Karen Fuhrmeister & Brandon Ferrell
Hogan Assessments
Dark-side personality adds value to the selection process because derailing tendencies may coexist with strong social skills and are difficult to identify during interviews or with other standard selection methods.
Download page as pdf
Practitioners have used personality assessments to make job-related decisions for over a century. The first personality assessments, e.g. Woodworth’s (1918) Personal Data Sheet, usually focused on some form of maladjustment, which are now recognised as psychiatric disorders, to guide these decisions.
We have previously discussed the history of personality assessments in the workplace (JvR Africa Group, 2012), but would like to make the focus of this paper one that addresses the criticisms that personality assessments face from time to time.
The modern use of personality assessments, i.e., using normal range or bright-side personality (Hogan, 1971) began after Harrison Gough (1957) published the California Psychological Inventory and increased after two 1991 meta-analyses (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Tett & Rothstein, 1991) showed personality can predict job performance.
Bright-side personality assessments form the bulk of workplace personality assessments in use. However, researchers (e.g. Bentz, 1985; McCall & Lombardo, 1983) noticed that smart, successful employees with good personality characteristics still failed when they were put into leadership roles.
The reasons for these failures were still personality related (e.g. inability to delegate) and this sparked the birth of derailment research and dark personality assessments.
With the development of dark-side personality measures, practitioners have asked how they should integrate bright- and dark-side personality into a cohesive selection system.
We discuss the taxonomy or structure of dark personality characteristics.
We describe the incremental utility of combining bright and dark personality assessments.
We provide an overview of using dark personality when making selection decisions.
We summarise the chapter with our recommendations and best practices.
The taxonomy of bright-side personality characteristics, the Five-Factor Model (FFM; Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1992; John, 1990; McCrae & Costa, 1987), is widely agreed upon within psychology and now forms the basis of most personality research. However, the structure of dark personality characteristics is less well-studied and multiple models exist in the dark literature.
A taxonomy, whether the objects are personal attributes, plant species, or cloud types, is necessary to bring some order to confusion and to facilitate research. We use the model underlying the Hogan Development Survey (HDS; Hogan & Hogan, 2009) to discuss evidence for using dark personality in the workplace.
The taxonomy of dark personality characteristics measured by the HDS builds upon the work of Karen Horney (1950) and V. Jon Bentz (1985). A neo-Freudian, Horney developed one of the first taxonomies of flawed interpersonal styles.
She later grouped these ten neurotic or flawed interpersonal styles into one of three overarching themes:
(1) moving away from people, where one manages feelings of inadequacy by avoiding connections with others,
(2) moving against others, where one manages self-doubt through dominating and intimidating others, and
(3) moving toward others, where one manages insecurities by building alliances to minimise the threat of criticism.
Bentz (1985) longitudinally studied the careers of managers in the retail industry. He noted that many managers failed, even though they had many positive or helpful (i.e., bright personality) characteristics. Bentz recorded and categorised the reasons for these managers’ failures, which he called “overriding personality defects”.
The HDS (Hogan & Hogan, 2009) includes 11 scales, each measuring a single derailer or dark personality characteristic. We provide the definitions of these scales in Table 1. Factor analyses reveal these scales can be grouped into one of three factors that closely align with Horney’s (1950) themes of flawed interpersonal styles.
Table 1
| HDS Scale Definitions | |
| Scale | Seeming... |
| Excitable | Moody, inconsistent, or volatile |
| Sceptical | Cynical, distrustful, or overly sensitive to criticism |
| Cautious | Resistant to change and reluctant to take chances |
| Reserved | Socially withdrawn, lacking interest in or awareness of others’ feelings |
| Leisurely | Autonomous, indifferent to other people’s requests |
| Bold | Unusually self-confident and unwilling to listen to advice |
| Mischievous | To enjoy taking risks and testing limits |
| Colourful | Expressive, dramatic, and wanting to be noticed |
| Imaginative | To act and think in creative and sometimes unusual ways |
| Diligent | Careful, precise, and critical of the performance of others |
| Dutiful | Eager to please and reluctant to take independent action |
The Excitable (losing interest in people after becoming disappointed in them), Sceptical (being cynical and distrustful of others), Cautious (resisting innovation for fear of criticism), Reserved (being socially withdrawn and disinterested in others’ feelings), and Leisurely (being autonomous and indifferent to others’ requests) scales fit a pattern of moving away from people.
