The Pennsylvania State University

The Graduate School

College of the Liberal Arts

IT TAKES THREE:

APPLYING SOCIOANALYTIC THEORY TO PREDICT LEADERSHIP SUCCESS

A Dissertation in

Psychology

by

Daniel Kuyumcu

© Daniel Kuyumcu

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements

for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

August 2015

ii

The dissertation of Daniel Kuyumcu was reviewed and approved* by the following:

Alicia A. Grandey

Associate Professor of Psychology

Dissertation Adviser

Chair of Committee

Samuel T. Hunter

Assistant Professor of Psychology

James LeBreton

Assistant Professor of Psychology

Stephen Humphrey

Associate Professor of Management

Melvin M. Mark

Professor of Psychology

Head of the Department of Psychology

*Signatures are on file in the Graduate School.

iii

ABSTRACT

Decades of research on leadership suggest that personality influences a leader’s

effectiveness. The current study espouses a socioanalytic perspective to advance this line of

research by examining the extent to which personality influences leader success, and whether

cognitive ability and national culture influence these relationships. While research generally

supports socioanalytic theory, further research is needed to a) study the extent to which ability

factors, beyond self-report social skill, influence the relationship between motives and outcomes,

b) understand the mechanisms underlying why motives and competence interact to yield success,

c) examine the validity of this theory in a multi-cultural context and, d) examine expanded

outcomes of career success, beyond performance.

The current research aimed to fulfill each of these research gaps. Using a worldwide

sample of leaders at a Fortune 50 company, this study examines the extent to which extraversion

and agreeableness, personality traits that map onto the motives described by Hogan and

Shelton’s (1980) socioanalytic theory, interact with cognitive ability to yield workplace success

in the form of job performance, salary, and average rate of promotion.

Findings suggest several key takeaways. Namely, extraverted individuals, or those who

pursue the getting ahead motive, experience higher salaries because they are perceived as more

agile performers. Other than this finding, personality on its own did not have any predictive

potency in this organization. Instead, the results suggest that “it takes three” – that is, the

combination of agreeableness, extraversion, and intelligence produces an effective performer,

facilitates career advancement, and enhances salary. Additionally, results revealed that extraverts

earn higher salaries in collectivistic, rather than individualistic, societies – implying that

extraversion may be a highly valued trait within these societies. Beyond this, post-hoc findings

iv

reveal that female extraverts are perceived as more effective than male extraverts. These findings

are discussed in terms of their empirical and practical contributions, and also considered in light

of several limitations and areas of future research attention.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………………….vi

List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………………….vii

Acknowledgements………………………………………………....…………………………..viii

Introduction………………………………………………………………………….…………….1

Literature Review………………………………………………………………………….………5

Leadership Effectiveness……………………………………………………………….....5

Socioanalytic Theory……………………………………………………………………...8

Extraversion……………………………………………………………………………...11

Agreeableness…………………………………………………………………………....14

The Influence of Cognitive Ability………………………………………………………17

Fitting in with National Culture……………………………….…………………………24

Summary…………………………………………………………………………………29

Method………………………………………………………………………….………..………30

Samples and Procedures…………………………………………………………………30

Measures………………………………………………………………………....………31

Analyses……………………………………………………………………….…………37

Results………………………………………………………………………................…………40

Exploratory Results………………………………………………………………………43

Summary……………………………………………………………………...….………45

Discussion…………………………………………………………………………..……………46

Summary…………………………………………………………………...…….………46

Limitations and Future Research………………………………………………...………52

Empirical Contributions……………………………...…………………………………..55

Practical Implications………………………………….…………………………………56

References…………………………………………………………………….….………………59

Appendix A: Figures…………………………………………………………………………......81

Appendix B: Tables……………………………………………………………………………...88

Appendix C: Additional Materials………………………………...……………………………106

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Cognitive Ability and National Culture as moderating influences on the mediated

relationship between personality and career success. ………………………………………...…81

Figure 2. Extraversion predicting Job Performance…………………………………………..…82

Figure 3. Extraversion predicting Salary……………………………………………………...…83

Figure 4. Extraversion predicting Average Rate of Promotion……………………………….…84

Figure 5. Extraversion and National Culture predicting Salary……………………….…………85

Figure 6. Extraversion and Gender predicting Job Performance……………………………...…86

Figure 7. Agreeableness and Cognitive Ability predicting Salary.…………..………………….87

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. ICC Values ………………………………………………………………..………...….88

Table 2. Pooled Within-Group Correlations and Descriptive Statistics…………..………….….89

Table 3. Hypothesis 1……………………………………….………………….…………….….90

Table 4. Hypothesis 2………………………………………………..……………………….….91

Table 5. Hypothesis 3…………………………………………………..……….……………….92

Table 6. Hypothesis 4…………………………………………………………………….……...94

Table 7. Hypothesis 5.…………………………………………………………………………...96

Table 8. Hypothesis 6 …………………………………………………………………………...98

Table 9. Hypothesis 7…………………………………………………………………………..100

Table 10. Hypothesis 8…………………………………………………………………………102

Table 11. Exploratory A…………………………………………………………….………….104

Table 12. Exploratory B………………………………………………………………..……….105

viii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

It takes a village to complete a doctoral program. I am grateful to have been afforded this

opportunity and am ever indebted to my village for seeing me through.

Championing me for the last four years is my advisor, Alicia Grandey. Alicia, you

walked with me from Hammond to Keller every Tuesday and Thursday during my first semester,

imparting your wisdom, guidance, and support with every step. You fostered in me a deep

curiosity as a researcher. You unrelentingly challenged me to step outside of my comfort zone.

You asked me how I was doing and you listened for my answer. You have been my biggest

advocate and my toughest critic. Thank you sincerely for everything.

Shepherding me along this dissertation-writing process was my committee, Samuel

Hunter, James LeBreton, and Stephen Humphrey. This project would have been impossible

without your technical guidance and active encouragement. Additionally, the remaining faculty

of our acclaimed I/O Psychology program, including Rick Jacobs, Susan Mohammed, Songqi

Liu, and James Farr, have been instrumental to my success at Penn State. Thank you so much to

each of you.

I want to acknowledge the numerous friendships I made along the way in graduate

school, including my cohort, Matthew Howard, Dinora Fitzgerald, and Amanda Drescher, and

my TCNJ crew, Melissa Gutworth and Bobby Melloy. When I think of my time at graduate

school, I think of you and how you have made an intensely difficult experience an inviting one.

You have made Penn State a home for me. Thank you, friends.

I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the professor who started it all, TCNJ’s Jason

Dahling. You were the one to instill in me a deep interest in I/O Psychology, and specifically, a

ix

passion towards putting an end to Machiavellianism everywhere. You encouraged me to pursue

the PhD, despite my doubts and concerns. Thank you, Jason.

I also want to acknowledge all of the brilliant minds I encountered in my professional

experiences. My summer internship at JetBlue with Ryan Dullaghan and Andy Biga goes down

in the books as one of the most meaningful and fun experiences of my life. My yearlong

internship at PepsiCo with Allan Church and Christopher Rotolo was developmental, interesting,

and enriching. I credit each of these individuals for offering me their mentorship, because it has

made me a better thinker, practitioner, and person.

My village begins and ends with my family – my mom, dad, and sister. I have felt your

hope and experienced your prayers. You are my cornerstone and my reason. I love you. To my

extended family, full of aunts, uncles, and cousins in all parts of the world – you have been

supporting me in the sidelines and I am blessed beyond belief to have you.

Above all else, this experience has reminded me of one simple truth – that “I can do all

things through Christ who strengthens me” (Philippians 4:13). In light of this, I want to thank my

Lord and Savior Jesus Christ for providing me the spiritual strength, the physical health, and the

mental peace, to not only successfully complete this endeavor, but to also take on any and every

challenge that life has in store for me.

1

INTRODUCTION

Research from disciplines in psychology, sociology, and evolutionary science informs us

that humans have two basic motives: to harmonize, integrate, and get along in a broader social

circle, as well as to excel one’s own agenda and personally advance (e.g., Hogan & Kaiser,

2012). Because individuals are pursuing these motives within a broader social context, the extent

to which these motives are successfully achieved depends on social skill. This is the core premise

of Hogan and Shelton’s (1998) socioanalytic theory.

More specifically, socioanalytic theory posits that personality influences the extent to

which one pursues the basic motives of getting ahead, the pursuit of a personal agenda, and

getting along, the pursuit of building social networks, and social skill determines whether one is

successful at fulfilling these motives. The authors contend that social skill enables one to

translate these intentions into behaviors that are perceived favorably by others, positively

influencing job related outcomes. For example, an employee who is motivated by getting ahead

will be successful to the extent that they are able to both fulfill their personal agenda while

maintaining social awareness to ensure that they are perceived favorably by others. Such an

individual will advance their own personal goals (e.g., getting a promotion) in ways that are

politically and socially savvy (i.e., sensitive of their environment and colleagues).

Lending support to this perspective, researchers have effectively shown that personality

traits related to these motives (e.g., agreeableness representing getting along) interact with social

skill to yield job performance (e.g., Witt & Ferris, 2003; Blickle, Ferris, Munyon, Momm,

Zettler, Schneider, & Buckley, 2011; Blickle, Meurs, Zettler, Solga, Noethen, Kramer, & Ferris,

2008). These findings indeed illustrate that while motives imply what one’s intentions are, social

skill influences whether those intentions are effectively executed.

2

This theory has been useful in examining the degree to which personal motives result in

career success for employees, in a variety of contexts, including sales people and engineers (e.g.,

Blickle, Wendel, and Ferris, 2010; Witt & Ferris, 2003). However, research applying this theory

to a leadership context has been very limited (e.g., Marinova, Moon, & Kamdar, 2014), which is

unfortunate given that it can enlighten the extent to which leaders’ personal motives contribute to

their success. While all employees likely aim to strike a balance between building ties and

networks with the broader population (getting along) and also achieving a personal agenda

(getting ahead), the extent to which these motives are successfully achieved is likely a key

determinant of whether one is deemed an effective leader.

The current research aims to fill this gap by examining the validity of this theory in the

context of organizational leaders. More specifically, the current study espouses a socioanalytic

perspective to suggest that leaders experience varying degrees of career success, depending on

whether their motives revolve around getting ahead or getting along, and whether these motives

are qualified by general cognitive ability. Beyond introducing this theory to the leadership

literature, the current study aims to advance research on socioanalytic theory over prior research

in three primary ways.

Firstly, past research has focused on the theory’s claims that social skills enact one’s

ability to fulfill personal motives. While this is an important and meaningful contribution,

researchers have nonetheless called for other related moderators to be considered within this

framework, specifically general mental ability (Blickle et al., 2011). Accordingly, the current

study argues that cognitive ability may be a more viable enabling force between motives and

outcomes for several reasons. One reason is that cognitive ability refers to true ability as opposed

to a self-report measure of ability. For example, many of past studies examining socioanalytic

3

theory have used Ferris et al.’s (2005) Political Skill Inventory, measured by items such as “I

understand people very well.” Moreover, cognitive ability denotes that one is able to solve

problems and process information, skills that are critical in social situations. Indeed, research has

linked emotion regulation to broader cognitive intelligence, supporting the notion that cognitive

ability equips one with a skillset that can provide social benefits (Nisbett, Blair, Dickets, Flynn,

Halpern, & Turkheimer, 2012). Finally, despite its limitations (e.g., adverse impact), cognitive

ability is a valid, and in fact the most valid, predictor of performance (Hunter & Hunter, 1984).

Secondly, much of the research on the socioanalytic model has been conducted using

Western populations, and little is known about its boundary conditions with few exceptions (e.g.,

Chen, Huang, Huang, & Liu, 2011). That is, this research has primarily been conducted with

samples of salespeople and engineers in primarily US and German samples (Hogan & Holland,

2003; Witt & Ferris, 2003). As such, Chen et al. (2011) noted the importance of testing the

generalizability of those findings in different cultural settings. The current study examines

whether this relationship is observed cross culturally in a business context. Relatedly, the current

research also espouses Muchinsky and Monahan’s (1987) person-environment congruence

framework to examine whether a match between personal motives and broader national values

yield more favorable outcomes for the individual. More specifically, it examines whether the

motives of getting ahead will be more favored in individualistic societies, which value

independence and self-expression, whereas getting along will be more favored in collectivistic

societies, which value harmony and group goals (Hofstede, 1980).

