Job-related stress is a major problem faced by people worldwide. As many as 60% of workers in the major global economies reported experiencing stress at work, and in the United States, a staggering 80% of workers say they are stressed because of their jobs.

Aside from the health implications that job-related stress can have for employees, such as an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, it poses potential problems for organizations too. While most working adults try to manage the impressions they make on others at work, periods of particularly intense stress or pressure can draw out what we at Hogan call dark-side personality characteristics.

Bright Side Vs. Dark Side

Bright-side personality characteristics are what you see on an everyday basis. These are the elements of employees’ personalities that likely impressed you during the selection process — characteristics such as tactfulness, self-confidence, or detail orientation, for example.

The dark side of personality is what emerges when the pressure is on. These characteristics come out when people stop monitoring their behavior or when they are dealing with insecurities. Another way to think of dark-side personality characteristics is as overused strengths. When facing significant stress, an employee who is typically tactful might become passive aggressive, another’s self-confidence could manifest as arrogance, and a person hired for detail orientation might become prone to micromanaging. We don’t need to tell you how these types of behaviors might create problems for your organization.

So how can you identify employees’ dark-side characteristics before they become problems? The Hogan Development Survey (HDS) is a personality test that was designed specifically to identify the dark side of personality. This personality test measures 11 dark-side personality characteristics that can be categorized into three groups based on how people react to conflict: Moving Away, Moving Against, and Moving Toward.

Moving Away

People in the Moving Away group might intimidate or avoid others when they get stressed. Five of the scales on the HDS characterize this behavior: Excitable, Skeptical, Cautious, Reserved, and Leisurely.

Excitable

Excitable people are likely to show passion, energy, and enthusiasm at work when things are going well. But they’re unlikely to remain calm and level-headed when they become stressed. These employees are prone to emotional swings and volatility when faced with pressure, and they might even quit when frustrated. They can easily become disappointed with projects or other people and can be difficult to soothe. They might get hung up on past mistakes or decisions, seeming as though they lack direction or perseverance.

Skeptical

A little bit of skepticism isn’t a bad thing. At their best, Skeptical people think about and analyze the motives and intentions of others, and they challenge assumptions. At their worst, they might be overly critical or even suspicious of their colleagues, worrying that others are lying, cheating, or stealing. This mistrust of other people and organizations might lead them to obsess over what could possibly go wrong and to avoid taking action when it’s needed.

Cautious

Most occupations require people to use caution — at least to some degree. People who score high on the HDS’s Cautious scale, however, tend to cling too tightly to rules and protocol. These people react to stress by avoiding situations or people that make them uncomfortable and by avoiding decisions for fear of criticism. They might require second or third opinions when additional opinions are unwarranted, or they might allow others to drive decisions or push them around.

Reserved

When work is going well, Reserved people likely seem self-reliant and independent. Under pressure, they appear calm, even while others are emotional and overwrought. But sometimes this can go too far, leading them to seem reclusive, uncommunicative, and aloof. People who score high on this scale often deal with stress by dropping off the radar, acting unsociable and limiting close relationships, or behaving indifferently to others’ feelings.

Leisurely

Leisurely people can smile even when they’re privately angry or annoyed. But you might only learn about their real feelings if you hear about them from someone else. People who are Leisurely often react to stress with passive aggression or by resisting feedback. They might say one thing and do another, and they can become annoyed if other people get in the way of their agendas, which are typically kept private.

Moving Against

People who respond to stress by moving against other people manage self-doubt by manipulating and charming others. This behavior is characterized by four HDS scales: Bold, Mischievous, Colorful, and Imaginative.

Bold

Bold people will let you know who they are. They handle pressure by demanding special treatment, being overconfident, and letting other people know how great they are. Unwilling to give up a fight, people who score high on this scale might not acknowledge their own limitations or take responsibility for their mistakes, or their egos might drive them to try to dominate their colleagues.

Mischievous

Mischievous people will treat their clients and colleagues with respect and support. These are people who enjoy testing the limits and who aren’t afraid to take risks. On the other hand, they believe that rules are boring and unnecessary and often break them, and they tend to take risks without considering the consequences. When this leads to mistakes, they’ll use their charm to finesse the situation.

Colorful

Colorful people are the life of the party. While they can entertain clients and colleagues with their enthusiasm, the workplace isn’t a party, and its pressures can bring out less-than-desirable behavior for people who score high on this scale. With a tendency to become self-absorbed and obnoxious, they might respond to stress by speaking out of turn and expecting others to appreciate their performances. They can lose focus easily and might cause distraction for others, too, when they dramatically demand the spotlight.

Imaginative

Imaginative people are bright, strikingly original, and often full of inventive ideas and insights. Outside-the-box thinking isn’t always necessary, though, and people who score high on this scale can get absorbed in ideas that might seem novel to them but eccentric or offbeat to others. They might assert that they have a unique vision that others don’t share, become easily bored and overconfident in their ability to solve problems creatively, launch initiatives without following up on them, or lose people while trying to explain their ideas.

Moving Toward

The third group of people tend to move toward others when they are stressed, coping by ingratiating others and building alliances. Two HDS scales characterize this group: Diligent and Dutiful.

Diligent

Diligent people are meticulous hard workers. They’re role models for high standards, but they can take this perfectionistic inclination too far when times get stressful. Delegating work to subordinates can be difficult for them. When they do delegate, they might criticize subordinates’ work, micromanage, and be inflexible about schedules, rules, and procedures. Focusing too much on the details, they can overlook the big picture or the obvious, and they might refuse to let go of a task — no matter how small it is — until it’s perfect.

Dutiful

Dutiful people excel at keeping their managers informed about relevant business developments and problems. They’re agreeable and rise easily in organizations, but their eagerness to please their bosses might lead them to throw their subordinates under the bus. Faced with stress, they will likely tell their supervisors what they want to hear, regardless of their personal opinions. This flexibility can make it tricky for others to know where they stand on issues. They might also have trouble making decisions or acting independently, and they can be inclined to avoid dealing with challenging people issues.

What Can You Do About It?

For most people, the biggest step toward improving how they handle stress is simply understanding how they act when they’re bored or under pressure. Objective measures of reputation, such as personality assessment and 360° feedback, can help employees learn to recognize when they’re going off the rails and adjust their behavior accordingly.

