validated questionnaires:
The dark side of career preference: dark side traits, motives, and values Adrian Furnham1,3, Gillian Hyde2, Geoff Trickey2
1Department of Clinical, Educational, and Health Psychology, University College London 2PCL Tunbridge-Wells 3BI Norwegian Business School
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Adrian Furnham, Department of Clinical, Educational, and Health Psychology, University College London, London WC1H 0AP, UK. E-mail: [email protected]
doi: 10.1111/jasp.12205
Abstract
Over 2000 people completed two validated questionnaires: one measuring “dark side” personality traits and the other a measure of values and preferences that indi- cates the type of work that an individual would like to do and is best suited for. Dark side variables (and demographics) accounted for between 11% (science) and 46% (affiliation) variance in specific vocation related values. Factor analysis suggested three overall value/vocation factors (enterprising, traditional, and social) and three dark side variables (moving against, away from, and toward others). The three dark side factors predicted around a third of the variance in favoring enterprising and social occupations. Implications for vocational guidance and limitations of the study are considered.
Introduction
Vocational psychology is concerned with understanding how, when, and why people with a unique set of abilities, prefer- ences, and values enjoy, thrive in, and become particularly productive in specific work environments. It is about maxim- izing person–job fit.
There is an extensive literature on the association between “normal” bright side personality traits and occupational values and preferences. However, this article is concerned with the relationship between dark side traits and occupa- tional values and preferences. While there is an emerging lit- erature on the relationship between dark side traits and leadership derailment (Furnham, 2010; Hogan, 2006), there are numerous studies that show the potential benefits of dark side traits in various work situations (Furnham & Trickey, 2011; Furnham, Hyde, and Trickey, 2012a,b; Race, Hyde, & Furnham, 2012). The rationale of this study was to examine the relationship between dark side traits and occupational value preferences to understand how, why, and when dark side traits may prove, at least initially, beneficial in certain work situations.
There are many taxonomies of value systems in the area of personality and vocational psychology that are used to help make decisions on vocational choice and change. The one theory of vocational preferences that has attracted most attention is Holland’s theory of vocational choice (Holland,
1966, 1973, 1985). It remains one of the most fecund and researched theories in vocational psychology (Furnham, 2001). It has also served to inspire other instruments such as the one used in this study. Further, because of the long- standing use of this measure, it has been correlated with measures of the (bright side) Big Five personality traits. Inevi- tably, there have been various attempts to examine the rela- tionship between personality measures and values mainly using the Holland measure (De Fruyt & Mervielde, 1997; Furnham, 1994; Goh & Leong, 1993; Schinka, Dye & Curtiss, 1997; Tokar & Swanson, 1995).
This study will use the Hogan and Hogan (1997) Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI), which is a modern, psychometrically valid measure with impressive adult norms. It is based on Holland’s work and ideas (Hogan & Blake, 1999). It has been used in a number of studies on leadership efficacy, and fit (Goiberson, Resick, & Dickson, 2005; Thomas, Dickson, & Bliese, 2001).
The MVPI has ten dimensions of motives, values, and preferences (see Table 1). These were arrived at by a content analysis of the literature including the taxonomies of five authors working in the area (Hogan & Hogan, 1997, p. 11). A principal component analysis yielded four factors relating to Holland’s enterprising, social, conventional, and investiga- tive types. Concurrent validity with various other measures is reported in the manual. Correlations with the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (Myers & McCaulley, 1985) showed
bs_bs_banner
Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2014, 44, pp. 106–114
© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2014, 44, pp. 106–114
the affiliation scale a good marker (i.e., consistent high corre- late) for extraversion-introversion, esthetics and security for sensing-intuition; altruism for thinking-feeling and security and tradition for judging-perception. They also reported correlations with the 7-factor Hogan Personality Inventory (Hogan & Hogan, 1995). Many correlations were significant and nine showed moderate-strong relationships of r > .30 (N = 2,692). They showed adjustment (neuroticism) nega- tively related to hedonism; ambition positively correlated with affiliation; sociability with both affiliation and recog- nition; likeability (interpersonal sensitivity) with affiliation; prudence positively with security and tradition, but nega- tively with hedonism; intellectance (inquisitive) with aes- thetic, and school success (learning approach) with no values (r > .20). This study looks at dark side correlates of these values.
Dark side measures
There are various self-report dark side measures. (Kaye & Shea, 2000; Widiger & Coker, 2001). This study used the Hogan “dark side” measure now extensively used in
organizational research and practice to measure these traits in the“normal population”(Hogan & Hogan, 1997). Its aim was partly to help selectors and individuals themselves diagnose how they typically react under work stress and therefore help prevent derailment.
