THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERSONALITY VARIABLES,

INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGERIAL LEVEL

ION BUCUR

University of Bucharest, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences,

Department of Psychology

Abstract

The aim of this study is to investigate and highlight the relationship between

personality traits, intelligence and managerial level in a multinational company of online

market research. Personality traits were assessed by using the Romanian versions of

Freiburg Personality Inventory (FPI G), NEO PI R questionnaire, Myers Briggs Type

Indicator (MBTI) and KIRTON questionnaire for cognitive style (KAI ). Intelligence was

assessed by using the Romanian version of Multidimensional Aptitude Battery MAB-II

(Jackson, 2008). The dependent variable was the level of the manager in the organization

(1- top management, 2 - middle management, 3- low management). The inclusion criteria

in the three managerial groups (top, middle and low) were the measures of managerial

complexity derived through the position in organizational chart, the reported distance from

the General Manager, and the number of subordinates. Data were collected from the

managers working in a company of online market research. Results shown that some

personality traits and some measures of intelligence (those linked with the competence of

learning) varied significantly across the three groups of managers.

Cuvinte cheie: niveluri de complexitate managerial, trăsături de personalitate,

inteligenţă, profil de personalitate a managerului, prezicerea performanţei manageriale

Keywords: levels of managerial complexity, personality traits, intelligence,

personality profile of manager, managerial performance prediction

1. INTRODUCTION

Human performance prediction and particularly managerial performance

represents a very important field of study in applied psychology. The researches

conducted on this issue had the main objective to predict the professional

performance, in other words to find explanations for the biggest part(as much as it

Corresponding author: Ion Bucur

4

is possible) of professional performance variation, through the variation of some

psychological variables (GMA - General Mental Ability, personality, motivation or

interests). Despite of the many studies conducted, the relationship between

personality and performance did not succeed to furnish significant conclusions or

results up to the end of eighties. Some of the studies supported the idea that

essential decisions over the carrier or selection wouldn`t have been based on

variables connected with personality due to the lack of validity of the instruments

which measure personality (Barrick & Ryan, 2003). After the end of the eighties

the personality traits approach come again in the focus of researchers, in their

attempts to clarify the dispute traits versus situations, in professional performance

prediction. In this stage the main focus of the studies was the analysis of the

relationship between personality traits and several performance criteria. The

findings shown very low correlations, next to zero, between variables, supporting

in this way the former hypothesis of personality uselessness in professional

performance prediction (Barrick & Ryan, 2003).

The relationship between personality and performance has became a recurrent

research theme in the field of organizational psychology after the Big Five model

became well known and acknowledged , in the beginning of nineties. Several

meta-analyses have shown a stable and significant relation between personality

dimensions and performance (Judge, Klinger, Simon, & Yang, 2008). We can

discuss about one of them which found a significant relation between integrity

tests, conscientiousness and personality tests (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). More

recently meta-analyses suggest a significant relation between different criteria of

performance and personality, but moreover, between personality and other

relevant dimensions of performance as: Job satisfaction, deviance, leadership, or

team effectiveness (Judge et al., 2008). In academic settings personality was linked

with academic success by several studies (Conard, 2006). Apart from empirical

evidence of the relation between personality and professional performance, several

personality dimensions were progressively integrated in models of human

performance (Dawis & Lofquist, 1984). Lately different models which explain the

relations between personality traits, situational variables, motivation and different

aspects of individual performance were formulated. For instance Stewart and

Barrick (2004) and Borman (2001) suggest a model in which conscientiousness

and emotional stability influence accomplishment striving, which in turn influence

performance and job satisfaction (Schneider & Smith, 2004). Moreover the

personality inventories gain much more importance in selection, building and

developing work teams, or leadership analysis. Approximately 35% of the

interviews run in the Human Resource Department are focused on the personality

traits assessment (Huffcut, Conway, Roth, & Stone, 2001).

Lately renewal of industrial- organizational psychology has the roots in this

new reconsideration of the role and the usefulness of the personality variables

(Hough & Ones, 2001). New studies are based on specific hypothesis, trying to

5

analyze the relation between personality and performance from the perspective of

the relation between the constructs measured (Borman, Ilgen, & Klimoski, 2003).

The strongest and consistent relation seems to appear between conscientiousness

and performance, irrespective of the complexity and diversity of the context

(Hunter, Schmitd, 1998; Barrick et al., 2001). Besides the relation with objective

and subjective acknowledged performance criteria, personality traits seem to be

consistent related with some other variables as job satisfaction, leadership,

accidents or workplace deviance (Judge et al., 2008), with general knowledge

(Chamorro-Premuzic, Furnham, & Ackerman, 2006). There are some studies

which point the stable and significant connection between agreeableness,

conscientiousness and work accidents (Clarke & Robertson, 2005).

Personality traits seem to be associated with the success in management,

assessed through extrinsic and intrinsic criteria, as well (Boudreau, Boswell, &

Judge, 2001). Extrinsic criteria are related with salary, level of the job and

employability (assessed by the head-hunting companies), while the intrinsic criteria

are related with job satisfaction and professional satisfaction. The results of the

study mentioned show that Extraversion and Neuroticism are related positively and

negatively, as well, with both kind of criteria. Other researchers found interesting

relationship between Neuroticism, Extraversion and work performance (Cox-

Fuenzalida, Swickert, & Hittner, 2003; Cox-Fuenzalida, Angie, Holloway, & Sohl,

2006) At the same time Conscientiousness seems to be unrelated with extrinsic

criteria of success and negatively related with intrinsic criteria, both in the United

States and European Union. Studies on narcissism showed that even the criteria of

success is negative, personality still seems to be related with success (Rosenthal,

Hooley, 2010). Van Doorn and Lang (2010) found relationship between

Neuroticism facets and performance. Chatman, Caldwell, and O'Reilly (1999),

changed the perspective to study the relationship between managerial personality

and performance, using a semi-idiographic approach.