Thirdly, much of the previous research on socioanalytic theory has considered traditional

measures of success, such as job performance, but research considering expanded outcomes of

success is limited. Similarly, research suggests that different components of career success

4

should be considered separately (Ng, Eby, Sorensen, & Feldman, 2005; Jaskolka, Beyer, &

Trice, 1985; Judge, Cable, Boudreau, & Bretz, 1995; Poole, Langan-Fox, & Omodei, 1993). For

instance, salary and promotion have a very modest correlation (Ng et al., 2005), and thus, should

be parsed apart. Moreover, each of these success indicators signals a unique attribution about the

individual. For example, a higher salary implies greater power and competence (Miller &

Wiseman, 2001); whereas greater promotions indicates that one has higher status through access

to broader networks (Seibert, Kraimer, & Liden, 2001) and also that the individual has high

potential (Stumpf & Tymon, 2012). Accordingly, the current study examines job performance as

well as two extrinsic outcomes of career success (i.e., salary and rate of promotions) in a single

model.

To summarize, the current study employs an international sample of leaders from a

Fortune 50 company to examine whether the propositions of socioanalytic theory are

generalizable when general cognitive ability is examined as the enabling force between motives

and outcomes and also whether these findings are internationally generalizable. Further, the

extent to which cultural norms influence these relationships is examined. The proposed model is

illustrated in its entirety in Figure 1.

-------------------------------

Insert Figure 1 about here

-------------------------------

5

LITERATURE REVIEW

Leadership Effectiveness

Hogan and Kaiser (2005) noted that leadership represents “the single most important

issue in the human sciences” (p. 169). Indeed, leaders have a profound impact on the success of

their subordinates, collective units, and even organizations. Consider for example the fact that

14% of a firm’s performance is attributable to the CEO (Joyce, Nohria, & Roberson, 2003). This

illustrates that a solid understanding of leadership, and especially its predictors, is warranted

through continued research.

Early research on leadership asserted that great men, especially ones who possessed

extraordinary leadership capabilities, shaped the course of history (Judge, Bono, Illies, &

Gerhardt, 2002). This “great man” theory of leadership gave way to broader trait theories in the

20th century, which simply stated that leaders’ possess a set of distinguished characteristics

(Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991). Research dating back to the 1920s within applied psychology

acknowledged that leadership should be considered through the lens of traits (Cowley, 1931;

Bowden, 1926; Kohs & Irle, 1920). Contributing to this line of literature, Stogdill (1948)

reported that personality indeed bears predictive utility on leadership, specifically leadership

emergence. It is in fact estimated that between 48% and 82% of the variance in leadership

emergence rankings was due to personality (Kenny & Zaccaro, 1983). Other findings point to a

similar conclusion (e.g., Van Iddekinge, Ferris, & Heffner, 2009; Bono & Judge, 2004; Judge &

Bono, 2000; Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Werner, 2002; Bligh, 2009; Hogan, 1978; Kenny & Zaccaro,

1983; Lord, De Vader, & Alliger, 1986; Rueb & Foti, 1990; Stogdill, 1974; Zaccaro, Foti, &

Kenny, 1991). In a related line of research, personality traits are also acknowledged to be

predictive of job performance defined more broadly (Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001).

6

Beyond personality, cognitive ability has also been identified as a meaningful antecedent

of leadership. Indeed, leaders must accrue and think across various sources of information to

derive conclusions, and this is even truer now due to rapid technological advances (Kirkpatrick

& Locke, 1991). This link has also been empirically corroborated, with researchers showing that

cognitive ability predicts managerial success twenty years later (Howard & Bray, 1988). More

recent literature has reported that the meta-analytic correlation between cognitive ability and

leadership performance is .27 (Judge, Colbert, & Illies, 2004). Additionally, Allen, Bynum,

Oliver, Russell, Young, and Babin, (2014) illustrated that, in a military setting, cognitive ability

was predictive of leadership performance. Furthermore, it has been empirically illustrated that

the relationship between cognitive abilities and leadership is mediated by knowledge and skill

acquisition (Connelly, Gilbert, J. A., Zaccaro, S. J., Threlfall, K. V., Marks, M. A., & Mumford,

2000; Van Iddekinge et al., 2009). Similarly, Connelly et al. (2000), in a study for the US Army,

concluded that creative thinking, complex problem-solving skills, and social judgment are

necessary for effective leadership.

Based on this evidence, and on conventional wisdom, it is apparent that effective leaders

are identifiable by their inherent personality and cognitive characteristics. More specifically, the

stereotypical leader is energetic and lively (e.g., Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1997; Lord, Foti, & De

Vader, 1984; Judge et al., 2002), as well as cerebral and thoughtful (e.g., Kotter, 1982).

When leaders are effective, it is typical for them to receive extrinsic indicators of success,

such as salary and promotions. These outcomes are likely for two primary reasons: (1) they are

the most common measures of career success (Heslin, 2005; Nicholson & de Waal Andrews,

2005; Dai, De Meuse, & Tang, 2013; Judge et al., 2010) and (2) they signify status and power

(e.g., Stumpf & Tymon, 2012). Indeed, effective leaders are often awarded more power

7

(Anderson & Brion, 2014), typically in the form of valued resources, such as information, status,

or authority. This contention has been supported by several streams of related research. For

example, occupying a leadership role is significantly related to earnings (Zhang & Arvey, 2009).

Similarly, charismatic CEOs have been shown to earn higher salaries (Tosi, Misangyi, Fanelli,

Waldman, & Yammamarino, 2004). Moreover, Dai, De Meuse and Tang (2013) found that

leadership competence has an indirect effect on compensation through CEO proximity.

Moreover, it has been noted that promotions tend to be awarded to those who are interpersonally

skilled, trustworthy, and committed to the cause of the organization (London & Stumpf, 1983;

Zhang & Arvey, 2009), all of which are characteristic of good leaders.

These findings are supremely important to help researchers and practitioners alike

understand the characteristics and outcomes associated with effective leadership. Indeed, the

characteristics that contribute to a leader’s personal success often influence the organization’s

success more broadly (Zhang & Arvey, 2009). For this reason, it is critical for organizations to

identify and develop high potential employees (Dai, De Meuse, & Tang, 2013). Relatedly,

Hogan et al. (1994) suggests that the most reliable way to measure leader effectiveness is via

cognitive ability, personality, simulation, role-play, and multi-rate assessment instruments and

techniques. They also stated that there are five metrics that can be used to measure leader

effectiveness, including actual performance of the organization unit or team and ratings by self,

peer, subordinates, and superiors.

Collectively, this research illustrates that personality and cognitive ability enhance

leadership effectiveness, which in turn causes the leader to be granted more status, authority, and

power through higher salary and promotions. Socioanalytic theory supports this contention by

arguing that motives (often measured by personality) interact with ability to yield successful

8

performance. This theory and each of its three components (getting ahead, getting along, and

ability) are discussed below and integrated to offer a comprehensive model of leadership success.

Socioanalytic Theory

Hogan and Shelton (1998) provide a useful framework for examining the predictive

utility of personality relative to workplace and leader success. This theory is based on two

foundational premises: (1) people are motivated to live and work in groups and (2) groups are

structured in hierarchies of status. These premises are translated into the basic motives of getting

along and getting ahead (Hogan & Shelton, 1998). The drive to get along with others derives

from the social nature of civilizations and the advantages of forging coalitions with others to

achieve mutually beneficial goals and is typically accomplished through compliance,

cooperation, and friendliness. In contrast, the drive to get ahead originates from the desire to

garner status and power to gain access to limited resources and to meet one’s own personal

agenda, which is typically achieved via seeking responsibility, being competitive, and striving

for recognition (Hogan & Shelton, 1998; Hogan & Holland, 2003).

Research suggesting that these two motives are central to humans predates socioanalytic

theory (Carson, 1969; Leary, 1957; Sullivan, 1953; Wiggins, 1979). As stated by Hogan and

Holland (2003), these ideas derive from Darwinian principles suggesting that cooperative

individuals who also possess status and authority have the greatest chance of reproductive

success. Thus, people typically strive to meet both objectives, of existing within a broader

community and of accomplishing personal goals. This dichotomy has had a variety of labels

throughout the decades, including social interests versus superiority striving (Adler, 1939),

communion versus agency (Bakan, 1966; Wiggins, 1991), union versus individualism (Rank,

1945), status versus popularity (Hogan, 1983), and intimacy versus power (McAdams, 1985).

9

These motives of getting along, representing one’s interest in building ties within a

broader network, and getting ahead, representing one’s interest in pursuing a personal agenda,

are typically captured by personality proxies (e.g. Mount, Barrick, & Strauss, 1999; Witt &

Ferris, 2003). While the five factor model (comprised by the traits of openness, agreeableness,

conscientiousness, extraversion, and neuroticism) does not explicitly measure the motives of

getting along and getting ahead, previous research has in fact successfully mapped these traits

onto these basic motives and indeed illustrated patterns of relationships consistent with

socioanalytic theory (Bartram, 2005; Chiaburu, Oh, Berry, Li, & Gardner, 2011; Hogan &

Holland, 2003). For example, the trait of agreeableness is typically used to represent getting

along. This is because this trait represents an inclination to be cooperative and sensitive towards

others, which is critical to building ties with one’s social network (Barrick, Stewart, &

Piotrowski, 2002; Hogan, Hogan, & Busch, 1984). In contrast, the trait of extraversion has been

used to capture getting ahead. This is because extraversion represents individuals who are bold,

dominant, and ambitious, which is central to pursuing a personal agenda (Hogan, Curphy, &

Hogan, 1994). Consistent with these categorizations and with past examinations of socioanalytic

theory, the current study operationalizes getting along in terms of the trait of agreeableness and

getting ahead in terms of the trait of extraversion. Once again, these traits were chosen as the

focal variables because they embody the characteristics of their corresponding motive.

Beyond simply possessing these motives, individuals differ in the extent to which they

can achieve them. As stated in Hogan and Shelton’s (1998) theory, social skill is the determining

factor whether one can successfully get ahead and get along, mainly because one’s success on

the job is often a function of how well one socializes, especially considering that social skills are

becoming increasingly important in the workplace (Mount, Barrick, & Stewart, 1998). Socially

10

skilled individuals are astutely aware of themselves and others, allowing them to accommodate

their behaviors to changing circumstances. Beyond their adaptability, their interactions with

others are perceived to be genuine. This skillset facilitates the establishment of a strong and

varied network of individuals (e.g., Ferris, Treadway, Perrewe, Brouer, Douglas, & Lux, 2007;

Treadway, Ferris, Duke, Adams, & Thatcher, 2007). Additionally, social skills also equip

individuals with the ability to advance personal goals by understanding and influencing others in

social interactions at work (Blickle et al., 2011).

Using traits as proxies for motives, research has generally supported the validity of

socioanalytic theory, with some exceptions. Lending support to this theory, Blickle et al. (2010)

tested the “getting ahead” component of the model, using extraversion as a proxy, with a sample

of automobile sales people. The authors found that extraversion interacted with political skill to

yield higher levels of self-report automobile sales. In a similar vein, Blickle et al. (2008) found in

a sample of German employees in various industries that political skill moderated the

agreeableness-job performance relationship, where the ratings of job performance included task

performance, contextual performance, and adaptive performance.