Want to learn more about personality tests? Check out The Ultimate Guide to Personality Tests

As COVID-19 cases surge once again, organizations that were eager to have employees return to the office are delaying those plans — in many cases, indefinitely. This means that many employees will continue to work from home, whether they like it or not.

There are pros and cons of working from home, both for employees and employers. For example, one common concern among company leadership is about distractions at home and reduced productivity. Some have gone so far as to determine how to monitor employees working from home. On the other hand, working from home has revolutionized the employment perks enjoyed by many workers, offering more flexibility and fewer formalities compared to the office.

Maintaining productivity while ensuring employees stay happy in their roles is a balancing act that organizations strive to perfect. However, as the world’s progress toward ending the pandemic fluctuates, it’s important that both sides of this discussion — employer and employee — take steps to ensure a healthy and prosperous partnership.

Tips for Employees

How to Stay Motivated Working from Home

One of the best ways to stay motivated and avoid burnout is setting goals. But not all goals are made equal. Large, abstract goals that are difficult or time-consuming can be more harmful than helpful, leaving you feeling inadequate as you fail to meet milestones. Instead, set small, attainable goals that can be accomplished steadily over the course of a project or period of time.

How to Stay Focused Working from Home

Distractions are present in any working environment, but working from home can often pose even greater challenges to remaining focused. Aside from removing distractions, such as phones, televisions, and other entertainment sources, one of the most effective strategies is creating a dedicated workspace that helps divide work from home. In the absence of a commute, having a workspace that is detached from the areas of your home where you relax and unwind will help you mentally “clock out” when work ends.

Tips for Employers

How to Keep Employees on Track

Similar to how employees can set goals for individual growth, good leaders can set goals for their teams that will help keep people across job functions aligned and motivated. To support these goals, leaders should remember to encourage their employees at every milestone and make sure to be present to support them as needed.

How to Avoid Becoming an Absentee Leader

Absentee leaders are those who are disengaged from their teams. Absentee leaders don’t communicate with or actively lead the employees who rely on their guidance. To evaluate the strength of your leadership, look at the effectiveness of your team to gauge if your employees are effective, communicative, and empowered in their roles. Other strategies for avoiding absentee leadership include setting up open-door time or one-on-one check-in meetings, creating agendas to structure meetings, offering opportunities for employees to share feedback and ideas, and investing in team building.

While 2022 is already starting off with uncertainty, organizations around the world are taking forward the lessons of the past two years of the COVID-19 pandemic and adapting to the new realities of doing business. Both employee and employer will play a role in the success of this ever-evolving, work-from-home environment, and flexibility and understanding on both sides are our best tools in building success.

What is something that produces chemicals within the brain as if you are meditating and exercising at the same time, but is HR approved? Humor.¹ Humor can be beneficial both outside the workplace and within the workplace. Outside of the workplace, humor improves physical well-being and mental health.² Inside of the workplace, humor has been shown to reduce the negative effects of workplace stress and enhance job performance. Employee humor also boosts job satisfaction, team cohesion, health, and coping effectiveness, while decreasing burnout and work withdrawal.²

But what exactly is humor? Is it stand-up comedy at the local club? Is it enjoyed with a bowl of freshly popped popcorn while watching Saturday Night Live? How can humor even be used tastefully within the workplace? Can you use it to get stiff peaks in your meringues? All of these are excellent questions (especially the last one), and we hope to touch on some of them in this wonderfully written blog post.

What Is Humor?

Alas, we do not have any answers to how humor can be used to get stiff peaks in your meringues because meringue behavior is not easy to research from a psychology perspective. Luckily, human behavior is relatively easy to research; however, a definition of humor is sadly not as easy to understand as the jokes that come with it.³

One of the keys to understanding and defining humor is the distinction between humor and sense of humor. Humor is a behavior or communication style that is mutually amusing, whereas sense of humor has been defined as a quasi-personality characteristic or cognitive ability.² Another way of thinking about the differences is that humor is a behavior and sense of humor is a characteristic or trait.⁴

Types of Humor Styles

We will focus on the model that served as the foundation of the Humor Styles Questionnaire (HSQ),⁵ which was used in our research at Hogan. This theory categorizes humor into four different humor styles:

• Affiliative humor – This is a positive humor style that is nonthreatening and nonhostile toward others.⁵ An individual who scores high on Affiliative humor tends to create relationships and reduce interpersonal tension by telling jokes, saying funny things, or just being witty.⁶
• Self-enhancing humor – This is a positive humor style that is nonthreatening and nonhostile toward oneself.⁵ Someone who uses this humor style might try to twist the situation to lighten the mood after something bad happens to them. Individuals who score higher on this humor style tend to maintain a humorous and positive outlook on life, even during challenging times.⁵
• Self-defeating humor – This is a negative humor style that is threatening and hostile toward the person using it.⁵ While this is a negative humor style, it can be used strategically to reduce the status and power distance between a leader and their followers.⁶
• Aggressive humor – This is a negative humor style that is threatening and hostile towards others.⁵ Individuals higher on this humor style tend to use humor without any regard for others’ feelings.⁷

You may have noticed there are some common denominators across these humor styles. All four humor styles can be categorized into a two-by-two matrix with one side of the matrix representing the direction of humor that is being used (self-directed versus other-directed) and the other side of the matrix representing the impact of the humor (positive versus negative).⁸

Successful Humor is Relational and Situational

So, should an individual just stay away from using negative forms of humor? The answer to this question is the typical “it depends” answer. It really depends on the context and the relationship between the individuals. Within the leadership realm, specifically, both positive and negative humor have been found to be good (or bad) for a leader and follower, depending on the relationship between the two.⁸ If the two have built rapport and trust, then either positive or negative forms of humor can be successful.⁹ But if the relationship between the two individuals is not healthy and trustful, then both positive and negative forms of humor will likely fail and quite possibly do more harm than good.

Humor is subjective. An individual using humor may intend to use it for one purpose, but the result of the humor may not go as planned. An individual may use a positive form of humor with the intent to build a relationship with a new coworker, but if the new coworker is not receptive to the humor, then the humor has failed.

The key to successful humor is how the humor is received, not the intent. It’s very similar to how Hogan views personality. At Hogan, we focus on how others are likely to see you in the workplace (your reputation) rather than how you see yourself (your identity). Using a humor style in certain situations could result in a negative impact on your reputation in the workplace, regardless of how you see yourself.

