be seen as evaluations ofmental disabilities, which are prohibited for pre-offer employment inquiries. We saw a need for anon-clinical inventory that would assess interpersonal behaviors that adversely affect the perfor-mance or reputation of people at work. We envisioned a tool to be used primarily for profes-sional development and coaching rather than personnel selection.

As mentioned in Chapter 1, at least three sources influenced our thinking about the scales of theHDS. The first was the DSM-IV, Axis 2 personality disorders. The second was the literature onmanagerial derailment—a literature that became accessible through the technical reports andpopular publications from the Center for Creative Leadership. The third source was data fromappraisals of others at work, and, in particular, evaluations of first line supervisors by their subor-dinates (Millikin-Davies, 1992). In our view, first line supervisors probably affect the productivityand satisfaction of more workers than any other element of organizational structure. Therefore,we targeted for assessment the problems that these supervisors display most frequently.

8 Inventory Construction

Our strategy for writing the items focused on the distinctive characteristics of each dysfunctionaldisposition. We wrote items with work-related and interpersonal content, and we avoided itemsreferring to clinical themes, religious beliefs, or sexual preferences. Like the HPI, the items aredesigned to reflect what a person with that particular disposition might say or do. Finally, we triedto develop scales with non-overlapping and homogeneous themes and to avoid repeating de-scriptors across scales. This was challenging because symptoms such as anxiety are commonto many of the standard personality disorders. We also tried to minimize intercorrelations be-tween the scales.

We began working on the HDS on Labor Day weekend, 1992. We wrote items for one scale ata time. We wrote an initial set of items, tested samples of people, computed internal consistencyreliabilities and correlations with other well-established measures, reviewed the data, and re-vised the items so as to: (a) enhance internal consistency reliability and; (b) sharpen convergentand discriminant validity. We also solicited and received valuable input from many colleagues inthe United States and Europe concerning the content of the scales. The HDS is the product of sixcycles of item writing, revision, testing, and further revision. The final set of items was definedduring the summer of 1995.

Between 1995 to 1996, we tested over 2,000 people, including employed adults, job applicants,prisoners, and graduate students. The ages in these samples ranged from 21 years to 64 years,with a mean of 38.5 years. There were 1,532 men and 322 women, 620 whites and 150 blacks.We estimate that about 15% of the sample were college educated.

Definitions of the Scales

The 11 HDS scales are defined as follows:

Excitable concerns seeming moody and inconsistent, being enthusiastic about new persons orprojects and then becoming disappointed with them.

Skeptical concerns seeming cynical, distrustful, overly sensitive to criticism, and questioningothers’ true intentions.

Cautious concerns seeming resistant to change and reluctant to take even reasonable chancesfor fear of being evaluated negatively.

Reserved concerns seeming socially withdrawn and lacking interest in or awareness of thefeelings of others.

Leisurely concerns seeming autonomous, indifferent to other people’s requests, and becomingirritable when they persist.


Bold concerns seeming unusually self-confident and, as a result, unwilling to admit mistakes orlisten to advice, and unable to learn from experience.

Mischievous concerns seeming to enjoy taking risks and testing the limits.

Colorful concerns seeming expressive, dramatic, and wanting to be noticed.

Imaginative concerns seeming to act and think in creative and sometimes unusual ways.

Diligent concerns seeming careful, precise, and critical of the performance of others.

Dutiful concerns seeming eager to please, reliant on others for support, and reluctant to takeindependent action.

Composition of the HDS

The HDS contains 168 items in the form of statements to which a respondent indicates “agree”or “disagree”. Each scale contains 14 items that were derived rationally using the distinguishingfeatures of each syndrome. There is no item overlap among the 11 scales. The items werescreened for content that might seem offensive or to invade privacy. There are no items concern-ing sexual preferences, religious beliefs, criminal or illegal behavior, racial/ethnic attitudes, orattitudes about disabled individuals. Fourteen additional items appear on an experimental so-cial desireability scale.

Readability statistics computed on the 168 items indicated an average sentence length of 6.8words and an average word length of 4.0 characters. A Flesch-Kincaid reading level analysisshows that the inventory is written at a fifth grade level.

Table 2.1 presents descriptive statistics and reliabilities for each of the HDS scales. Becausethe response coding uses a 2-point scale (0 = disagree, 1 = agree), and each scale contains 14items, scale scores range from 0 to 14. Items are scored in the direction of the syndrome, so thathigher scores represent more dysfunctional tendencies. With the exception of the test-retestreliabilities, the data in Table 2.1 are based on an archival sample of 2,071 adults, most of whomare job applicants or incumbents. Table 2.1 indicates that the highest mean scale scores appearfor the Diligent, Dutiful, and Bold scales, respectively. The lowest mean scale scores appear forExcitable, Cautious, and Reserved scales. The Colorful scale is the most variable (SD = 2.94),whereas the Dutiful scale is the least variable (SD = 2.13). Internal consistency or alpha reliabilities(Cronbach, 1951) vary between .50 (Dutiful) and .78 (Excitable) with an average alpha of .67.Test-retest reliabilities were computed for a sample of graduate students (N = 60) over a threemonth interval and the highest scale reliability was for Excitable (.87) and the lowest was forLeisurely (.58), with an average value of .75. The standard error of measurement was consistentacross all scales and averaged .06.


Table 2.1

Descriptive Statistics and Reliabilities for the HDS

Number Inter-Scale Name of Items Mean SD Alpha Item r r tt SE

Excitable 14 3.2 2.85 .78 .20 .87 .06Skeptical 14 4.5 2.78 .76 .18 .65 .06Cautious 14 3.3 2.60 .73 .16 .77 .06Reserved 14 4.2 2.33 .66 .12 .59 .05Leisurely 14 4.7 2.29 .58 .09 .58 .05Bold 14 7.7 2.73 .69 .14 .78 .06Mischievous 14 6.1 2.60 .59 .09 .72 .06Colorful 14 7.4 2.94 .72 .16 .85 .07Imaginative 14 5.6 2.54 .64 .11 .73 .06Diligent 14 9.8 2.23 .65 .12 .77 .05Dutiful 14 7.9 2.13 .50 .06 .73 .05

Table 2.2 contains scale means and standard deviations by gender, race, and age. As seen,men and women obtain comparable scores across all scales; the largest mean difference is .5points on the Reserved scale. The largest race difference occurs on the Cautious scale withWhites scoring slightly higher (.4 points) than Blacks. Comparing younger and older people,those under 40 years have a slightly higher mean score on the Skeptical scale (.7 points). Gen-erally, the average scores for men and women are similar, average scores for Whites and Blacksare similar, and average scores for younger and older persons are similar.

Table 2.3 presents the intercorrelations between the HDS scales based on a sample of 2,071respondents. As seen, the highest correlations in the matrix are between the Excitable scale andthe Cautious (r = .59) and the Skeptical (r = .54) scales. The most independent scale is Diligent,with correlations of .22 or less with the other scales. All scales have about three meaningfulcorrelations with other scales. The only inverse pattern of relations in the matrix is for the correla-tions with the Colorful scale.

Table 2.4 presents a principal components analysis of the correlation matrix presented in Table2.3. As seen, three components account for 62% of the variance in the matrix. The first compo-nent is defined by the Excitable, Skeptical, Cautious, Reserved, and Leisurely scales and thiscomponent resembles the theme of “moving away from people” in Horney’s (1950) model offlawed interpersonal tendencies. The second component is defined by the Bold, Mischievous,Colorful, and Imaginative scales and corresponds to Horney’s theme of “moving against people.”The third component is defined by the Diligent and Dutiful scales and


corresponds to Horney’s theme of “moving toward people.” Because the measurement goal ofthe HDS is to cover the major themes of flawed interpersonal behavior and because many ofthese themes co-exist in the same person, we judged it would be difficult to develop elevenscales that are statistically independent. The results in Tables 2.3 and 2.4 show that the relationsbetween the HDS scales are sensible and interpretable.

Table 2.2

Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations forHDS Scales by Demographic Group

Male Female Black White Under 40 40 & Above

(n = 1,532) (n = 322) (n = 150) (n = 620) (n = 907) (n = 801)

Scale Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Excitable 3.2 2.86 3.0 2.63 3.0 2.59 2.9 2.72 3.3 3.02 3.3 2.77

Skeptical 4.5 2.83 4.3 2.39 4.5 2.64 4.2 2.48 4.9 3.02 4.2 2.53

Cautious 3.3 2.60 3.2 2.62 2.8 2.41 3.2 2.47 3.3 2.73 3.5 2.55

Reserved 4.3 2.40 3.8 2.01 4.2 2.16 4.0 2.25 4.4 2.43 4.1 2.25

Leisurely 4.7 2.31 4.6 2.28 4.6 2.31 4.7 2.26 4.8 2.46 4.7 2.16

Bold 7.7 2.77 7.8 2.56 8.0 2.76 7.7 2.84 7.7 2.77 7.7 2.74

Mischievous 6.0 2.66 6.1 2.41 6.0 2.54 6.1 2.68 6.2 2.68 5.8 2.53

Colorful 7.3 3.01 7.6 2.75 7.2 2.87 7.4 3.08 7.5 2.96 7.1 3.01

Imaginative 5.5 2.56 5.8 2.51 5.8 2.55 5.5 2.51 5.8 2.63 5.3 2.48

Diligent 9.9 2.24 9.7 2.15 10.0 2.07 9.8 2.14 9.8 2.30 9.8 2.19

Dutiful 7.9 2.12 7.8 2.14 8.0 2.05 7.8 2.16 8.0 2.14 7.9 2.13

Table 2.3

HDS Scale Intercorrelations

EXC SKE CAU RES LEI BOL MIS COL IMA DIL DUT

Excitable —Skeptical .54 —Cautious .59 .36 —Reserved .47 .44 .43 —Leisurely .39 .47 .40 .32 —Bold -.13 .18 -.25 -.12 .13 —Mischievous .06 .30 -.16 .01 .16 .45 —Colorful -.21 -.07 -.41 -.32 -.09 .50 .45 —Imaginative .16 .30 -.04 .02 .19 .35 .48 .38 —Diligent -.10 .03 -.04 -.06 .05 .22 -.06 -.03 .00 —Dutiful .01 -.13 .21 -.09 .04 -.13 -.22 -.15 -.10 .19 —


Table 2.4

Principal Components Analysis of HDS Scales

ComponentScale I II III

Excitable .81

Skeptical .75 .34

Cautious .74 -.34

Reserved .70

Leisurely .67

Bold .78

Mischievous .77

Colorful -.35 .72

Imaginative .69

Diligent .80

Dutiful .68

Note: Percent of Variance = 61.6

Validity 13

C H A P T E R

3Validity

Construct Validity

Chapter 2 concerns the development of the HDS scales and their technical or psychometricproperties—i.e., their internal consistency and temporal stability. The evidence presented inChapter 2 suggests that these fundamental technical properties are acceptable, which leads tothe next question—what do scores on the HDS scales mean?

This is the issue of validity, a topic that is much discussed but often misunderstood. Our view (cf.R. Hogan & Hogan, 1997) is that the meaning of a personality scale must be discovered—itcannot be stipulated in advance—and it must be discovered in the pattern of external non-testcorrelates of the scale in question (Hogan & Nicholson, 1988).

We have a theory about the content of each scale. Each scale is designed to assess a particularsyndrome, a unique theme that occurs in interpersonal behavior, a theme that usually has nega-tive implications defined in terms of a person’s ability to build relationships and establish a ca-reer. Thus, the validity of the HDS scales depends not only on having robust external correlates,but also on having external correlates that make sense given our theory of each scale’s content(see also R. Hogan, Hogan, & Roberts, 1996).

Correlations with Other Measures

In the sections that follow, we define the syndrome each scale is intended to capture, then wereview the evidence regarding the pattern of external correlates for each scale. We provide evi-dence from six sources for each scale. First, we review correlations with the Hogan PersonalityInventory (HPI; R. Hogan & Hogan, 1995). The HPI is a 206-item measure of normal personality,based on the Five-Factor Model (Wiggins, 1996) and normed on 30,000 working adults. Sec-ond, we present correlations with the standard scales of the MMPI, the best-known and mosthighly respected measure of psychopathology in the world. Third, we review correlations be-tween the HDS and a special set of MMPI scales developed by Morey, Waugh,

14 Validity

and Blashfield (1985) to assess the standard DSM-III personality disorders. Fourth, we com-pare the HDS scales with the Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI; J. Hogan & Hogan,1996), a 200-item measure of 10 motivational themes that are prominent in the history of psy-chology. Fifth, we present correlations between the HDS scales and measures of cognitiveability that are often used to evaluate candidates for management positions. Sixth, we presentcorrelations between scores on each scale and descriptions of a person’s performance as amanager from the perspectives of subordinates, peers, and supervisors. And finally, weintercorrelated the scale scores of the HPI, the MVPI, and the HDS, factor analyzed theintercorrelations, and followed this with a varimax rotation. The result was a six-factor solution.An examination of the loadings of each HDS scale gives additional insight into the meaning ofthe scale scores.