Although personality assessment is a main component of the assessment in

organizations, there are many critics pointing to the studies in the field, mainly

regarding the performance criteria. The field literature classified them in two

category: subjective criteria and objective criteria. Subjective criteria are :

superiors, peers and subordinates assessments, external or internal clients

evaluations. Objective criteria are: objective indicators of productivity, sales

volume, deviant behavior, obtained results after specialized trainings, personnel

criteria, bonuses and managerial level (Cook, 2004). Lately some researchers took

into consideration other types of success criterion, as the fit between job and

persona (Boswell, Roehling, & Boudreau, 2006).

One of the main criticism against subjective criteria has to do with low

reliability. A meta-analysis study conducted in 1996, which included over 40

studies and approximately 14000 participants reported a inter-evaluator reliability

coefficient of only .52 for subjective criteria (Viswesvaran, Ones &Schmidt, 1996).

6

At the same time the extent of the managerial performance variance explained

by personality traits is relatively low, being around 10%(Schmidt, Hunter, 1998).

The predictive validity of the personality variables varies depending on

performance criteria or professional category. For instance, Conscientiousness

correlate .18 with global sales performance and .30 with performance in

managerial positions (Borman, Ilgen, Klimoski, 2003).

2. THE RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND HYPOTHESES

2.1. OBJECTIVES

The main objective of the present study is to identify those personality traits

able to differentiate with respect to the managerial level of the three groups of

managers. We consider the managerial level as being one of the extrinsic indicators

of managerial success. In this way this study is aligned to the field of the

managerial performance prediction. The results of this study could be useful in

different fields of applied psychology as: personnel selection, managers

development, leadership, executive search, identification and talent management.

The second objective is to explore the relation between intelligence and

managerial level in order to identify if and which facets of intelligence (General

Mental Ability) are able to differentiate with respect to the managerial level of the

three groups of managers.

2.2. HYPOTHESES

1. Personality traits of managers varies depending on managerial levels.

Considering that personality assessment is still very important in the selection

procedures for managerial positions, highlighting those personality traits which

discriminate between low level management, middle management and top

management can guide the decision process in selection situations. At the same

time, focusing on those traits which have discriminatory capacity allows a more

effective organizational succession planning, and development of managers. The

early identification and encouragement of talents can benefit a lot of this kind of

results.

2. Intelligence (General Mental Ability) varies depending on managerial

levels.

There are many studies which are all in agreement that Intelligence (General

Mental Ability), measured by IQ explains the main part of the variance of human

performance, in all domains (Brody, 1992; Herrnstein &Murray, 1994; Jensen, 1980;

Jensen, 1998 cf. Viswevaran & Ones, 2002). In the organizational field several

concepts other that g factor, seem to became more relevant in relation with

performance. We refer to practical intelligence, tacit knowledge and subjective

appraisal of intelligence (SAI) (Viswesvaran & Ones, 2002; Sternberg & Hedlund,

2002). The most interesting for this study is the relation between General Mental

7

Ability and the level of complexity of managerial reality, expressed through the

managerial level. In the literature upon managerial performance is acknowledged that

cognitive complexity of the reality requires a similar intellectual capacity in order to

become successful in that reality (Reeve &Hakel, cf. Visweravaran & Ones, 2002).

3. METHOD

We can consider that the present study is an exploratory one, based on a non-

experimental research design, more like a natural experiment, due to the fact that

the studied variables cannot be manipulated(Kerlinger, Lee, 2000). However, if we

can find sufficient evidence which can support the hypotheses, the results can be

useful for different domains of applied psychology.

3.1. PARTICIPANTS

Participants were assessed within the framework of a consultancy project

conducted in a multinational company specialized in online market research. The

sample consisted of 82 managers included in one of the three managerial levels.

There were two steps in the project: assessment of the managerial potential and a

coaching program connected with the results obtained in assessment. One of the

criteria for including in the sample studied was the length of service in managerial

position that had to be at least one year. The level of management was assessed

considering managerial complexity derived through the position in organizational

chart, the reported distance from the General Manager, and the number of

subordinates (1 - top management, 2 - middle management, 3 - low management).

The distribution of the persons depending on age varied from 24.91 to 49.67, mean

age being 31.2, SD= 5.31, and from the total of 82 managers, 30 were men, and 52

were women.