If a person’s dark side profile does not fit well with their organization (i.e., someone highly reserved in an affiliative job, or mischievous on a job where security and tradition are important) it is quite likely the lack of fit would encourage their dark side traits to manifest themselves and to lead to lower effectiveness and satisfaction. Thus it is suggested that where correlations are positive between a dark side trait and an occupational preference or value the trait is unlikely to cause the individual problems and may even facilitate perfor- mance up to a point. However, if the correlation is negative, the dark side trait would lead to stress, which would deleteri- ously affect performance over time.
The Hogan development survey (HDS) focuses only on the core construct of the 11 dark side traits from a dimensional perspective (Hogan & Hogan, 2001, p. 41).An overview of the item selection guidelines can be found in Hogan and Hogan (2001). The HDS has been cross-validated with the MMPI
Table 1 Sex Differences and Factor Analytic Results for the Values Measure
Male Female
F value η Factor analysisX SD X SD
Recognition Desire to be known, seen, visible and famous, dreams of fame, high achievement.
40.24 7.56 39.51 7.37 7.76** 004 .53
Power Desire to succeed, make things happen, outperform the competition.
47.14 6.87 43.95 7.35 96.23*** 046 .77
Hedonistic Pursuit of fun, excitement, pleasure e.g., eating, drinking and entertainment.
40.49 6.61 42.08 6.73 14.46*** 007 .77
Altruistic Desire to help others, a concern for the welfare of less fortunate, public service.
45.84 7.07 48.30 6.18 71.31*** 034 .82
Affiliation Needing and enjoying frequent and varied social contact and a social lifestyle.
49.23 5.59 50.03 5.40 8.11** 004 .76
Tradition A belief in and dedication to old-fashioned virtues: family, church, thrift, hard work.
42.72 5.86 42.70 5.47 0.34 000 .78
Security A need for predictability, structure and efforts to avoid risk and uncertainty and a lifestyle minimizing errors and mistakes.
36.68 7.80 37.17 7.54 1.68 000 −.73
Commerce Interest in earning money, realizing profits, finding new business opportunities, investments and financial planning.
44.37 6.69 41.39 6.71 98.00*** 046 .78
Esthetics Need for self-expression, a dedication to quality and excellence, an interest in how things look, feel and sound.
33.14 7.68 34.17 7.92 19.83*** 008 .69
Science Being interested in science, comfortable with technology, preferring data based—as opposed to intuitive decisions, and spending time learning how things work.
41.03 8.04 36.68 8.13 133.71*** 062 .65
Eigenvalue 1.98 1.71 1.69 Variance % 19.8 17.1 16.9
***p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05. SD, standard deviation.
Furnham et al. 107
© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2014, 44, pp. 106–114
personality disorder scales. Correlations (n = 140) range from .45 for antisocial to .67 for borderline (Hogan & Hogan, 2001). Fico, Hogan, and Hogan (2000) report coefficient alphas between .50 and .70 with an average of .64 and test– retest reliabilities (n = 60) over a 3-month interval ranging from .50 to .80, with an average of .68. There were no mean- level differences between sexes, racial/ethnic groups, or younger versus older persons (Hogan & Hogan, 2001).
Various relatively small-scale studies have used the HDS and have shown it to be a robust and reliable instrument (De Fruyt et al., 2009; Furnham, 2006; Furnham & Crump, 2005; Rolland & De Fruyt, 2003; Khoo & Burch, 2008). Studies have attempted to explore the factor structure of the HDS. With a very large sample Furnham and Trickey (2011) subjected the 11 dark side traits to a varimax-rotated factor analysis. Three factors emerged similar to those reported in the Hogan manual (p. 1), and Furnham, Petrides, Isaousis, Pappas, and Garrod (2005).
The dark side of vocational preferences
Various writers have noted the potential benefits of high scores on dark side traits (Judge & LePine, 2009; Petrides, Vernon, Schermer, & Veselka, 2011) demonstrating that socially undesirable traits can in some (work) situations have positive implications. Harms, Spain, and Hannah (2011) demonstrated this in a longitudinal study of dark side traits in military cadets over a 3-year period. Zibarras, Port, and Woods (2008) found innovative characteristics in managers related to “moving against people” traits like narcissism and antisocial behavior.
This study explores the idea that dark side traits are logi- cally related to vocational values; that is, people with par- ticular dispositions seek out vocational settings that fulfill various drives. Furnham, Hyde, and Trickey (2012b) found that certain dark side traits were positively associated with work success (i.e., mischievousness with stress tolerance and sales potential; boldness with clerical potential). Similarly Race et al. (2012) showed that certain dark side traits are associated with promotion at work (i.e., diligent, dutiful).