Excitable. The Excitable scale is designed to model the Borderline personality as it is seen inworking adults. Excitable people tend to become enthusiastic about new relationships or projects,perhaps even to idealize them, then to discover flaws or shortcomings in the idealized object andto become disillusioned, discouraged, and upset. The person will then tend to reject that whichshe/he formerly idealized and to sever the relationship; such persons have many terminal quar-rels with former friends and a history of repeated job turnover.

The behavior resembles Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, and Wall’s (1978) description of a child whois ambivalently attached to its primary caretakers—an eager approach to the caretaker followedby an angry rejection and turning away. It also resembles what the early theorists (Lewin, 1935)described as an approach-avoidance conflict—an oscillation between approaching and fleeinga goal object. We can speculate that, as children, these people experienced an unusual amountof rejection from family members or peers. This rejection left them with an unfilled need for be-longing and acceptance and a tendency to reach out for it; at the same time, they expect to berejected and are unusually alert to signs of rejection. They have sufficient social skills to beginrelationships, but their expectation of rejection robs them of the flexibility needed to sustain therelationships.

These people have never been able to evaluate their belief that rejection is inevitable; like mothsthey continue to return to the flame—they initiate interactions that they expect will fail, and theexpectation turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy. As a result, high scores on the Excitable scaleimplicate more overt unhappiness than high scores on the other scales—because they continu-ally repeat a self-defeating cycle of rejection and disappointment.

Table 3.1 indicates that, of all the HDS scales, the Excitable scale has the largest negative cor-relation (-.76) with the Adjustment scale of the HPI. The HPI Adjustment scale is a good proxy forthe first factor of the MMPI (cf. R. Hogan & Hogan, 1996). Table 3.2 indicates that the Excitablescale is more highly correlated with the MMPI standard scales than any other HDS scale. Thecorrelation of -.67 with the MMPI K scale suggests that persons with highscores on the Excitablescale are often anxious and unhappy and they make little effort to disguise it.

Validity 15

Table 3.3 shows that the Excitable scale has its largest correlation (r = .67) with the MMPI contentscale for Borderline personality disorder. The -.38 correlation between Excitable and the Affilia-tion scale of the MVPI in Table 3.4 suggests that high scorers deny a need for interpersonalrelations and friendships. In a joint factor analysis (see Table 3.8) using the HPI, MVPI, and theHDS, the Excitable scale primarily loads, in the negative direction, on the fourth componentwhich is defined by the HPI Adjustment and Ambition scales—both with positive loadings. Thissuggests that the Excitable scale is heavily saturated with neuroticism or, in the modern par-lance, negative affectivity. Table 3.5 shows that this scale is uncorrelated with the Watson-GlaserCritical Thinking Appraisal scale, a cognitive measure often used for managerial assessments(Watson & Glaser, 1980). The same result appears in Table 3.6 for the Industrial Reading Test(Psychological Corporation, 1989).

Managers with high scores on the Excitable scale are described (see Table 3.7) by subordi-nates and peers as yelling at people when they make mistakes (.30), not expressing emotionsappropriately (.30), easily upset (.29), self-doubting (.28), not calm (-.27), and moody (.26). Theoverall picture of a high scorer is a person who may seem modest, quiet, and pleasant, and whois able to initiate relationships, but who is also easily offended and upset and, as a result, mayabandon commitments and obligations.

Skeptical. The Skeptical scale is designed to model the Paranoid personality as seen in work-ing adults. Skeptical people believe that the world is a dangerous place, full of people who willtrick and deceive them, steal from them, or otherwise harm them in some way. As a result, theyare wary, suspicious, and alert for signs of betrayal in their friends, family, coworkers, and em-ployers. They also tend to be perceived as bright, to detect patterns in the behavior of others thatare logical, plausible, and often real, and they can defend their views about the intentions ofothers with remarkable skill and conviction.

Table 3.1

Correlations Between the Hogan Personality Inventory and the HDS School

Scales Adjustment Ambition Sociability Likeability Prudence Intellectance Success

Excitable -.76** -.63** -.18** -.60** -.66** -.19** -.50**Skeptical -.60** -.51** -.11* -.52** -.60** -.11* -.40**Cautious -.60** -.70** -.37** -.41** -.34** -.26** -.42**Reserved -.45** -.53** -.32** -.67** -.55** -.17** -.30**Leisurely -.15** -.26** -.12* -.28** -.33** -.13** -.24**Bold .08 .28** .34** .14** .09 .27** .34**Mischievous -.05 .12** .48** -.05* -.35** .31** .08**Colorful .15** .44** .67** .29** .04 .35** .34**Imaginative -.28** -.06 .31** -.14** -.37** .32** -.01*Diligent .00 .09 -.14** .16** .36** .10* .08*Dutiful -.02 -.06 -.08 .29** .33** -.07 -.01

Note: *: p < .05; **: p < .01; one-tailed test.N=826

16 Validity

A prototype of the Skeptical person might have been James Jesus Angleton, the brilliant andrefined head of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) counter-espionage unit during the 1970’s.Angleton became persuaded that a Russian double agent had infiltrated the CIA; in his relent-less efforts to find the potential spy, he badly demoralized the agency. Angleton was finally firedin apparent disgrace for these disruptions; nonetheless, the subsequent Aldrich Ames casesuggests that he may have been right about the existence of a double agent working for the CIA.

Skeptical people believe they were deceived at some point in their development. In order toprotect themselves from future betrayal, they have become especially alert and watchful. Theiralertness pays off because there are in fact people in the world who want to take advantage ofthem. The problem is that they also alienate potential friends and allies whom they incorrectlysuspect of being their enemies.

Paranoid tendencies are notoriously difficult to capture in assessment procedures because thesepeople tend to be suspicious, smart, and alert. Although the items on the Skeptical scale largelyreflect suspiciousness and mistrust, the scale loads on the same factor as the Excitable scale.Tables 3.1 and 3.2 show that the correlations between the Skeptical scale and the HPI and theMMPI largely track the correlations for the Excitable scale, although they are somewhat lower.Table 3.3 shows that the Skeptical scale has its largest correlation with the MMPI content scalefor Paranoid personality disorder. Table 3.4 shows that the Skeptical scale is correlated withMVPI scales for Hedonism (.35), Power (.26), and Recognition (.33); such people are energetic,achievement-oriented, and impulsive. In a joint factor analysis (see Table 3.8) using the HPI,MVPI, and the HDS, the Skeptical scale loaded primarily on the first component which is definedby the Power, Recognition, and Commercial scales of the MVPI, and the Bold, Mischievous, andColorful scales of the HDS. This component reflects energy, drive, social skills, and shrewdness;thus, there are some positive features to high scores on the Skeptical scale.

Tables 3.5 and 3.6 show that the Skeptical scale is uncorrelated with either the Watson-Glaser orthe Industrial Reading Test. Managers with high scores on the Skeptical scale are described as(see Table 3.7) easily disappointed (.28), needs attention (.28), feels mistreated (.26), easily hurtby criticism (.25), easily upset (.23) and questions people’s loyalty (.19).

Cautious. The Cautious scale is designed to model the Avoidant personality as seen in work-ing adults. Cautious people doubt their own abilities; at the same time, they are greatly con-cerned about making mistakes and being criticized for doing so. This creates a kind of rigidityborn of insecurity in which a Cautious person is reluctant to do anything other than what hasworked in the past—worked in the sense of allowing the person to avoid criticism. At work, suchpeople will adhere to rules even when doing so is counterproductive. They will also resist innova-tion out of a concern for making errors. And their life style will be organized around efforts toavoid surprises and keep their affairs manageable and predictable.

Validity 17

Table 3.2

Correlations Between the MMPI Standard Scales and the HDS

SCALES HS D HY PD MF MA K PA PT SC SI

Excitable .35** .36** -.03 .60** .06 .32** -.67** .37** .66** .52** .45**

Skeptical .23* .18 -.14 .44** -.03 .36** -.45** .26** .43** .43** .30**

Cautious .30** .43** .05 .32** .15 -.01 -.36** .27** .49** .32** .61**

Reserved .08 .21* -.18* .25** .05 .20* -.25** .24** .32** .31** .40**

Leisurely .31** .28** -.06 .28** .11 .36** -.54** .42** .50** .51** .42**

Bold .14 -.20* -.06 -.01 .03 .44** -.26** .21* .13 .28** -.10

Mischievous .13 -.15 -.06 .33** .00 .57** -.43** .31** .29** .37** .01

Colorful .13 -.18 .04 .05 .07 .46** -.15 .15 .07 .16 -.34**

Imaginative .16 -.09 .04 .26** .30** .52** -.38** .38** .27** .42** .01

Diligent .06 -.15 -.17 -.09 -.03 .17 -.13 -.11 -.03 .04 -.07

Dutiful .01 .01 -.07 -.17 .12 -.09 -.04 -.13 -.04 -.10 -.11

Note: HS = Hypochondriasis; D = Depression; HY = Hysteria; PD = Psychopathic Deviate; MF = Masculinity-Femininity;MA = Hypomania; K = Subtle Defensiveness; PA = Paranoia; PT = Psychasthenia; SC = Schizophrenia; SI = Social Introversion; *: p< .05, **: p < .01; one-tailed test.N=140

Table 3.3

Correlations Between the MMPI Personality Disorder Scales and the HDS

SCALES MBDL MPAR MAVD MSZD MPAG MNAR MANT MHST MSTY MCPS MDEP

Excitable .67** .56** .43** .23* .55** .01 .56** -.20* .49** .57** .29**

Skeptical .49** .62** .21* .27** .38** .24** .48** -.07 .54** .37** .11

Cautious .28** .28** .60** .29** .27** -.36** .21* -.38** .33** .32** .27**

Reserved .29** .39** .24** .47** .25** -.01 .31** -.32** .30** .16 .09

Leisurely .43** .58** .38** .38** .46** .07 .36** -.33** .61** .48** .21*

Bold .28* .35** .02 -.06 .24* .55** .10 .21* .35** .17 -.05

Mischievous .44** .47** .05 .03 .49** .38** .45** .14* .39** .31** .03

Colorful .16 .17 -.19* -.32** .22* .53** .14 .51** .12 .17 -.06

Imaginative .32** .43** .07 .10 .41** .37** .27** .18 .49** .30** .01

Diligent .14 .03 .05 .01 .03 .17 -.03 .13 .11 .14 -.11

Dutiful -.03 -.24** .03 -.30** -.06 -.11 -.27** .21* -.07 .00 .07

Note : MBDL = Borderline; MPAR = Paranoid; MAVD = Avoidant; MSZD = Schizoid; MPAG = Passive Aggressive; MNAR = Narcissis-tic; MANT = Antisocial; MHST = Histrionic; MSTY = Schizotypal; MCPS = Compulsive; MDEP = Dependent; * p: < .05; **: p < .01;one-tailed test.N=140

18 Validity

We can speculate that persons with high scores on the Cautious scale were raised by parentswho were overprotective, controlling, and highly critical, and who never let their child explore, testhis/her abilities, or manage his/her life. The syndrome associated with the Cautious scale re-sembles a failure at Erikson’s second stage of psychosocial development or Freud’s anal stageof development. The child, as a result, is guilt prone, rigid, conforming, and reluctant to learn newskills or to experiment. As a manager, these people will tend to micromanage their staff, resistinnovation, and be reactive rather than proactive, in a defensive effort to avoid criticism. At theextreme, such people may continue to do their work in their customary way even when newprocedures are clearly preferable and superior.

Table 3.1 shows that the Cautious scale correlates -.70 with the HPI Ambition scale and -.60 withthe HPI Adjustment scale, suggesting that high scorers are self-critical and unassertive. Table3.2 shows that the Cautious scale is most highly correlated (.61) with the MMPI Social Introver-sion scale, which further supports the unassertive theme found with the HPI. Table 3.3 shows thatthe Cautious scale is the HDS scale most highly correlated with the MMPI scale for Avoidantpersonality disorder (.60). In a joint analysis including the HPI, MVPI, and HDS (see Table 3.8),the Cautious scale forms a component with the Leisurely scale of the HDS and the Hedonisticscale of the MVPI, a syndrome that can be described as defensive self-indulgence.