3.2. MEASURES

The Freiburger Persönlichkeitsinventar (FPI) is a psychological personality

test to assess personality, developed by Jochen Fahrenberg, Rainer Hampel and

Herbert Selg. The test is comparable in some aspects to MMPI and more generally

to EPI or 16PF and is mainly used in German speaking countries. The FPI is

primarily used in the field of clinical psychology and more generally in

psychological research. The first version was published in 1970 and was composed

of four parts: FPI-G (long version), FPI-A und FPI-B (parallel half-editions) and

the short version FPI-K). Initial validation of the test used a sample of 2300

subjects. In 1983, a revised version using an expanded long form containing 138

items (up from 114 in the original FPI-A) was published and validated with a

representative sample drawn from western regions of Germany. The test was re-

standardized in 2001 using a sample of 3740 subjects from across post-

reunification Germany; the re-standardized test controls for sex and age by placing

an examinee in one of seven age- and sex-defined groups and scoring responses

8

against sample members within the examinee's group. The test can be administered

using pencil-and-paper worksheets or through a computer interface. In this study it

was used the first version FPI-G. Background for the development of the FPI

where the theoretical interests of the authors on special personality traits. The first

10 scales are neither a consequence of a preconceived personality theory nor just a

result of statistical data reduction (factor analysis etc.) but based on theoretically

founded personality traits. Statistitcal methods only have been used as tools to get

more precise scales. The scales represent typical psychological constructs often

used in self descriptions which therefore pay a important role in the assessment of

human beings. The present study uses the first version, long version of FPI-G,

adapted for Romanian population. The scales measured are:

Nervousness - without psychosomatic disorders versus with psychosomatic

disorders

Aggressiveness - lack of aggressiveness, self control versus spontaneous

aggressiveness, emotional immaturity

Depression - self-content, self –confident versus in low spirits, low self

confident

Excitability - calm, insensitive versus irritable, sensitive to frustration

Sociability - unsociable, reserved versus sociable, cheerful

Calm - irritable, hesitating versus self confident, in high spirits

Dominance - lenient, moderate versus reactive aggressiveness, seeking to

impose

Inhibitedness - relaxed, capable of social contact versus inhibited, tensed

Frankness - reserved, not critical versus open-hearted, self-critic

Extraversion - introversion versus extraversion

Emotionality - emotionally stable versus neurotic, emotionally labile

Masculinity - self characterization typically feminine versus masculine

The NEO PI-R is a concise measure of the 5 major domains of personality as

well as the 6 facets that define each domain. Together, the 5 domain and 30 facet

scales of the NEO PI-R allow a comprehensive assessment of adult personality.

Table 1. The 30 facet scales of the five domains

Conscientiousness facets

Openness facets Agreeability facets

* Competence * Fantasy * Trust

* Order * Aesthetics * Straightforwardness

* Dutifulness * Feeling * Altruism

* Achievement Striving * Action * Compliance

* Self-discipline * Ideas * Modesty

* Deliberation * Values * Tender-mindedness

Neuroticism Facets Extraversion facets

9

* Anxiety * Warmth

* Angry Hostility * Gregariousness

* Depression * Assertiveness

* Self-Consciousness * Activity

* Impulsiveness * Excitement-seeking

The five domains are: Neuroticism (N), Extraversion (E), Openness (O),

Agreeableness (A), Conscientiousness (C). Each of the factors has 6 facets. The

NEO PI-R is self-administered and available in two parallel versions. Form S is

designed for self-reports and form R for observer reports. Research has been

conducted on this instrument and it has been translated into many languages. The

NEO PI-R is a systematic assessment of emotional, interpersonal, experimental,

attitudinal, and motivational styles. The purpose of the inventory is to obtain a

detailed assessment of normal personality, for use in human resource development,

industrial/ organizational psychology, as well as vocational counselling and clinical

practice. It consists of 240 items and 3 validity items with the administration time

of 35-45 minutes. Internal consistency coefficients for both forms (i.e. form S and

form R) range from .86 - .95 for domain scales and from .56 - .90 for facet scales.

It is validated against other personality inventories as well as projective techniques.

Two possible report options result from the NEO PI-R, the NEO professional

development report for individual planning and the NEO professional development for

management planning. Many studies have been conducted on the question of external

validity e.g. McCrae & Costa (1985, 1987), John (1989), Heilbrums (1983), Golberg

(1989), Tranpnell & Wiggin (1990), Ostendorf (1990), Block (1990).On the other

hand, convergent and discriminant validity of the facet scales have been conducted as

well, e.g. Costa & Mcrae (1986), Costa & Holland (1984), Lorr (1986).

One of the most relevant studies conducted , regarding the usefulness of NEO

PI R in organizations, was done by Barrick & Mount(1993). In this study they

investigated the moderating role of autonomy on the relationship between the Big

Five personality dimensions and supervisory ratings of job performance. On the

basis of data from 146 managers, results indicated that two dimensions of

personality, Conscientiousness (r = .25) and Extraversion (r = .14), were

significantly related to job performance. Consistent with our expectations, the

validity of Conscientiousness and Extraversion was greater for managers in jobs

high in autonomy compared with those in jobs low in autonomy. The validity of

Agreeableness was also higher in high-autonomy jobs compared with low

autonomy ones, but the correlation was negative. These findings suggest that the

degree of autonomy in job moderates the validity of at least some personality

predictors. Implications for future research are noted. Kappe and van der Flier

found relationship between Big Five factors and academic success, that we could

relate with job knowledge learning capacity (Kappe, van der Flier, 2010).

Michael Kirton, a renowned British psychologist, has developed an instrument

known as the KAI (Kirton Adaption–Innovation) Inventory which measures

10

individual styles of problem definition and solving. Style, in this case, refers to an

adaptive, building, or analogic problem-solving style versus an innovative or

pioneering style. Both skills are needed for organizational problem solving, but the

differences often are not recognized or measured. One way to look at the KAI is as a

measure of individuals’ relation to their problem-solving style, whereas the MBTI is

more of a measure of individuals’ relation to their problem-solving style and social

environment. In the list, “Characteristics of adaptors and innovators”, we summarize

the two groups and how each group is viewed by its opposites.