The Bold (feeling uniquely talented and deserving), Mischievous (deceitfully manipulating others), Colourful (being entertaining or dramatic to draw others’ attention), and Imaginative (distracting or disrupting others through eccentric behaviours, dress, or ideas) scales describe a pattern of moving against people. Finally, the Diligent (overly conforming to standards and schedules) and Dutiful (being overly eager to please one’s bosses) scales fit a pattern of moving toward people.
We previously mentioned other models of dark personality exist. The choice of taxonomies is important, so we briefly discuss how the HDS compares to these models, specifically the Dark Triad, the vulnerable Dark Triad, and the DSM’s personality disorders. The Dark Triad (Paulhus & Williams, 2002) is a three-dimensional model of subclinical but noxious or negatively oriented personality traits: machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy. Measures of the Dark Triad relate to other dark personality measures, including the HDS (Ferrell & Gaddis, 2016).
For example, Machiavellianism relates to both HDS Sceptical and Excitable, narcissism relates to HDS Bold, and psychopathy relates to HDS Mischievous.
The similar vulnerable Dark Triad (Miller et al., 2010) includes three dark traits: borderline personality disorder, vulnerable narcissism, and Factor 2 psychopathy. These traits, unlike the more outwardly antagonistic or even hostile Dark Triad, involve more inwardly critical behaviours or tendencies.
Both the Dark Triad and vulnerable Dark Triad’s focus on negative personality characteristics ignores seemingly positive characteristics that can still derail people’s careers (e.g. high Diligent’s tendency to be overly perfectionistic and unwilling to delegate). These characteristics are important to identify as they both help people advance within organisations and can ruin a team’s performance. For this reason, we view the Dark Triad and vulnerable Dark Triad models as deficient.
The HDS scales conceptually relate to the DSM’s (APA, 2013) list of personality disorders, but there are marked distinctions. The HDS is not a clinical or medical assessment and cannot be used to diagnose personality disorders.
The HDS assesses self-defeating expressions of normal personality. The DSM-5 also makes this distinction between behavioural traits and disorders. Self-defeating behaviours, such as those predicted by the HDS, come and go depending on the context.
However, personality disorders are enduring and pervasive across contexts. Further, researchers have shown normal and clinical measures of the same or similar constructs have different psychometric properties (Wiernik et al., 2019). Comparisons of the HDS with the clinical Personality Inventory for DSM-5 show similar differences.
There is a wealth of evidence that shows the value of using personality to predict work-related outcomes. Personality is a consistent predictor of overall job performance (e.g. Barrick et al., 2001; Dudley et al., 2006; J. Hogan & Holland, 2003), task performance (Dudley et al., 2006; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000), expatriate performance (Mol et al., 2005) and performance in teams (Peeters et al., 2006).
However, there is more to personality than the bright side. Although it is important to measure the strengths of a job applicant, it may be equally valuable to measure dysfunctional aspects of personality or dark-side personality.
Nearly all Hogan’s research studies use the HPI because it has been linked to more job outcomes than our other assessments. However, we are often asked if there is value in adding the HDS assessment.
Dark-side personality adds value to the selection process because derailing tendencies may coexist with strong social skills and are difficult to identify during interviews or with other standard selection methods.
Derailers can provide insight into why individuals may be ineffective in their role or why someone fails in a career or leading a team (Hogan & Kaiser, 2010). Multiple lines of research show that using a taxonomy like the HDS with the HPI improves prediction.
Fleming (2004) and Davies et al. (2005) used hierarchical regression analyses to examine the HPI and the HDS’s ability to predict job performance.
Fleming found that, although a number of HPI scales were related to leader performance, the HDS Excitable and Leisurely scales predicted leadership ratings beyond the HPI in a single managerial sample (N = 326). Davies et al. used five samples (total N = 838) and aligned predictor scales with specific domains of criterion performance.