Table 3.4

Correlations Between the Motives, Values, PreferencesInventory and the HDS

SCALES AES AFF ALT COM HED POW REC SCI SEC TRA

Excitable .01 -.38** -.09** -.15** .15** -.07* .10** -.08* .14** .00Skeptical .07* -.11** -.04 .10** .35** .26** .33** .09** .10** -.04Cautious -.04 -.41** -.01 -.21** .12** -.18** -.02 -.13** .23** .06Reserved .02 -.63** -.27** -.10** .03 -.09** -.04 .05 .09** -.06*Leisurely .02 -.15** .00 .04 .24** .14** .19** .00 .16** .04Bold .16** .26** .10** .42** .15** .57** .51** .25** .00 .05Mischievous .20** .28** .04 .22** .32** .47** .43** .19** -.34** -.16**Colorful .26** .40** .04 .26** .22** .42** .52** .17** -.31** -.09**Imaginative .33** .14** .08* .13** .23** .31** .37** .24** -.29** -.07*Diligent -.03 -.02 .21** .18** -.04 .15** -.01 .20** .39** .28**Dutiful -.02 -.01 .27** .00 .02 -.17** -.10** -.07* .25** .14**

Note: AES = Aesthetic; AFF = Affiliation; ALT = Altruistic; COM = Commercial; HED = Hedonistic; POW = Power; REC = Recognition; SCI= Science; SEC = Security; TRA = Tradition; *: p < .05; **: p < .01; one-tailed test.N=735

Tables 3.5 and 3.6 show that the Cautious scale is uncorrelated with either the Watson-Glaser orthe Industrial Reading Test. Table 3.7 shows that managers with high scores on the Cautiousscale are described as self-doubting (.28), consistent (.20), feeling inadequate (.18), not rational(.25), and not expressing emotions appropriately (.20).

Validity 19

Reserved. The Reserved scale is designed to model the Schizoid personality as seen in work-ing adults. Reserved people are introverted, shy, misanthropic, and imperceptive or uninsightfulabout social, interpersonal, or political cues. Their imperceptiveness may be a function of delib-erately tuning other people out; whatever the reason, they seem unconcerned about the welfareof others, indifferent to their moods and feelings, and unaware of or indifferent to how othersreact to them.

Related to their social gaucheness is a preference for working alone and a tendency to be moreinterested in data and things than people. Such people can have successful careers in technicalfields, but their indifference, stiffness, and insensitivity make them poor managers. The ChiefFinancial Officer of a hospital with which we have worked is a good example of this type. Eachmorning when he comes to work, he gets off the elevator, marches to his office without greetinganyone, goes into the office, shuts the door, hangs up his coat, and sits down at his desk. Onlythen will he respond to other people, and then only after they knock on his closed door. He is self-confident, bright, and very good with numbers, but his staff dislikes him because he communi-cates with them so infrequently and incompetently.

We suspect there is a genetic component to high scores on this scale—because shyness isknown to be hereditary (cf. Jones, Cheek, & Briggs, 1991). A disposition toward shyness com-bined with parents who were withdrawn and uncommunicative would likely create a child whowas withdrawn and awkward around peers. Feedback from peers might further exacerbate achild’s tendency toward social withdrawal. There are, nonetheless, some real benefits to thispattern of interpersonal behavior. On the one hand, being genuinely indifferent to the problems ofothers can reduce the amount of stress in one’s life. On the other hand, just as people seemcompelled to try periodically to cheer up a depressed person, so people feel compelled to try tocoax the Reserved person out of his or her shell; this coaxing must to some degree reinforce thereserved behavior.

The correlations in Table 3.1 suggest that persons with high scores on the Reserved scale areimperceptive and socially maladroit (Likeability, Ambition), impulsive and noncompliant (Pru-dence), and somewhat self-doubting or unhappy (Adjustment). Correlations with the standardscales of the MMPI (Table 3.2) suggest that persons with high scores on the Reserved scale arealoof and stand-offish (Si). Table 3.3 shows that the Reserved scale is most strongly correlatedwith the MMPI scale for Schizoid personality. The results of a joint analysis of the HPI, MVPI, andHDS suggests that the Reserved scale is a measure of introversion and misanthropy (see Table3.8). Tables 3.5 and 3.6 show that the Reserved scale is uncorrelated with either the Watson-Glaser or the Industrial Reading Test. Table 3.7 shows that supervisors, peers, and subordinatesdescribe managers with high scores on the Reserved scale as self-centered (.19), socially inept(.17), disliking to meet new people (.21), and unkind (.18), but as following company policy (-.15).

20 Validity

Leisurely. The Leisurely scale is designed to assess passive-aggressive tendencies as seenin working adults. Such people are preoccupied with their own goals and dreams and they resentbeing disturbed or interrupted. Although requests for greater focus, productivity, or effort will irri-tate them, they won’t express their irritation directly; rather, they will express it in relatively subtleways. For example, they are often late for meetings, they procrastinate, and they put off workingon tasks that don’t interest them. They blame their non-performance on computer failures, lack ofadequate resources, lack of cooperation from someone else, or other factors beyond their con-trol. As managers they tend to set up their staff for failure by not telling them what they want, andthen criticizing them for not delivering what they allege they actually wanted.

We can only speculate about the origins of passive aggression. The pattern may appear in chil-dren who were talented or attractive, and who were indulged but somewhat neglected. Thiscombination left them feeling both special and resentful. Overtly and superficially compliant, theybecame privately rebellious and vindictive.

Correlations with the HPI in Table 3.1 are not very helpful in interpreting the meaning of highscores on the Leisurely scale—the theme on the HPI is one of mild alienation indicated by lownegative correlations with Ambition, Likeability, and Prudence. The correlations in Table 3.2 withthe MMPI standard scales are more helpful and suggest a syndrome of unhappiness (K, Pt),suspiciousness and distrust (Pa), and odd thinking (Sc). These themes are further amplified inTable 3.3, where moderately large correlations with Compulsive, Paranoid, Schizotypal, andPassive-Aggressive personality disorder scales suggest a cautious and controlled interpersonalstyle combined with a somewhat strange, skewed, and suspicious view of the world. As notedabove, in a joint analysis of the HPI, MVPI, and HDS (see Table 3.8), the Leisurely scale definesa component we labeled defensive self-indulgence—spoiled and self-indulgent but concernedwith staying out of trouble.

Tables 3.5 and 3.6 show that the Leisurely scale is uncorrelated with either the Watson-Glaser orthe Industrial Reading Test. Table 3.7 shows that people describe managers with high scores onthe Leisurely scale as delegating appropriately (.19) and not testing the limits (.17), but also asresentful (.15), feeling mistreated (.16), and questioning others’ loyalty (.15).

Table 3.5

Correlations Between the Watson-Glaser Critical ThinkingAppraisal and the HDS

SCALES EXC SKE CAU RES LEI BOL MIS COL IMA DIL DUT

Watson-Glaser .01 .06 -.02 .12 -.15 .09 .25** .32** .03 -.20* .07

Note: EXC = Excitable; SKE = Skeptical; CAU = Cautious; RES = Reserved; LEI = Leisurely; BOL= Bold; MIS = Mischievous; COL=Colorful; IMA= Imaginative; DIL= Diligent; DUT= Dutiful; *: p < .05; **: p < .01; one-tailed test.N=125

Validity 21

Table 3.6

Correlations Between the Industrial Reading Test and the HDS

SCALES EXC SKE CAU RES LEI BOL MIS COL IMA DIL DUT

Industrial ReadingTest .06 .11 .04 .13 -.03 .08 .18* .22* .06 -.09* .14

Note: EXC = Excitable; SKE = Skeptical; CAU = Cautious; RES = Reserved; LEI = Leisurely; BOL= Bold; MIS = Mischievous; COL=Colorful; IMA= Imaginative; DIL= Diligent; DUT= Dutiful; *: p < .05; ** p: < .01; one-tailed test.N=90

Bold. The Bold scale is designed to model Narcissistic tendencies as seen in working adults.Narcissism is primarily defined by feelings of grandiosity and entitlement; by virtue of a person’sunique talents and attributes, she/he naturally deserves favors, praise, and recognition. Narcis-sists avoid recognizing their failures and shortcomings by means of narcissistic withdrawal—they won’t associate with or listen to people who might criticize them—they take more credit forsuccess than is fair, they blame their failures on others, and consequently they don’t learn fromexperience. They are often talented and capable, and their self-confidence encourages them totake initiative, offer opinions, and claim major competencies—e.g., “I can get this country movingagain.” As a result, they often rise rapidly in organizations, but others will find them hard to workwith because they can be overbearing, demanding, arrogant, and unrealistic. Their inability tobuild a team and learn from experience usually leads to a fall from power.

An example of a high functioning narcissist could be the brilliant and imperious Douglas MacArthur,who graduated first in his class from West Point and did well as an officer in World War I. Al-though he languished in the 1920’s and 1930’s, McArthur led a brilliant defense and subsequentcampaign against the Japanese in the Philippines in World War II, for which he became justifi-ably famous. He was fired by President Truman 10 years later for impetuous insubordinationduring the Korean War. Talented, self-dramatizing, vain, overbearing, and self-aggrandizing,General MacArthur embodied the strengths and shortcomings of the Narcissist at his best.

We can speculate that, as children, Narcissists were indulged, praised, and pampered (MacArthurcertainly was), but not required to exercise much self-control. Indulgence without controls is actu-ally a form of rejection which leaves a child with the feeling both of being very special and of beingunworthy. The result is public self-confidence and self-assurance and private self-doubt.

Correlations with the HPI (Table 3.1) suggest that persons with high scores on the Bold scale areseen as confident, outgoing, and bright. Correlations with the standard scales of the MMPI (Table3.2) suggest that such persons are also active and energetic (Ma), and mildly unconventional intheir thoughts and behavior (K, Sc). Table 3.3 shows that the Bold scale is

22 Validity

most highly correlated with the MMPI scale for Narcissistic personality disorder. In an analysiscombining the HPI, MVPI, and HDS (Table 3.8), the Bold scale is part of the first componentwhich is defined by energy, potency, ascendancy, and impulsivity; thus, there are some distinctlypositive features to high scores on the Bold scale. Tables 3.5 and 3.6 suggest the Bold scale isuncorrelated with cognitive ability. In Table 3.7, supervisors, peers, and subordinates describemanagers with high scores on the Bold scale as socially appropriate (.17), content with theirimage (.19), and not a follower (.20), but also as self-promoting (.17), unrestrained (.22) andtesting the limits (.17).

Mischievous. The Mischievous scale is designed to assess the Antisocial personality disor-der as seen in working adults. We agree with Lykken (1995) that the most important form of theAntisocial personality is what Cleckley (1982) called a psychopath—a person who is charmingbut deceitful, easily bored, risk-taking, and careless about rules and conventions. The psycho-path resembles the Narcissist in terms of social skill, impulsiveness, and an inability to learn fromexperience, but psychopaths lack the Narcissists’ energy and career focus.

Psychopaths are naturally bright and socially skilled; they are raised by parents who are warmand permissive, who indulge them, set no limits, and who find their evasions and deceptionsamusing—possibly because the parent(s) also tend to prevaricate and cut corners when it isadvantageous—psychopaths are often exposed to deceitful models in childhood. These chil-dren learn early on that they can often have their way by being cute and by lying when it is conve-nient and plausible to do so.

An example of a high functioning psychopath could be Kim Philby, a bright, charming, and unusu-ally talented man, whose father, St. John Philby was a famous adventurer, scholar, British spy—and possible double agent. After graduating from Cambridge, Philby’s exceptional talent andinterpersonal skill allowed him to rise rapidly in British intelligence in the 1930’s. The novelistGraham Greene, who worked for Philby during World War II, described him as the most impres-sive person he ever knew. Nonetheless, Philby routinely seduced his friends’ wives, and he be-came a Russian double agent and the greatest traitor in British history. He escaped to Russiajust as he was finally detected, where he lived like royalty but was never trusted by the Russians,and where he finally died.