Table 2. Characteristics of adaptors and innovators

Adaptor Innovator

Efficient, thorough, adaptable, methodical,

organized, precise, reliable, dependable

Ingenious, original, independent, unconventional

Accepts problem definition Challenges problem definition

Does things better Does things differently

Concerned with resolving problems rather than

finding them

Discovers problems and avenues for their

solutions

Seeks solutions to problems in tried and understood ways

Manipulates problems by questioning existing assumptions

Reduces problems by improvement and greater

efficiency, while aiming at continuity and stability

Is catalyst to unsettled groups, irreverent of their consensual views

Seems impervious to boredom; able to maintain high

accuracy in long spells of detailed work

Capable of routine work (system maintenance)

for only short bursts; quick to delegate routine tasks

A 32-item questionnaire is used to measure an individual’s problem-solving

style on a scale from 32 to 160. A person with an adaptive style will usually score

in the 60–90 range, whereas a person with an innovative style will score between

110 and 140. In reality, whether an individual portrays the characteristics of an

adaptor or an innovator depends on context—where they are on the continuum

relative to those with whom they interact. Persons with scores in the middle of a

group have some of both characteristics, and under some circumstances, they can

function as “bridgers”. This inventory has been found to be extremely accurate and

has been globally validated across many cultures over decades .

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) assessment is a psychometric

questionnaire designed to measure psychological preferences in how people

perceive the world and make decisions. These preferences were extrapolated from

11

the typological theories proposed by Carl Gustav Jung and first published in his

1921 book Psychological Types (English edition, 1923).

The original developers of the personality inventory were Katharine Cook

Briggs and her daughter, Isabel Briggs Myers. They began creating the indicator

during World War II, believing that a knowledge of personality preferences would

help women who were entering the industrial workforce for the first time to

identify the sort of war-time jobs where they would be "most comfortable and

effective. The initial questionnaire grew into the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator,

which was first published in 1962. The MBTI focuses on normal populations and

emphasizes the value of naturally occurring differences.

In her research, Isabel Myers found that the proportion of different personality

types varied by choice of career or course of study. However, some researchers

examining the proportions of each type within varying professions report that the

proportion of MBTI types within each occupation is close to that within a random

sample of the population. Some researchers have expressed reservations about the

relevance of type to job satisfaction, as well as concerns about the potential misuse

of the instrument in labeling individuals.

Studies suggest that the MBTI is not a useful predictor of job performance.

The results of the assessment should not be used to "label, evaluate, or limit the

respondent in any way" (emphasis original). Since all types are valuable, and the

MBTI measures preferences rather than aptitude, the MBTI is not considered a

proper instrument for purposes of employment selection. Many professions contain

highly competent individuals of different types with complementary preferences.

As noted above under Precepts and ethics, the MBTI measures preference, not

ability. The use of the MBTI as a predictor of job success is expressly discouraged

in the Manual. It is not designed for this purpose but some conclusion can be

drawn from the description of the type, related to the job tasks, and that is why it is

used in career counseling.

As the MBTI Manual states, the indicator "is designed to implement a theory;

therefore the theory must be understood to understand the MBTI".

Fundamental to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is the theory of

psychological type as originally developed by Carl Jung. Jung proposed the

existence of two dichotomous pairs of cognitive functions:

The "rational" (judging) functions: thinking and feeling

The "irrational" (perceiving) functions: sensing and intuition

Jung went on to suggest that these functions are expressed in either an

introverted or extraverted form. From Jung's original concepts, Briggs and Myers

developed their own theory of psychological type, described below, on which the

MBTI is based.

Jung's typological model regards psychological type as similar to left or right

handedness: individuals are either born with, or develop, certain preferred ways of

thinking and acting. The MBTI sorts some of these psychological differences into

12

four opposite pairs, or dichotomies, with a resulting 16 possible psychological

types. None of these types are better or worse; however, Briggs and Myers

theorized that individuals naturally prefer one overall combination of type

differences.[1]:9

In the same way that writing with the left hand is hard work for a

right-hander, so people tend to find using their opposite psychological preferences

more difficult, even if they can become more proficient (and therefore behaviorally

flexible) with practice and development.

The 16 types are typically referred to by an abbreviation of four letters—the

initial letters of each of their four type preferences (except in the case of intuition,

which uses the abbreviation N to distinguish it from Introversion). For instance:

ESTJ: extraversion (E), sensing (S), thinking (T), judgment (J)

INFP: introversion (I), intuition (N), feeling (F), perception (P)

Dichotomies in MBTI: Extraversion (E) - (I) Introversion ; Sensing (S) - (N)

Intuition; Thinking (T) - (F) Feeling; Judgment (J) - (P) Perception. And so on for

all 16 possible type combinations.

The Multidimensional Aptitude Battery-II (MAB-II) assesses aptitudes

and intelligence. It yields a profile of ten subtest scores, and scores for Verbal,

Performance and Full Scale. Scores can be expressed as standard scores,

percentiles, or IQ's. The MAB-II can be administered individually or in groups.

Computer administration is also available. Individual or group administration can

be aided by tape-recorded instructions and timing. The time limit for each subtest is

seven (7) minutes, so one (1) battery of five (5) subtests can easily be administered

in one sitting, or the entire test in 100 minutes. Any combination of subtests can be

administered for shorter forms.

