Not too long ago I was on a plane heading to another Hogan Road Show. I happened to be sitting next to an HR executive from a Fortune 50 company that is a Hogan client. She was embarking on a long journey to several company locations around the world to audit the use of psychometric assessments in their organization. As I explained in this article, many large organizations are faced with the same challenge of having disjointed and inconsistent assessment use in their ranks. Fostering consistency can yield great benefits for HR practices and talent analytics, therefore, I was happy to hear that her organization was taking these strides. However, what happened next I found troubling.

I told her that her organization is actually a fairly significant Hogan user. She had no idea (concern #1). I then told her that her organization uses Hogan for graduate recruitment and selection. She replied that that was impossible because personality assessment is illegal for use in selection (big concern #2!). In this moment I immediately felt my 78 on the Excitable scale starting to bubble up. I did my best to remain composed and inform her that she had some misinformation. She did not believe me. Here she is, a fairly senior HR executive for a large organization, about to go around the world standardizing assessment use with at least one big misconception guiding some of the decisions she will be making (concern #3).

The occurrence on the plane is not entirely unique. I encounter this misconception from time to time while on road shows and presenting at conferences. The blanket assertion that using personality assessment in selection is illegal is patently false. As with any practice used during employee selection, it comes down to a question of validity in determining legality (see the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Practices for more information). The simplest way of explaining the validity of assessments is a) does the assessment measure what it is supposed to measure and b) does the assessment predict job performance? This is something that Hogan has in spades.

For any client validation research project, we thoroughly document our tools’ ability to measure what they’re supposed to and predict important work outcomes. That is why Hogan has never been successfully challenged in the court system. The same cannot be said of all personality assessments; there is tremendous variability in the validity, reliability, and technical documentation of other assessments. However, for those who, like Hogan, take the science of personality seriously, they have experienced similar success in the court system.

So when it comes to personality assessment in employee selection, validity reigns in establishing legality. (Yes, I know that it also matters that the use of personality assessment cannot result in adverse impact too, but I’m trying to keep it simple for this blog. Also, personality assessment tends to yield almost no adverse impact relative to cognitive ability assessments.) To keep yourself out of hot water, demand technical documentation from your vendor/consultant that demonstrates the tools’ ability to measure what it is supposed to and predict something meaningful on the job. Be careful what you ask for, though. If you are not using a sound psychometric tool, you may not like what you find out. I’m sorry, but if you are using the very scientific personality test of “Which Sex and the City character are you most like?” I’m not sure the judge will let you off so easily.

To wrap up my story-in-the-sky, I didn’t fully convince her that it is okay to use personality assessment in selection. Maybe it was her unknown Skeptical or Bold score - I’m not sure. We had to agree to disagree so that we could spend the next eight or so hours sitting next to each other without the elephant stealing our legroom.

On Monday night the University of Kentucky beat the University of Kansas to claim the 2012 NCAA Men’s Basketball Championship. Didn’t watch it? That’s okay; I wasn’t that interested either. However, this sporting event has given us an opportunity to observe some basic social psychological phenomena in action that have implications not only for sports fanaticism but for the workplace as well.

The phenomena are known as BIRG, or Basking In Reflected Glory, and CORF, or Cutting Off Reflected Failure. Grounded in Social Identity Theory, BIRGing and CORFing represent two strategies people employ to enhance or protect their self esteem. BIRGing occurs when someone attempts to enhance their self esteem or image by aligning themselves with a success or “glory” for which they had little to no role. Often times this behavior or cognition is unintentional and somewhat subtle. In the context of the basketball championship, I have seen plenty of BIRGing from Kentucky fans this week as their tweets, Facebook posts, and water cooler conversations include some reference of “we” in relation to the Wildcats’ win. “We won!” “We played so well!” “We kicked KU’s butts!” We are also more likely to see them sporting their Kentucky apparel. These fans are aligning themselves with Kentucky in order to bask in the reflective glory of being national champions, despite the fact that they did not spend a single minute on the hardcourt defending shooters or sinking three-pointers.