Correlations with the HPI (Table 3.1) suggest that persons with high scores on the Mischievousscale will seem outgoing and entertaining (Sociability), impulsive and easily bored (Prudence),and bright and imaginative (Intellectance). Correlations with the standard scales of the MMPI(Table 3.2) suggest that persons with high scores on the Mischievous scale are energetic andimpulsive (Ma), somewhat socially inappropriate and nonconforming (K, Pd), and somewhatodd in their thoughts and behavior (Sc). The Mischievous scale has its highest correlations withthe MMPI scales for Passive Aggressive, Paranoid, Antisocial, Borderline, Schizotypal, andNarcissistic personality disorders (see Table 3.3). This is a complex syndrome involving en-ergy, impulsivity, and odd mentation. In a joint analysis using the HDS, HPI, and MVPI (Table3.8), the Mischievous scale loads on a component reflecting energy,

Validity 23

drive, and personal effectiveness. Tables 3.5 and 3.6 show that the Mischievous scale correlates.25 with the Watson-Glaser and .18 with the Industrial Reading Test, further testifying to the talentof such people. In Table 3.7, managers with high scores on the Mischievous scale are describedas arrogant (.17), deceitful (.17), testing the limits (.14), but socially appropriate (.16).

Colorful. The Colorful scale is designed to model the Histrionic personality disorder as it ap-pears in working adults. People with high scores on the Colorful scale need frequent and variedsocial contact, preferably while being at the center of attention. They develop considerable skillat making dramatic entrances and exits and otherwise cleverly calling attention to themselves.Interpersonally, they are gregarious, flirtatious, and often charming, but their interest in otherstends to be superficial and primarily oriented toward gaining immediate agreement on how at-tractive they themselves are.

Because they have charm, wit, social presence, and the ability quickly to establish relationshipswith others, they tend to do well in sales jobs. But as managers their need for attention, inability toshare credit, flightiness, lack of intellectual discipline, and short attention span tend to annoy anddisorient their subordinates.

A high functioning example of this interpersonal style could be President William Clinton. Clintonreports that his mother taught him that, after entering a room full of strangers, he should leave witheveryone in the room liking him, a rule he still follows assiduously. He is an astonishingly goodcampaigner because he seems unable to get enough human contact and this makes him inex-haustible. His chaotic managerial style is legendary—but it hardly separates him from manypoliticians—as is his phenomenal ability to “connect” with strangers and to convey the sense thathe “feels their pain.” His conversations turn into speeches, and his inability to stay focused on asingle topic and analyze it in depth is also well known. Finally, once again, he exemplifies thecharm and attractiveness of this style, as well as its shortcomings in a managerial role.

Table 3.1 shows that the Colorful scale is most highly correlated with the Sociability, Ambition,Intellectance, and School Success scales of the HPI, suggesting that high scorers seem ener-getic, outgoing, charismatic, bright, and imaginative. In Table 3.2, the Colorful scale is mosthighly correlated with the MMPI Ma and Si standard scales. Such persons are extraverted, exu-berant, and active. Table 3.3 shows that the Colorful scale is most highly correlated with theMMPI scales for Narcissistic and Histrionic personality disorders. On the MVPI in Table 3.4, theColorful scale is substantially correlated with Recognition, Power, and Affiliation, suggesting asomewhat compulsive need for attention and positive feedback. Tables 3.5 and 3.6 show thatthe Colorful scale correlates .32 with the Watson-Glaser and .22 with the Industrial Reading Test,further substantiating the view that high scorers seem bright and articulate. Finally in Table 3.7,managers with high scores on the Colorful scale are described as limit testing (.27), unrestrained(.24), noisy (.24), smooth talking (.21), and quick to become angry (.20).

24 Validity

Tab

le 3

.7

Co

rre

lati

on

s b

etw

ee

n O

bs

erv

ers

’ D

es

cri

pti

on

Ra

tin

gs

an

d t

he

HD

S

HD

S S

ca

leH

DS

Sc

ale

Obs

erve

rs’s

Des

crip

tion

Item

rO

bser

vers

’s D

escr

iptio

n Ite

mr

Exc

itab

leM

isch

ievo

usYe

lls a

t peo

ple

whe

n th

ey m

ake

mis

take

s.3

0Is

dec

eitfu

l.1

7E

xpre

sses

em

otio

nsap

prop

riate

ly-.3

0Is

arro

gant

.17

Is e

asily

ups

et.2

9Is

a fo

llow

er-.1

6F

ollo

ws

com

pany

pol

icy

-.29

Is u

nass

umin

g-.1

6Is

sel

f-do

ubtin

g.2

8A

cts

in a

soc

ially

app

ropr

iate

man

ner

.16

Is fa

ult f

indi

ng.2

7Is

inde

pend

ent

.16

Is te

nse

.27

Is fl

ight

y.1

5Is

cal

m-.2

7Te

sts

the

limits

.14

Is m

oody

.26

Is p

redi

ctab

le-.2

4C

olo

rfu

lA

ccep

ts fe

edba

ck w

ell

-.22

Test

s th

e lim

its.2

7Is

qui

ck to

bec

ome

angr

y.2

1Is

sel

f-re

stra

ined

-.24

Is q

uiet

-.24

Ske

pti

cal

Que

stio

ns p

eopl

e’s

loya

lty-.2

4Is

not

eas

ily d

isap

poin

ted

-.28

Is in

nova

tive

.23

Nee

ds a

ttent

ion

.28

Is a

follo

wer

-.21

Fee

ls m

istr

eate

d.2

6Is

a s

moo

th ta

lker

.21

Is e

asily

hur

t by

criti

cism

.25

Is q

uick

to b

ecom

e an

gry

.20

Is te

nse

.24

Is s

ocia

lly in

sigh

tful

.19

Is e

asily

ups

et.2

3Is

the

“life

of t

he o

ffice

”.1

7Is

faul

t fin

ding

.21

Is d

etai

l-orie

nted

-.17

Is u

nass

umin

g-.2

1Is

rese

rved

-.16

Is u

nint

eres

ted

in c

lose

rela

tions

hips

-.20

Que

stio

ns p

eopl

e’s

loya

lty.1

9

Validity 25

Cau

tious

Imag

inat

ive

Is s

elf-

doub

ting

.28

Eng

ages

in h

orse

play

.22

Is ra

tiona

l-.2

5Is

sel

f-re

stra

ined

-.20

Is c

onsi

sten

t.2

0Is

soc

ially

insi

ghtfu

l.2

0E

xpre

sses

em

otio

ns a

ppro

pria

tely

-.20

Is p

redi

ctab

le-.1

8E

njoy

s m

eetin

g ne

w p

eopl

e-.1

9Is

the

“life

of t

he o

ffice

”.1

8F

eels

inad

equa

te.1

8Is

imag

inat

ive

.17

Is c

onte

nt w

ith s

elf-

imag

e-.1

7H

as o

dd a

ttitu

des

.17

Is a

nxio

us.1

7Is

ecc

entr

ic.1

6Is

une

asy

arou

nd n

ew p

eopl

e.1

7Is

cal

m-.1

6Is

flig

hty

.15

Res

erve

dIs

inno

vativ

e.1

5E

njoy

s m

eetin

g ne

w p

eopl

e-.2

1Is

sel

f-cen

ered

.19

Dili

gen

tIs

kin

d-.1

8Is

det

ail-o

rient

ed.2

2N

eeds

reas

sura

nce

-.18

Is p

olite

.20

Is s

ocia

lly in

ept

.17

Is u

nint

eres

ted

in c

lose

rela

tions

hips

-.17

Is c

onsi

dera

te-.1

5Is

per

fect

ioni

stic

.15

Doe

s no

t fol

low

com

pany

pol

icy

-.15

Is o

rgan

ized

.15

Is a

ccom

mod

atin

g-.1

5D

utif

ul

Lei

sure

lyIs

pre

dict

able

.15

Enj

oys

mee

ting

new

peo

ple

-.19

Is a

follo

wer

.15

Del

egat

esta

sks

appr

opria

tely

.19

Is u

nass

umin

g.1

4Te

sts

the

limits

-.17

Mak

es o

wn

deci

sion

s-.1

3F

eels

mis

trea

ted

.16

Is e

mpa

thet

ic.1

3Is

pra

ctic

al-.1

6Is

inde

cisi

ve.1

3E

ncou

rage

s co

nstr

uctiv

e cr

itici

sm-.1

5Is

non

conf

orm

ing

-.13

Que

stio

ns p

eopl

e’s

loya

lty.1

5Is

sel

f-re

stra

ined

.13

Is re

sent

ful

.15

Is ru

de-.1

3

Bol

dN

ote:

r >

13;

p <

.05;

one

-tai

led

test

.Is

sel

f-re

stra

ined

-.22

N=1

93Is

a fo

llow

er-.2

0Is

eas

y go

ing

-.20

Is c

onte

nt w

ith s

elf-

imag

e.1

9Is

sel

f-pr

omot

ing

.17

Act

s in

a s

ocia

lly a

ppro

pria

te m

anne

r.1

7Te

sts

the

limits

.17

Hol

ds g

rudg

es-.1

7S

ocia

ble

.15

26 Validity

Imaginative. The Imaginative scale is designed to model the Schizotypal personality disorderas it is found in working adults. People with high scores on the Imaginative scale tend to talk,dress, and behave in ways that are different and even unusual, but these actions typically are notself-conscious, affected, or necessarily designed to attract attention. These people are oftenbright and/or well educated, and they are often strikingly original in their ideas and insights. Othertimes, however, their ideas may be inappropriate or even disruptive.

Related to their imaginative and unusual insights is a kind of childish self-absorption; when theyare involved in their work, they can be—at their worst—single-minded, insensitive to the needsand reactions of others, and unconcerned with the social or political fall-out that results from theirintense focus. At their best, however, they can be amazingly insightful about the motives of oth-ers.

The same generalization is true for highly creative people; their originality and insight is thesource of innovation and even progress in an organization, but they are often hard to live with;sometimes they are whimsical and charming, sometimes they are selfish and self-absorbed. Atall times, however, their speech, dress, and mannerisms tend to set them apart from their moreconventional and less creative peers.

Table 3.1 shows that the Imaginative scale is most highly correlated with the HPI scales for Intel-lectance and Sociability in the positive direction and Prudence in the negative direction. Suchpeople will seem creative, impulsive, and non-conforming. The Imaginative scale is most highlycorrelated with the Ma and Sc scales of the MMPI in the positive direction and the K scale in thenegative direction, suggesting that high scorers are energetic, odd thinking, and willing to admitunflattering things about themselves (see Table 3.2). Table 3.3 shows that the Imaginative scaleis most highly correlated with the MMPI scale for the Schizotypal personality disorder. On theMVPI in Table 3.4, the Imaginative scale is most highly correlated with Recognition, Aesthetic,and Power needs, which adds a task-oriented component to the creative profile. The Imagina-tive scale is uncorrelated with the cognitive measures in Tables 3.5 and 3.6. Table 3.7 shows thatmanagers with high scores on the Imaginative scale are described as engaging in horseplay(.22), impulsive (.20), socially insightful (.20), unpredictable (.18), and the “life of the office”(.18).

Diligent. The Diligent scale is designed to model the Obsessive-Compulsive personality dis-order as it appears in working adults. People with high scores on the Diligent scale are hardworking, well-organized, careful, conservative, socially appropriate, fussy, and perfectionistic.Their meticulous attention to detail is useful and even important in many jobs, but it has a downside too. Such people have trouble prioritizing their work because they believe that every taskmust be done equally well—which becomes increasingly difficult as a person becomes busier.They have trouble delegating—because they want to be sure that things are done right—whichdeprives their subordinates of opportunities to learn. They tend to micromanage their staff, andtheir conservatism may make them resistant to change. They will be good with details, but theywill rarely be a source of true innovation.

Validity 27

Such people resemble Freud’s anal retentive personality type—stingy, neat, and stubborn. Freudsuggested this behavior is caused by being severely toilet trained as a child; Erikson related thebehavior to over-zealous parenting in which care-takers monitor a child’s behavior too closelyand the child develops too much self-control. Alternatively, one could see this syndrome as re-flecting a child who is trying very hard to please his or her overcontrolling parents. Whatever thedevelopmental dynamics, high scores on the Diligent scale reflect excessive conformity but littlepersonal unhappiness.

Table 3.1 contains correlations with the HPI. The correlations with Prudence and Likeability sug-gest persons with high scores on the Diligent scale are conforming, self-controlled, and sociallyappropriate. Correlations with the MVPI (see Table 3.4) suggest that high scorers on the Diligentscale are conservative and perhaps moralistic. Table 3.2 reveals no significant correlations withthe standard scales of the MMPI. Similarly, Table 3.3 contains no significant correlations with theMMPI personality disorders scales, although the highest (nonsignificant) correlation is with theNarcissistic scale. In a joint analysis with the HPI, MVPI, and HDS (Table 3.8), the Diligent scaleloaded on a component defined by the MVPI Security and Tradition scales, and by the HPI Pru-dence scale, which is a syndrome of conformity, conservatism, and self-control. Managers withhigh scores on the Diligent scale are described as detail-oriented (.22), polite (.20), perfectionistic(.15), and organized (.15).

