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
Top Related