Many of the Kansas fans, on the other hand, have been CORFing, wherein we attempt to distance or separate ourselves from some failure that may have a negative impact on our self esteem, reputation, or self image. Whether intentional or not, we likely hear many Jayhawk fans using the pronoun “they” instead of “we” when referring to the Kansas basketball team. “They couldn’t finish.” “They let Kentucky get too far ahead early on.” “They weren’t strong enough.” Many of those same fans who were likely declaring “We are the best” (BIRGing) after each of the great comebacks KU enjoyed leading up to the final have now turned to CORFing by a simple change in pronoun.

These phenomena are easy to witness within the world of sports, but they also make their mark in the workplace. Within organizations, employees are motivated to align themselves with successful projects and products and distance themselves from failures. Although the point can be made that employees are doing it for the same basic self image benefits, they are also motivated to BIRG and CORF for job security, keeping themselves off the radar in bad times and calling attention to themselves in good times.

Despite the fact that this is a very common and innate tendency, we do tend to see some individual variability in the expression of it and I believe it is often a function of personality. Specifically, I see scores on HDS Bold functioning as a moderator of the expression of BIRG and CORF. Individuals who have higher scores on the Hogan Development Survey scale of Bold tend to have an inflated view of self-worth and are very motivated to protect that image. Our research indicates that our high Bold managers are likely to overstate their accomplishments and blame mistakes and failures on others. Hence, we are likely to see high Bold managers BIRGing and CORFing more often or to a greater extent than your average Joe as they jockey themselves into position for ego-preservation.

Such behavior can erode followership or a productive team atmosphere as others start to recognize that Bold Bob is a fair-weather fan, only aligning himself with us when the going is good and “throwing us under the bus” (trust me, I loathe that phrase too) when we hit some rough patches. An effective leader must be willing to weather the storm, sharing in the collective successes but also standing up for their team when things don’t go to plan. For most, BIRG and CORF can be more difficult to accomplish in the workplace as our affiliation with a particular team or project is often more obvious. Bold Bob and others like him will find a way to do it, though. It may come in the form of claiming to have always disagreed with the failed approach the team took (CORF), or claiming to have been a staunch supporter/leader of a successful project that, in reality, they demonstrated ambivalence toward (BIRG).

In our efforts to develop and coach our Bold managers, we need to cast light on past occurrences of this behavior and the fallout or ramifications it caused. However, we must remember that BIRGing and CORFing are not always intentional and that these managers may not have realized the subtle (and not so subtle) ways they have exhibited it. By helping to create strategic self-awareness of this tendency and the effect it has on team relations, we can hope to curb its prevalence. Only then can we hope for them to be more like my non-Bold colleague and staunch Kansas fan who owned the big loss in her Facebook post, stating “Well played Kentucky...you deserve it. Love that our Jayhawks fought the whole way though...what a ride! Rock Chalk!”

Are you getting ready to head home for Thanksgiving and wondering how successful your reunion at the local bar with friends will be? You’re in luck! Just in time, I have returned to provide the third and final installment of this series on the physical attractiveness of your personality. To bring you up to speed, you can read Part I and Part II. Part I revealed that people, in general, are perceived to be physically attractive when they are seen as friendly, attention-seeking, and altruistic networkers. In Part II we learned that the story changes a bit when we are judging the attractiveness of men and women separately.

Specifically, women are found more attractive when they are charismatic, attention-seeking team players, while attractive men are unassuming team players. In this installment, we will be examining the pattern of results when separating the genders of both the target and the rater. Because of the complexity of these 2x2 analyses, I will start by providing a table that displays all of the significant predictors of physical attractiveness by target and rater, in descending order of predictive power. This should be particularly useful for those of you who speak Hoganese. You can also check out the Physically Attractive Profiles based on relationships between Hogan scores and ratings of physical attractiveness.