Dutiful. The Dutiful scale is designed to map the Dependent personality disorder as it is seen inworking adults. Such people are compliant, conforming, unctuous, and excessively eager toplease. Because they are so agreeable, they rarely make enemies; because they seldom criti-cize or complain and because they don’t threaten anyone, they tend to rise in organizations. Asmanagers, they will be tactful and considerate but, because they are so eager to please theirbosses, they avoid standing up for their subordinates. These people are characterized by exces-sive timidity and conformity rather than anxiety and self-doubt.

28 Validity

Table 3.8

Principal Components Analysis of the HPI, MVPI, and HDS

Components

Scale I II III IV V VI

Power (MVPI) .82

Bold (HDS) .75

Recognition (MVPI) .70

Commercial (MVPI) .60

Mischievous (HDS) .59

Colorful (HDS) .57

Skeptical (HDS) .52

Reserved (HDS) -.79

Affiliation (MVPI) .78

Likeability (HPI) .72

Altruistic (MVPI) .53

Sociability (HPI) .48

Security (MVPI) .71

Prudence (HPI) .63

Tradition (MVPI) .63

Diligent (HDS) .63

Dutiful (HDS) .44

Adjustment (HPI) .91

Ambition (HPI) .80

Excitable (HDS) -.55

Aesthetic (MVPI) .79

Intellectance (HPI) .72

School Success (HPI) .57

Imaginative (HDS) .51

Leisurely (HDS) .70

Hedonistic (HDS) .57

Cautious (HDS) .51

Note: Percent of Variance = 61.9N=1,041

Interpretations and Uses 29

C H A P T E R

4Interpretations and Uses

Scale by Scale Interpretation

This chapter provides some suggestions and examples of how to interpret HDS profiles. Thereare four points to remember when interpreting profiles. First, virtually everyone can improve someaspect of his/her social performance, and the HDS indicates where improvement might be help-ful. Second, research shows that persons with lower scores on the HDS tend to have fewerproblems at work. Third, the interpretations of each scale are based on descriptions provided bycoworkers. Fourth, because people often don’t realize that aspects of their interpersonal behav-ior need improvement, the HDS provides an efficient and reliable way to highlight these issuesso that one can learn to manage them.

For interpretation, we suggest the following percentile ranges:

! Average scores = 0% to 40%! Elevated scores = 41% to 89%! High scores = 90% to 100%

Excitable. This scale concerns the tendency to develop strong enthusiasms for people, projects,or organizations, and then to become disappointed with them. Persons with high scores tend tolet little things bother them, become annoyed easily, and change jobs more frequently than otherpeople. Others tend to find persons with high scores on this scale hard to work with because theyseem moody, hard to please, and don’t handle pressure well.

Average scores suggest that the respondent:

! controls and expresses his/her emotions in a mature and appropriate manner! is calm, stable, poised, and predictable! doesn’t dwell on minor problems! is usually in a good mood! is not easily disappointed

30 Interpretations and Uses

Elevated scores suggest that:

! others may perceive him/her as somewhat unpredictable! others may see him/her as somewhat critical! he/she may sometimes overreact to difficult situations

High scores suggest that:

! others may describe him/her as critical and easily irritated! he/she may seem prone to emotional outbursts! he/she may be easily upset with other people or projects! if he/she becomes disappointed with people, he/she may give up and/or not follow

through on commitments

Skeptical. This scale concerns the tendency to mistrust others’ motives and doubt their inten-tions, to be alert for signs that one is being deceived or mistreated, and to take action to defendoneself against mistreatment. Although Skeptical people are shrewd and difficult to fool, othersmay find them hard to work with because they take criticism personally, they readily feel misused,they tend to be suspicious, and they are prone to retaliate when they feel they have been wronged.

Average scores suggest that the respondent:

! is open and cooperative! encourages feedback and will accept it! doesn’t hold grudges or take criticism personally! tends to trust other people and take their actions at face value

Elevated scores suggest that the respondent is:

! uncooperative when he/she doesn’t understand why he/she should do something! defensive and sensitive to criticism! perhaps suspicious of authority

High scorers tend to be described as:

! having a chip on their shoulder! being cynical, mistrustful, and easily angered! suspicious of others’ actions and intentions! fault finding! possibly willing to bend the rules to defend themselves against perceived

mistreatment


Cautious. This scale evaluates the tendency to be conservative, careful, worried about makingmistakes, and reluctant to take initiative for fear of being criticized or embarrassed. Althoughthese people are usually good corporate citizens, others may find them hard to deal with be-cause of their need to stay within the lines and their unwillingness to innovate or try new proce-dures.

Average scorers will tend to be:

! decisive, adventurous, and unafraid to make mistakes! willing to take on challenging tasks! open to innovation! willing to express his/her views on tricky issues

Elevated scorers will be described by others as:

! slow to act or make decisions! reluctant to try new methods! resistant to changes in policies and procedures! needing encouragement when faced with challenging assignments

High scorers tend to:

! follow company policy carefully! be described as unassertive, indecisive, conservative, and fretful! be reluctant to make decisions! slow to adopt new procedures or technology because they don’t want to make a

mistake and get in trouble! give up on difficult assignments

Reserved. This scale concerns the tendency to keep to oneself, to dislike working in teams ormeeting new people, and to be indifferent to the moods and feelings of others. Although personswith high scores work well alone, others may find them hard to work with because they tend to bereserved and uncommunicative, they rarely give others feedback, and they tend not to be veryinsightful or perceptive about social cues or office politics.

Average scorers tend to:

! be perceptive, approachable, and to meet the public well! be described as kind, considerate, and socially insightful! enjoy working in teams and meeting new people


Elevated scorers are described by others as:

! uncomfortable around strangers! preferring to work alone! uninvolved with others and unconcerned about their problems

High scorers:

! don’t call attention to themselves and prefer to work alone! tend to be seen as unconcerned about other people’s problems! seem unconcerned about the impression they make on others! tend not to show public support for their employers

Leisurely. This scale concerns the tendency to insist on working according to one’s own time-table and standards of performance, to resist being hurried or coached by others, to becomeresentful and irritated when asked to increase the speed or quality of one’s performance, but tomask the resentment well. Although persons with high scores on this scale can be outwardlypleasant and sociable, others may find them hard to work with because of their procrastination,tardiness, stubbornness, and reluctance to be part of a team.

Average scorers tend to be:

! coachable and responsive to feedback! willing to express negative emotions! described as cheerful and positive! straightforward and outspoken

Elevated scores suggest that:

! others may see him/her as pleasant but sometimes hard to coach! he/she may not be as cooperative as he/she seems! he/she may tend to procrastinate

High scorers may:

! seem cooperative on the surface! overvalue their independence! feel mistreated or unappreciated when others make demands on them! be perceived as procrastinating, stubborn, and not following through on

commitments


Bold. This scale concerns the tendency to overestimate one’s talents and accomplishments,ignore one’s shortcomings, blame one’s mistakes on others, have clear but unrealistic careergoals, and have a strong sense of entitlement. Although such people are often charismatic andtypically make a strong first impression, others may find them hard to work with because theyalso tend to be demanding, opinionated, self-absorbed, and unwilling to learn from their mis-takes.


! modest, unpretentious, restrained, easy going, and willing to help others! good listeners! responsive to feedback! good team players

Elevated scorers tend to be described as:

! unafraid of failure or rejection! self-confident and assertive! leaderlike and interesting

High scorers tend to be:

! confident, aggressive, ambitious, and visionary! impulsive, self-promoting, and unresponsive to negative feedback! competitive and demanding! intimidating, especially to their subordinates! unable to foster and develop a sense of loyalty or team work among their

associates at work

Mischievous. This scale concerns the tendency to appear charming, friendly, and fun loving,but also to seem impulsive, excitement-seeking, and non-conforming. High scorers usually makea favorable first impression, but others find them hard to work with because they tend to testlimits, ignore commitments, and take risks that may be ill-advised. Although they may seemdecisive, they can make bad decisions because they are often motivated by pleasure and don’tfully evaluate the consequences of their choices.

Average scorers tend to:

! seem responsible, self-controlled, reasonable, and trustworthy! be described as honest, dependable, and sensible! think through the consequences of their decisions


Elevated scorers tend to be:

! described as willing to make quick decisions! bright, pleasure seeking, and adventurous! at times, impulsive and risk taking

High scorers tend to:

! be engaging, attractive, interesting, quick witted, and charming! be friendly and fun-loving! be easily bored! enjoy action, seek stimulation, and not think through the consequences of their

actions

Colorful. This scale concerns the desire to be the center of attention, to be recognized andnoticed by others. As a result, these people make dramatic entrances and exits, they are cleverat calling attention to themselves, and they enjoy entertaining others. Although they are lively andengaging and typically make a good first impression, others may find them hard to work withbecause they are impulsive, distractible, and disorganized. They often perform well in salespositions.

Average scorers may:

! be described as quiet, modest, and unassuming! be described as unpretentious and willing to share credit with others! prefer to be a “behind the scenes” person who is unconcerned with being on center

stage

Elevated scorers may be seen by others as:

! entertaining, lively, and interesting! unfocused and distractible! active but not necessarily productive

High scorers are often described as:

! talkative, leaderlike, assertive, flirtatious, and creative! enjoying having several things going on at the same time! tending to manage by crisis! having problems with organization and follow through! self-promoting and not listening well


Imaginative. This scale concerns the tendency to think and act in ways that are unusual, differ-ent, striking, and at times perhaps odd. Although persons with high scores tend to be colorful,entertaining, creative, and often quite visible, others may find them hard to work with becausethey can be unconventional, eccentric, and unaware of how their actions affect others.

Average scorers will be described as:

! sensible, practical, and level-headed! dressing, speaking, and acting in a conservative manner! quiet, modest, and reserved

Elevated scorers will be described as:

! original, curious, interesting, and unconventional! a resource for solving problems in a team or organization! having a knack for seeing things differently

High scorers will be described as:

! creative, innovative, unusual, and insightful! unconventional and preoccupied! a major source of innovation and change in an organization! having trouble getting their ideas adopted because they can be easily bored and

may lack follow through

Diligent. This scale concerns the tendency to be unusually conscientious, orderly, and attentiveto detail. Persons with high scores on this scale tend to be organized, planful, and hardworking.Nonetheless, others may find them hard to work with because they also tend to be picky, critical,and stubborn. They may also create stress for themselves by trying to do too much, by not del-egating, and by trying to do everything equally well.


! not particularly detail-oriented! relaxed, tolerant, and informal! unconcerned with bureaucratic rules and procedures and willing to delegate

Elevated scorers will be described as:

! attentive to and good with details! polite and mannerly! orderly, rational, well-organized, and careful



! careful, conscientious, methodical, well-organized, and tidy! setting high standards for their performance and taking pride in the accuracy and

precision of their work! critical, controlling, and inflexible! reluctant to delegate, which creates extra pressure for themselves and deprives

others of the opportunity to learn

Dutiful. This scale concerns the tendency to be eager to please others, to gain their approval,and to defer to their judgment in order to maintain cordial relations with them. Such personsseem pleasant, agreeable, and compliant, and they usually make a positive first impression.Others may find them hard to work with because they are reluctant to make decisions on theirown, they are excessively careful to please their superiors, and they may not stick up for theirsubordinates.

Average scorers tend to be described as:

! independent, not bothered by negative feedback, and willing to challenge the deci-sions of his/her superiors

! self-reliant and tough-minded! willing to go against the grain and go to bat for his/her people

Elevated scorers will tend to be:

! pleasant and easy to deal with! polite, responsive, and a good team player! reluctant to rock the boat or disagree with his/her superiors


! cordial, mannerly, attentive, and socially appropriate! indecisive and conforming! reluctant to act independently and relying on others to make decisions! promising more than they can deliver in an effort to please others


Sample HDS Profile Interpretations

This section presents some examples of how to interpret the HDS. Figure 4.1 is a simplifiedinterpretive guide to understanding this section. As a general principle, we do not recommendinterpreting the HDS by itself; it is always useful to have other assessment data available againstwhich to check inferences based on the HDS. In our view, none of the published inventories ofpersonality disorders are particularly well-validated. Consequently, we would recommend checkingHDS scores with scores on well-validated measures such as the CPI, HPI, or MMPI. As a sec-ond general principle, we do not recommend interpreting any single scale in isolation; scalescores take their meaning from the context in which they appear—namely, the elevations of theother scales. And as a third interpretive guideline, we consider scores from 0 to the 40th percen-tile as average; scores from the 41st to the 89th percentile are elevated or above average, andscores from the 90th to the 100th percentile are high.