The MAB-II assesses 10 distinct domains of human intellectual functioning,

grouped into two (2) broader categories, as follows: Verbal: Information,

Comprehension, Arithmetic, Similarities, Vocabulary; Performance: Digit

Symbol, Picture Completion, Spatial, Picture Arrangement, Object Assembly.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1. RESULTS ON FPI G (FREIBURG PERSONALITY INVENTORY)

The means and standard deviations computed on the base of raw scores for

the first instrument, FPI, are presented in Table 3. In order to analyze the difference

between personality traits of the three managerial groups it was used statistical

procedure o variance analysis ANOVA. The results are also presented in the Table

3. As it is noticeable in Table 3, there are several scales from FPI G which have the

capacity to differentiate personality traits of the managers situated on different

levels of management. From the total of 12 scales(9 plus 3), 6 of them seem to

have the capacity to significantly discriminate across the three groups of managers.

Those scales are Depression(F=5.284, p<.01), Sociability(F=3.302, p< .05),

13

Calm(F=7.438, p<.01), Inhibitedness(F=7,372, p<.01), Emotionality(F=3.006, p<

.05), Masculinity(F=4.837, p<.01).

Table 3. Results ANOVA FPI G scales

FPI Dimensions Mean Std.

Deviation

df Std. Error F p

1.Nervousness FPI 6,60 5,365 81 ,593 ,239 ,788

2. Aggressiveness FPI 4,93 2,270 81 ,251 ,081 ,922

3. Depression FPI 5,87 4,653 81 ,514 5,284** ,007

4. Excitability FPI 5,71 3,487 81 ,385 1,780 ,175

5. Sociability FPI 21,28 4,738 81 ,523 3,302* ,042

6. Calm FPI 11,55 3,360 81 ,371 7,438** ,001

7. Dominance FPI 4,23 2,974 81 ,328 ,467 ,629

8. Inhibitedness FPI 5,11 3,392 81 ,375 7,372** ,001

9. Frankness FPI 7,98 2,940 81 ,325 ,721 ,489

10.Extraversion FPI 16,15 3,807 81 ,420 2,242 ,113

11. Emotionality FPI 7,38 3,502 81 ,387 3,006* ,05

12. Masculinity FPI 16,78 3,524 81 ,389 4,837** 0,01

*p<.05 ** p< .01

4.2 RESULTS ON NEO PI R

The means and standard deviations computed on the base of raw scores for

the second instrument, Revised NEO Personality Inventory, are presented in Table

4. The same ANOVA statistical procedure was used in order to analyze the

difference between personality traits across the three managerial groups. The

results are also presented in the Table 4. As it is noticeable in Table 4, there are

several scales from the Inventory which have the capacity to differentiate

personality traits of the managers situated on different levels of management. From

the total of five factors none of them have shown difference across the three

managerial groups, but from the 30 facets of the factors, seven of them seem to be

able to differentiate across the managerial groups. Those scale are: N4- Self-

Conscientiousness (F= 4.9, p< .01), N6 Vulnerability (F=5.43, p< .01), E3

Assertiveness (F=4.805, p< .01), A4 Activity (F=4.879, p< .01), A5 Modesty

(F=3.9, p< .05), C1 Competence (F=2.9, p< .05), C4 Achievement Striving

(F=7.928, p< .01). As we can see the only personality factor which did not

contribute to discrimination across the managerial groups is Openness. The most

significant result regards the motivational variable Achievement Striving which

14

strongly differentiate across the managerial groups. We did not studied the

relationship between motivation and learning but Schüler, Sheldon and Fröhlich,

found that implicit need for achievement moderates the relationship between

competence need satisfaction and subsequent motivation (Schüler, Sheldon &

Fröhlich, 2010).

Table 4. Results ANOVA - NEO PI R scales

NEO PI R Factors Mean Std.

Deviation Std.