For example, using self-enhancing humor could lead to people viewing you as overconfident. Or maybe you use an aggressive type of humor without a strong relationship with an individual and they start to see you as being inappropriate and unprofessional in the workplace. Years of research by Hogan has determined that reputation matters more than identity when it comes to workplace outcomes. What this means is that someone can think they are using humor to their benefit, but others may not perceive it positively — and that’s what really matters.

Context is the other key factor for using humor well at work. If you’re a stand-up comedian in a bar, then you will likely be in an environment where some risky types of humor could be used, but if you’re a judge in a courtroom, you may want to steer clear of some types of humor.

The use of humor can be a fine line to walk, especially with humor’s subjectivity and strong potential for causing offense (especially when dabbling in negative humor types). Being aware of your context and environment is key for the successful use of humor. In addition to the context of the environment, being aware of which humor style you are using is important. Having that awareness can prevent you from unintentionally using a form of humor that may not be appropriate in your current context.

The Role of Personality in Humor Style

At Hogan, we know that behaviors and personality characteristics are related. An individual’s personality will be a driver for their behavior, but through strategic self-awareness, feedback, and targeted development, people can modify their behavior. Strategic self-awareness has three components:

• Understanding our own strengths and opportunities for change and growth
• Understanding how our strengths and challenges relate to those of others
• Understanding how to adapt our behavior to increase our effectiveness

To use humor effectively in the workplace, individuals must have some degree of strategic self-awareness. They should understand their own humor style, when that humor style is effective, and when they need to flex away from their natural humor style to be successful. Individuals who do that are more likely to garner a reputation of being influential and gregarious in the organization, which can help them ultimately become more successful.

The Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI), Hogan Development Survey (HDS), and Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI) are excellent resources that can assist with becoming more strategically self-aware of your own personality. If you are interested in learning how these Hogan assessments relate to humor style (or just have some free time on your calendar), please join us for our upcoming webinar.

This post was authored by Cody Warren, talent analytics consultant, and Jessie McClure, corporate solutions consultant.

References

1.  Aaker, J., & Bagdonas, N. (2021, February 5). How to Be Funny at Work. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2021/02/how-to-be-funny-at-work

2. Mesmer-Magnus, J., Glew, D. J., & Viswesvaran, C. (2012). A meta-analysis of positive humor in the workplace, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27(2), 155-190.

3. Burford, C. (1987). Humor of principals and its impact on teachers and the school. Journal of Educational Administration, 25(1), 29-54.

4. Cooper, C. D. (2005). Just joking around? Employee humor expression as an ingratiatory behavior. Academy of Management Review, 30(4), 765-776.

5. Martin, R. A., Puhlik-Doris, P., Larsen, G., Gray, J., & Weir, K. (2003). Individual differences in uses of humor and their relation to psychological well-being: Development of the Humor Styles Questionnaire. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(1), 48-75.

6. Romero, E. J., & Cruthirds, K. W. (2006). The use of humor in the workplace. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(2), 58-69.

8. Robert, C., Dunne, T. C., & Iun, J. (2016). The impact of leader humor on subordinate job satisfaction: The crucial role of leader-subordinate relationship quality. Group and Organization Management, 41(3), 375-407.

9. Tremblay, M. (2017). Humor in Teams: Multilevel relationships between humor climate, inclusion, trust, and citizenship behaviors. Journal of Business Psychology, 32, 363-378.

Personality is a person’s disposition or core wiring. It drives our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors in ways that are highly predictable. In the same way that drivers use a map to see their route before stepping on the gas, employers should use a personality test to predict the likely performance trajectory of job candidates before making hiring decisions. But how do personality tests work?

Before committing to a psychometric tool, employers should get a peek under the hood and ensure that they have a basic understanding of how personality tests work. The assessment industry is unregulated, which means it’s flooded with tests that promise more than they can deliver. Being informed can help you avoid introducing the psychometric equivalent of snake oil into your organization. This post will explain the key areas employers should focus on when trying to understand the nuts and bolts of personality tests.

Types of Personality Tests

First, employers who want to know how personality tests work must know the difference between subjective and objective personality tests.

Subjective personality tests are used in clinical and court settings.¹ They require the test taker to offer subjective responses to stimuli, which are then analyzed by a psychologist.¹ The Rorschach inkblot test is a well-known example of this type of test.

Objective personality tests have a wider range of applications and are particularly suited to workplace settings. They require participants to take a standardized test and answer various multiple-choice questions about themselves.¹ Their answers are then scored against an objective classification system.¹

Conceptual Framework

The second thing employers must know when asking “how do personality tests work?” is what a conceptual framework is. Put simply, it is the accepted theory by which a tool is developed.² A sound conceptual framework gives psychologists a better chance of developing a tool that works. It is parallel to how a scientist developing tools to mitigate climate change must first have a firm understanding of, and work within the context of, Earth’s atmosphere. If the first step is flubbed, then what follows is bound to be bunk.

Most personality tests follow one of three conceptual frameworks. The first and arguably most well-known of these is psychodynamic theory. Inspired by clinical psychology, it attempts to explain the origins of psychopathology.² It assumes that everyone is somewhat neurotic and attempts to identify the source of participants’ neuroses.² Since neuroses are evenly distributed across the population instead of universal, this conceptual framework is now mostly defunct.²

The next conceptual framework is trait theory, which is currently the most widely used framework in personality science. It divides personality into recurring behavioral tendencies and tries to measure these traits based on the five-factor model.² Participants listen to or read a question, compare the question with their self-view, and then self-report based on that comparison.² While the five-factor model is useful, newer lower-order variables have been shown to predict outcomes more accurately.² Another issue is that this model assumes that self-reports are a trustworthy measurement of what participants actually feel, think, or do.² This assumption is shaky because self-reports are likely skewed to serve the interests of the participant, especially when they are aware that their answers will be used for a hiring decision.² Moreover, this approach assumes the disposition to introspect about one’s actions is universal rather than distributed throughout the population.²

The last conceptual framework we will cover is socioanalytic theory, which is the bedrock of Hogan Assessment Systems. The theory posits that all people live and work within groups and that those groups are structured in status hierarchies.³ This suggests three primary motives in life: getting along with other people, achieving status, and finding meaning.³ People solve these problems during their careers and individual differences in personality drives their career success or failure.³ This framework is rooted in pragmatism and does not view participant data as self-reporting but rather as self-presentation.³ Instead of trying to predict why participants say the things they do or whether they are true, this framework simply focuses on how responses will predict behavior and performance.³