Once again, there is an overall finding worth note. Far and away, personality has a much stronger relationship with physical attractiveness when we are evaluating the same sex than when judging the opposite sex. There were twenty significant predictors (scales) related to physical attractiveness in same-sex pairings (males rating males and females rating females), but only six for opposite-sex pairings. As we get further into the specific gender pairings, it will become more apparent that the conclusions I have drawn in the past two parts of this series were being primarily driven by this stronger role of personality in same-sex pairings. If it is true that personality predicts attractiveness less in opposite-sex pairings and if we presume that the majority of this sample is heterosexual, as is found in the general population, these results may indicate that we tend to largely separate looks from personality when evaluating potential mates. When evaluating the attractiveness of peers, personality plays a much greater role. Does this mean that we can be more objective about the physical attractiveness of potential mates than of gender peers? It would be interesting to see if this pattern is replicated within an exclusively homosexual population – is it a gender or “love” effect?

Now let’s get into what makes men appear more attractive. There was only one characteristic that men and women agreed upon when it came to evaluating men; they both don’t care for the cynical, mistrusting types (a negative correlation for HDS Skeptical). Trust is apparently an important characteristic in determining the attractiveness of men, which makes particular sense for a woman who will find it unattractive when a man constantly doubts her intentions and actions. But how do we reconcile that people tend to find females more attractive when they are more mischievous in nature (as revealed in Part 2)? So we are more attracted to somewhat manipulative women who will keep us guessing, but then they don’t like it when we are skeptical of their ways? This is one interpretation but it could also be that the more unattractive parts of Skeptical turning both men and women off are the tendencies to be critical and argumentative, and it is clear to see the reasons for that. What is also interesting is that Skeptical has almost no relationship with attractiveness in women, regardless of who is evaluating them. We are tolerant of criticism, cynicism, and mistrust in women, but it is a major turn-off in men.

In addition to Skeptical, women are also not particularly fond of men who are emotionally volatile (Excitable) and party-boys (Hedonism). Taken together, these findings dispute the belief that women are attracted to the “bad boy” type. If that exists, it is likely a minority. It is also peculiar to note that none of the HPI scales was a significant predictor of male attractiveness through women’s eyes. This indicates that a man’s normal day-to-day behavior does not really interact with perceptions of a man’s good looks. I am having difficulty getting my head around this, but does this finding contradict the common convention that women’s interest in men is greatly affected by their personalities, wherein an objectively attractive female can love an unattractive man as long as he has a “good” personality? Or is it that the female is still attracted to and interested in the man, perhaps as a mate, even if she is not physically attracted to him?

Personality has the strongest relationship with physical attractiveness for men rating other men. As seen in the table above, there were seven positive and six negative correlations. The strongest predictor was Aesthetics, indicating that men find the creative, artistic types most attractive. Summarizing across so many dimensions can be difficult, but it would appear that men find other men attractive when they are creative and caring team players with big personalities that command attention but aren’t in it just for themselves. Men appear to take umbrage with other men who are quietly arrogant, more guarded, less transparent, micromanaging, and overly concerned with financial matters. It paints a picture of someone who is critical and judgmental of others but not forthcoming with their own ideas and intentions. Sounds like a great boss, doesn’t it?

Let us now move our attention to the ladies. There was no overlap in significant predictors of attractiveness of females by male and female raters; men and women do not seem to agree in what makes a hot personality. From men, there were three scales related to the physical attractiveness of women; positive correlations with MVPI Altruistic and HPI Sociability and Ambition. The strongest predictor (Altruistic) indicates that men are most attracted to women who display nurturing, perhaps maternal, instincts. This should come as little surprise as men are wired, from an evolutionary psychology perspective, to seek out mates who have a greater potential to care for their offspring. Even though men are looking for the nurturing type, they are not as attracted to the docile midwife. Instead, men have made it clear that they are looking for stronger interpersonal impact in women; they are attracted to assertiveness and gregariousness. What I find interesting is that men find these two qualities of Ambition and Sociability to be equally predictive of attractiveness in either sex, but women ascribe almost no importance to these two qualities in their appraisals of attractiveness. Why might that be? What is also surprising to me is that none of the HDS scales was a significant driver of attractiveness for men evaluating women. Can this really mean that men are indifferent to these “dark side” characteristics in potential mates? Perhaps we, as men, just assume some of that stuff will be there and must be willing to accept it or else there would be no women to choose from. I will await the backlash from that last comment.