Error df F p

I. Neuroticism 69,23 19,096 2,109 81 2,656 ,077

II. Extraversion 121,55 17,128 1,891 81 2,425 ,095

III. Openness 117,55 15,010 1,658 81 ,320 ,727

IV. Agreeableness 115,79 16,358 1,806 81 2,155 ,123

V.Conscientiousness 133,57 16,653 1,839 81 2,494 ,089

1. Anxiety N1 13,55 4,378 ,483 81 2,137 ,125

2. Angry-Hostility N2 10,55 4,800 ,530 81 ,259 ,773

3. Depression N3 10,41 4,040 ,446 81 1,545 ,220

4. Self-Consciousness N4 12,01 4,159 ,459 81 4,9** ,010

5. Impulsiveness N5 15,41 5,104 ,564 81 ,361 ,698

6. Vulnerability N6 7,43 3,255 ,359 81 5,43** ,006

7. Warmth E1 22,23 3,961 ,437 81 ,722 ,489

8. Gregariousness E2 20,93 4,618 ,510 81 ,160 ,852

9. Assertiveness E3 19,40 3,972 ,439 81 4,805** ,010

10. Activity E4 20,37 3,936 ,435 81 4,879** ,010

11. Excitement- seeking E5 16,76 4,105 ,453 81 ,605 ,548

12. Positive emotions E6 21,77 3,625 ,400 81 ,447 ,641

13. Fantasy O1 17,45 4,074 ,450 81 ,458 ,634

14. Aesthetics O2 18,84 5,514 ,609 81 1,029 ,362

15. Feeling O3 20,73 3,528 ,390 81 ,157 ,855

16. Action O4 17,05 3,228 ,356 81 ,827 ,441

17. Ideas O5 21,57 4,549 ,502 81 1,470 ,236

18. Values O6 21,78 2,681 ,296 81 ,799 ,453

19. Trust A1 20,52 4,378 ,483 81 ,070 ,932

20. Straightforwardness A2 20,76 4,496 ,496 81 1,579 ,213

21. Altruism A3 22,27 3,645 ,403 81 ,593 ,555

22. Compliance A4 17,65 3,786 ,418 81 1,342 ,267

23. Modesty A5 15,10 3,971 ,439 81 3,9* ,024

24. Tender-mindedness A6 19,23 4,197 ,463 81 1,437 ,244

15

25. Competence C1 22,73 3,079 ,340 81 2,9* ,050

26. Order C2 20,85 4,624 ,511 81 ,163 ,850

27. Dutifulness C3 24,59 3,333 ,368 81 1,935 ,151

28. Achievement Striving C4 24,38 3,711 ,410 81 7,928** ,001

29. Self-discipline C5 23,39 3,654 ,404 81 1,493 ,231

30. Deliberation C6 17,66 4,044 ,447 81 ,596 ,553

*p< .05 **p< .01

4.3 RESULTS ON MBTI

The means and standard deviations computed on the base of raw scores for

the third instrument, Myers Brigs Type Inventory MBTI, are presented in Table 5.

The same ANOVA statistical procedure was used in order to analyze the difference

between dimensions across the three managerial groups. The results are also

presented in the Table 5. As it can be seen none of the scales have the capacity to

differentiate between the managers situated on different levels of management.

The results are consistent with the recommendations of the authors and with the

findings of other studies, that MBTI shouldn`t be used in personnel selection.

Table 5 Results ANOVA MBTI Dimensions

Functions Mean Std.

Deviation Std. Error df F p

1. Extraversion 15,87 5,881 ,649 81 ,908 ,408

2. Introversion 9,26 5,125 ,566 81 2,235 ,114

3. Sensing 18,84 7,278 ,804 81 ,309 ,735

4. Intuition 7,85 5,004 ,553 81 ,187 ,829

5. Thinking 17,95 6,932 ,765 81 1,367 ,261

6. Feeling 6,98 4,094 ,452 81 2,322 ,105

7. Judgment 16,98 5,414 ,598 81 ,585 ,559

8. Perception 12,24 5,985 ,661 81 1,077 ,346

4.4 RESULTS ON KIRTON QUESTIONNAIRE OF COGNITIVE STYLE- KAI

The results obtained at KAI- Kirton Questionnaire on cognitive style

(Adaptative Versus Innovative) show only one of three dimensions which can

differentiate across the three group, namely the Originality (F= 3.860, p< .05).

4.5. RESULTS ON MAB II- MULTIDIMENSIONAL APTITUDE BATTERY

Means and standard deviations were considered just for the global score of

Verbal IQ, Performance IQ, Total IQ. The results evidenced that only Verbal IQ

and Total IQ can differentiate across the three groups- Verbal IQ(F=7.392, p< .01),

16

Total IQ(F=5.426, p< .05). The Verbal component of IQ(General Mental Ability)

show that the capacity to learn and for verbal mediation of the managerial

experience is an important indicator of managerial level, at the same time the

performance side of the IQ, more genetical determined seems not to be

discriminant.

Table 6. Results ANOVA MAB II

IQ Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error df F p

Verbal IQ

113,4737 8,43973 1,36910 37 7,392** ,010

Performance IQ 107,2632 8,44276 1,36960 37 ,972 ,331

Total IQ

111,3421 7,14058 1,15836 37 5,426* ,026

*p< .05 **p< .01

4.6. AGE AND LENGTH IN SERVICE

Analyzing age and length in service as managers we found out that age

discriminates across all the group ( F=19.556, p< .01).

Table 7. ANOVA – Age and Length in service as managers

df F Sig.

Age 80 19,556** ,000

Length in service as

manager 81 2,500 ,088

*p< .05 **p< .01

4.7. SYNTHETIC RESULTS ON INSTRUMENTS

As we can see in Table 8, there are 17 scales which can discriminate across

the three groups. The best discrimination is shown by the Achievement Striving

scale, C4 from NEO PI R, followed by Calm FPI, and Inhibitedness FPI, and the

score obtained at verbal scales of MAB II.

Considering all 15 scales of personality first hypothesis was confirmed. There

are measures of personality from FPI, NEO PI R, and Kirton Adaptative -

Inovative cognitive styles which can differentiate between different managerial

level. As we consider the managerial level as a extrinsic criteria of managerial

performance to manage a higher complexity, first hypothesis stated that some

personality variables can predict the level of performance for managers.

17

Table 8. ANOVA – Global results

Dimensions & Factors Mean Std.