Scoring

The third thing employers must know when asking “how do personality tests work?” is how a personality test scores data. Because each personality test follows a slightly different process depending on its conceptual framework, we will focus on Hogan’s approach to scoring. Per socioanalytic theory, we differentiate between participants’ identity and reputation.⁴ While identity is how participants see themselves and cannot be scientifically measured, reputation is how others see them and can be measured.⁴ Therefore, we score participant’s data from the view of the observer to gauge their reputation.⁴

This scoring approach means that when we are scoring a participant’s answer to the question “I read 10 books a year,” we are not actually looking at if the participant identifies as a reader.⁴ Rather, we are asking if the participant self-represents as a reader to observers.⁴ How participants answer this question will translate into reputational data about how observers perceive the participant, and this has career implications.⁴ We can predict the participant’s reputational status because we have reputational data for millions of participants in local and global populations that have already answered these questions in similar ways.⁴ These are called norms and reveal how participants compare to the local and global population.⁴

In a nutshell, our scoring system focuses on measuring reputation by asking people about themselves and finding the statistical relationship between matching groups and observer descriptions.⁴ By organizing reputational descriptors, the scores predict tendencies and indicate likely workplace reputation.⁴ It is important to keep in mind that these tendencies indicate probability, not certainty, which brings us to our next point.

Validity and Reliability

The fourth, and arguably most important, thing employers asking “how do personality tests work?” must know is how tools confirm that they are accurately and consistently assessing the things they claim to. Personality tests can and do claim to assess all sorts of things, but only the ones with published evidence of validity and reliability can back up their claims. This is important for more than just predicting performance — it’s also critical to ensure your organization can make equitable employment decisions. Well-validated and reliable personality tests do not discriminate on age, gender, race, sexual orientation, religion, or ethnicity, but unvalidated and unreliable tests have the potential for adverse impact, so it is essential that employers check the validity and reliability of personality tests when shopping around.⁴

Validity comes in different forms but the most consequential for personality testing is predictive validity, which ensures that the test measures what it’s supposed to measure.⁵ Predictive validity is typically measured with a coefficient between -1 and 1, which is called the Pearson correlation coefficient.⁵ The closer to 1, the more predictive the assessment. Hogan’s validity coefficient in predicting workplace performance is .54. This means that Hogan’s assessments predict 29% of variance in applicant’s future job performance. To compare, ibuprofen’s validity coefficient in treating headaches is only .14. This means that usage of ibuprofen explains merely 2% of differences in pain relief symptoms versus a placebo.⁵

There are many ways to determine the predictive validity of personality tests. At Hogan, we take a multipronged approach and validate our tests against external data on job performance and peer ratings.⁴ The results clearly demonstrate that our tools accurately predict participants’ performance outcomes.⁴ Even though it is expensive and time-consuming, we continuously evaluate our personality tests against external job performance data. In contrast, tests such as the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory (MBTI) and Enneagram have low or unknown validity for predicting workplace performance.^4,5

Reliability is equally important because it certifies that the test’s results aren’t a fluke and that the test will measure the same thing each time.⁴ Reliability can be measured through internal consistency and test-retest reliability.⁴ Reliable personality tests contain multiple questions measuring the same idea, or construct, to ensure that it has been accurately measured.⁴ When these questions score similarly to each other, the test has high internal consistency reliability, a key metric of a personality test’s quality that is measured with a coefficient called Cronbach’s alpha.⁴ Test-retest reliability is measured by using the Pearson correlation coefficient to compare test takers’ scores from two separate testing periods.⁴ Personality is stable and unchanging, so scores that are closer to 1 have high test-retest reliability.⁴

In addition to looking for published evidence of validity and reliability, employers should also verify that a personality test has been evaluated by an unbiased party, such as a psychological council or association.⁴ Appearance in peer-reviewed academic journals is also a good indicator of a tool’s quality.⁴ As part of peer review, panels of impartial experts conduct reviews of manuscripts to ensure scientific accuracy.⁴

Global Applications

Depending on the nature of the organization, a final consideration employers should look at when asking “how do personality tests work?” is a tool’s global application. The goal of personality assessment is to measure human universals that cross geographic boundaries.⁴ This means that personality tests must be carefully translated by fluent speakers in a way that is sensitive to the nuances of language and adapted to local cultures and norms.⁴ Studies show that we are more alike than we are different, so a valid and reliable tool that is carefully translated and measured against local norms should be highly predictive. ⁴  

Well-Constructed Personality Tests Do Work

So, how do personality tests work? Objective psychometric tools are powered by strong theoretical foundations, a sound scoring system, proven validity and reliability, and a capability to measure human universals across geographic boundaries. Equipped with this savvy, employers will have no problem finding a well-constructed personality test to improve their talent acquisition and development processes.

Want to learn more about personality tests? Check out The Ultimate Guide to Personality Tests

References

1. Walker, H. K., Hall, W. D., & Hurst, J. W. (Eds.). (1990). Clinical Methods: The History, Physical, and Laboratory Examinations (3rd ed.). Butterworths. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK201/
2. Hogan, R., & Sherman, R. A. (2020, January 1). Personality Theory and the Nature of Human Nature. Personality and Individual Differences, 152(1), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109561
3. Hogan, R. (2006). Personality and the Fate of Organizations. Erlbaum.
4. Hogan Assessments. (2021). How to Select an Assessment.  https://www.hoganassessments.com/thought-leadership/how-to-select-an-assessment/
5. Howell, A. (2017, May 30). A Quick and Dirty Guide to Validity & Reliability. https://www.hoganassessments.com/blog/quick-dirty-guide-validity-reliability/

*This post was co-authored by Hogan’s Jennifer Lowe and Jocelyn Hays.

During a recent conversation about our return to “normal” work — which for Hogan consultants means travel and in-person development and service delivery — a critical question came up. After 15 months of working from home, do my professional pants still fit? Sadly, for at least one of your blog authors, the answer is no. But at least we’re not alone! The I-need-new-work-clothes phenomenon is so common that The Late Show with Stephen Colbert recently featured a very funny (but NSFW) sketch illustrating the problem. And while wardrobe may be a facetious example, it is a clear one to illustrate an emerging (and blessed) truth: We are coming out of our forced, virtual workspaces. And, as we do, we’re discovering a new world of work, where technology and more flexible, remote work environments likely will be at the forefront of enhancing efficiency, team diversity, and employee satisfaction.