In both studies, the addition of the HDS dimensions accounted for over twice as much variance as the HPI alone in four job performance domains: intrapersonal skills, interpersonal skills, work skills, and leadership skills.
A second approach involves rationally creating profiles using combinations of scales. Combinations of personality variables offer better prediction of many work-related outcomes compared to single personality scales (Ones et al., 2007; Tett & Christiansen, 2007; Schmitt, 2014).
Consistent with this idea, personality profiles often combine personality scales to maximise the prediction of job performance. Foster and Hogan (2006) used this method to evaluate incremental validity of the HDS.
They developed three personality profiles: an everyday profile, a derailing profile, and a combined profile using scales from the HPI and HDS. After the authors conducted a series of meta-analyses, they found the combined profile best predicted job performance.
Next, Hogan identified criterion-related validation studies from the Hogan archive that contained both HPI and HDS data and matched ratings of overall performance (Hogan Assessments, 2019). The Hogan archive contains personality and performance data for hundreds of research studies that Hogan has conducted since 1987 and contains data from over 600 unique job titles from more than 20 different industries.
The Hogan archive contains 25 studies that met the criteria. Next, we ran hierarchical regression analyses to compare the predictive validity of HPI-only models to models with both HPI and HDS scales. The results support using multiple assessments to improve prediction in selection decisions. Table 2 presents these results.
Table 2
| Regression Results | |||||
| K | N | R | R2 | R2 Adjusted | |
| HPI Only | 25 | 2,621 | .29 | .09 | .07 |
| HPI & HDS | 20 | 1,933 | .35 | .13 | .10 |
Note. K = number of studies; N = total sample size; R2 = results adjusted for potential sampling error.
Finally, Hogan compared the ROI of an HPI-only profile to a profile with both HPI and HDS scales to select insurance brokers. We collected matched personality and average annual revenue data for a sample of 113 incumbents. Insurance brokers who pass both the HPI and HDS achieved 10% more in annual revenue than brokers who pass the HPI-only profile.
Organisations commonly ask what the best times or situations are to include dark-side personality. Companies may have constraints, such as time or money, that preclude them from using multiple assessments in their selection battery. In addition, the conceptual overlap between some bright- and dark-side personality scales (Hogan & Hogan, 2009) means using multiple assessments may not be necessary in every situation.
For example, dark-side personality may not always be necessary or provide a great deal of value for situations where the position is lower-level without managerial duties or responsibilities. In these situations, when people derail, the detrimental effects likely only extend to the derailing individual. However, as individuals move up in an organisation, the pressure, responsibilities, and freedoms increase, and derailment more likely affects team and organisational outcomes.
Moreover, it is important to measure dark personality of leaders because some dark-side characteristics can make individuals seem more leaderlike on casual contact. Hogan et al. (1994) found that emergent leaders tend to score highly on dominance, agreeableness, and sociability. These individuals tend to be perceived as charismatic, which can lead to more promotions, more satisfaction, and better team performance. In a 2004 article, Finklestein similarly described seven habits that cause leaders to fail but, cautions that these same habits are also admired in the business world.
Furnham (2018) further illustrated this point in his analysis of the relationship between HDS scales, Power, and Achievement. His findings indicate that Bold, Mischievous, and Colourful were positively associated with Power and Achievement. Individuals who score highly on these scales are likely seen as confident, charming, and socially skilled.
These types of individuals often do well in selection procedures that evaluate the leadership potential of strangers, such as interviews (Hogan et al., 1994). However, individuals who score highly on these scales can also be forceful, limit-testing, and attention-seeking.
Because one’s dark personality only tends to manifest in some circumstances, these counterproductive behaviours may only be apparent after they have been on the job for some time.
A derailing manager can cost organisations in both the short- and long-term. In the short-term, companies may spend time and resources on hiring and training the manager, which is lost if that manager fails.
However, a bad manager also costs the company if they consistently miss business objectives and erode the confidence and capabilities of their team members.
The derailing traits of personality impair managerial effectiveness and may have severe negative consequences if left unchecked. Many employees report that their boss is the main cause of stress in their jobs (Hogan, 2007), which can degrade employee quality of life (Hogan, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2010).