Deviation Std. Error df F p

1. Depression FPI 5,87 4,653 ,514 81 5,284** ,007

2. Calm FPI 11,55 3,360 ,371 81 7,438** ,001

3. Inhibitedness FPI 5,11 3,392 ,375 81 7,372** ,001

4. Sociability FPI 21,28 4,738 ,523 81 3,302* ,042

5. Emotionality FPI 7,38 3,502 387 81 3,006* ,05

6. Masculinity FPI 16,78 3,524 ,389 81 4,837** .01

7. Self-Consciousness N4 NEO PI 12,01 4,159 ,459 81 4,9** ,010

8. Vulnerability N6 NEO PI R 7,43 3,255 ,359 81 5,43** ,006

9. Assertiveness E3 NEO PI R 19,40 3,972 ,439 81 4,805** ,010

11. Activity E4 NEO PI R 20,37 3,936 ,435 81 4,879** ,010

12. Modesty A5 NEO PI R 15,10 3,971 ,439 81 3,9* ,024

13. Competence C1 NEO PI R 22,73 3,079 ,340 81 2,9* ,050

14. Achievement Striving C4 NEO 24,38 3,711 ,410 81 7,928** ,001

15. Originality KAI 46,63 5,980 660 , 81 3,860* ,025

16. Verbal IQ MAB 113,473

7 8,439 1,369 37 7,392** ,010

17. Total IQ 111,342

1 7,140 1,158 37 5,426* ,026

18. Age 31,4 6,1

80 19,556*

* ,000

The same discussion has to be regarding General Mental Ability, measured by

Verbal IQ on MAB II, and total score on MAB II. Statistical analysis has shown

that Verbal IQ and Total IQ can differentiate across the three groups of managers.

In this way the second hypothesis of the study was partially confirmed. The results

can be interpreted in terms of learning capacity or learning competence, because

Verbal IQ is more related with learning than with genetic determination of

intelligence. That can be expressed as the higher is the managerial level, or the

complexity of reality, the higher should be the learning capacity of managers, or

the higher is the learning capacity the higher can be the position of manager in a

company.

5. CONCLUSIONS

From the analysis of presented data we can conclude that personality traits,

measured with FPI-G, NEO PI R, KAI vary in a significant degree from one

18

managerial level to other. From the total amount of 45 scales of the personality

traits, 15 of them have shown a consistent variation degree, with a higher

significance, between .01 to .05. Adding the results obtained on MAB II we can

draw the conclusion that we can make decision or inference based on personality

traits and intelligence, regarding the current status of a person in organization, or

regarding to the potential of a person to accede to a more complex position in

organization, because those variables differentiate across managerial level, or

complexity level in organizations. Neither MBTI, and partially nor KAI have

shown useful results in differentiating across the three managerial level but they are

important in the coaching phase of the project.

Those information must be correlated with many other obtained by different

other methods(interviews, assessment centers, 360 Degree feedback, performance

assessment etc) available in organizations.

One of the important limit of this study is the reduced volume of the sample

of managers, which can have negative influence on statistical analyses involved in

the paper. Besides sample volume another important limit is connected with the

issue of representativity of the sample for the managerial population in Romania.

In order to extend the conclusions of this study over the entire population it should

be appropriate to use a method of stratified sampling. Linked with this limit is the

domain of the business, online market research being enough particular

comparative to other kind of business, taking into account the level of training and

knowledge needed for all the people involved in this work.

Another important limit is the design of the research, which was not a

longitudinal one, and in this way lacking the possibility to follow and to analyze

the professional evolution of managers. Those kind of criteria allows to make more

precise prediction over the managerial potential.

A further direction to develop the study is the longitudinal design of the

research, mixed with the study of cross influence of the variables, meaning the

influence of intelligence over personality and of the personality traits over mental

ability, which was to the aim of the present study but is frequently addressed and

integrated in studies on performance. Woo, Harms and Kuncel found that the two

measures could be integrated by the typical intellectual engagement and need for

cognition (Woo, Harms & Kuncel, 2007). Chamorro- Premuzic & Furnham

(2003), showed how personality predicts academic performance gathering evidence

from a longitudinal study.

19

REFERENCES

Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and Performance at

the Beginning of the New Millennium: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go Next?,

Personality and Performance, 9 (1/2), 9–30.

Barrick, M. R.,&Ryan, A., M. (2003). Personality and work. Reconsidering the Role of

Personality in Organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Barricks, M.R. & Mount, K.M. (1993) Autonomy as a moderator of the relationship

between the Big Five personality dimensions and job performance. Journal of Applied

Psychology vol. 78 (1), 111-118

Borman, W. C., Ilgen, D.R., & Klimoski, R. J. (2003). Handbook of Psychology,

vol.12, Industrial and Organizational Psychology. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Borman, W.C.(2001), Performance Evaluation in Work Settings, International

Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Pg. 11236-11240, Elsevier Ltd.

Boswell, W.R., Roehling, M.V., Boudreau, J.W. (2006), The role of personality,

situational, and demographic variables in predicting job search among European

managers, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 40/4, pg. 783-794, Elsevier Ltd.

Boudreau, J. W., Boswell, W. R., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Effects of Personality on

Executive Career Success in the United States and Europe. Journal of Vocational Behavior,

58, 53, 81

Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Furnham, A.(2003), Personality predicts academic

performance: Evidence from two longitudinal university samples, Journal of Research in

Personality, Vol37/ 4, Pg. 319-338, Elsevier Inc.

Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Furnham, A., Ackerman, Ph. L., (2006), Ability and

personality correlates of general knowledge, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol.

41/ 3, Pg. 419-429, Elsevier Ltd.

Chatman, J. A., Caldwell, D. F., O'Reilly, C. A.(1999), Managerial Personality and

Performance: A Semi-idiographic Approach, Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 33/4,

Pg. 514-545, Academic Press.

Clarke, S. & Robertson, I. T. (2005). A meta-analytic review of the Big Five personality

factors and accident involvement in occupational and non-occupational settings. Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 355-376.

Conard, M. A.(2006). Aptitude is not enough: How personality and behavior predict

academic performance. Journal of Research in Personality,Vol.40/ 3, June 2006, Pages

339-346, Elsevier Inc.