Of course, the evolution of where and how we work is not without its challenges. Over the past year, leaders have been asked increasingly to create cohesive teams and productive cultures without the benefit of physical or perhaps even temporal proximity. Expectations for how employees communicate, collaborate, and manage their time have evolved and will continue to do so. Adapting to the changes thus far has been no easy feat. In fact, Hogan recently surveyed nearly 870 individuals across the globe about their work experiences during the pandemic, and 35% reported that collaboration or communication was their top challenge while working remotely.

We are lucky to work in a field dedicated to supporting employee and leader success, development, and engagement at work. Helping individuals at all levels to adapt to the “new normal” will likely be a critical role of talent development and HR professionals for at least the next year, if not longer. Considering individual differences in how leaders motivate and supervise their employees, and differences in how those employees manage their own efforts and their relationships, should be one part of a multifaceted approach to helping individuals throughout organizations thrive at work.

A recent Forbes article listed some behaviors high-performing leaders are now exhibiting: They are prioritizing connecting with their teams — not only to discuss the work, but also to share knowledge, enhance collaboration, and deepen relationships.¹ Additionally, they are ensuring that their team members have work that is motivating and clearly aligned with the organization’s goals and culture. Similarly, Harvard Business Review recently identified some leadership skills that can be gleaned from pandemic parenting experiences, such as relying on peers to provide input into decisions, appropriately prioritizing and focusing on diverse tasks, and relating to others (and yourself) in a more aware, compassionate manner.²

Organizations will need to support leaders as they face these new demands and recognize that some people may be more naturally adaptable to the new world of work. Leaders who build trust easily and are well connected to their teams may be asked to expand those efforts to coach their peers or contribute more broadly to building a strong organizational culture. Leaders who are naturally more introverted and task focused may need to plan to adapt their approach and reprioritize their time without compromising their focus on team goals and success.

As leaders strive to support their direct reports and maintain a positive, functional organizational culture, team members must also adapt to new environments and expectations. The Wall Street Journal recently highlighted employees’ new expectations for flexibility and autonomy, but with those comes a responsibility to set sufficient goals, self-manage effectively, and ensure results are achieved and relationships are maintained. As is the case for leaders, some employees may find it comfortable and relatively easy to work in remote and hybrid environments, manage their time, and proactively communicate with physically distant teammates. Others, however, may need more support and guidance to adapt to whatever the “new normal” is in their specific organizations. Given that a recent Gallup poll found that workers’ stress levels are at an all-time high, it is critical that individuals find ways to succeed at work that fit both their professional and personal realities.

To make things more complicated, we all need to be prepared for the “new normal” to change again as organizations, team leaders, and team members get their footing and determine the best way to operate while maintaining a strong culture and high levels of engagement. Although we cannot define the myriad factors that might shift as the pandemic wanes, it is safe to assume that they will. Leaders and individual contributors will find that their success and satisfaction depend on their ability to remain self-aware and adapt their approaches effectively. Organizations that support and empower their leaders in these endeavors are more likely to solidify their culture and position themselves for long-term success — because when leaders support their teams, team members are more engaged and business unit performance is improved.   

Don’t let your organization’s people be left behind. Join us on Thursday, July 8, for a webinar to learn how everyday personality characteristics can impact reputation virtually, along with corresponding development opportunities to help every employee succeed in remote work. Register here!

References

1. Bendaly, N. (2021, June 10). How to Build Trust in the Hybrid World of Work. https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicolebendaly/2021/06/10/building-trust-in-the-new-world-of-work/?sh=75792ed5475b
2. Siang, S, & Carucci, R. (2021, June 25). What Pandemic Parenting Can Teach Us About Leadership. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2021/06/what-pandemic-parenting-can-teach-us-about-leadership
3. Forman, L. (2021, June 21). Work Flexibility, Popular With Employees, Is Hardly a Holy Grail. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/work-flexibility-popular-with-employees-is-hardly-a-holy-grail-11624300543
4. State of the Global Workplace: 2021 Report. (2021). Gallup. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/349484/state-of-the-global-workplace.aspx

March 11 marked the one-year anniversary of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaring COVID-19 a pandemic. In May 2020, we analyzed changes in weekly mean scores during the seven weeks after the WHO declaration. At the time, we found little evidence of COVID-19 changing personality assessment scores, with the exception of statistically significant but minimal changes in Science and Altruism scores.

However, seven weeks may not have been sufficient for effects to show up. Over time, as stress from the pandemic and the changes it spurred in our lives accumulated, would we see widespread changes in personality or values? Would emotional volatility increase and change Adjustment scores? Would we lean even more on old derailers or find new ones? Would our motives change?

We wanted to see if personality assessment scores have changed in the past year. Following our earlier work, we grouped people using seven-day periods, counting backward and forward 52 weeks from the March 11 declaration. We had complete Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI) data for 280,196 people, complete Hogan Development Survey (HDS) data for 208,556 people, and complete Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI) data for 186,164 people. We used a slightly different analytic technique than we did last year, but this approach still allowed us to estimate two important changes: changes in scores at the time of the pandemic declaration (an initial effect) and mean weekly changes thereafter (an ongoing effect).

We combined the effect at the time of the pandemic declaration with the weekly effect, accumulated over 52 weeks, to estimate the total change since the pandemic began. We present those results in Figure 1. The changes are universally minimal. Cohen’s d values for the scales range from -.07 (MVPI Hedonism) to 0.07 (MVPI Science). For reference, Cohen recommends interpreting d values of 0.20 as small.

When we look at the initial and ongoing effects separately, we see two reasons for these results. For most scales, the pandemic appears to have had no sizable effect whatsoever. For a smaller set of scales, any initial effect has been reversed by ongoing effects trending in the opposite direction. For example, Hedonism scores decreased slightly around the time of the pandemic declaration. However, weekly Hedonism scores have been increasing since then, so the overall pandemic effect has weakened over time.

These results suggest two things. First, the COVID-19 pandemic’s effect on personality and values scores has been largely nonexistent. Second, in even the few cases where the effects have been statistically significant but still minimal, weekly score trends are returning us to the pre-pandemic “normal.”