Figure 4.1

A Quick Guide for Interpreting the HDS

Scale Average Scores High Scores

Excitable Predictable, calm, stable Unpredictable, emotionalSkeptical Trusting, forgiving Suspicious, vengefulCautious Adventurous, confident Timid, fretfulReserved Insightful, sensitive Imperceptive, insensitive, detachedLeisurely Good natured Passive aggressiveBold Modest, self-restrained Confident, self-promotingMischievous Conforming, risk-adverse Risk-taking, nonconformingColorful Quiet, unassuming Attention seeking, self-dramatizingImaginative Conventional, conservative Unconventional, original, creativeDiligent Tolerant, flexible Meticulous, inflexible, criticalDutiful Independent, autonomous Conforming, eager to please

As a first step in interpreting the inventory, it is useful to recall the factor structure of the HDS asseen in Table 2.4. The inventory can be decomposed into three broad components. The first isdefined by the Excitable, Skeptical, Cautious, Reserved, and Leisurely scales, and reflects asyndrome whose components include feelings of insecurity, mistrust, hostility, and social with-drawal. We suggested earlier that this syndrome seems to correspond to the interpersonaltheme that Horney (1950) characterized as “moving away from others” as a method for dealingwith insecurity. Persons with high scores on this syndrome are nervous, dysphoric, and often in abad mood. This component also resembles what Tellegen (1985) and others (cf. Watson & Clark,1984) call “negative affectivity”.


The second component is definedby the Bold, Mischievous, Colorful,and Imaginative scales. This syn-drome includes social (but not nec-essarily private) self-confidence, im-pulsivity, energy, competitiveness,and a talent for self-display. Thisseems to correspond to whatHorney (1950) labeled “movingagainst” people—overwhelming,coopting, intimidating, persuading,manipulating—as a technique formanaging insecurity. This compo-nent also resembles what Tellegen(1985) and others call “positive af-fectivity”.

The third component is defined bythe Diligent and Dutiful scales. Thisis a syndrome consisting of confor-mity, obedience, and eagerness toplease—what Horney might havedescribed as “moving toward”people, building alliances, and se-curing approval as a way of dealingwith one’s insecurities. Under-stand-ing the way that the HDS scales clus-ter is a useful aid to test interpreta-tion.

Figures 4.2 and 4.3 show the aver-age HDS and HPI profiles to use asa comparison when interpretingother profiles. The average HDSprofile is based on an archivalsample (N=2,071) and represents aperson who is described as some-times unpredictable (Excitable), dif-ficult to coach (Leisurely), self-con-fident and assertive (Bold), adven-turous (Mischievous), and lively(Colorful). The average HPI profile(N=30,054) depicts a person whois described as reason-

Figure 4.2Name: Average HDS Profile

Hogan Development Survey

Graphic Profile

Scales Percentiles

Score 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Excitable 64

Skeptical 58

C autious 61

R eserv ed 62

Leisurely 66

Bold 60

M ischiev ous 58

C olorful 63

Im aginativ e 64

D iligent 57

D utifu l 60

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Norm al High

Figure 4.3Name: Average HPI Profile

Hogan Personality Inventory

Personality Profile

This HPI Report is Valid and Interpretable

Scales Percentiles

S co re 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

A d justm en t 49

A m b ition 47

S ociab ility 52

L ikeab ility 60

P rudence 58

In te llec tance 54

S choo l S uccess 58

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90


ably even-tempered (Adjustment),approachable (Sociability), courte-ous and friendly (Likeability), planful(Prudence), and achievement driven(School Success).

“Moving Away” Profile. Con-sider now Figure 4.4.This profile isheavily weighted by the first compo-nent of the HDS; it typifies a personwho is prone to mercurial emotionalreactions that swing between pas-sionate enthusiasm and intense dis-taste (Excitable), who is keenly alertfor signs of betrayal and/or disap-proval, and who, when he detectsthose signs, may “go postal”—chal-lenge, accuse, confront, and retali-ate (Skeptical).

Beneath the prickly exterior, thisperson is insecure and unsure ofhimself (Cautious), deeply resentfulof his superiors (Leisurely), but quiet,withdrawn, and preferring to workalone (Reserved). Therefore, his in-security and resentment should golargely unnoticed. While he is alone,he generates interesting, odd, andsometime far fetched theories abouthis life (Imaginative) and what ishappening to him.

Although he is defensive, angry, andaloof, he is also non-conforming andindependent (Diligent, Dutiful). Fig-ure 4.5 is this man’s HPI profile,which suggests that in an interview,he will seem bright andimaginative (HDS Imaginative; HPIIntellectance and School Success),very agreeable and eager to please(Likeability), and reasonably

S c ore 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0

E x citab le 99

S keptica l 96

C autious 99

R eserv ed 99

Le isure ly 95

B o ld 63

M isch iev ous 44

C o lo rfu l 30

Im ag ina tiv e 96

D iligen t 18

D utifu l 30

1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 Norm al High

Figure 4.4Name: Moving Away


Graphic Profile

Scales Percentiles

Figure 4.5Name: Moving Away


Personality Profile


Scales Percentiles

Score 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

A djustm ent 68

A m bition 7

S ociab ility 32

L ikeability 100

P rudence 68

Inte llec tance 78

S chool S uccess 44

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90


self-confident (Adjustment), but pas-sive, diffident, and unassertive (Am-bition and Sociability). Althoughlacking drive and assertiveness, thisman would otherwise make a verypositive impression as a job appli-cant. In this case, the HDS suggestshe has enough social skill (as seenby his score for Likeability) to hidehis seething resentment and pro-found insecurity; these tendencieswill only appear during stress and/or heavy work loads.

This man is a locomotive engineerwho works for a railroad. His workrequires that he spend long periodsof time alone and away fromhome—which suits him well—dur-ing which time he probably broodson how he has been unappreciatedand mistreated by his managers.Although the consequences of hisbrooding may not suit society well,his overall dysphoria will be hard todetect on casual contact.

“Moving Against” Profile. Fig-ure 4.6 contains a profile that isheavily influenced by the secondcomponent of the HDS; it is a per-son who is outgoing and insightful(Reserved), self-dramatizing, exu-berant, and impulsive (Colorful), ex-citement-seeking and limit-testing(Mischievous), confident, bright, andcharismatic (Bold), creative and in-novative (Imaginative), but also criti-cal and attentive to details (Diligent).

The uniformly high scores on thesecond component of the HDS sug-gest public self-confidence and

Figure 4.6Name: Moving Against


Graphic Profile

Scales Percentiles

Score 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

E x c itab le 48

S kep tica l 73

C autio us 43

R eserv ed 27

Le isure ly 85

B o ld 92

M isch iev ous 98

C o lo rfu l 98

Im ag in a tiv e 96

D ilig en t 81

D utifu l 43

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Norm al High

Figure 4.7Name: Moving Against


Personality Profile


Scales Percentiles

Score 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

A djustm ent 34

A m bition 28

S ociab ility 100

Likeability 60

P rudence 42

Inte llec tance 99

S chool S uccess 79

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90


private self-doubt. This suggestionis confirmed by this person’s lowscore on the HPI Adjustment scale(see Figure 4.7), which includes azero score on the Not Anxious HICof the HPI. The HPI also confirmsthe view that this man will seem, dur-ing an interview, to be bright, imagi-native, colorful, and self-dramatizing.Beneath the hail-fellow-well-met fa-cade is a good deal of personal self-doubt and generalized hostility (Lei-surely). Not hidden is substantialimpulsivity (Mischievous), combinedwith an attention to details (Diligent).This person is a managementtrainee in a Fortune 500 company;he will make a strong impressionduring an interview, but on a dailybasis his noisy self-promoting ten-dencies will begin to be resented.For development, he needs to prac-tice listening, calm down, and not beso hard on himself.

“Moving Toward” Prof i le .Figure 4.8 is typical of a profileheavily weighted by the third com-ponent of the HDS; it is the profile ofa person who is mild-mannered butgood-natured (Excitable, Skeptical,Leisurely), modest and quiet (Bold,Colorful), and reluctant to take risks(Mischievous). Although he attendsto and is concerned about others’feelings (Reserved), he is very cau-tious (Cautious), careful, conforming,and reluctant to take chances (Dili-gent, Dutiful). Figure 4.9 is thisperson’s HPI profile. This profilesuggests he will seem concrete-mindedand unimaginative (Intellec-tance and School Success), butexceedingly

Figure 4.8Name: Moving Toward


Graphic Profile

Scales Percentiles

Score 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Excitable 33

Skeptical 10

C autious 59

R eserv ed 16

Leisurely 10

Bold 9

M ischiev ous 9

C olorful 7

Im aginativ e 22

D iligent 93

D utifu l 90

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Norm al High

Figure 4.9Name: Moving Toward


Personality Profile


Scales Percentiles

Score 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

A djustm ent 46

A m bition 32

S oc iab ility 65

L ikeability 80

P rudence 95

Inte llec tance 20

S chool S uccess 15

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90


Figure 4.10Name: Corporate Stalker


Graphic Profile

Scales Percentiles

Figure 4.11Name: Corporate Stalker


Personality Profile


Scales Percentiles

pleasant, cooperative, and easy tosupervise (Likeability, Prudence).His high score for HPI Sociabilitymirrors his low HDS score for Re-served. In this case, there are strongparallels between the HDS and theHPI profiles.

This person will be in many ways anexemplary employee because hefollows rules carefully and is unusu-ally eager to please. However, he willbe reluctant to take any initiative andhe may resist innovation because heis so cautious. His modesty and lackof charisma suggests he wouldn’tperform well in sales or manage-ment. He seems well-suited for hispresent job as a locomotive engi-neer.

Corporate Stalker Profile. Fig-ure 4.10 is the profile of a personwho seems bright, energetic, dy-namic, and self-promoting (Colorful);innovative, imaginative, but perhapslacking good judgment (Imagina-tive); tough, independent, and indif-ferent to social expectations (Re-served, Dutiful); and unconcernedwith details (Diligent). The highscores on the component II scalesof the HDS suggest public self-con-fidence and private self-doubt. Thehigh scores on the Mischievous, andlow scores on Diligent and Dutifulscales, suggest impulsivity and non-conformity. This person’s HPI profile(see Figure 4.11) confirms thesesuspicions; his very low scores forAdjustment and Prudence and hisvery high scores for Sociability sug-gest potential delinquency, modi-fied only by his high score

Score 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Excitab le 64

Skeptical 58

C autious 61

R eserv ed 83

Leisure ly 17

Bold 60

M ischiev ous 81

C olorfu l 100

Im aginativ e 99

D iligent 15

D utifu l 2

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Norm al High

Score 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

A djustm ent 23

A m bition 100

S ociab ility 96

L ikeability 5

P rudence 12

Inte llec tance 91

S chool S uccess 95

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90


Figure 4.12Name: Litigious


Graphic Profile

Scales Percentiles

Figure 4.13Name: Litigious


Personality Profile


Scales Percentiles

score for Ambition—his career as-pirations may moderate his naturalhostility and impulsivity. Overall, hisHPI suggests he is bright, charis-matic, and very deceitful; however,in an interview, one will be primarilydazzled by his wit and interpersonalskill. This points out the utility of theHDS in penetrating beneath the inter-personal glitter.

This person was a senior managerin a large organization; his cha-risma, intelligence, and ability tomanipulate his seniors put him on afast career track. However, his cava-lier disregard for rules and his fla-grant disregard for the feelings andopinions of his peers and subordi-nates finally caught up with him; for-tunately for the persons below him, hiscareer finally derailed.

Litigious Profile. The profile seenin Figure 4.12 is dominated by thehigh scores on the Leisurely, Skep-tical, Diligent, and Imaginativescales. This person should be sus-picious, resentful, easily upset, andshould have odd or unusual theoriesabout others’ intentions, as well asbeing fussy, picky, critical, and judg-mental. His HPI profile (see Figure4.13) suggests he is ambitious, so-cially skilled, impulsive,andachievement-oriented—but alsopotentially delinquent (low Adjust-ment and Prudence combined withhigh Sociability). He should inter-view well, so that his charisma andinterpersonal skill will mask his sus-picious and resentful side, as wellas his deviousness and possible de-linquency.