Research that has used traits other than extraversion and agreeableness to represent the

central motives has generally failed to support the claims of this theory. For example, Blickle et

al. (2010) did not detect an interaction between openness to experience (representing the getting

ahead motive) and political skill. The authors provided several explanations for these null

findings, including sampling error, the potential mismatch between the openness trait and the

sale of automobiles (which is a conventional, as opposed to innovative, product), and the use of a

general factor of openness rather than a nuanced subfactor. Moreover, conscientiousness

(representing the getting ahead motive) has been reported to interact with political skill to predict

11

performance rating by supervisors, peers, and supervisors only when the trait was corrected for

range restriction. Even then, the resulting interaction told a different story than was predicted –

conscientiousness was related to job performance at medium rather than high levels of political

skill (Blickle et al., 2008). The authors reasoned that the combination of high conscientiousness

and high political skill may result in an individual who is perceived by others as expending too

much effort trying to get ahead and too little effort to get along, thus hurting performance. Once

again, it is notable that the studies lending support to this theory used extraversion and

agreeableness as proxies for the two motives, further corroborating that these specific traits are

meaningful representations of their respective motives.

Researchers have noted the importance of other key factors that can predict performance,

including cognitive ability (Blickle et al., 2011). Thus, the current research examines whether

cognitive ability, like social skill, would enable one to pursue the motives of getting ahead and

getting along. While socioanalytic theory argues that social skill is believed to facilitate one’s

ability to translate motives into behaviors that effectively achieve those motives in a way that is

perceived favorably by others, there is evidence suggesting general cognitive ability equips one

with the adaptability and awareness necessary to achieve similarly desired outcomes.

Before this contention is discussed in greater detail, the discussion turns to a description

of extraversion, representing the getting ahead portion of the theory

Extraversion

Extraversion refers to individuals who are sociable, gregarious, talkative, assertive, and

active. Given these characteristics, it is no surprise that this trait is the most significant

personality predictor of leadership performance (Judge et al., 2002). Indeed, leaders are often

characterized as sociable, as they regularly seek social relationships, and characteristically aim to

12

restore positive relationships in times of difficulty and crisis (Bligh, 2009). Additionally, it has

been found that extraversion is related to social leadership (Costa & McCrae, 1988) as well as

leader emergence in groups (Watson & Clark, 1997). Due to their high degree of energy and

liveliness, extraverts are often perceived to be more leaderlike (Hogan et al., 1994). Indeed,

Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) observed that “leaders are more likely than non-leaders to have a

high level of energy and to be generally active, lively, and often restless” (p. 50). Those who

emerge as leaders in leaderless groups discussions are often described as active, assertive,

energetic, and not silent or withdrawn (Gough, 1988). Similarly, Gough (1990) reported that two

of the major facets of extraversion – dominance and sociability – are related to self and peer

ratings of leadership. Given these collective findings, it is no surprise that Judge et al. (2002)

reported a sizeable correlation of .31 with leadership, the strongest of the five-factor model. The

authors concluded that “extraversion is the most important trait of leaders and effective

leadership” (p. 773). Extraverts are also expected to be better leaders because of their tendency

to talk more, which is related to emergent leadership (Bass, 1990). On the other hand, it may be

that followers implicitly expect leaders to be extraverted. That is, individuals tend to hold

implicit assumptions that leaders are sociable and assertive (Lord et al., 1984). It may also be

that extraverts make better leaders because of their expressive nature and their infectiously

positive emotionality (Judge et al., 2002).

Extraversion has been linked to other career outcomes as well. For example, some

literature shows that extraverts experience higher job performance, although these are typically

in careers that require frequent social interaction (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991, Ng et al., 2005).

Additionally, extraversion has been linked to higher sales, a relationship that can be explained by

their high status-striving nature (Barrick et al., 2002). However, some exceptions have also been

13

noted. For example, extraversion was unrelated to performance in wholesale manufacturing sales

(Barrick, Mount, & Strauss, 1993), health and fitness sales (Furnham & Fudge, 2008), and

business-to-business sales (Stewart, 1996). Furthermore, a negative relationship was reported in

service jobs (Stewart & Carson, 1995). More recent research by Grant (2014) clarified upon this

relationship, stating that extraversion exerts a curvilinear effect on sales performance, such that

moderately extraverted call-center representatives produced the highest sales. He theorized that

an extraverted salesperson may employ dominating strategies that may overwhelm, and

ultimately turn off, customers. In contrast, an “ambivert” may apply a more balanced approach

of speaking and listening that engages customers.

There is also evidence suggesting that extraverts are more likely to experience higher

extrinsic rewards. For example, some research has linked extraversion to greater salary (Gelissen

& de Graaf, 2006; Filer, 1981; Harrell, 1969; Harrell & Alpert, 1989; Boudreau, Boswell, &

Judge, 2001; cf. Nyhus & Pons, 2005; Seibert & Kraimer, 2001) and promotions (Boudreau et

al., 2001; Seibert & Kraimer, 2001). It has also been argued that an extravert’s ambitious and

excitement-seeking nature may compel them to enhance their career and pursue new challenges,

facilitating their career success (Gelissen & de Graaf, 2006). In a similar vein, Ng et al. (2005)

meta-analytically confirmed that extraversion is related to career success measures, including

salary, promotions, and career satisfaction. It has also been shown that socially potent individuals

(which corresponds to extraversion) earn higher salaries because they are more likely to assume

leadership positions (Zhang & Arvey, 2009).

Collectively, prior findings suggest that extraversion should positively impact leader

performance, as well as objective indicators of success, including salary and promotion rate.

Given that extraversion typically positively influences leadership effectiveness, and leaders

14

typically garner extrinsic rewards such as salary and promotions, it is argued here that

extraversion is linked to higher salary and promotions through its mediating effect on leadership

effectiveness.

Hypothesis 1: Extraversion will be positively related to objective career success, as

measured by a) salary and b) average rate of promotion, and these relationships will be

mediated by job performance.

Agreeableness

The trait of agreeableness revolves around being selfless, cooperative, helpful, tolerant,

flexible, generous, sympathetic, and courteous (Digman, 1990). While these traits superficially

sound like the profile of a leader, the actual relationship may not be so straightforward (Judge et

al., 2002). On the one hand, a cooperative nature (Bass, 1990) and interpersonal sensitivity

(Zaccaro et al., 1991) are both related to leadership, suggesting that agreeableness would likely

positively influence leadership. On the other hand, characteristics such as modesty (Goldberg,

1990) and need for affiliation (Yukl, 1998) are negatively predictive of leadership. Effective

leaders need to take charge, even if that means challenging norms and causing disruption, which

may be unnatural for an agreeable individual.

In their meta-analytic study, Judge et al. (2002) found the trait to be negatively predictive

of leadership emergence in business and government/military settings. They reasoned that

passiveness and compliance, traits associated with agreeableness, would likely not prompt an

individual to emerge as a leader. This is especially true in both business and government/military

settings, where “conforming to others’ wishes” (Graziano & Eisenberg, 1997, p. 796) may be a

hindrance. Moreover, the authors argued that leader agreeableness may be less relevant for

intrinsically satisfying tasks because the task itself provides positive feedback and

15

encouragement. Relatedly, a study by Hunter and Cushenberry (2014) revealed that while

disagreeable individuals were generally not more likely to produce creative ideas, they were

more likely to have their own ideas implemented in a team creativity task. The authors reasoned

that disagreeable individuals were more likely to voice original ideas even at the risk of being

stigmatized by others. These findings highlight that some degree of disagreeableness provides

one with the courage and boldness to voice ideas, even unpopular ones, which may be a

necessary component to influencing and leading others.

In terms of its relationship to job performance, meta-analytic results have failed to

produce a consistent result, suggesting the likelihood of moderators (Barrick et al., 2001). While

the overall relationship with job performance is close to zero (Barrick et al., 2001), high

agreeableness is found to negatively impact performance under conditions of high autonomy

(Barrick & Mount, 1993). This may be because individuals who are agreeable may perform

better when given a high amount of structure with little ambiguity, perhaps due to their rule

compliant and cooperative nature. Moreover, as suggested by Mount et al. (1998), too much

agreeableness can hurt job performance, especially in service industries. This is because over

compliance to customer demands may result in failure to reach organizational goals. Moreover,

employees who are too cooperative with peers and supervisors will be stifled in obtaining their

required resources and achieving the objectives for their job.

A large body of work has also shown the trait to be linked to lower salary (Judge,

Livingston, & Hurst, 2012; Bozionelos, 2004; Mueller & Plug, 2006; Ng, et al., 2005; Nyhus &

Pons, 2005; Rode, Arthaud-Day, Mooney, Near, & Baldwin, 2008; Spurk & Abele, 2010). For

example, across a series of four studies, Judge et al. (2012) showed agreeableness to be

negatively related to salary, a relationship that was more pronounced for men than for women.

16

Researchers speculate that this trait’s inverse relationship with salary may be due to the

selflessness and cooperative nature inherent in agreeableness. For example, agreeable individuals

have an innate desire to build and maintain relationships (Graziano & Tobin, 2002), are more

prosocial (Graziano, Habashi, Sheese, & Tobin, 2007; Penner, Dovidio, Piliavin, & Schroeder,

2005; Penner, Fritzsche, Caiger, & Freifeld, 1995), and are more cooperative and helpful

(Graziano & Eisenberg, 1997; LePine & Van Dyne, 1998). Due to these characteristics,

agreeable individuals likely focus their energies on advancing relationships rather than

advancing their career. Indeed, Spurk and Abele (2010) found that the relationship between

agreeableness and income was mediated by career advancement goals. Thus, agreeable

individuals may refrain from engaging in competitive and overly assertive behaviors that are

associated with career mobility. In contrast, those lower in agreeableness are competitive in

nature and place less of a premium on harboring social relationships, which possibly facilitates

their climb to the top. Furthermore, it has been suggested that those lower in agreeableness may

be perceived as more competent due to their lack of warmth (Benyus et al., 2009). For example,

Amabile and Glazebrook (1982) revealed that those who are highly critical of others were rated

as more competent than those offering positive evaluations. It has also been found in a study that

people who expressed anger (a disagreeable behavior; Jensen-Campbell, Knack & Waldrip, &

Campbell, 2007; Meier & Robinson, 2004) were more likely to be recommended for a higher

status position and higher pay for job applicants (Tiedens, 2001). In addition to lower salary,

agreeable individuals have also been found to experience less overall promotions (Ng et al.,

2005; Boudreau, Boswell, & Judge, 2001).

Thus, agreeable individuals likely enjoy the benefits of being well liked in the

organization (Jensen-Campbell, Adams, Perry, Workman, Furdella, & Egan, 2002), but may face

17

difficulties in achieving success as leaders. In sum, while the trait of agreeableness has had a

more ambiguous relationship with organizational outcomes, there is sufficient evidence to

predict that in this business leadership context, it would negatively impact one’s ability to lead

and ultimately achieve a higher salary and promotions. Given that agreeableness negatively

predicts performance in ambiguous situations (Barrick & Mount, 1993) and that leaders are often

expected to operate under uncertain circumstances (e.g., Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding, Jacobs, &

Fleishman, 2000), it can be expected that agreeableness would negatively impact a leader’s

ability to lead effectively. In fact, this negative proposed relationship to leadership is posited to

explain agreeableness’s overall inverse association with broader career success – namely salary

and promotions. Stated differently, agreeable individuals are expected to be less effective

leaders, negatively impacting their attainment of objective indicators of success.

Hypothesis 2: Agreeableness will be negatively related to objective career success, as

measured by a) salary and b) average rate of promotion, and these relationships will be

mediated by decreased ratings of job performance.

As discussed above, personality on its own has limited ability to predict job outcomes.

Researchers have noted however that personality is more predictive when considered in

conjunction with cognitive ability (e.g., Wright, Kacmar, McMahan, & Deleeuw, 1995). More

specifically, cognitive ability is expected to exert a moderating influence on the relationship

between personality and leader success.