Want to learn more about personality tests? Check out The Ultimate Guide to Personality Tests

Often when I meet someone for the first time, I am asked what I do. When I describe the work we do at Hogan and the personality assessments we create for clients, the invariable response is, “Oh, like the MBTI.” Well, not even close. Although the Hogan assessments and the MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) are both designed to provide insight into personality, they are dramatically different. Think about ducks and hummingbirds: both are birds, but you probably shouldn’t expect a hummingbird to swim or a duck to eat sugar water while hovering in the air. Similarly, you shouldn’t expect the MBTI to help you make consequential decisions in your organization, but you can confidently use Hogan assessments to do so. Here’s why.

Theoretical Foundations

The MBTI is based on Carl Jung’s theory of psychological types, which was based on his beliefs and observations — not substantiated science. Katharine Cook Briggs and her daughter, Isabel Briggs Myers, had read about Jung’s ideas and used them to create the MBTI, but neither had any training or education in psychology.

The Hogan assessments, on the other hand, are based on socioanalytic theory, which is rooted in multidisciplinary science. Created by Robert Hogan, PhD, a highly trained and internationally renowned personality psychologist, they are regularly updated and validated by a team of master’s- and PhD-level psychologists.

MBTI Usability for Selection

The MBTI should not be used for selection. We’re not making this up; the Myers-Briggs Company says this.

Hogan assessments were expressly designed for use in employee selection in addition to other workplace uses. In fact, the Hogan Personality Inventory was the first measure of personality based on the Big Five — that is, the most widely accepted model of personality — designed specifically to be used in the workplace. The Big Five model of personality has been studied extensively by personality psychologists over the past half century and now forms the basis for most new research on personality. One of the many strengths of this model is its universality; it captures how people, regardless of geography or language, describe each other.

Hogan’s assessments are supported by more than 30 years of research demonstrating their validity for workplace applications. Nonetheless, assessment users are often concerned about potential demographic differences in assessment results that could impact work outcomes. Well-developed personality measures, in general, and Hogan assessments, specifically, show trivial differences in comparisons across genders, races and ethnicities, and ages, indicating they make selection practices more equitable, regardless of demographic differences among assessees.

Usability for Development

If your organization’s objective is to help people gain insight about their identities, the MBTI may help you do so. The question is do you need an assessment to inform you about your identity? The only expert on your identity is you, so if you think the assessment results do not reflect it, the assessment provides no developmental value.  

I often hear practitioners acknowledge the well-known psychometric limitations of the MBTI that prevent its usefulness in selection while in the next breath indicating that it’s OK to use if the purpose is development. That’s problematic. Why should the scientific standards you apply to selection be lowered for development? Shouldn’t development assessments be focused on characteristics that predict important work outcomes? Isn’t the purpose of development in the workplace to improve performance?

If, however, the purpose of your organization’s development investments is to help people gain insight about how their personality and behavior impacts their reputation (i.e., how others describe and interpret their behavior) and outcomes that matter (e.g., effectiveness at leading people), Hogan assessments are appropriate and designed for the purpose. Unlike identity, the experts on your reputation are other people you work with, not you, and their perspectives are what influence whether they will follow you, want to interact with you, or trust you. It is useful to gain insight about your reputation if you want to understand where to focus your development efforts.

To be clear, the purpose here is not to convince you that the MBTI has no useful applications. It is to encourage you to look deeper into any assessment before assuming they all are the same or interchangeable, and to encourage you to use the assessment that is appropriate for the application and outcome you intend. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck and not a hummingbird.

Never underestimate a sound talent acquisition strategy. When organizations commit to using personality tests in interviews, they find candidates who fit seamlessly into their roles. And the candidates who discover a perfect synergy between their personalities and roles? They end up making magic on the job. 

The Curious Case of Deputy Elton Simmons

Consider Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputy Elton Simmons, a traffic cop whose story went viral in September 2012. His fame came from being something of a paradox: he gave people citations, but they still liked him.          

It all started when Captain Patrick E. Maxwell looked at Deputy Simmons’s record and made a shocking discovery. Despite the deputy’s two decades patrolling La Mirada’s roads, Deputy Simmons’s record remained totally free of complaints. As Captain Maxwell later explained to the media, a zero-complaint career in law enforcement is highly unusual. Almost all traffic patrols have complaints on file, simply because drivers do not appreciate citations. 

So how did Deputy Simmons maintain such a flawless record? How did he manage to discipline bad drivers and endear himself to the public? At first, you might assume that his popularity was a result of being unusually lenient. But that isn’t true — Deputy Simmons handed out more than 25,000 citations during the course of his career.                        

Journalist Steve Hartman shadowed the deputy for a day to see what his secret was. Hartman found a fairly simple explanation: Deputy Simmons delicately balanced authority with diplomacy.

At every opportunity, Deputy Simmons tried his best to offer people the benefit of the doubt. He also tried to avoid lectures and condescension. If a citation was necessary, he made sure to issue it with a kind smile. In short, Deputy Simmons exhibited fantastic interpersonal skills, which provided the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department with some great free publicity.

How to Recreate the Magic of Deputy Simmons

If all officers went through the same hiring process, then why did Deputy Simmons outperform the rest? If you guessed personality, then you are absolutely correct.

Deputy Simmons’s personality was well suited for his career in law enforcement.

Thankfully, your organization can be just as fortunate as the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department was with Deputy Simmons. Personality can be scientifically assessed and easily integrated into the hiring process. Furthermore, using personality tests in interviews can also safeguard against hiring ineffective candidates.

The Dangers of Derailment

Although a candidate’s intelligence, experience, and education are all important factors to consider, screening for these will not prevent derailment. 

Derailment is what happens when people cease to manage their behavior effectively at work, usually due to increased stress or pressure, although triggers can vary. Given that workplace stress is nearly ubiquitous, how candidates manage that stress determines how effective their job performance will ultimately be. The advantage of using personality tests in interviews becomes obvious when you examine how a mismatch between personality and role can end up derailing performance.

Let’s use an example. Imagine an officer who has an identical personality to Deputy Simmons, except one thing: he becomes withdrawn and tough when stressed. Do you think our imagined officer would be as consistently diplomatic as Deputy Simmons? Or what if our imagined officer differed in that he became more skeptical when stressed? Do you think this officer would give the public the benefit of the doubt as much as Deputy Simmons has? Or what if our imagined officer had less interpersonal sensitivity, would he still come across as understanding instead of condescending? You get the point. If a candidate’s personality does not closely align with the role, the risk of underperformance and derailment is high.        