Score 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

A djustm ent 6

A m b ition 77

S ociab ility 67

L ikeability 62

P rudence 17

Inte llec tance 41

S chool S uccess 19

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Score 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Excitable 82

Skeptical 94

C autious 71

R eserv ed 7

Leisurely 100

Bold 73

M isch iev ous 70

C olorful 64

Im aginativ e 86

D iligent 92

D utifu l 6

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Norm al High


Figure 4.14Name: Fear-Driven Salesman


Graphic Profile

Scales Percentiles

Figure 4.15Name: Fear-Driven Salesman


Personality Profile


Scales Percentiles

S c ore 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0

E x citab le 60

S keptica l 73

C autious 27

R eserv ed 27

Le isure ly 85

B o ld 84

M isch iev ous 98

C o lo rfu l 95

Im ag ina tiv e 96

D iligen t 42

D utifu l 26

1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 Norm al High

Score 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

A djustm ent 44

A m bition 100

S ociab ility 85

L ikeability 83

P rudence 34

Inte llec tance 95

S chool S uccess 79

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

This man works for a large and gen-erally fair-minded corporation thattries hard to be an equal employ-ment opportunity organization, andagainst whom he has filed a majorcomplaint with the EEOC after be-ing denied a promotion.

Fear-driven Salesman Profile.The most distinctive feature of theprofile contained in Figure 4.14 isthe elevation on all the scales ofComponent II—Bold, Mischievous,Colorful, and Imaginative. This el-evation suggests this man will seemoutgoing, confident, dynamic, risk-taking, creative, impulsive, self-dra-matizing, and highly entertaining. Hislow scores on the Reserved andCautious scales suggest he is ad-venturous and that he reads socialand political cues quickly and well.His low scores on Diligent and Duti-ful further suggest that he will besomewhat indifferent to social feed-back, independent, and not goodwith details or follow through.

This pattern is typical of high pow-ered sales people. A glance at thisman’s HPI profile (see Figure 4.15)confirms the inference that he has alot of potential for work in sales. Infact, his HPI profile—relatively lowscores for Adjustment and Pru-dence, and relatively high scores forall the other scales—is prototypicalfor successful sales people—dy-namic, charming, socially skilled,bright, imaginative, and flexible..

Missing from his HPI profile, ofcourse, is this man’s high score on


the Leisurely scale. This high score suggests that, in addition to drive, charisma, and creativity,this man has some fairly strong private self-doubts, that he is easily irritated by others at work,and that he is likely to clash with his supervisor(s). And in fact this man’s supervisor describeshim as a very good salesman but “a shame-based over achiever” who takes on too much andsometimes leaves projects unfinished and details uncovered. For development, this man needsto learn to relax, and to work closely with another person who will help him with detailed follow-through. What he has—his talent for sales—can’t really be taught. What he needs to learn issome tolerance for frustration and to understand that he is more irritable and critical than is goodfor his career.

Uses

In our experience there are three major uses for the HDS, although other applications may be-come apparent as time goes by. The first and by far the most frequent use for the HDS is forcoaching and development. The HDS is relatively independent of the HPI, which means that aperson can have an attractive HPI profile and an unattractive HDS profile. This means, in turn,that the person will interview well and make a positive first impression on others. Over time andunder pressure, however, the themes captured in the HDS profile will become apparent, andmay have an adverse impact on the person’s career. Moreover, people are often unaware of thetendencies that they display when they are stressed. Generally speaking, any developmentaleffort must begin with an assessment, and that is certainly true in the case of dysfunctional dispo-sitions. The HDS provides clear and explicit information regarding those aspects of a person’sinterpersonal performance that need extra attention.

The second major use for the HDS is in selection contexts where a measure such as the MMPI isnormally used—e.g., evaluating applicants for work as a police officer, security guard, airlinepilot, air traffic controller, etc. The HDS has four advantages relative to the MMPI. First, it ismuch shorter. Second, the item content is much less offensive. Third, the items have fewerdisability-related implications. And finally, the scales are known to predict poor performance inseveral jobs. The MMPI was validated against diagnostic statements by clinicians—i.e., a highscore on the Sc scale should predict a diagnosis of schizophrenia. The HDS, on the other handwas validated against indices of job performance—i.e., a high score on the Diligent scale shouldpredict an inability to prioritize or delegate. In principle, then, the HDS should be more usefulthan the MMPI in employment contexts; conversely, the MMPI should be more useful than theHDS when one is trying to make a psychiatric diagnosis.

The third use for the HDS is in selecting people for high level or responsible positions in organi-zations. The best estimate of the failure rates for CEOs in corporate America is 60% (cf. DeVries,1992). The reason for this high failure rate, in our judgment, is that senior managers are chosenon the basis of an interview—which is the same thing as a beauty contest. The most charmingand articulate candidate—assuming equal past credentials—gets the job. But the entire con-cept behind the HDS is that many people who can put on a skillful performance for an hour ortwo are often flawed in ways that won’t appear in an


interview, and flawed in ways, in fact, that may actually enhance their performance in an inter-view—e.g., narcissistic, histrionic, or psychopathic tendencies. Organizations are willing to screenentry level employees for integrity, but they seem reluctant to screen upper level executives forthe same problems—and it is the latter group who are in a position to do real damage to anorganization (R. Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan, 1994).

Finally, the scales on the HDS provide reasonable clues as to how a person will perform as amember of a team. Generally speaking, persons with high scores on the Cautious, Diligent, andDutiful scales will be good team players because they are so conforming and eager to please.Conversely, persons with high scores on the Bold, Mischievous, Colorful, and Imaginative scaleswill tend to be disruptive because they will want to be the center of attention, won’t follow rules,and compete with other team members. Persons with high scores on the Leisurely scale will dofine face-to-face, but they will procrastinate on completing assignments away from the teamcontext. Persons with high scores on the Excitable, Skeptical, and Reserved scales will be lessthan desirable team players because they are moody, aloof, distrustful, and/or obtuse.

Administering and Scoring 47

C H A P T E R

5Administering and Scoring

Paper-and-pencil Administration

The HDS can be administered to individuals or small groups using either paper-and-pencil ma-terials or computer software. Administration procedures depend on the mode of testing. Testingtime requires 20 minutes or less, depending on the testing mode and the test taker’s readingspeed. Although the inventory is written at a fifth grade reading level, it is intended to be used withpeople who are sixteen years and older.

The HDS is designed to be used with other assessment tools for development, feedback, andcoaching for interpersonal behavior. The HDS contributes insightful information about potentiallyderailing tendencies. It can also be used as a post-offer screening tool for persons who manageothers, work in close teams, or work in high stress occupations. Unless validated for use in entry-level jobs, the HDS generally is not an appropriate off-the-shelf instrument for pre-employmentscreening of hourly workers.

How to Administer Paper-and-pencil HDS Forms

Materials. The HDS is self-administered and consists of a 168-item booklet and an opticallyscannable answer sheet. Test takers should use a No. 2 pencil to complete the answer sheet.No responses or marks should be made in the test booklet; therefore, it can be reused. Itemsappear in blocks of five in the test booklet and these correspond to the response groups on theanswer sheet. This allows the respondent to keep track of his or her progress.

Completing the Answer Sheet. The HDS answer sheet is one-sided and all information shouldbe completed (see Figure 5.1). Minimally, the respondent should complete the name and/oridentification (ID) grid. If names are to be used, the respondent must print the name in thename grid and fill in the corresponding response circles on the answer sheet. If an ID num-ber is used, the name grid can be left blank, The respondent must then fill inhis/her ID number under the grid entitled “Social Security Number.” The circles corresponding

48 Administering and Scoring

Figure 5.1


to the ID numbers must be filled. Although both names and IDs can be used, answer sheets withneither will result in scored reports that contain no identifying information.

If desired, the respondent should complete the grids for race, sex, and age. Information con-tained in these grids should never be used to make personnel decisions; however, it is useful fordemographic tracking research. Employers should keep this information separate from the re-sults of the inventory; HDS reports that exclude age, gender, and/or race information can beobtained.

Conducting the Testing Session

Either individuals or small groups may take the paper-and-pencil form of the HDS. The timerequired to complete the inventory in this form is approximately 20 minutes. There are no basicdifferences between individual and small group administration other than encouraging “no talk-ing” in the latter case. A few common-sense steps are required to conduct a productive paper-and-pencil assessment session. Because the quality of the assessment results depends on theattitude with which an individual approaches the assessment, the administrator should try tobuild rapport with the respondent(s). Physical testing conditions should be comfortable and freefrom distractions.

Administrator’s Script for Conducting a Testing Session. The administrator beginsthe paper-and-pencil session by distributing the materials and going over the answer sheet withthe respondents to familiarize them with the format. As noted, there are grids on the answersheets for name, social security number (or employee identification number), age, race, and sex.You may or may not want respondents to complete all of this information depending upon howyou are using the inventory. The demographic information is useful for equal employment oppor-tunity research purposes. You should explain to the respondents how the demographic informa-tion will be used and who will have access to it. Also on the answer sheet, it is important that theyfill-in some form of identification--either a name or an identification number (such as social secu-rity or employee identification).

A sample script follows that could be used by someone administering the HDS to an individual ora small group of respondents. Directions for the administrator to read out loud follow the capital-ized ADMINISTRATOR and are set in boldface type. Instructions to the administrator are in pa-renthesis ( ). Administrators should maintain a courteous and pleasant tone of voice throughoutthe session.

Script begins:

ADMINISTRATOR: Good morning/afternoon. I’m (name). I want to welcome you totoday’s assessment session. To complete the assessment today, you will need a No. 2pencil, an assessment booklet, and an answer sheet. The first thing I will do is pass out


these items. Please do not start looking at the questions in the booklet until I have saidto begin. Although this inventory is not timed, we will probably need about twentyminutes to complete everything.

(Pass out an answer sheet, test booklet, and a couple of sharpened No. 2 pencils to each re-spondent.)

ADMINISTRATOR: On the upper left section of the answer sheet, please print your lastname first. Then print your first name using the last 10 spaces. Look below your name,and fill in the circles that match the letters in your name. Note that there is a circle tocomplete for each blank box. Please make only one mark in each column of letters anduse a heavy dark mark that completely fills the chosen response circle. These responsecircles appear in all areas of the answer sheet. By filling in the circles carefully, youensure that the information on the answer sheet will be recognized correctly in thescanning and scoring process. If you make an error or change your mind, erase yourinitial choice carefully and completely. Then fill in the correct circle.

(Now, if applicable:)

ADMINISTRATOR: Fill in the [social security/identification number]. This number is being usedto identify your results and to match your HDS results with other information you havecompleted.

ADMINISTRATOR: Please fill in the grids for race, sex, and age. This information is fordemographic research purposes only.

ADMINISTRATOR: Please follow along with me silently while I read the instructions onthe inside cover of the test booklet. If you have any questions, please raise your handor come up to me after we’ve finished reading the instructions. (Next, read aloud the in-structions contained in the test booklet.)

ADMINISTRATOR: (after you have finished reading the booklet instructions) Are there any ques-tions? If not, please note that this inventory contains 168 statements to which you shouldrespond. These statements appear in blocks of five in the booklet and the responseoptions on the answer sheet are also in blocks of five. So, as you respond to eachstatement, make sure the number in the booklet is the same as the number on the an-swer sheet. Please respond to all of the statements, taking care to fill in the appropriateresponse circle and complete the entire answer sheet. When you finish, please give meyour materials. I would like to thank you for your participation today. You may now be-gin.

ADMINISTRATOR: (At the end of 20 minutes) As you finish, take a moment to check youranswer sheet for completeness. Please check each statement, the name field, and thedemographic fields.

Script ends.


Anticipate that questions may arise. Some common ones include:

! “Do I have to respond to all of the statements?” Answer: “Yes, try to answer all thequestions. Leave blank only the statements that you feel you absolutely cannotanswer.”

! “What does statement ___ mean?” Answer: “It is better that you decide for your-self. If you cannot answer it, leave it blank.”

As testing proceeds, your role as administrator is to monitor the examination process. This in-cludes eliminating distractions, helping individuals with questions, and collecting all completedmaterials. For security purposes, make sure you obtain all materials originally distributed. Youshould scan each completed answer sheet for neatness and accuracy of demographic responses.Erase stray marks and make sure the circles chosen by the respondent are filled in completelyand that identification appears. As the completed answer sheets are turned in, thank each re-spondent for participating.