Furnham et al. (2012a) showed that people who had elected to work in the public sector differed on nine of the 11 dark side traits. They also showed that successful people who worked in different occupations (insurance, finance, emer- gency services) had different dark side profiles. This suggests that to a degree, dark side traits may be thought of as adapt- able and useful in particular occupations. Hence, it seems logical that people with particular dark side profiles are attracted to, and may well succeed in, different occupations.
Hogan and Hogan (1997), in a small pilot study explored the relationship between the MVPI and the HDS. They showed 13 of the correlations (110 in all) had moderate to
strong correlations of r > .40 (N = 145). Considered as markers of the dark traits the following were found: affiliation (negative) for reserved, excitable, and cautious; recogni- tion for imaginative; affiliation, power, and recognition for colorful; commercial, power, and recognition for bold; secu- rity for diligent and power, and recognition for mischievous. That was a small-scale study on a restricted population: this study has a more representative sample over ten times the size. Furthermore it considers demographic differences (sex and age) and their impact on values as well as controlling for social desirability. First, previous studies have indicated sex differences in both values and dark side traits (Hogan & Hogan, 1997, 1999). It was predicted that women would score higher than men on the values of altruism, affiliation, and esthetics, but lower on power, commerce, and science. Women would score lower on the dark side traits of bold and mischievous, but higher on excitable and cautious.
Second, various predictions were made on the basis of the recent articles on dark side correlates of work success (Furnham et al. 2012a,b; Race et al., 2012). They were that the trait bold (associated with vanity and narcissism) would be positively associated with values of recognition, power, and commerce; trait mischievous (associated with risk- taking) with values hedonism and security (negatively); trait imaginative (associated with creativity) with value esthetics; and trait diligence and dutifulness (associated with reliabil- ity, rule following, and conscientiousness) with the value security.
Method
Participants
There were 2,022 participants of which 1,271 were male. Their ages ranged from 21 to 67 years with a median of 43 years and a mean of 41.71 years. They were 89.5% native white Britons. They were tested over a 10-year period as part of an assessment centre. They were all at managerial level in a large, mostly multinational organization in both the public and private sector.
Tests used
Dark side traits
HDS (Hogan & Hogan, 1997) has 154 items, score for 11 scales, each grouping 14 items. Respondents are requested to “agree” or “disagree” with the items. The HDS has been cross- validated with the MMPI personality disorder scales. It has considerable evidence of satisfactory reliability and validity (Fico et al., 2000; Hogan & Hogan, 1999, 2001). The test has been used in many recent studies (Harms et al., 2011; Khoo & Burch, 2008).
108 The pathology of career preference
© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2014, 44, pp. 106–114
Value preferences
The MVPI (Hogan & Hogan, 1999) measures ten motives/ preferences. According to the manual personal values impact on careers in four ways: they act as key drivers (they determine aspirations, attainment hopes, symbolic strivings); they determine organizational culture fit (where the values of senior management match the individuals); they determine the individual’s leadership style and the culture they create; and reveal unconscious biases as they influence many decisions.
Each scale is composed of five themes: (a) lifestyles, which concern the manner in which a person would like to live; (b) beliefs, which involve “shoulds”, ideals, and ultimate life goals; (c) occupational preferences, which include the work an individual would like to do, what constitutes a good job, and preferred work materials; (d) aversions, which reflect attitudes and behaviors that are either disliked or dis- tressing; and (e) preferred associates, which include the kind of persons desired as coworkers and friends. The initial norms for the inventory were based on the responses of 10,000 employed adults from a variety of industries includ- ing health care, banking and finance, food service, construc- tion and transportation. More than 200,000 people have completed the MVPI over the past 10 years and it continues to be used as the primary tool for assessing values in hun- dreds of organizations throughout the world. MVPI scores are quite stable over time, with test–retest reliabilities ranging between .64 and .88 (M = .79). More than 100 vali- dation studies have been conducted on the MVPI with results indicating that the inventory is effective in predicting job performance and outcome variables such as turnover (Hogan Assessment Systems, Tulsa, OK; Thomas et al., 2001).
Procedure
Participants were tested by a British-based psychological con- sultancy over a 10-year period. Most of the participants were given personal feedback on their scores. They were nearly all employed as middle to senior managers in British companies. They took this test as part of an assessment exercise, run either by an external psychological consultancy or by their internal human resources function. Inevitably, this could have affected their results because of issues such as impres- sion management and general dissimulation.