Women see beauty in other women who are friendly, caring, and collaborative types with a flair for the dramatic. They are turned off by passive-aggressive, indifferent, book-smart worrywarts. If we view physical attractiveness in this vein as friend potential, it is easy to see how the prior would make their lives easier and a bit more fun, while the latter might be a recipe for the “high-maintenance friend” who is not approachable or forthcoming.

So what have we learned along this three-part journey? In summary, personality does appear to have an effect on perceptions of physical attractiveness. The extent to which it does is a matter of whom you are asking about whom. Largely, personality affects attractiveness more for members of our same gender than it does for members of opposite genders. That being said, I still have some dating advice that can be inferred from these analyses. Guys, if you want to appear more attractive to the ladies, ditch the bad boy attitude, don’t be so critical, and control the temper. Ladies, if you want to attract a man, play up your nurturing ways but look to be a peer, not the introverted, subservient type. And, for goodness’ sake, comb your hair.

In August I wrote about some interesting findings about how our personality makes us more or less physically attractive to others (read Part I). We learned that being friendly, attention-seeking, and demonstrating a genuine concern in networking with and helping others enhances perceptions of physical attractiveness, while being distant, indifferent, passive-aggressive, and eccentric can be real turn-offs. These results represented trends across people in general, regardless of their gender. To satisfy my insatiable curiosity, I decided to delve further by investigating whether there are personality characteristics that differentially relate to the physical attractiveness of men versus women.

Before getting into specific results for the sexes, I think there are some general results worth mentioning. Overall, I found that personality is far more important for predicting the physical attractiveness of women than for men. Chew on that for a second. Across 28 scales I found five predictors for men and eight for women. More telling is that HPI and HDS account for four and two times more variance (respectively) in predicting physically attractiveness for women than for men. Overall results for MVPI were similar between the sexes. What this means is the bright and dark side of our personalities may have a greater impact on the physical attractiveness of women than they do for men. What I believe this also says is that we men don’t have to worry as much about our behavior in attracting a mate; other factors may be more important (wallet size?).

Now that I have your attention, let us begin with the similarities between the sexes…all one of them! I found only one dimension of personality that provided a similarly strong relationship in predicting physical attractiveness in both sexes; MVPI Affiliation. For both men and women, we find attractive those who demonstrate an intrinsic interest in socializing with, networking with, and getting to know others.

As previously mentioned, I only found five predictors of mention for the physical attractiveness of males. I found positive correlations for HDS Dutiful and MVPI Affiliation. I found negative correlations for HDS Excitable, HDS Skeptical, and MVPI Science. In plain language, men are considered more attractive when they are the types who are more conforming team players who don’t rock the boat. For some reason, the ingratiating, deferential type is found to be more alluring. We also see that the emotionally volatile, cynical, distrusting scientists are considered less attractive. So apparently the type of guy who doesn’t believe it until he sees it and wants to see the proof in the form of facts is found to be unattractive. Yikes, that one hits close to home. Who knew that logic was a turnoff?

I find a few more things interesting about these results. First, I was a bit surprised that the attractiveness of the strong, alpha male archetype was not well supported by these data. Second, there were no significant effects for HPI, indicating that normal day-to-day behavior does not seem to have a noteworthy effect on the perceived physical attractiveness of males. Lastly, I think it is intriguing to see where the differences between the genders fall on these scales. For four of these five scales (all but MVPI Affiliation), there was a negligible effect for women’s perceived attractiveness. In other words, emotional volatility, cynicism, ingratiating behavior, and a desire for fact-based decision making have almost no effect on whether we find women attractive. I find that first one a bit surprising!