How to Administer Computer On-line Testing

Materials. The HDS can be taken directly on the computer. In this mode, the respondent usesthe keyboard to complete the information requested on the computer screen. Each inventoryquestion is displayed on the screen and the test taker selects and keys in a response using ‘1’for true and ‘0’ for false.

The on-line testing system requires an IBM PC/XT/AT/PS21 or compatible computer with at leastone floppy diskette drive, a 10 megabyte hard drive, 512 kilobytes of RAM, and 1 parallel port.The system was developed under MS-DOS version 3.32, however, it will operate under any DOSversion 2.10 or later. A keyboard is required, but a mouse is not needed.

Software for the HDS on-line testing, scoring, and report generating system must be installed onthe computer system’s hard drive in order to operate the system. This software is available oneither 5.25 inch or 3.5 inch floppy diskettes. Instructions and technical support for installation andoperation of the system are available from Hogan Assessment Systems.

If printed reports are desired, a printer will be needed. The type of printer must be defined duringthe installation of the software. Refer to the HDS software user’s manual for more information.

Using the On-line System. The test administrator initiates the program for on-line HDS admin-istration. First, the test taker will see the title screen displayed and the first entry window.

1 Registered trademark of International Business Machines2 Registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation


Using the keyboard, the test taker types in the name and ID number. Following this, instructionsto complete the inventory are displayed. Using the space bar and the cursor control keys, therespondent moves through the inventory as one item at a time is displayed on the screen. Therespondent may scroll back to previous items. When the test taker completes the inventory, thescreen prompts the test taker to inform the administrator.

The test administrator can score the data file created using the scoring utility that is also part ofthe system. From the scored data, the test administrator can choose to print scores from theHDS scales, graphs of the scales, or interpretive reports. The test scores will be stored in anarchive file and may be recovered from this file later.

How to Score the HDS Answer Sheets

The HDS answer sheets can be scored using any of following three methods. Each of thesemethods is easy to use, computerized, and requires the use of software that scores the inventoryand generates the type of report selected. Both on-site and mail-in scoring services are avail-able. For test security, there are no hand scoring keys. Scoring methods are described next.

Keyed Data Entry. Users can score answer sheets on their own computers with HDS scoringsoftware. Data from the answer sheet are entered into a computer by an operator who keys ineach of the 168 item responses. The system provides for multiple score sheets to be key en-tered and the data stored. Then, all cases are scored, and reports are generated and written toa file. The program will display the number of inventories processed, and the printing status of thereport.

This method allows the user complete control of processing test results. The answer sheets aremaintained at the user’s office and only the user has access to the test information. Results areimmediate and printed in the user’s office. When using the ASCII text raw data file or the scoreddata file, refer to Figure 5.2 for the variable listing, variable names, variable order, and datadefinitions.

Optical Scanning of Answer Sheets. Users may score their own HDS answer sheets by meansof a computer and a scanner available from National Computer Systems. With this equipment,completed HDS answer sheets are loaded into the scanner tray and an operator activates thescanning program.

The operator does not key in the test responses. The scanner reads the marked answers andsends the data to a computer file.

Mail-in or FAX Scoring. For users who do not score tests on-site, answer sheets can eitherbe mailed or faxed to Hogan Assessment Systems for processing. For mailing, answer sheetsshould not be folded; they should be marked properly with a No. 2 pencil,


Figure 5.2

HDS Data File Variable Specifications

Raw Data File

Record Variable Columns Coding Values

All Case # 1-3

All Record 5-6

1 Name 8-37 Last name, First name, no comma,

no middle initial, all caps

1 Id Number 38-46 Social security number, 9 digits only

1 Gender 48 1 = Male, 2 = Female

1 Age 50-51 2 digits

1 Race 53 1 = American Indian, 2 = Asian,

3 = Black, 4 = White, 5 = Hispanic,

6 = Other

1 Code 57-58 Opitional scoring variable, 2 digits

2 I1-I56 8-63 1 = true

3 I57-I112 8-63 0 = false

4 I113-I168 8-63 blank = missing

Scored Data File

Record Variable Columns Coding Values

All Case # 1-3

All Record 5-6

1 Name 8-37 Last name, First name, no comma,

no middle initial, all caps

1 Id Number 38-46 Social security number, 9 digits only

1 Gender 48 1 = Male, 2 = Female

1 Age 50-51 2 digits

1 Race 53 1 = American Indian, 2 = Asian,

3 = Black, 4 = White, 5 = Hispanic,

6 = Other

1 Code 57-58 Opitional scoring variable, 2 digits

2 EXC SKE CAU RES LEI BOL MIS 8-51 Scale Raw Scores

COL IMA DIL DUT

3 EXC SKE CAU RES LEI BOL MIS 8-51 Scale Raw Scores

COL IMA DIL DUT

4 PEXC PSKE PCAU PRES PLEI 8-51 Scale Percentile Scores

PBOL PMIS PCOL PIMA PDIL PDUT

table continues


HDS Variable Names & Labels

Scale Labels

EXC EXCITABLE PEXC EXCITABLE PERCENTILE

SKE SKEPTICAL PSKE SKEPTICAL PERCENTILE

CAU CAUTIOUS PCAU CAUTIOUS PERCENTILE

RES RESERVED PRES RESERVED PERCENTILE

LEI LEISURELY PLEI LEISURELY PERCENTILE

BOL BOLD PBOL BOLD PERCENTILE

MIS MISCHIEVOUS PMIS MISCHIEVOUS PERCENTILE

COL COLORFUL PCOL COLORFUL PERCENTILE

IMA IMAGINATIVE PIMA IMAGINATIVE PERCENTILE

DIL DILIGENT PDIL DILIGENT PERCENTILE

DUT DUTIFUL PDUT DUTIFUL PERCENTILE

and in good condition. Mailed in answer sheets will be processed within 24 hours from the timethey are received and reports will be returned according to the user’s instructions. For faxedanswer sheets, the user should transmit a cover sheet with report return instructions followed bya copy of the HDS answer sheet. Answer sheets should be completed using clear, dark marks.Faxed transmissions will be processed within 24 hours from the time they are received andreports will be returned according to the user’s instructions.

To request test scoring from Hogan Assessment Systems, include the company name, completeaddress, contact person, and telephone number along with the answer sheets to be scored.Send completed answer sheets with scoring instructions to:

Hogan Assessment Systems, Test Scoring ServicesP.O. Box 521176Tulsa, OK 74152

Fax transmissions to:Hogan Assessment Systems, 918-749-0635

Contact Hogan Assessments Systems for more details and for software updates at918-749-0632.

References 55

References

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment. Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disor-ders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

American Psychiatric Association. (1987). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disor-ders (3rd ed., rev.). Washington, DC: Author.

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 102(b)(7), 42 U. S. C. A. 12112.

Arneson, S., Millikin-Davies, M., & Hogan, J. (1993). Validation of personality and cognitivemeasures for insurance claims examiners. Journal of Business and Psychology, 7, 459-473.

Bentz, V. J. (1985, August). A view from the top: A thirty year perspective of research devotedto discovery, description, and prediction of executive behavior. Paper presented at the93rd Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles.

Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom, W. G., Graham, J. R., Tellegen, A., & Kaemmer, B. (1989). MinnesotaMultiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2): Manual for administration and scoring. Min-neapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Cleckley, H. (1982). The mask of sanity (3rd ed.). St. Louis: C. V. Mosby.

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16,297-334.

DeVries, D. L. (1992). Executive selection: Advances but no progress. Issues & Observations,12, 1-5.

Gough, H. G. (1987). Manual for the California Psychological Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Con-sulting Psychologists Press.

Harkness, A. R., McNulty, J. L., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (1995). The personality psychopathology five(PSY-5): Construct and MMPI-2 scales. Psychological Assessment, 7, 104-114.

Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1943). Manual for the Minnesota Multiphasic PersonalityInventory. New York: Psychological Corporation.

56 References

Hazucha, J. F. (1991). Success, jeopardy, and performance: Contrasting managerial outcomesand their predictors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapo-lis.

Hogan, J., & Hogan, R. (1996). Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory manual. Tulsa: HoganAssessment Systems.

Hogan, J., & Roberts, B. W., (1996). Issues and non-issues in the fidelity-bandwidth trade-off.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 222-234

Hogan, R. (1983). Socioanalytic theory of personality. In M. M. Page (Ed.), 1982 NebraskaSymposium on Motivation: PersonalityÑcurrent theory and research (pp. 55-89). Lincoln:University of Nebraska Press.

Hogan, R. (1995). A socioanalytic perspective on the Five-Factor Model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.),Theories of the Five-Factor Model (pp. 163-179). New York: Guilford.

Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (1997). Theoretical frameworks for assessment. In P. R. Jeanneret andR. Silzer (Eds.), Individual Assessment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (1995). Hogan Personality Inventory manual. Tulsa, OK: Hogan As-sessment Systems.

Hogan, R., & Nicholson, R. (1988). The meaning of personality test scores. American Psy-chologist, 43, 621-626.

Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership: Effectivenessand personality. American Psychologist, 49, 493-504.

Hogan, R., Hogan, J., & Roberts, B. W. (1996). Personality measurement and employmentdecisions: Questions and answers. American Psychologist, 51, 469-477.

Horney, K. (1950). Neurosis and human growth. New York: Norton.

Jones, W. H. (1988). User’s manual for PROFILE. Unpublished report.

Jones, W. H., Cheek, J. M., & Briggs, S. R. (Eds.) (1991). Shyness: Perspectives on researchand treatment. New York: Plenum.

Kelly, E. L., & Fiske, D. W. (1951). The prediction of performance in clinical psychology. AnnArbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Leary, T. F. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New York: Ronald Press.

References 57

Lewin, K. (1935). Dynamic theory of personality. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lombardo, M. M., Ruderman, M. N., & McCauley, C. D. (1988). Explanations of success andderailment in upper-level management positions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 2,199-216.

Lykken, D. T. (1995). The antisocial personalities. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

McCall, M. W., Jr., & Lombardo, M. M. (1983). Off the track: Why and how successful execu-tives get derailed ( Tech. Rep. No. 21). Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

McCall, M. W., Jr., Lombardo, M. M., & Morrison, A. M. (1988). Lessons of experience. Lexing-ton, MA: Lexington.

Millikin-Davies, M. A. (1992). An exploration of flawed first-line supervision. Unpublished doc-toral dissertation, University of Tulsa, Tulsa.

Morey, L. C., Waugh, M. H., & Blashfield, R. K. (1985). MMPI Scales for the DSM-III personalitydisorders: Their derivation and correlates. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 245-251.

Psychological Corporation. (1989). The Industrial Reading Test manual. San Antonio, TX:Author.

Tellegen, A. (1985). Structures of mood and personality and their relevance to assessing anxi-ety, with emphasis on self-reports. In A. H. Tuma and J. D. Maser (Eds.), Anxiety and anxietydisorders (pp. 681-706). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Watson, D., & Clark, L. (1984). Negative affectivity: Disposition to experience aversive emo-tional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 465-490.

Watson, G., & Glaser, E. M. (1980). Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal manual. SanAntonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait descriptive terms: The interpersonaldomain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 295-412.

Wiggins, J. S. (Ed.) (1996). The five-factor model of personality. New York: Guilford.

Appendix A 58

Appendix A: HDS Norms for the Total Sample

Hogan Development Survey Norms(N=2,071)

Score EXCITABLE SKEPTICAL CAUTIOUS RESERVED LEISURELY BOLD MISCHIEVOUS COLORFUL IMAGINATIVE DILIGENT DUTIFUL

0 15 4 11 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 0

1 33 12 29 7 6 1 3 2 4 0 0

2 51 25 47 25 17 3 8 5 11 1 1

3 64 42 61 45 34 7 17 10 24 1 2

4 74 58 72 62 50 12 30 17 36 2 6

5 82 70 81 74 66 22 44 27 52 5 14

6 87 79 88 83 80 32 58 40 64 8 25

7 91 86 92 90 88 45 70 53 77 15 42

8 93 91 95 95 94 60 81 64 86 25 60

9 96 94 97 97 97 73 90 74 93 39 77

10 97 96 99 99 99 84 95 84 97 57 89

11 99 98 100 100 100 91 98 91 99 77 96

12 100 99 100 100 100 97 100 96 100 92 99

13 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 100 99 100

14 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Hogan Development Survey Manual

Documents

Transcript of Hogan Development Survey Manual