Leadership roles are not always externally filled. Many organisations prefer to promote people from within the organisation, which has led to the implementation of programs to develop future leaders. A thorough and accurate understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of people selected into these high potential programs is also critical.
Both derailed and successful executives share common characteristics, standing out due to their drive, mental ability, and history of successes (McCall & Lombardo, 1983). Measuring dark personality can help identify high potential candidates who are at risk for characteristics that may lead to failure and can form the basis of tailored development plans.
This is particularly important because characteristics that make individuals successful in lower-level roles may derail them as managers. For example, a manager who is highly conscientious, emotional stable, and assertive is probably an effective individual contributor that delivers work on time, handles stress well, and takes charge of situations.
However, some studies (Ames & Flynn, 2007; Le et al., 2010) show that, as levels of these characteristics increase, performance may decline. The same individual may also be unable to think strategically, may not always take action quickly, or may be too overbearing.
We recommend using dark-side personality measures in one of two ways. The first way is by combining bright- and dark-side personality measures into a selection profile using multiple levels of fit.
To be considered for the position, candidates must meet minimum bright personality characteristics that are predictive of better performance. This facilitates screening out individuals who do not have the strengths needed to be successful in the role.
At higher fit levels, candidates must pass the minimum requirements on bright personality characteristics, but also score in lower levels of dark personality characteristics that are critical derailers in the role.
In this way, the added information on dark personality characteristics can help screen out candidates who are qualified but may struggle in the role during stressful times.
In the second way, organisations may consider pairing related bright and dark personality scales in a profile to minimise the risk for overused strengths.
An example profile could include both a minimum cutoff on the HPI Ambition scale and a maximum cutoff on the HDS Bold scale.
This allows organisations to bring in candidates who are driven and energetic, but not to the point that they become arrogant, entitled, and unreasonable.
Organisations should also consider the best strategy for using dark personality in selection. There are two different strategies for using selection measures: screen-in and screen-out. A screen-in strategy uses selection assessments to identify the best applicants and enhance understanding of this candidate compared to others.
Generally, this strategy is best used when there are a limited number of applicants, to add information about candidates closer to making a final decision, or when multiple data sources are being used to inform a decision. In these scenarios, dark personality can be used to evaluate the differences between candidates and help inform the organisation on potential weaknesses and development needs.
A screen-out strategy uses selection assessments to identify and remove applicants that do not meet job requirements. This is usually best for scenarios where there are a great number of applicants for a limited number of positions, the requirements are easily trainable, or when it’s critical to ensure only qualified applicants move on in the process. Dark personality is helpful in these cases for eliminating candidates who are at risk for specific derailing behaviours that will cause them to fail in the role.
Dark personality adds value beyond bright personality for all jobs and is a worthwhile addition to any selection battery.
Dark personality can be used in a variety of ways to build on the insights provided by bright personality. Organisations can and should specifically consider adding dark personality measures in selection batteries for high-risk, high potential, and leadership roles.
Hogan’s research and industry experience show that dark personality adds value for most roles. Adding the HDS consistently increased the efficacy of selection profiles across a wide range of industries and jobs. However, because using dark personality may not always be feasible in all situations, organisations can focus on using it where it can add the most value.
For lower-level positions, dark personality adds the most value for high-risk positions where derailing can impose considerable loss to an organisation. Consider a selection battery for airline pilots: using dark personality can help screen out applicants who are likely to derail in stressful situations and could cause catastrophic loss of life.
Using a dark personality measure when selecting managers and leaders can add value by reducing the potential for the leader to fail in the role. However, the effects of derailing can also spread to team members and affect the company’s bottom line longer term. The benefits of using dark-side personality measures extend beyond just the job itself and can help improve team effectiveness and morale. We see similar benefits in high potential populations.
First-time leaders are especially prone to derailing, as they are experiencing novel challenges in their new role (Peter Berry Consultancy, 2017). Using dark personality for identifying and developing high potential candidates helps to enhance self-awareness of candidates’ derailers and improve the talent pipeline.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. (5th ed.). Author.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta‐analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x
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? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 9-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00160