Now let us turn our attention to the fairer sex. I found eight personality predictors of physical attractiveness for females. There were positive correlations with HPI Interpersonal Sensitivity, HDS Mischievous, HDS Colorful, and MVPI Affiliation, while I found negative correlations with HPI Learning Approach, HDS Reserved, HDS Leisurely, and HDS Imaginative. In non-Hoganese, these results mean that we find women attractive when they are warm and friendly, charming (even if a bit manipulative), attention-seeking, and interested in teamwork and social networking. Altogether, this paints the picture of a charismatic type of woman as most attractive. At the same time, we appear to be turned off by the studious, aloof, passive-aggressive, and eccentric types. The first part is intriguing. According to these results, the diligent female students who tend to know more about many different subjects are less attractive to us. I hesitate to say, but this result seems to partially support the attractive bimbo archetype.

There are two more points of interest within these results for females. First, these data do not support other research indicating that masculine, assertive females are less attractive. Second, as before, it is interesting to look at the disparate relationships in some of these predictors for the other gender. HPI Interpersonal Sensitivity, although an important predictor for female attractiveness, had no relationship for males, indicating that friendliness or agreeableness has no bearing on perceptions of physical attractiveness in males. The other contrast of note is with HDS Mischievous. It is positively correlated with attractiveness for females but negatively correlated with attractiveness for males. Hence, we find the charming, manipulative, risk-taking females appealing while their male counterparts are more repelling. That is a result I have yet to understand.

In summary, personality seems to matter more for females than males in predicting physical attractiveness. According to this single study, males need only concern themselves with being a better team player and less of a Doubting Thomas to increase their hotness factor. For women, a little charm will go a long way to being seen as more attractive. Just make sure to keep the random factoids and wild ideas to yourself.

In the third and final installment of this series, I will split the data once more and investigate how the gender of both the target and the rater affect perceptions of physical attractiveness. Sneak preview: male personality does matter more; it just depends on who you are asking.

Although it sounds like the hook in a romantic comedy, recent findings indicate that your inner beauty (or lack thereof) might be affecting your outer beauty.

Let me back up. A few months ago I was analyzing data from a large community sample and I stumbled upon some interesting information. Specifically, I found peer ratings of physical attractiveness on a sample of people who completed the Hogan personality and values assessments. Considering that I am (a) distractible and (b) a nerd, I decided to investigate further.

It’s important to note that these were not ratings of likeability, friendliness, etc. Peers rated the extent to which the target person was “good-looking,” “unattractive,” “physically attractive,” and “not good-looking.” So the question became: does one’s personality affect their perceived physical attractiveness? The answer, to an extent, is yes.

There were significant effects on seven of twenty-eight scales across the Hogan Personality Inventory, Hogan Development Survey, and Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory. I found positive correlations between ratings of physical attractiveness and scores on HPI Interpersonal Sensitivity, HDS Colorful, MVPI Affiliation, and MVPI Altruistic. Additionally, I found negative correlations between physical attractiveness and HDS Reserved, HDS Leisurely, and HDS Imaginative.

What does this mean in non-Hoganese? First, we are physically attracted to people who are nice, friendly, approachable, and considerate. No big surprise there; mean people are ugly (or is it that ugly people are mean because they are ugly?). Second, we are attracted to people who have a flair for the dramatic, drawing a lot of attention to themselves, and being the center of attention, even to a fault. These big personalities draw our eyes to them and we seem to find them attractive for that, even if they are acting in this way for self-serving reasons. Next, we find people who value networking, teamwork, collaboration, and social interaction physically attractive. This may indicate that we are attracted to people who have the inclination or desire to engage and get to know us. Finally, the altruists of our society are found to be attractive. These individuals are motivated by a concern for the welfare of others. The attraction is likely borne out of the perception that the person is taking a genuine interest and concern for our needs and well-being; perhaps a more generous lover?