The Influence of Cognitive ability

Cognitive ability has emerged as a consistent and strong predictor of important job

related outcomes, such as job-related knowledge, training performance, and overall job

performance (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). Cognitive intelligence is believed to facilitate task

18

performance through the knowledge of facts, procedures, and rules germane to the technical core

of the job (Motowidlo, Borman, & Schmit, 1997). Indeed, a large scale meta-analysis conducted

by Hunter and Hunter (1984), using data from 515 validation studies conducted by the US

employment service for jobs that covered virtually the entire spectrum of the Dictionary of

Occupational Titles (DOT; U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training

Administration, 1991), revealed that cognitive ability tests are valid predictors for virtually all

jobs.

Researchers have noted that intelligence is a prerequisite for good leadership. In fact,

Kotter (1982) stated that a “keen mind” and the ability to think strategically is critical for

effective leadership. As noted above, the robustness of this link has been exhibited in past

research. Collectively, this stream of research has shown a substantial meta-analytic relationship

between cognitive ability and leadership (Judge et al., 2004); in a variety of contexts, including

military (e.g., Allen et al., 2014); with various proposed mechanisms, including knowledge and

skill acquisition (Connelly et al., 2000). Intelligence is also likely a characteristic that followers

seek in a leader, as it denotes authority (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991). Indeed, authors have

speculated that intelligence can promote a leader’s development of solid problem-solving skills,

the ability to appropriately assess social situations, and the ability to comprehend complex

organizational issues (Bligh, 2009).

It is important to note that cognitive ability and personality are largely orthogonal

constructs (Judge, Jackson, Shaw, Scott & Rich, 2007; Bartram, 2005; McHenry, Hough,

Toquam, Hanson, & Ashworth, 1990; White, Young, Hunter, & Rumsey, 2008). For example,

McCrae (1989) reported a low correlation between conscientiousness and cognitive ability. Other

research has only linked openness to experience to general mental ability, a correlation that was

19

modest (Judge et al., 2007). In light of this, researchers have successfully predicted that

personality provides incremental validity in determining job success beyond simply using

cognitive ability. Thus, using measures of cognitive ability and personality in tandem are useful

in validly predicting performance (Hough & Dilchert, 2010).

While socioanalytic theory claims that social skills are integral to an individual’s success,

there is reason to believe that the broader construct of general mental ability can similarly

contribute to success. Indeed, recent research by MacCann et al. (2014) confirms that emotional

intelligence, which is related to social skills (e.g., Riggio & Reichard, 2008), is actually a group

factor of cognitive ability. This finding reveals that one’s development of emotional intelligence

is dependent on existing cognitive resources (Zeidner, Matthews, Roberts, & Macann, 2003).

MacCann et al. (2014) likewise argue that general cognitive ability is involved in the

development of emotion perception, understanding, and management – all of which are central to

emotional intelligence. The authors conclude that “general cognitive ability is the fundamental

cognitive ability that likely aids the development of emotion-related cognitive abilities” (p. 371).

Further corroborating this link, there is indeed a body of research illustrating that emotion

and impulse control (related to emotional intelligence) are related to cognitive ability. For

example, a seminal study by Mischel, Shoda, & Peake (1988) revealed that four year-old

children who delayed the immediate gratification of eating one marshmallow immediately for the

sake of eating two marshmallows later earned higher SAT scores a decade later. A similar study

revealed that students who resisted spending a dollar initially in order to exchange the dollar for

two dollars the following week performed better academically (Duckworth & Seligman, 2005).

Additionally, related studies with samples of college students at Ivy league schools, students at

military academy, and spelling bee participants revealed that self-discipline and ability to delay

20

gratification forecasted success across a variety of academic measure (Duckworth, Peterson,

Matthews, & Kelly, 2007). Relatedly, it has been found that individuals with larger working

memory capacities are better able to regulate their emotions (Schmeichel, Volokhov, &

Demaree, 2008), and individuals who are better able to suppress their emotions perform better on

the Raven’s Progressive Matrices than their more impulsive peers (Shamosh & Gray, 2007). It

has been speculated that one of the main reasons self-regulation is linked to higher cognitive

ability may be due to self-regulation being a manifestation of intelligence (Nisbett, Aronson,

Blair, Dickens, Flynn, Halpern, & Turkheimer, 2012).

Also bolstering this claim, political skill seems to have an inherent cognitive component.

Indeed, “politically skillful individuals can achieve better outcomes because they are assumed to

have better cognitive capability and behavioral flexibility to know where, when, and how to get

things done” (Sun & van Emmerik, 2014, p. 2; Ferris, Davidson, & Perrewé, 2005) (emphasis

added). These assertions imply that that social skill’s enhancing effect proposed by socioanalytic

theory can also be observed with cognitive ability. That is, one’s level of extraversion or

agreeableness is likely to influence one’s pursuit of motives, while the presence of cognitive

ability allows one to translate those motives into behaviors that are perceived favorably,

facilitating career success.

With regard to extraversion and job outcomes, cognitive ability is likely to strengthen the

proposed positive relationships. To illustrate, extraversion makes one appear confident, assertive,

and ambitious – which are characteristic of good leadership. The presence of cognitive ability

complements this image further by equipping the individual with competence and knowledge on

how to perform, make decisions, and interact with others. That is, while extraversion provides

one with the demeanor of an effective leader, cognitive ability bolsters this image with actual

21

knowledge and skill. With these characteristics, the individual will be perceived as an adept

leader, ultimately enhancing their objective career success in the form of greater salary and

promotions. In the absence of cognitive ability, the individual may be perceived as dominant

without merit. Related research has shown that overconfident individuals may approach

decision-making with certain biases, such as a proneness toward risk-taking (Anderson &

Galinsky, 2006; Inesi, 2010; Lewellyn & Muller-Kahle, 2012) and reticence to accept practical

advice from others (See, Morrison, Rothman, & Soll, 2011, Tost, Gino, & Larrick, 2012).

Overconfidence may therefore cause a power holder to subsequently lose power due to these

vices (Anderson & Brion, 2012). Relatedly, extraverted leaders lacking intelligence may exhibit

similar flaws that may hurt their effectiveness.

In contrast, cognitive ability is likely to attenuate the negative relationship between

agreeableness and career success. An agreeable persona makes one appear warm, understanding,

and compliant, qualities that are valued of leaders. When the individual is also equipped with

cognitive ability, they are better able to balance their compliant natures with greater performance

agility, thoughtful decision-making, and enhanced social awareness, ultimately making them a

more influential and impactful leader. In fact, this overall persona (humble and intelligent) elicits

the image of a servant leader. Consistently, in a list of characteristics of a servant leader, Spears

(2004) included concepts related to intelligence, such as conceptualization and foresight, and

concepts related to the “getting along” motive, such as listening, empathy, stewardship, and

building community.

On the other hand, when cognitive ability is lacking in an agreeable leader, the individual

may be perceived as a stereotypical “pushover” – nice, but unable to use logic to make decisions,

implement ideas, or influence others. Thus, agreeableness that is qualified by cognitive ability

22

can lead to increased leadership effectiveness, which enhances objective career success in the

form of greater salary and promotions

Overall, it is suggested that cognitive ability will encourage better leadership for both

personality traits, ultimately enhancing their linkages to success outcomes.

Hypothesis 3: The negative indirect relationship between agreeableness and objective

career success via job performance is moderated by cognitive ability. Specifically, at high

levels of cognitive ability, agreeableness will have a less negative indirect effect on

objective career success; at low levels of cognitive ability, agreeableness will have a

stronger negative indirect effect on objective career success.

Hypothesis 4: The positive indirect relationship between extraversion and objective

career success via job performance is moderated by cognitive ability. Specifically, at high

levels of cognitive ability, extraversion will have a more positive indirect effect on

objective career success; at low levels of cognitive ability, extraversion will have a

weaker positive indirect effect on objective career success.

Until now, it has been assumed that individuals are predominantly driven by either

motive of getting along or getting ahead. Indeed, Hogan and Holland (2003) implied that there is

an inherent tension between these motives because their respective behaviors are incompatible.

For example, getting along involves cooperation, compliance, and friendliness whereas getting

ahead involves competition, status-striving, and independence. Despite these seemingly mutually

exclusive motives (Wolfe, Lennox & Cutler, 1986; Hogan, Jones, & Cheek, 1985), it has been

noted that both are necessary for effective leadership to occur. For example, Marinova et al.

(2012) demonstrated that both motives serve as unique pathways to leadership emergence.

23

Also supporting the notion that both motives can co-occur is the finding that personality

traits tend to be independent of one another. That is, personality traits are orthogonal constructs,

and it is likewise a distinct possibility that an individual may be high on both motives (Wiggins,

1991; Leonard, 1997). Indeed, past authors have noted that a dominant persona should be

tempered by an interest in others. For example, Bakan (1966) suggested that when agenticism

(related to getting ahead) is not mitigated by communion (related to getting along), termed

unmitigated agency, negative outcomes in terms of psychological and physical well-being make

occur. Helgeson (1994) elaborated on this concept and stated that “unmitigated agency involves

focusing on the self to the exclusion of others, and unmitigated communion involves focusing on

the exclusion of the self” (p. 416). Thus, a leader who is high in both would likely strike a

healthy balance between being an effective team-player, placing emphasis and value on team

goals, while also maintaining a degree of self-interest. This individual will likely be well

adjusted, and accordingly reap high rewards. Thus, it is posited that leaders who are both

extraverted and agreeable will experience high amounts of career success.

Hypothesis 5: Extraversion and agreeableness will interact to predict job performance,

salary, and average rate of promotion. Specifically, at high levels of extraversion and

agreeableness, all three outcomes will be high.

Beyond the interactive effects of possessing both motives, it can be expected that

possessing these motives in the presence of high cognitive ability would yield even greater career

success. Thus, one’s propensity towards the motives of getting along and getting ahead achieving

career success is also likely dependent on cognitive ability, forging a three-way interaction

between extraversion, agreeableness, and cognitive ability.

24

Hypothesis 6: Extraversion, agreeableness, and cognitive ability will interact to predict

job performance, salary, and average rate of promotion. Specifically, at high levels of

extraversion, agreeableness, and cognitive ability, all three outcomes will be high.

In addition to cognitive ability, personality’s relationship with job success is also likely

dependent on a broader feature of the environment—namely, the extent to which the national

culture values and reinforces the trait in question.

Fitting in with the National Culture

Beyond personality and cognitive ability, the broader contextual features of the

environment may also enhance – or hinder – a leader’s ability to lead effectively. Earlier, it was

stated that prototypical leaders tend to be energetic and lively (e.g., Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1997;

Lord et al., 1984; Judge et al., 2002). However, these characteristics may not be valued cross-

culturally. The current study suggests that when leaders lead in cultures that are in line with their

own personal motives, they are likely to be more effective. In socioanalytic terms, if the national

culture is consistent with the values of the leader, the leader’s reputation will be enhanced and he

or she will be evaluated more favorably than if the national culture is inconsistent with the

leader’s values.

Research discussing the value of fit between an individual and a broader entity (e.g.,

work group, organization) is plentiful. For example, the notion of person-culture fit has garnered

considerable empirical support over the years. This concept suggests that individuals whose

values are congruent with the values of the organization’s broader culture will yield beneficial

outcomes (Caldwell & O’Reilly, 1990; O’Reilly, Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991; Schneider, 1987;

Wilkins & Ouchi, 1983). More specifically, research has revealed that when an individual’s

25

values match those of the organization, then the individual is likely to adjust quicker, be more

satisfied, and stay with the organization longer (Chatman, 1991).

According to Muchinsky and Monahan’s (1987) supplementary model of person-

environment congruence, positive outcomes ensue when a high degree of fit is achieved between

a person and the broader environment. The authors provide the example of someone who joins a

fraternity, arguing that the individual would likely seek an organization whose values, tastes, and

interests are in accord with their own.

These concepts have also been applied to fit in terms of national culture (Searle & Ward,

1990; Ward & Kennedy, 1993). For example, Ward and Chang (1997) found that that

discrepancies between expatriates’ personality profiles and host culture norms were associated

with increased psychological stress. More specifically, their study of Americans living in

Singapore revealed that individuals whose level of extraversion were discrepant from those of

the host culture’s norms were more susceptible to depression. In a similar vein, research has

found that followers are more responsive to authority when managers demonstrate expertise in

individualistic societies, and relational-skill in collectivistic societies (Wosinska, Cialdini,

Petrova, Barrett, Gornik-Durose, Butner, & Griskevicius, 2009). Indeed, leaders who embody the

key attributes of the broader society tend to experience more compliance from their followers.