Interviewers know that a candidate’s personality is important. Accordingly, most attempt to assess personality informally during interviews. They may ask candidates to elaborate on their résumés and ask random follow-up questions. But robust evidence shows that interviews without personality assessment data reveal little about candidates.

Interviews Need to Be Backed by Data

All candidates are on their best behavior during interviews. That’s why hiring managers need data to discern the subtle differences between those who are great, those who are good, and those who are ineffective.

Interviews without data pose a threat. You might overlook hidden gems and instead favor candidates who are skilled at making first impressions. In other words, data-free interviews sometimes let ineffective candidates rise to the top of the selection pool.

These ineffective candidates are what we call emergent, or highly charismatic and gifted at self-display. These candidates often outshine candidates who are what we call effective, or hardworking but less attention-seeking. During situational and behavioral style interviews, questions about opinions, attitudes, goals, aspirations, self-descriptions, and self-evaluations are often attempts to see personality at play. What interviewers may not know is that this ambiguity permits ineffective candidates to give a rosier view of their credentials. They may choose to focus on details irrelevant to the job to make a more favorable impression. This doesn’t mean that candidates are deceptive — just that people tend to idealize their own identities.

Conversely, if personality testing is implemented early in the hiring process, candidates will have very little opportunity to overstate their competencies. Interviewers will be able to see how candidates’ personality data overlap with how the candidates describe themselves. Our personalities remain stable during our adult lives, so you can expect the person you hire this year will still exhibit the same patterns of behavior in the future. One study found that teacher ratings of students’ personalities predicted their behavior 40 years later. 

All things considered, interviews are an incomplete hiring solution. Organizations that opt for using personality tests in interviews end up asking better interview questions. These data-driven questions are more focused and reveal more about who the candidate really is.

Hire Faster, Hire Better

Using personality tests in interviews also streamlines the candidate pool by standardizing the information you gather for a batch of candidates. Rather than slowing down the hiring process, this boosts efficiency by cutting down on the number of interviews. Companies that use personality tests see the applicant-to-hire ratios go down about 12%. Additionally, interview-to-hire ratios go down as much as 50%. These statistics mean that organizations can focus on quality over quantity. They will interview fewer people and the interviews that they do conduct are more focused.             

Lastly, using personality tests in interviews means you can measure values, or whether the candidate will actually enjoy the job. Happy employees make engaged employees. Engagement impacts whether an employee is willing to muster the discretionary effort that pushes an organization from surviving to thriving. 

In short, if you want to identify candidates who will perform like Deputy Simmons, you should assess your candidates before giving them a green light for an interview.

Want to learn more about hiring the right way? Check out our guide to crafting next-level talent identification, interviewing, and selection processes

“Why can’t we make more, and why can’t we make it sooner?” asked Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla of his manufacturing leader, according to a recent Wall Street Journal article.¹ The article goes on to describe and praise Bourla’s demanding leadership style, a decided departure from the popular press on more gentle approaches to leadership.² Pfizer’s stellar performance in delivering the COVID-19 vaccine was driven, in part, by Mr. Bourla’s impatience. This raises a critical question: have we swung too far toward celebrating a kinder, gentler approach to leadership and lost sight of the balance required to produce results and engage employees’ hearts and minds?

For at least several centuries, patience has been considered a virtue. Articles and books about patience almost universally seem to assume that more is better. As children, we are taught to be patient (e.g., “Wait your turn,” and “Good things come to those who wait”). Even the Cambridge Dictionary’s definition rests on the assumption that more is better: “the ability to wait, or to continue doing something despite difficulties, or to suffer without complaining or becoming annoyed.”³

However, it also has been suggested that patience is a vice. For example, Parkinson’s law states that work expands to fill the time available. That is, being patient (and therefore slow) will result in wasted time; if one doesn’t exhibit impatience for getting things done, those tasks will take more time than necessary. Horstman’s corollary to Parkinson’s law, on the other hand, states that work contracts to fit the time we give it, which also suggests that a bit of impatience leads to greater efficiency. More practically, consider whether patience is productive in the case of a manager who, unlike Mr. Bourla, patiently waits for work to be completed instead of setting aggressive deadlines. Would patience be productive or unproductive for an entrepreneur trying to be first to market with a new product? The current popularity of agility and digitalization certainly doesn’t seem to characterize patience as a virtue.

So how can we tell which it is — a virtue or a vice — in a given circumstance? Unfortunately, and surprisingly, the academic literature doesn’t provide an answer. To gain insight, we reviewed correlations between personality characteristics and observer descriptions of patience.

Certain personality characteristics seem most related to observer descriptions of patience or impatience. These Hogan Personality Inventory scales measure those characteristics:

• Adjustment – measuring the degree to which one is seen as calm and even tempered or conversely moody and volatile
• Interpersonal Sensitivity – measuring social skill, tact, and perceptiveness or conversely independence, frankness, and directness
• Prudence – measuring self-control and conscientiousness versus impulsivity, flexibility, and resistance to rules and supervision

More patient people are described as being calmer, more polite and tactful, and more self-disciplined. Sounds good, right? So we might conclude that patience really is a virtue — except our research also shows that one can have too much of a good thing when it comes to these personality characteristics. For example, a person who scores extremely high on each of the three scales might be described a bit differently:

• Adjustment – lacking a sense of urgency and being nonchalant about priority assignments
• Interpersonal Sensitivity – avoiding confrontation, being overfocused on getting along, and hesitating to address poor performance
• Prudence – controlling, having difficulty managing change, micromanaging, and seeming rigid and inflexible

Thus, extremely patient people might be inefficient, tentatively communicate expectations for results, and lack adaptability. Too much of a good thing can be a bad thing, and patience can be a virtue or a vice.

Personality assessment or 360-degree feedback is critical for helping leaders understand if they are hitting the sweet spot in terms of patience — being even tempered and urgent, diplomatic and direct, and conscientious and adaptable. Demonstrating these characteristics in balance seems likely to earn one a reputation of having the virtue of being productively impatient.