Now let us turn our attention to our turn-offs. First, we are not fans of the cold, stoic, aloof types. These individuals appear indifferent to the feelings or concerns of others, so this finding is in alignment with the aforementioned factors of heightened attraction. Next, we find passive-aggressive behavior to be particularly unattractive. Although these individuals may appear friendly and cooperative on the surface, we seem to see through fa?ade and recognize that they are likely to act on their own agenda, which makes them less desirable. Finally, our eccentric visionaries are apparently persona non grata. Overall, results indicate that creativity is not related to attractiveness, but here we have an indication that extreme (and unconventional) creativity is actually a mild repellant.

These results come from a single (but large) community sample. Therefore, these are not necessarily universal truths. Nonetheless, the trends are clearly there and of mention. Also, the peers providing these ratings knew the target people, so there is no guarantee that these results would generalize to how attractive a stranger at a bar will find you. That being said, it is logical that personality affects physical attractiveness only at the point that someone gets to know us at least a little bit.

In summary, these results indicate that personality does have an impact on physical attractiveness. If you want to be perceived as attractive, stop acting like an inconsiderate jerk. Even if you have the face of Adonis (or Persephone), curt, brash, or uncaring behavior will likely downgrade your hotness factor.
 
The next installment on this topic dives into gender differences, explaining what it takes for men and women (separately) to be perceived as physically attractive. Sneak preview: there are clear differences and the results do not confirm what we may commonly assume…

A person completes a personality assessment. He or she then receives individual feedback on his or her personality profile. If the assessment is worth its salt, the person probably agreed with much of the interpretation and was challenged or surprised by the rest. For the feedback that resonated with him or her, the likely response was, “Yep, I knew that about myself. Now I have a test that validates it.” For the surprising feedback, the likely response was, “Interesting. I didn’t know I was being perceived in that way.” Now what? What does this person do with that information? The way I see it, the person now has an excuse for that behavior or an opportunity to improve it.

Purely for academic purposes, let’s say that I scored low on the Prudence scale from the Hogan Personality Inventory. This means that people tend to perceive me as someone who is flexible and open to change but also someone who is not always detail-oriented and can be impulsive at times. What do I do with that information? One approach would be to use it as an excuse or a crutch. When I overlook a detail and it affects the outcome of a project, I can simply say, “Yep, that’s my low Prudence coming out!” and laugh it off. People will come to expect that Kevin is not a details guy and may expect me to focus on bigger picture issues instead. However, what will also happen is that people may begin to not trust in my ability to deliver a high-quality, well-proofed work product, and I will miss out on opportunities for challenge or advancement. This would ultimately affect my career success.

Continuing with this hypothetical example, a second approach to using this information about my lack of conscientiousness (not to be read as conscience) is as an opportunity. If I am serious about having a successful career, I should use the results of my personality assessment to leverage my strengths and develop my shortcomings. If I am working on a project with a tight timeline and I notice my natural propensity to cut corners or fudge over details starting to rear its head, I can seize the opportunity to take extra care and create the highest quality product I can. By intentionally changing my behaviors to do what may not come naturally and what others would not expect me to, I am effecting change on my reputation, which will ultimately have an effect on my success.

All of this being said, the irony is that the choice between Excuse Avenue and Opportunity Road is largely based on personality. People who are naturally open to feedback and change and driven to be successful are those who are more likely to take a right on Opportunity Road, while those who are resistant to feedback and change and not particularly motivated will take a left on Excuse Avenue (which runs parallel to Easy Street). The good news is that the same high-quality personality assessment will identify the likely path the person is to take. From that assessment, we can identify those individuals who may need a bit more help steering toward Opportunity Road if we are serious about investing in their success.

At the end of the day, there is always a choice. We can ultimately decide whether we want to be who we are now with all of our warts, caveats, and excuses, or if we want to be the more successful versions of ourselves with fewer warts and more opportunities…however you define that success.