The current study draws on this same line of reasoning to make predictions about an

individual’s level of personality fit with the norms of the broader national culture. National

culture is defined as an established set of behaviors and thinking patterns in a country, distinct

from other countries (Marquardt, Berger, & Loan, 2004). While many theoretical frameworks of

national culture exist (e.g., Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961; Hall & Hall, 1990; Trompenaars &

Hapmden-Turner, 1998; Schwartz, 1992; Javidan, House, Dorfman, Hanges, & Luques, 2006),

26

Hofstede’s cross-cultural research at IBM in 1980 is often considered the most seminal and

practical of these models (Gannon, 2004; Kim & McLean, 2014). Perhaps the biggest

contribution of his research is that it provides a numerical assessment of a large number of

countries on four dimensions of culture. These dimensions are individualism/collectivism,

masculinity/femininity, power distance, and uncertainty avoidance. The dimension of

individualism/collectivism is widely regarded as a “defining element” of culture (Blodgett,

Bakir, & Rose, 2008) and is likewise widely studied. Hofstede (1980) defined an individualistic

culture as one where citizens’ values revolve around independence and self-expression, and

fulfilling personal goals over group interests. In collectivistic cultures, on the other hand,

citizens’ values revolve around group harmony and fulfilling society’s goals over personal

interests.

Referring back to the notion of cultural fit discussed earlier, this study posits that leaders

will experience positive outcomes when their individual orientation matches the national

orientation of the country they are leading in. More specifically, extraversion will facilitate

leadership success in individualistic societies, whereas agreeableness will facilitate career

success in collectivistic societies. As stated above, this argument is based on findings illustrating

that leaders benefit when they lead in cultures that match their leadership style (e.g., Wosinska et

al., 2009).

Extraverted leaders will likely thrive in individualistic societies because behaviors

reflecting dominance, ambition, and self-interest would be the norm in individualistic societies

and would therefore be positively regarded and reinforced. People from individualistic societies

tend to set high goals and take risks to achieve personal development goals (Crowe & Higgins,

1997). It has indeed been found that assertive behavior is associated with higher levels of

27

competence in individualistic societies (Anderson & Kilduff; Dubois & Beauvois, 2005).

Moreover, Grimm, Church, Katigbak, and Reyes (1999) reported that individuals in the US (a

highly individualistic society) rate themselves higher on agentic qualities such as independence

and assertiveness. Indeed, in the American culture, assertive behavior is usually interpreted as an

indicator of leadership and underscores a common belief that those who speak more have more

to offer and are likewise more competent (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). Referring to

socioanalytic theory discussed earlier, the motive of getting ahead would likely be the norm in

these societies and would therefore be reinforced and rewarded. Thus, extraversion will be

regarded more favorably in individualistic societies, and likewise, the trait will encourage greater

career success through enhanced evaluations of leadership effectiveness.

In contrast, it is expected that agreeable leaders will fare better in collectivistic societies,

where loyalty and group-interest are given superior importance. That is, behaviors reflecting

kindness, harmony, and loyalty would be the norm in collectivistic societies and therefore be

positively regarded and reinforced. Compared to the American illustration provided above, the

Dutch culture, which is highly collectivistic, considers assertive behavior to be ostentatious and a

signal that the individual is boastful or makes unfounded promises (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005).

Moreover, in many Eastern cultures (where collectivism is prevalent), the goal is not to stand

out, but to exhibit modest and humble behaviors that are in accord with the broader group

(Heine, Lehman, Markus & Kitayama, 1999; Kim & Markus, 1999; Morling, Kitayama, &

Miyamoto, 2002). Furthermore, it has been found that expansive postures signaling dominance

(e.g., putting one’s feet on a desk) violate cultural norms of modesty, humility, and restraint,

which are highly valued in collectivistic societies (Park, Streamer, Huang, & Galinsky, 2013).

These findings suggest that agreeable, rather than extraverted, leaders would be more effective in

28

collectivistic societies because their leadership styles would employ modest and humble tactics.

In terms of socioanalytic theory, the need to get along would likely be the norm in these societies

and would therefore be reinforced and rewarded. Thus, agreeable leaders will likely be perceived

as more effective and ultimately experience greater job success.

By integrating socioanalytic theory with the theory of cultural fit, it is clear that leaders

will be more effective in cultures that value their characteristics, thus facilitating objective career

success. One important caveat should be noted here. This relationship is likely also strongly and

more directly influenced by the more proximal culture of the immediate organization. It may be

assumed that the organization’s culture would be similar in values to the nation in which it is

housed, though not necessarily.

Hypothesis 7: The positive indirect relationship between extraversion and objective

career success via job performance is moderated by national culture. Specifically, when

the national culture is higher in individualism, extraversion will have a stronger positive

indirect effect on objective career success; when the national culture is lower in

individualism, extraversion will have a weaker indirect effect on objective career success.

Hypothesis 8: The negative indirect relationship between agreeableness and objective

career success via job performance is moderated by national culture. Specifically, when

the national culture is higher in individualism, agreeableness will have a less negative

indirect effect on objective career success; when the national culture is lower in

individualism, agreeableness will have a less negative indirect effect on objective career

success.

29

Summary

Overall, it is presumed that leaders are driven by the two pursuits of getting along and

getting ahead. The extent to which they are successful is dependent on their intelligence and

whether they work in a culture that reinforces their personality.

On the whole, agreeable leaders are expected to experience limited career success

because their behaviors tend to revolve around building and reinforcing relationships. More

specifically, they will be deemed less effective at their jobs, ultimately stifling their broader

career success. This effect may be attenuated however if the individual is qualified by high

intelligence and housed in a collectivistic society.

Extraverted leaders on the other hand more readily experience career success because of

their natural inclination towards exhibiting dominant and assertive behaviors, thus being rated

more favorably in terms of job performance. More specifically, they will be deemed more

effective at their jobs, which in turn enhance broader career success. This effect is strengthened

when the individual is also intelligent and housed in an individualistic society.

It is also expected that leaders who are both extraverted and agreeable will achieve high

amounts of career success, and even higher amounts if they are also intelligent. This population

of individuals be able to strike a balance between being both nurturing and dominant, all while

having the cognitive resources to represent their behaviors in a favorable way.

30

METHOD

Sample and Procedures

Data for this study came from employees at a Fortune 50 company as part of a criterion-

related validation of a leadership assessment program. The company is a multinational food and

beverages corporation headquartered in the United States employing 300,000 individuals

worldwide. The population suitable for participation in this validation study was approximately

10,000 employees. Within this population, a stratified random sampling was implemented based

on historical performance ratings and functional area. This sampling strategy ensured that the full

range of performance levels and functional areas across the company were represented.

Prior to being invited to participate, each identified employee’s human resource manager

was consulted to determine whether it was appropriate to invite that employee to be part of the

validation sample – that is, it was determined whether there were factors precluding that

individual from participating, such as impending retirement. After the sample was filtered by the

local human resource managers, the participants received an email describing the purposes of the

study, what the process involved, and the developmental opportunities that they would receive in

exchange for their participation. Participants were offered a feedback report outlining their

strengths and developmental areas in return for their participation.

Each participant received an email from the consulting firm that designed the leadership

assessment program. The email provided additional context for the study and the website links

for the participants to follow the online assessments. The manager of each of the participants also

received an email from the consulting firm asking them to participate in the validation process by

completing a series of ratings of their direct report’s performance and potential.

31

In terms of participation, 1,262 employee-supervisor dyads were invited to participate.

Six hundred and seven dyads of data were returned (48%). This is much higher than typically

seen in studies collecting dyadic data (for example, LMX studies; Bauer, Erdogan, Liden, &

Wayne, 2006). In terms of level, 35% are managers, 42% are senior managers, 21% are

directors, and 2.3% are senior directors. Sixty-two percent of the sample is male and 38% is

female. The mean age is 43.87. Leadership effectiveness ratings were provided from 424

supervisors, with an average number of 1.43 direct reports each (and a median of 1). Employees

from 38 countries are present in this sample, spanning North American, South America, Europe,

the Middle East, Asia, and Africa. The number of participants from each country ranged from 1

(e.g., Morocco) to 419 (i.e., United States), with an average number of 16 employees from each

country (and a median of 2). Employees came from 18 different functions, including Human

Resources, Legal, Marketing, Research & Development, and Sales, with 32 employees in each

function on average (and a median of 6). A breakdown of the population, cut by national culture,

gender, and personality range, is presented in the appendix. All employees took the assessment

in English.

Measures

Personality. This study used SHL’s OPQ32r (Bartram, Brown, Fleck, Inceoglu, & Ward,

2006) measure of the Five Factor model to measure personality. This personality test has been

validated against a variety of populations, including university students, managers, and other

professionals in a variety of cultures. Additionally, criterion-related studies have been carried out

to demonstrate their relationship to managerial ratings of performance. The test has specifically

been developed to be used internationally for both decision-making (e.g., selection, promotions)

and development (e.g., team-building, career counseling) purposes. Due to the proprietary nature

32

of this selection test, access to individual items was not available. Thus, total number of survey

items could not be determined.

Extraversion was measured using the following 9 subscales: persuasive, controlling,

outspoken, outgoing, socially confident, decisive, modest (reversed), and emotionally controlled

(reversed). Agreeableness was measured using the following 6 subscales: independent minded

(reversed), caring, democratic, trusting, affiliative, and behavioral (referring to an inclination to

understanding others’ motives and behaviors). To make determinations about which subfactors

to group together, guidance was taken from SHL’s technical manual. The authors demonstrated

proper CFA and EFA techniques to illustrate that the subscales indeed represent a single higher

factor.

This test is in a forced-choice format, in which participants must choose among a set of

three items the one that describes them the most accurately. The final score for a dimension

ranged from one to ten, with higher values implying higher levels of that trait. A major benefit of

this approach is its resistance to impression management response distortion as well as to

common assessment biases, including halo, leniency, and central tendency (Brown & Bartram,

2009).

Due to the ipsative nature of this assessment, Cronbach’s alpha does not provide an

accurate measurement of reliability. More specifically, ipsative data violates assumptions that

Cronbach’s alpha depends on, such as independence of error variance. (Bartram et al., 2006;

Brown & Maydeu-Olivares, 2011). However, the test developers created composite reliability

indices using IRT models by comparing the average squared standard errors for a sample to the

trait score variance. They assert that these composite alphas provide useful comparisons with

33

Cronbach’s alpha scores. Based on their findings, each of the subscales meets the .70 threshold

commonly seen in selection research (Brown & Bartram, 2009).

Cognitive ability. Cognitive ability was assessed using Raven’s Standard Progressive

Matrices Plus (Raven, Court, & Raven, 1977). This more advanced version of the Raven’s

Standard Progressive Matrices was used given that the target audience of this leadership

assessment program is high-level professionals. The test is untimed and consists of 60 items

grouped into five sets (A to E). Scores were based on the total number of items correct. The test

produces both a percentile ranking that is normed to the US sample. The maximum score on the

test is 100. The mean score was 53.71, with a SD of 24.58. Brouwers, Van de Vijver, and Van

Hemert (2009) reported that the overall mean across 45 countries of the Raven’s test is 61.88,

although this reflects scores for the standard, easier version of this test. The mean score in this

context (53.71) implies that this population is just about average; however, it is important to

recognize that this version of the test is more advanced than the standard version.

This test is argued to be a good and culturally fair measure of fluid intelligence and has

shown acceptable reliability (Carroll, 1993; Lezak, 1995). Its psychometric properties are

respectable, often ranging from .73 to .89 (e.g., Abdel-Khalek, 2005). Deary, Penke, and Johnson

(2010) claimed that this measurement tool is “often regarded as a good marker of the general

factor of intelligence” (p. 201). Similarly, Nisbett et al. (2012) noted that Raven’s Progressive

Matrices are often considered the best available measure of fluid intelligence.