Results
Table 1 one shows both sex differences in the rated values as well as the varimax-rotated factor analysis. Eight of the ten values showed significant sex differences: men scored higher than women on recognition, power, commerce, and science, while women scored higher than men on hedonistic, altruis- tic, affiliation and esthetics. This confirms the first hypoth- esis. The orthogonally rotated factor analytic results showed three factors: the first was described as enterprising, the second tradition, and the third social. Results from other studies that have factor analyzed the MVPI show similar results.
Table 2 shows both the sex differences for each of the 11 dark side variables as well as the factor analytic results. Seven showed significant differences: men scored higher on reserved, bold, mischievous, and colorful, while women scored higher on excitable, cautious, and dutiful. Again, this confirms hypothesis one The orthogonally rotated factor analytic results showed three factors: the first was described as moving against people, the second moving away from people, and the third as moving toward people. Results from other
Table 2 Sex Differences and Factor Analysis of the 11 Scale HDS Test
Male Female
F level η
Factors
X SD X SD 1 2 3
Excitable: enthusiastic, lacking persistence 3.17 2.74 3.48 2.92 4.26* 002 .75 Skeptical: socially insightful, but cynical 4.68 2.44 4.63 2.45 1.04 001 .66 Cautious: worried about criticism, change averse 3.26 2.62 4.26 2.77 54.76*** 026 .65 Reserved: poor communicator, low awareness 4.39 2.23 3.70 1.91 50.34*** 0.24 .68 Leisurely: stubborn, uncooperative, procrastinator 5.13 2.33 5.11 2.35 0.53 000 .60 Bold: inflated view of competence and worth 7.46 2.73 6.79 2.77 28.99*** 014 .78 Mischievous :charming, risk-taking, excitement 7.13 2.60 6.45 2.42 35.72*** 0.17 .72 Colorful: dramatic, engaging, attention seeker 7.94 3.06 7.46 3.50 8.86** 004 .72 Imaginative: creative and eccentric 5.86 2.45 5.43 2.39 2.52 001 .67 Diligent: conscientious, perfectionistic 9.11 2.69 9.30 2.53 1.17 001 .74 Dutiful: eager to please 7.29 2.18 7.96 2.35 25.87*** 013 .72 Eigenvalue 2.64 2.36 1.41 Variance % 23.9 21.4 12.1
***p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05. SD, standard deviation.
Furnham et al. 109
© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2014, 44, pp. 106–114
studies that have factor analyzed the HDS show similar results.
Table 3 shows the results of the regression with the ten values as the criterion variables and sex, age, social desirabil- ity, and the 11 dark side variables. Sex, age, and social desir- ability were entered first, then the ten variables. The table shows the variance (in brackets) accounted in the first step as well as the total variance accounted for in the final step. It is a matter of debate as to whether social desirability is measuring a style variable (impression management) or is, in and of itself a substantial trait (Furnham, 1986). From the perspective of the HDS measure it is usually considered a response style measure. Thus it was placed in the first block in the regressions, and treated as a possible measure of dissimulation.
All the regressions were significant: sex, age, and social desirability accounted for relatively little of the variance (six with equal or less than 5%). In four of the regressions the total variance accounted for was over 40%. All of the relationships in hypothesis two were confirmed.
Five of the dark side traits predicted an interest in jobs that provided recognition: bold, colorful, excitable, reserved, and dutiful. In regards to power, males scored higher than females. In addition, power was particularly favoured by those who scored high in bold, mischievous, colorful, and diligent. Those who valued hedonism tended to be female, and those who were mischievous and leisurely, but low reserved. Those who scored high on altruism tended to be female, ima- ginative, and dutiful, but not at all reserved and cautious. Thereweretwodarksidetraits thatverysignificantlypredicted affiliation: those very low on reserved, but high on colorful.
The demographic and dark side variables did not account for much of the variance in the value tradition: cautious people, low on mischievous rated this highly. In all, six dark side traits predicted the value of security: high in diligent, dutiful, bold, and skeptical but low on mischievous and imaginative. Those who valued commerce tended to be men with high scores on skeptical, bold, and diligent. Overall, the demographic and dark side variables were not strongly related to the value esthetics, which showed women and those who scored high on imaginative scored highest.
Table 4 repeats the regressions shown earlier, but this time using the three higher-order factors as the criterion scores namely an interest in enterprising, traditional, and social occupations. The first regression on enterprising values/ activities was highly significant accounting for 42% of the variance. It showed younger males were more likely to share these values. Further those who endorsed the enterprising values tended to score highly on five dark side traits: bold, diligent, colorful, skeptical and mischievous. The second regression on traditional values/activities was significant, but accounted for only 15% of the variance.Younger females were more likely to prefer these value/vocations, although there Ta
b le
3 Re
su lts
of Re
gr es