Cook, M. (2004). Personnel Selection (4th

Ed.). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Cox-Fuenzalida L.E., Swickert, R., Hittner, J.B. (2003), Effects of neuroticism and

workload history on performance, Personality and Individual Differences, vol.36/2, pg.447-

456, Elsevier Ltd.

Cox-Fuenzalida, L.E., Angie, A., Holloway, S., Sohl, L. (2006), Extraversion and task

performance: A fresh look through the workload history lens, Journal of Research in

Personality,Vol. 40/4, , Pg. 432-439, Elsevier Inc.

Costa, P.T. jr, McCrae, R., Ph.D, (2009) NEO PI-R. Manual Tehnic, Adapted in

Romania by Iliescu, D., Minulescu, M., Nedelcea, C., Ispas, D., Ed Sinapsis, Cluj-Napoca,

20

Dawis, R.V., & Lofquist, L. H. (1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment: An

individual difference model and its applications. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. In

Borman, W. C., Ilgen, D.R., & Klimoski, R. J. (2003). Handbook of Psychology, vol.12

Industrial and Organizational Psychology. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Douglas N.Jackson- MAB-II Multidimensional Aptitude Battery, ed. Sinapsis, Cluj,

2008, adaptated for Romania by Iliescu, D. & Glinta, F.

Fahrenberg, J., Hampel, R., Selg, H., FPI- Freiburger Personlichkeitsinventar, adapted

in Romania by Pitariu, H., &Iliescu, D. Ed. Odyseea, Cluj-Napoca, 2007

Furnham, A., Crump, J. & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2007). Managerial level,

personality and intelligence. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 805-818.

Hough, L. M., & Ones, D. S. (2001). The structure, measurement, validity, and use of

personality variables in industrial, work, and organizational psychology. In N. Anderson,

D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work and

organizational psychology, Vol. 1 (pp. 233–377). London: Sage.

Hough, L. M. (2001). I/Owes its advances to personality. In B. Roberts & R. T. Hogan

(Eds.),Personality psychology in the workplace (pp. 19–44). Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.

Huffcut, A. I., Conway, J. M.,Roth, P. L. & Stone, N. J. (2001). Identification and meta-

analytic assessment of psychological constructs measured in employment interviews.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 897-913.

Judge, T. A., Klinger, R., Simon, L. S., & Yang, I. W. F. (2008). The contributions of

personality to organizational behaviour and Psychology: Findings, Criticism and

Future Research. Social and Personality Psychology, 56, 1982-2000.

Kappe, R., van der Flier, H.(2010), Using multiple and specific criteria to assess the

predictive validity of the Big Five personality factors on academic performance, Journal of

Research in Personality , vol.44/1, Elsevier Inc., pg.142-145

Kerlinger, F.N. &Lee,H. B. (2000). Foundations of Behavioral Research 4th

Edition.Wadsworth.

Martin , A. J.,(2008), Motivation and engagement in diverse performance settings:

Testing their generality across school, university/college, work, sport, music, and daily life,

Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 42/6, Pg. 1607-1612, Elsevier Inc.

Rosenthal, S. A., Hooley, J. M.(2010), Narcissism assessment in social–personality

research: Does the association between narcissism and psychological health result from a

confound with self-esteem? , Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 44/4, Pg. 453-465,

Elsevier Inc.

Schneider, B.,& Smith, D. B. (2004). Personality and Organizations. London:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Schüler, J., Sheldon, K. M., Fröhlich, S. M. (2010), Implicit need for achievement

moderates the relationship between competence need satisfaction and subsequent

motivation, Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 44/1, Pg. 1-12, Elsevier Inc.

Sternberg, R.J. & Wagner, R.K. (1986). Practical intelligence. Nature and origins of

competence in the everyday world. NY, Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R.J., &Wagner, R.K. & Okagaki, L.(1993). Practical intelligence. The

nature and role of tacit knowledge in work and school. În H.Reese and Puckett(eds.)

Advances in lifespan development(pg. 205-227), Hilsdale, NJ: Erlbaum

21

Van Doorn, R.R.A.,Lang, J.W.B. (2010), Performance differences explained by the

neuroticism facets withdrawal and volatility, variations in task demand, and effort

allocation, Journal of Research in Personality, Vol.44/4, pg. 446-452, Elsevier Inc.

Viswesvaran, C., Ones, D. S., & Schmidt, F. L. (1996). Comparative analysis of the job

performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 557-574.

Woo, S.E., Harms, P.D. , Kuncel, N.R.( 2007), Integrating personality and intelligence:

Typical intellectual engagement and need for cognition, Personality and Individual

Differences, Vol.43/ 6, Pg. 1635-1639, Elsevier Ltd.

REZUMAT

Scopul prezentului studiu este de a investiga și ilustra relația dintre trăsăturile de

personalitate, inteligență și nivelul managerial într-o multinațională ce are ca domeniu de

activitate cercetarea de piață. Trăsăturile de personalitate au fost evaluate cu ajutorul

variantelor românești a Freiburg Personality Inventory (FPI G), inventarului NEO PI R,

Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) și chestionarului KIRTON pentru stil cognitiv (KAI).

Inteligența a fost măsurată cu versiunea adaptată a Multidimensional Aptitude Battery

MAB-II (Jackson, 2008). Rezultatele arată că anumite trăsături de personalitate și anumite

caracteristici ale inteligenței (cele asociate competenței de a învăța) variayă semnificativ în

funcție de nivelul la care se află managerul.

22