National culture. The individual’s national culture was determined by consulting

Hofstede’s cultural insights webpage (http://geert-hofstede.com/national-culture.html), which

lists the collectivism-individualism rating for more than 70 countries. Each individual was

assigned the collectivism/individualism value of the country in which they work. Values range

34

from 1 to 100, with higher scores indicating higher individualism. For example, the United States

of America is extremely individualistic, with a score of 91, while Venezuela is collectivistic with

a score of 12. The mean overall score was 74.97, with a SD of 27.04,

Job Performance. Job Performance was measured using a 20-item measure. The items used

in this measure were custom-developed to capture effective job performance for leaders at this

organization. For example, dimensions such as taking initiative and being proactive are seen as

instrumental to effective job performance at this company, and are thus captured by this scale.

The participant’s manager provided a rating from 1-5, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly

agree, on a variety of items. Some example items include “this individual has a special talent for

dealing with people,” “is comfortable with change,” “has expressed a clear interest in

advancement within this company,” “seeks opportunities to work on new projects,” “is willing to

take a stand on complex issues,” “clearly demonstrates commitment to seeing the organization

succeed,” “has established a robust network of colleagues within and outside of this company,”

and “takes the initiative to solve work problems.” A full listing of items is provided in the

appendix.

A factor analysis was conducted to study the dimensionality of the performance measure.

Principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation and Kaiser normalization (J. Kim &

Mueller, 1978) produced four factors with Eigenvalues greater than 1, together accounting for

62.7% of the variance. Cronbach’s alpha for this measure is .93, suggesting very good internal

consistency.

Past research has measured leader performance using a variety of methods, including ratings

from followers. For example, Lewis (2000) wrote a custom 5-item leadership effectiveness scale

related to communication, likability, ability as a supervisor, and ability to do a good job. The

35

current study’s scale has related but expanded items, tapping a variety of dimensions, including

innovation, initiative, ambition, flexibility, willingness to take charge, and ethics.

Although Hogan et al. (1994) argued that leader performance should be measured in terms of

team, group, or organizational effectiveness, assessments of leadership effectiveness are

typically provided by the leader’s supervisor, peer, or subordinate. While these ratings are

subjective evaluations of effectiveness, there is evidence that ratings of leader performance are

related to objective measures of performance for the team (Hogan et al., 1994), providing

support for this type of assessment (Judge et al., 2002). Furthermore, as outlined by Kaiser,

Hogan, and Craig (2008), superior ratings of leader performance are one of the most common

measures of leader effectiveness. Ratings from superiors tend to capture factors such as

achievement orientation (e.g., Hooijberg & Choi, 2000), consistent with the present study.

Objective Success. Annual salary was determined using the organization’s records. The

individual’s salary at the time of their assessment was used in the current analysis. International

currencies were converted to US values so as to facilitate cross-nation comparisons. Consistent

with past research dealing with income data (e.g., Sutin, Costa, Meich, & Eaton, 2009), the

natural log of income was used to normalize the distribution and make results more interpretable.

The correlation between raw and transformed income is .92. The mean (raw) salary was

$118,158.93, with a SD of $35,243.91.

To determine rate of promotions, each individual’s career moves (both promotions and

demotions) during their tenure at this company were tracked (for a maximum of 7 years).

Promotions were coded as the positive value of the difference between their previous role to their

subsequent role (e.g., a promotion from a Level 8 to a Level 10 was coded as “2”), whereas

demotions were coded as the negative value of the difference between their previous role to their

36

subsequent role (e.g., a demotion from an Level 10 to a Level 8 was coded as “-2”). These values

were added and divided by their tenure up to 7 years. Both promotions and demotions were

considered so as to allow for the observation of career moves in either direction. That is,

considering both directions allows for a more dynamic (rather than static) examination of the

direction in which traits influence career moves. It also provides a more accurate representation

of one’s career mobility (e.g., an employee who has experienced one promotion should not be

assigned the same value as one who has experienced one promotion and one demotion). Sixty-

two percent of individuals experienced at least one promotion, with a 2.25 level increase on

average, 36%of individuals experienced no change in level, and 2% of individuals experienced

only demotions, with a 1.10 level decrease on average. Six percent of individuals experienced

both promotions and demotions during this time frame. Average rate of promotion was .32, with

a SD of 17. The measure of rate of promotions correlated at .76 with pure promotions (i.e., a

pure measure of the number of promotions one has received over the last 7 years, based on

organizational records).

Control variables. Although research examining career outcomes typically controls for

demographics variables such as age (Waldman & Avolio, 1986), gender (Bowen, Swim, &

Jacobs, 2000), education (Li, Liang, & Crant, 2010), and tenure (Treadway et al., 2007), the

current study only uses age as a control variable. Age was controlled due to the inflated

relationship between average rate of promotion and salary These variables are negatively

correlated (r = -.11, p <.05), which may be due to the fact that those who are younger are in the

earlier stages of their career, and thus making smaller salaries, but being promoted more

frequently. As suspected, when age is controlled, the relationship between average rate of

promotion and salary reduces substantially (β = -.05 p < .05).

37

Based on the arguments by Atinc, Simmering, and Kroll (2012), control variables are

often misspecified and used inappropriately in organizational research. In the current study, there

seemed to be no reason to account for demographic variables beyond age especially because the

variance attributable to those variables may in fact be meaningful.

Analyses

Because data in this sample represent individuals that are grouped by common managers,

in common functions, and in common countries, it is subject to nesting effects. That is, part of

the variance in the outcomes could be attributable to these grouping variables (i.e., country,

function, and manager). All hypotheses were focused on individual-level relationships. Thus, I

sought to examine (and remove) the extent to which the nesting of individuals within high-order

collectives (i.e., manager, function, country) may have exerted downward cross-level effects.

To determine precisely how much variance is attributable to these factors, I calculated

ICC values. ICC(1) is the proportion of variance in individual responses that is explained by unit

membership. The following values were calculated by running a GLM (General Linear Model)

procedure with these grouping variables, where 𝐼𝐶𝐶 = 𝜏00

𝜏00+𝑀𝑆𝑒 and 𝜏00 =

𝑀𝑆𝑏−𝑀𝑆𝑒

𝑘.

Twenty-three percent of the variance in leadership effectiveness could be attributed to the

nesting of leaders within managers (ICC 1 = .23, MSb = .30, MSe = .20, k = 1.43, p < .05),

virtually nothing due to function (ICC 1 = .00, MSb = .39, MSe = .26, k = 31.9, p < .10), and 4%

due to nesting within countries (ICC 1= .04, MSb = .37, MSe = .26, k = 15.9, p < .10). For average

rate of promotion, the ICC (1) value was negative (-.20), (MSb = .17, MSe = .18, k = 1.43, p >

.05), signifying no nesting effect within managers. Similarly, no nesting effect was detected by

function (ICC 1= .00, MSb = .21, MSe = .17, k = 31.9, p > .05) or country (ICC 1= .00, MSb = .20,

MSe = .17, k = 15.9, p > .05). In terms of salary, 50% of the variance could be attributable to

38

nesting within managers (ICC 1= .50, MSb = .03, MSe = .01, k = 1.43, p < .00), virtually nothing

due to nesting within function (ICC 1= .00, MSb = .04, MSe = .02, k = 31.9, p < .00), and 33%

due to nesting within country (ICC 1= .33, MSb = .15, MSe = .02, k = 15.9, p < .00). These values

are depicted in Table1.

-------------------------------

Insert Table 1 about here

-------------------------------

In sum, the ICCs indicated that non-trivial variance in the dependent variables could be

attributed to nesting due to manager and country for two of the three outcome measures.

Consequently, I opted to examine the pooled within-groups relationships obtained after first

centering all variables about manager and country means. Given that there were multiple

grouping variables (i.e., manager and country), it was necessary to take into account all sources

of higher-order variance when centering. Doing so eliminates any possibility that the predictor

could explain variance in the DV that resides between groups.

Mediation was examined with the bootstrapping method using a macro offered by

Preacher and Hayes (2008). Bootstrapping is a method that is widely advocated by researchers to

test indirect effects (Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes, 2007). To test the indirect effect after

accounting for the moderators (i.e., cognitive ability, national culture), the macro developed by

Preacher et al. (2007) was used. This tool tests the significance of the indirect effect at different

levels of the moderator. All analyses were run with age as the covariate. All effect sizes reported

here are in unstandardized form.

Regarding outliers, suggestions were taken from Aguinis, Gottfredson, and Joo (2013).

Given that outliers can severely influence the interpretation of results, these authors advocate for

a thorough examination of outliers and a deliberation of how to deal with them. Based on their

recommendations, a box plot was created for every substantive variable in this study to examine

39

the presence of outliers. As described below, the data were subject to only a handful of minor

outliers (minor outliers are defined as values that exceed 1.5 times the interquartile range, and

major outliers exceed 3 times the interquartile range). Indeed, there were only 4 cases of mild

outliers values for extraversion, 5 mild outliers for agreeableness, 0 mild outliers for cognitive

ability, 7 mild outliers for job performance, 8 mild outliers for average rate of progression, 11

mild outliers and 1 extreme outlier for salary, and 13 mild outliers for national culture. Given the

minimal evidence for outliers, almost all of which are minor, in the presence of over 600 cases,

outliers are unlikely to yield a meaningful influence on the resulting pattern of results.

40

RESULTS

Table 2 reports means, SDs, and correlations for all variables of interest in this study.

These correlations are pooled within-groups correlations obtained after removing the nesting

effects of manager and function. As seen in the correlation table, extraversion positively

predicted job performance (r = .14, p < .00) but was negatively related to salary (r = -.11, p <

.05). Agreeableness did not predict any of the outcomes. Also, job performance positively

predicted salary (r = .16), but was unrelated to any other predictor or outcome.

-------------------------------

Insert Table 2 about here

-------------------------------

Hypothesis 1 stated that job performance mediates the relationship between extraversion

and objective indicators of success (salary and average rate of promotion). This hypothesis

received partial support; it was supported for salary as the outcome (Indirect Effect = .004, p <

.05) but not for average rate of promotion as the outcome (Indirect Effect = .002 p > .05). When

the average rate of promotion variable was replaced by pure promotion, this hypothesis was

supported such that extraversion leads to higher performance, ultimately enhancing promotions

(Indirect Effect = .018, p < .05). Interestingly, there is evidence of inconsistent mediation

(Blalock, 1969), wherein the main effect between extraversion and salary is slightly negative;

however, through extraversion’s positive relationship with job performance, the overall

relationship is positive. Results are illustrated in Table 3.

-------------------------------

Insert Table 3 about here

-------------------------------

Hypothesis 2 stated that job performance mediates the relationship between

agreeableness and objective indicators of success (salary and average rate of promotion). This

41

hypothesis was not supported for either outcome variable (Indirect Effect = - .000, p > .05).

Results are illustrated in Table 4.

-------------------------------

Insert Table 4 about here

-------------------------------

Hypothesis 3 stated that the negative indirect relationship between agreeableness and

objective career success via job performance is moderated by cognitive ability. This hypothesis

was not supported for either outcome variable; for salary, Indirect Effect = .003 at 1 SD above

the mean, .004 at 1 SD below the mean, and for average rate of promotion, Indirect Effect = .001

at 1 SD above the mean, .002 at 1 SD below the mean. Results are illustrated in Table 5.

-------------------------------

Insert Table 5 about here

-------------------------------

Hypothesis 4 stated that the positive indirect relationship between extraversion and

objective career success via job performance is moderated by cognitive ability. This hypothesis

was not supported for either outcome variable; for salary, Indirect Effect = .001 at 1 SD above

the mean, -.001 at 1 SD below the mean, and for average rate of promotion, Indirect Effect =

.000 at 1 SD above the mean, -.001 at 1 SD below the mean. Results are illustrated in Table 6.