Want to learn more about personality tests? Check out The Ultimate Guide to Personality Tests

References

1. Hopkins, JS. (2020, December 11). How Pfizer Delivered a Covid Vaccine in Record Time: Crazy Deadlines, a Pushy CEO. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-pfizer-delivered-a-covid-vaccine-in-record-time-crazy-deadlines-a-pushy-ceo-11607740483?mod=searchresults_pos16&page=1

2. Feintzeig, R. (2020, December 3). The Covid Pandemic Produces a Kinder, Gentler Performance Review. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-covid-pandemic-produces-a-kinder-gentler-performance-review-11607025600

3. Cambridge University Press. (n.d.). Patience. In Cambridge Dictionary. Retrieved February 23, 2021, from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/patience

If you’re learning about the Hogan personality tests, you’ve almost certainly heard about the Big Five. And if that was the first you’d heard of the term, you probably wondered, “How big could the Big Five be if the concept was unknown to me before today?” Well, in personality psychology, it’s important, and it’s easiest to understand if we first review a little history.

In the mid-20th century, many personality tests were available, but they all measured different sets of personality characteristics.¹ Then, during the 1960s, two Air Force researchers produced an obscure report arguing that personality could be measured in terms of five broad categories, a concept that later came to be known as the five-factor model of personality.¹ By the 1980s, the idea of the five-factor model had reached academic circles, and most personality psychologists agreed that personality could be described with five factors.¹ Since then, this model has been studied extensively and has withstood much scrutiny by scholars.

Today, the five factors that form the basis for most new research on personality are commonly referred to as “the Big Five,” a term first coined by personality psychologist Lewis Goldberg, PhD, in 1981. The Big Five include emotional stability, extraversion, agreeableness, dependability, and openness to experience.

The Hogan Personality Inventory

The five-factor model formed the basis for the research behind the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI), the first personality test designed to assess occupational performance.

Originally published in 1986, the HPI measures normal personality, a component of reputation that describes day-to-day strengths and weaknesses. When it was first developed, the HPI measured personality in five dimensions: adjustment (emotional stability), intellectance (openness to experience), sociability (extraversion), likeability (agreeableness), and prudence (conscientiousness).

The HPI has since been expanded to include seven scales and 42 subscales, which add additional nuance in understanding normal personality. Keep reading to learn more about how these five dimensions formed the basis for the HPI in its current form.

Emotional Stability: Adjustment

Emotional stability, sometimes called neuroticism, relates to the HPI’s Adjustment scale. As its name suggests, this dimension of the Big Five regards a person’s tendency to experience negative emotions. The HPI’s Adjustment scale measures confidence, self-acceptance, and stability under pressure. While high scorers tend to handle pressure well and expect to succeed, low scorers are less stress tolerant but also more likely to admit their shortcomings or mistakes and try to fix them.

Extraversion: Ambition and Sociability

The extraversion dimension of the Big Five forms the basis for both the Ambition scale and the Sociability scale of the HPI. Extraversion regards the degree to which people are either extraverted or introverted, as well as their assertiveness, sociability, and level of comfort with being the center of attention.

Hogan’s Ambition scale measures the degree to which a person seems socially self-confident, leaderlike, competitive, and energetic — or conversely the degree to which a person is laidback, flexible, noncompetitive, and a good team player.

Hogan’s Sociability scale measures the degree to which a person seems to need or enjoy social interaction. Low scorers on this scale tend to listen more than they talk, be task oriented, work well independently, and prefer structured meetings, whereas high scorers tend to be approachable and friendly, be busy and full of energy (sometimes to the point of distraction), talk more than they listen, and build relationships with a variety of people.

Agreeableness: Interpersonal Sensitivity

The agreeableness factor of the Big Five relates to the HPI’s Interpersonal Sensitivity scale. Tact, cooperation, empathy, and friendliness are all characteristics associated with agreeableness. The HPI’s Interpersonal Sensitivity scale measures the degree to which a person is seen as perceptive, diplomatic, warm, and considerate, or on the other hand, likely to confront poor performers, tough, and willing to take unpopular positions.

Dependability: Prudence

The dependability factor, also called conscientiousness, relates to the HPI’s Prudence scale. Personality characteristics such as preparedness and detail orientation are associated with this factor. Likewise, the HPI’s Prudence scale measures the degree to which a person seems conscientious and rule abiding. While high scorers on this scale tend to be orderly, reliable, and attentive to rules and details, those who score low are more likely to be comfortable with ambiguity, flexible about rules, and capable of quickly changing direction.

Openness to Experience: Inquisitive and Learning Approach

The openness to experience factor forms the basis for two of the HPI’s scales, both the Inquisitive scale and the Learning Approach scale. This factor regards creativity, abstract thinking, curiosity, and openness to new experiences and challenges.

Hogan’s Inquisitive scale evaluates imagination and problem-solving. People who score high on Inquisitive are often creative, adventurous, and open-minded, tending to think quickly on their feet and strategically about the big picture. Low scorers, on the other hand, are more likely to be seen as levelheaded, pragmatic, and process focused.

Hogan’s Learning Approach scale measures the extent to which a person seems to enjoy learning. While high scorers on this scale will seem to be goal focused and to value education for the sake of education, they might also be averse to working on tasks they deem uninteresting. Low scorers, by comparison, tend to prefer a more hands-on approach to learning and focus on applying existing skills, but they might also be unconcerned with learning new ones.

Conclusion

Human personality is complex. While thinking about personality in terms of only five factors might make it sound simple, know that the Big Five comprise a vast range of personality characteristics that — throughout history and across cultures — have helped people identify ways to get along with others in their social groups and get ahead in the social hierarchy.

In regard to the HPI’s seven scales, each is measured in percentiles based on decades’ worth of personality research — so high, average, or low scores on any of these scales can tell us a lot about a person’s strengths and shortcomings. Moreover, HPI scores should always be interpreted as part of a bigger picture. Hogan-certified assessment administrators are trained to look at a few different things when they interpret HPI results: (1) scores on different scales in combination with one another; (2) scores from Hogan’s other two personality tests, the Hogan Development Survey and the Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory; and (3) the context of a person’s background and career. As a result, the potential social outcomes are completely unique to each individual.

Want to learn more about personality tests? Check out The Ultimate Guide to Personality Tests

Reference

1. Hogan, R, & Smither, R. (2008). Personality: Theories and Applications. Hogan Press.