Our clients often request a benchmark against which to evaluate their employees on our personality assessments. A common statement is “we want to see how our sales force compares to other sales forces.” Some are even more specific, such as “we want to benchmark our managers against other managers working in large, pharmaceutical companies in East Asia.” Although we always want to be accommodating, we tend to shy away from creating such benchmarks for multiple reasons. The most important reason is that, devoid of the relevant contextual information, benchmarks using personality assessment are not very useful and can lead to false conclusions.

The desire for benchmarks in personality assessment is likely a product of normal business thinking. As organizations, we are always comparing ourselves to our competition to know where we stand. Stock price, annual revenue, number of products sold, customer retention rate and satisfaction ratings, safety violations, and employee turnover rates. These are all things that indicate a clear winner when we are benchmarking ourselves against our competitors. Relative to other organizations, we want higher stock value, revenue, sales, and customer ratings. We want lower safety violations and employee turnover.

Being better than your competition is not as clear when it comes to personality assessment. The general bias when interpreting personality assessment scores is that higher scores are better. This bias stems from our orientation to other standardized testing; we know that higher scores are generally better when evaluating ourselves on tests of intelligence, aptitude, skills, and abilities. The reality is that there are strengths and shortcomings associated with any score on any scale from most decent personality assessments. No one gets off the hook. Although people who score high on our Ambition scale have more natural drive and goal-orientation than the population, they may not recognize when it is time to let others lead and may be perceived as poor team players. For example, let’s assume that an oil company has requested a personality benchmark for their safety inspectors relative to other safety inspectors. We create this benchmark, present it to the oil company, and they see that their safety inspectors are higher on a scale measuring creativity than other safety inspectors. Higher is better, right? Not really. Safety inspectors shouldn’t be creative. Instead, good safety inspectors should be more practical, less creative…following the letter of the law. In this case, lower scores on the creativity scale would be better.

Another bias is that client organizations (and people, in general) often assume that any comparisons we, as experts, make must be relevant and attended to. When ESPN reports on the average number of water bottles kept on the sidelines by World Cup teams, we assume that this has some bearing on the success of the team, or else why would they have reported it? Naturally, the googlesphere will activate with fans searching to find out how many water bottles their team keeps on the sidelines. Companies could compare themselves on the number of staplers they have but what does that matter as a metric of business performance? Further, is it better to have more or less staplers? When it comes down to it, not all comparisons are meaningful. As it applies to personality assessment, not all personality characteristics are related to performance (relevant) in a given job or industry. How important for job performance is it for a custodian to be sensitive to the feelings of others? It is likely irrelevant, but we can still create a benchmark that compares the interpersonal sensitivity of one school’s custodians to all other school custodians. When we provide this benchmark, the client organization is likely to assume it has relevance, or else why would we have reported it?

We feed into these biases when we provide benchmarks without the necessary contextual framework. When an organization sees their employees’ personality data plotted against an industry/subgroup benchmark, they may make inaccurate inferences because a) we always assume higher is better and b) we assume that all reported comparisons are important. We can create meaningful benchmarks with personality assessment but it takes the right kind of data. If we have sufficient data, we are able to indicate what personality scales have the strongest and most consistent relationships with performance in these jobs; hence, relevance. In addition, we can indicate whether higher, lower, or even moderate scores are better. Obviously, the thinner we slice the world (e.g., marketing coordinators at mid-western hotel chains), the less likely it is that we, or anyone, will have sufficient evidence to reliably indicate predictors of performance and create good benchmarks. Further, such specific benchmarks lack relevance and applicability. Truth be told, there probably isn’t much difference in personality between marketing coordinators at mid-western hotel chains and marketing coordinators in general. With all stated caveats, we can help clients benchmark their employees on characteristics that matter for performance, as long as it is a worthwhile endeavor and we have the data to do it. Even then, we should not be creating stand-alone graphs or tables that simply plot group averages against each other. We must tell the story around and behind the graph or table to focus attention appropriately. Only then can a personality benchmark be meaningful, impactful, and actionable.