-------------------------------

Insert Table 6 about here

-------------------------------

Hypothesis 5 stated that the positive indirect relationship between extraversion and

objective career success via job performance is moderated by agreeableness. This hypothesis was

not supported for either outcome; for salary, Conditional Indirect Effect = .005 at 1 SD above the

mean and .004 at 1 SD below the mean, and for average rate of promotion, Conditional Indirect

Effect = .002 at 1 SD above and below the mean. Results are illustrated in Table 7.

42

-------------------------------

Insert Table 7 about here

-------------------------------

Hypothesis 6 stated that a three-way interaction will occur between extraversion,

agreeableness, and cognitive ability to predict each of the outcomes. A significant interaction

term was detected for each outcome; β = .004, ΔR2 = .02, p < .05 for job performance, β = -.003,

ΔR2 = .02, p < .05 for promotions, β = .001, ΔR2 = .01, p < .05 for salary. Upon inspecting the

shapes of the interactions (presented below in Figure 2, Figure 3, and Figure 4), it is clear that,

consistent with expectations, highly agreeable, intelligent, and extraverted individuals are

perceived as more effective performers, progress quicker, and earn higher salaries. Results are

illustrated in Table 8.

-------------------------------

Insert Table 8 about here

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

Insert Figure 2 about here

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

Insert Figure 3 about here

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

Insert Figure 4 about here

-------------------------------

Hypothesis 7 stated that the positive indirect relationship between extraversion and

objective career success via job performance is moderated by national culture. This hypothesis

was not supported for promotion (Conditional Indirect Effect = .002 at 1 SD above the mean,

.001 at 1 SD below the mean), but was supported for salary (Conditional Indirect Effect = .005 at

1 SD above the mean, .003 at 1 SD below the mean mean). A significant interaction was detected

for salary (β = -.001, ΔR2 = .01, p < .05). Contrary to predictions, the shape of the interaction

(Figure 5, below) reveals that extraversion enhances salaries slightly in collectivistic societies,

but not in individualistic societies. The significant indirect effect suggests that extraversion’s

43

positive effect on salary in collectivistic societies is due to enhanced leadership effectiveness.

Results are illustrated in Table 9.

-------------------------------

Insert Table 9 about here

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

Insert Figure 5 about here

-------------------------------

Hypothesis 8 stated that the negative indirect relationship between agreeableness and

objective career success via leadership effectiveness is moderated by national culture. This

hypothesis was not supported for either outcome variable; for salary, Conditional Indirect Effect

= .001 at 1 SD above the mean, -.001 at 1 SD below the mean, for average rate of promotion,

Conditional Indirect Effect = -.000 at 1 SD above the mean, = .001 at 1 SD below the mean.

Results are illustrated in Table 10.

-------------------------------

Insert Table 10 about here

-------------------------------

All hypotheses testing average rate of promotion were also tested replaced by the pure

promotions variable. This does not change any of the results, except where noted above for

Hypothesis 1.

Exploratory Results

In exploratory fashion, I tested whether demographic variables impacted relationships. In

total, I tested 14 interactive effects between personality, cognitive ability, gender, and age with

each of the outcomes (salary, promotion, performance). Given that hypotheses are traditionally

tested with α = .05, a Bonferroni correction was applied to test each of the 14 relationships at α =

.05

14 = .004.

44

A significant interaction term was detected between extraversion and gender for job

performance (β = -.114, ΔR2 = .02, p < .004). Results are presented in Table 11 and the

interaction is depicted in Figure 6. As illustrated below, female extraverted leaders are perceived

as more effective than male extraverted leaders. For introverts however, males and females are

rated very similarly, with males faring only slightly better.

-------------------------------

Insert Table 11 about here

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

Insert Figure 6 about here

-------------------------------

I also checked whether the personality factors interacted with cognitive ability to yield

career outcomes. Findings suggest that agreeableness interacts with cognitive ability (β = -.001,

ΔR2 = .01, p < .05) to determine salary, as reported in Table 12. However, this interaction is no

longer significant when the Bonferroni correction is applied (p > .004). Figure 7 illustrates

however that this is not in the anticipated direction. That is, cognitive ability strengthens the

negative relationship between agreeableness and salary.

-------------------------------

Insert Table 12 about here

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

Insert Figure 7 about here

-------------------------------

No other combinations produced significant effects with the Bonferroni correction

applied. Without the correction applied, significant effects emerged between extraversion and

age predicting job performance (β = -.005, ΔR2 = .01, p < .05) and salary (β = .002, ΔR2 = .01, p

< .05). However, the resulting graph did not produce an interpretable relationship (i.e., two

nearly overlapping slopes). Similarly, a significant effect was found between agreeableness and

age ((β = .007, ΔR2 = .03, p < .05), but once again, an interpretable pattern was not detected.

45

Summary

Collectively, these results illustrate that after eliminating nesting effects and controlling

for age, extraverted individuals, or those who pursue the getting ahead motive, experience higher

salaries because they are perceived as more agile leaders. Other than this finding, personality on

its own did not have any predictive potency in this organization. Even when qualified by

cognitive ability, neither extraversion nor agreeableness predicted outcomes, with one notable

exception. Agreeableness and cognitive ability interacted to predict salary, but in a negative

direction. That is, leaders who are agreeable and intelligent earn smaller salaries, which is a

seemingly anomalous finding. Shedding light on these results, however, is the finding that while

any one of these characteristics (i.e., extraversion, agreeableness, cognitive ability), individually

or in combinations of two, do not positively predict success, those who are high on all three are

perceived as better leaders, experience greater promotions, and earn higher salaries. Moreover,

extraversion interacted with gender to predict job performance, with female extraverts being

perceived as more effective than male extraverts. Finally, national culture (i.e.,

collectivism/individualism) interacted with extraversion to yield salary, which is explained by

leadership effectiveness.

46

DISCUSSION

Summary

This study had several primary objectives. Firstly, it introduces socioanalytic theory to

the leadership literature by examining whether cognitively skilled individuals who pursue the

motives of getting along and getting ahead are perceived as better leaders and likewise

experience greater career success. Additionally, this study examined whether general mental

ability has the potency to exert a similar enhancing effect as social skill to the relationship

between motives and career outcomes. This comes in response to Blickle et al.’s (2011) claim

that cognitive ability should be considered as a viable moderating influence in the proposed

relationships of socioanalytic theory. Recent research revealing that emotional intelligence is a

factor of general mental ability implies that such an effect can be expected (MacCann et al.,

2014). Second, it offers job performance as a mechanism that explains the interactive effect

between motives and career outcomes. This answers a call made by Sun and Van Emmerik

(2014) suggesting that such research is necessary to understand why personality and ability

explain career success. Third, it provides a test of this model in a multinational context using a

business sample. Relatedly, the current research espouses Muchinsky and Monahan’s (1987)

person-environment congruence framework to examine whether a match between personal

motives and broader national values yield more favorable outcomes for the individual. Finally, it

employs several measures of external career success criterion variables.

Thus, the current study hypothesized that cognitive ability will facilitate the relationship

between the motives of getting along and getting ahead (proxied by the traits of agreeableness

and extraversion, consistent with past research; e.g. Digman, 1997) and career outcomes.

47

Moreover, consistency between motives and the values of the broader national culture were

predicted to also facilitate one’s career success.

To establish basic relationships, this study examined the predictive utility of personality

against career success outcomes. This study revealed that extraversion works through job

performance to positively impact salary; that is, extraverts tend to earn higher salaries because

they are perceived as better performers. A positive effect between extraversion and salary has

indeed been confirmed in previous research (e.g., Gelissen & de Graaf, 2006; Seibert & Kraimer,

2001). Extraverts have been described as ambitious and reward-seeking in past literature (e.g.

Gelissen & de Graaf, 2006; Ashton, Lee, & Paunonen, 2002); thus, they may be more inclined to

seek higher status positions that offer higher status and salary. Additionally, it has been revealed

that extraverts tend to experience higher salaries because they are status-striving (Barrick et al.,

2002). The current research complements those findings by suggesting that their success may

also be due to their agility at leading others.

It was surprising that extraversion did not predict average rate of promotion, given that

past research supports the notion that an extravert’s ambitious and excitement-seeking nature

may compel them to enhance their career and pursue new challenges (Gelissen & de Graaf,

2006; Seibert & Kraimer, 2001). However, when the average rate of promotion variable was

replaced by pure promotions, a mediation effect was detected such that extraversion leads to

performance, ultimately enhancing promotions. This suggests that extraverts may receive greater

promotions overall, but not necessarily at a quicker rate.

Relatedly, exploratory analyses revealed that extraversion facilitated job performance for

females but not for males. This finding is in contrast to a long line of research on Eagly’s social-

role theory (1987), suggesting that women who assume agentic qualities are typically punished

48

in the workplace. Indeed, research has consistently shown that women incur costs when they

employ an impression management strategy that violates their communal image. For instance,

while performing favors for the sake of reciprocity was a positive predictor of job performance

for men, it was a negative predictor for women. More specifically, if men did favors for their

supervisors, they were rewarded with higher salaries, and the reverse was true for women

(Dreher, Dougherty, & Whitely, 1989). In the same vein, Bolino and Turnley (2003)

demonstrated that intimidation was linked to positive performance evaluation for men, but not

for women. Finally, self-promotion, when employed by a female, has been linked to lower

hireability ratings in a lab study (Rudman, 1998). However, the current finding reveals that

perhaps women have to exert more effort by illustrating ambition, sociability, and dominance in

order to be perceived as an agile leader. In the absence of these qualities, perhaps females may

not be perceived as effectively as men. Similarly, past research has suggested that successful

women implement an even amount of masculine- and feminine-typed impression management

tactics in order to simultaneously fulfill their gender role and their occupational role (Guadagno

& Cialdini, 2007).

Agreeableness’s null relationship with the workplace outcomes was also somewhat

surprising, given that past research has shown this trait’s negative effect on extrinsic career

success (Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999). However, not all past research has

supported this effect. For example, Gelissen and de Graaf (2006) reported no negative effects

between this trait and external career success. Recent research by Sutin et al. (2009) showed that,

while agreeableness was negatively related to lower annual income, this effect washed out when

demographic variables were controlled.

49

Overall, while main effects were expected between personality and career outcomes, the

null findings in general are not inconsistent with past research. Indeed, personality’s predictive

utility, especially traits such as extraversion and agreeableness, which are more context specific

(as opposed to conscientiousness, which is more universal), have been called into question in

past research. In fact, meta-analytic techniques typically report wide credibility intervals

associated with these traits’ relationship with career outcomes, suggesting the presence of

moderators. This is precisely where socioanalytic theory helps elucidate the relationships.

With regards to socioanalytic theory, this study predicted that cognitive ability would

enhance the relationships between personality and success outcomes. Surprisingly, cognitive

ability exerted no interactive effects with extraversion to yield leadership or success outcomes.

This may be explained by the fact that an extraverted intelligent individual may create the profile

of one who is too dominant and assertive to be awarded external markers of success. Thus, while

either individual difference on its own may predict success, the combination of the two may not

necessarily result in a successful individual, presumably due to the resultant “harsh” profile.

Indeed, Blickle et al. (2008) rationalized that a profile of an individual who is high on both

conscientiousness (used as a proxy for “getting ahead”) and political skill may hurt perceived job

performance because the individual may be perceived as trying too hard to get ahead and not

enough to get along, and a similar effect may be occurring here. Alternatively, the current

findings can be explained in light of related research revealing that overconfident individuals

(akin to extraverts who are low in cognitive ability) are awarded higher social status – they are

able to behave in ways that make them appear competent to others, regardless of their actual

ability (Anderson, Brion, Moore, & Kennedy, 2012).

50

Even more surprisingly, agreeableness did interact with cognitive ability but in the

opposite direction than expected. That is, intelligence made an agreeable individual even less

successful in terms of salary. While the theory states that social skill would facilitate this

relationship, the current study illustrates that cognitive ability reverses this effect. Taken together

with the previous null finding regarding agreeableness and salary, the overall implication is that

agreeableness on its own does not influence salary, but in the presence of cognitive ability, it

imposes a negative effect. Given that past research illustrates a positive relationship between

cognitive ability and salary (e.g., Boudreau, Boswell, Judge, & Bretz, 1999) and a negative

relationship between agreeableness and salary, it may be that the combination of these two

characteristics wash out, or in the current case, result in a slightly negative effect. It should also

be noted that, surprisingly, cognitive ability exerted a negative effect on salary in this sample.

Thus, these findings related to cognitive ability and agreeableness may be uniquely characteristic

of the current sample.

The three-way interactions between extraversion, agreeableness, and cognitive ability to

yield outcomes enlighten the findings overall. These findings suggest that individuals who are

high on all three characteristics fare best in terms of job performance, career promotions, and

salary, and individuals who are low all three characteristics fare worst. Thus, it seems that

possessing any one, or even two, of these traits is not enough to be successful – it takes all three

to receive promotions, perceived as an effective leader, and earn a higher salary.

The next set of findings revolves around whether cultural values influence one’s success

in motive pursuit. Notably, extraversion interacted with national culture to predict salary. The

interaction shape suggests that extraversion does not impact salary in individualistic societies,

but promotes success in collectivistic societies. Moreover, a conditional indirect effect was

51

detected, suggested that extraverts are perceived as better leaders in collectivistic societies. These

findings suggest that extraversion is much more valued in collectivistic societies than predicted.

This may be because extraversion is also associated with more sociability, which is actually

characteristic of collectivistic societies. Moreover, because this is a sample of leaders, an

extraverted persona may be especially necessarily in a collectivistic societies, where individual

may be reticent to take charge. Thus, it may be particularly important for someone to have the

dominance to step up and lead. Also related to national culture, it should be noted that, as

suspected above, national culture may be too distal of a factor to exert a meaningful effect on

individual-level relationships. It may be that more proximal factors, such as organizational or

unit culture, should be in line with personality to facilitate leadership success.

An interesting observation from the findings thus far is that contrary to what might be

expected, females who behave in a dominant manner are more successful (in terms of

leadership), despite the violation of gender norms, just as individuals who behave in a dominant

manner are more successful (in terms of salary) in collectivistic societies, despite the violation of

societal norms. The common link across these findings is that both of them illustrate success for

individuals who seemingly violate norms, underscoring that challenging assumptions,

stereotypes, and norms is a prerequisite for leader success.

It is notable that almost no conditional indirect effects were found between personality

and career outcomes. That is, leadership effectiveness did not mediate (i.e., explain) the

moderation between personality and workplace outcomes for almost any outcome, as was

predicted. This suggests that leadership effectiveness may not be the mechanism responsible

between personality and cognitive ability to explain career success, except for salary. It may be

another individual difference factor, such as status, that exerts a mediating effect. For example, it

52

is plausible that agreeableness coupled with cognitive ability does not necessarily produce higher

performance ratings that result in higher salaries, but rather that that profile elicits more esteem

and respect from colleagues, which results in greater rewards. Thus, the underlying mechanism

may be status, authority, or respect.

Limitations and Future Research

Before the implications of the current study’s findings are discussed, a few strengths,

limitations and future research directions should be noted. The current research study boasts

several strengths over previous research. Notably, this study had an international sample from a

Fortune 50 company. Relatedly, the current study employed multisource data methods – that is,

personality was collected from the individual, leadership effectiveness ratings from their

manager, and success criteria from the organization. This is particularly important given that

while past research examining career success primarily uses self-report data (i.e., self-report

promotions and salary; Sutin et al., 2009), the current study used organizational records to

determine these key criteria.

Having said that, the current research should be considered in light of several limitations.

Firstly, the current set of findings only apply to this organizational setting. Future research

should likewise expand and replicate the current findings to examine whether they are consistent

in other companies in other industries. It may be for example that industries that require more

frequent interpersonal interaction might benefit extraverts more (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991),

therefore uncovering a potential effect.

A few interesting relationships emerged from the data which should be noted. Namely,

extraversion and cognitive ability are negatively related to individualism whereas agreeableness

53

is positively related. There is no obvious explanation for these findings, and one potential

interpretation is that they are spurious.

It should also be noted that the inferences drawn from this study are limited because of its

susceptibility to non-response bias. That is, while a variety of employees were invited to

participate, with ranges in geographic locations, functions, and performance histories, it is likely

that low-performing employees did not have the interest to participate. Thus, a full range of

performers was not truly captured and it cannot be ruled out whether participants and non-

participants substantively differed.

Moreover, the null findings may also be due to the self-report nature of the personality

measures. As stated in previous research reporting null findings between personality and career

outcomes, future research would benefit from employing other data sources to tap personality,

including ratings by other sources and perhaps behavioral observations (Gelissen & de Graaf,

2006; Bouchard, Lussier, & Sabourin, 1999).

The current study also considered the individualism/collectivism dimension of Hofstede’s

(1980) cultural dimensions, with limited success in predicting outcomes. The mean level of this

dimension was just about 75, indicating a heavy skew towards individualism which may

obfuscate any effects related to collectivism. Future studies should aim to conduct research in

more balanced settings (i.e., representing both individualistic and collectivistic cultures).

Relatedly, other cultural dimensions may also be considered. For example, the

masculinity/femininity dimension seems particularly germane, as masculine cultures may value

more dominant, assertive, and agentic behaviors, whereas feminine cultures may value more

passive, compliant, and communal behaviors.

54

Additionally, future researchers should seek to obtain more comprehensive measures of

the variables in this study. For example, the promotion variable was limited to the last seven

years. Relatedly, while several success criteria were included in the model, there are several

additional ones that could be considered, such as ratings of potential, percentage of yearly bonus,

and job attitudes. Also related to measurement, the current study measured national culture (a

broad cultural variable) at the individual-level, which may explain the null findings. Future

research should employ hierarchical methods to determine whether a cross-level effect between

culture and individual-level relationships is occurring.

Moreover, the current study operationalized the motives of getting ahead and getting

along in terms of extraversion and agreeableness, respectively. There are two considerations to

be made here. One is that these traits do not directly measure the motives of getting along and

getting ahead. Thus, Blickle et al. (2011) advised that actual work motives should be measured;

they used Super’s (1970) Work Value Inventory to confirm relationships consistent with the

socioanalytical model. Nonetheless, using personality as a proxy for motives is regular practice

within this domain (e.g., Mount, Barrick, & Strauss, 1999; Witt & Ferris, 2003). Future

researchers should aim to break this paradigm and consider actual work values and motives to

more cleanly tap the constructs of socioanalytic theory. The second consideration is that broad

level factors were examined, rather than facet-level traits. As Barrick and Mount (1991)

suggested, facet-level traits offer more nuanced and specific information about an individual’s

personality beyond the five broader factors. Indeed, past researchers have advocated for the use

of facet-level traits in personality research (Murphy & Dziewecynsky, 2005).

Future research should also examine how different personality types select into and

succeed in occupations that reward their personalities, as suggested by past researchers (Gelissen

55

& de Graaf, 2006; Silver & Spilerman, 1990). The implication here is that measures of success

should expand beyond performance, salary, and promotions and include degree of fit or match of

individuals to occupations and careers which fulfill their needs and favor their personality, as

these outcomes are also important (Roe, 1957; Holland, 1973).

Relatedly, future research should consider variables beyond cognitive ability (tested in

the current study) and social skill (tested in past research) as exerting a moderating influence

between personality and career success. Related factors should also be considered, including

emotional intelligence and social intelligence. Broader contextual features, such as psychological

safety and organizational culture, should also be examined to test whether matches between

motives and personality with broader features produce more favorable outcomes for the

individual.

The current study also employed a cross-sectional design, implying that causality cannot

necessarily be inferred. For example, we cannot deduce with certainty that an extraverted

persona causes a higher salary. While personality is generally static, there is some evidence that

job characteristics influence personality (Kohn & Schooler, 1978; 1982). Despite this, previous

work by Robins, Fraley, Roberts, and Trtzesniewski (2001), Judge et al. (1999), and Costa and

McCrae (1988) suggest that personality predominantly predicts career outcomes. Furthermore,

there is also a genetic influence on personality traits (McCrae, Jang, Livesley, & Angelieter,

2001), further corroborating that personality impacts outcomes.

Empirical Contributions

The current study tested two theoretical models, notably socioanalytic theory and person-

environment congruence, with limited supported. Specifically, it was found that no one

characteristic or combination of two characteristics was predictive of success; however, the

56

presence of all three characteristics facilitated success in terms of leadership effectiveness,

salary, and promotions. That is, those who are extraverted, agreeable, and intelligent are

perceived as better performers, promoted more frequently, and earn higher salaries. It may be

that a combination of agreeableness, extroversion, and intelligence creates a profile of an

effective leader. On the other hand, the combination of just extraversion and cognitive ability, in

the absence of agreeableness, may elicit overall ambivalence. That is, the leader is likely

dominant and assertive, perhaps eliciting a negative emotion such as intimidation, as well as

superiorly intelligent, eliciting a positive emotion such as reverence. These polar emotions may

result in a wash out effect, and thus, the overall judgment of the individual is neither favorable or

unfavorable. This speculation may explain the null findings related to extraversion in this study.

Moreover, the current research examined personality’s predictive utility relative to

broader measures of job success, including subjective measures of leadership effectiveness and

objective measures of salary and rate of career progress. Researchers have noted the importance

of parsing apart the different components of career success (Ng et al., 2005; Jaskolka et al., 1985;

Judge et al., 1995; Poole et al., 1993). As stated earlier, salary and promotion for example have a

very modest correlation (Ng et al., 2005), and thus, should be considered separately. In the

current study, extraversion was related to salary but not promotions indicating that these extrinsic

rewards may not always move in the same direction.

Practical Implications

The findings of the current study carry practical implications. Specifically, this study

helps practitioners understand the degree to which personality is predictive of success at work.

Sorcher & Brant (2002) argued that the selection of leaders should be made on the basis of a

variety of factors, including personality. The current study agrees with this argument and finds

57

that “it takes three” to be a good leader – that is, individuals are perceived more favorably in

terms of leadership abilities, are promoted more, and receive higher salaries, when they possess a

combination of agreeableness, extroversion, and intelligence. This finding suggests that when an

individual strikes a healthy balance between dominance and assertiveness and compliance and

kindness, they achieve highest performance potential. Thus, agreeable individuals should be

mindful of being too complacent and kind, as this trait only predicts success when it is qualified

by cognitive ability. Moreover, an extraverted personality should be tempered by a cooperative

persona. Finally, while cognitive ability cannot be trained, a more specific competency, such as

political skill, can (Leary, 1995).

Results also suggested that extraversion exerted a negative main effect on salary, but a

positive indirect effect through leadership effectiveness. This finding suggests that if an

extraverted individual is not being perceived as an effective performer, they should not expect to

earn a higher income. This finding underscores that extraversion benefits an individual when it is

used appropriately to lead others.

Relatedly, the finding that extraversion facilitates success for females but not males may

be useful to women leaders. Female extraverted leaders should continue employing their

trademark dominant, status-striving personas to drive personal and organizational success. On

the other hand, introverted females may want to adopt a few of these strategies so as to

experience similar success.

From the organization’s perspective, these findings also have implications for using

personality measures in personnel testing. The organization should be conscious that personality

on its own has limited predictive potency. Therefore, a single trait should not be expected to

58

produce an effective leader. Rather, it is the trifecta of intelligence, agreeableness, and

extraversion that promotes leadership success.

59

REFERENCES

Abdel-Khalek, A. M. (2005). Reliability and factorial validity of the Standard Progressive

Matrices among Kuwaiti children ages 8 to 15 years. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 101,

409-412.

Adler, A (1939). Social interest: A challenge to mankind. New York: Putnam.

Aguinis, H., Gottfredson, R. K., & Joo, H. 2013. Best-practice recommendations

for defining, identifying, and handling outliers. Organizational Research Methods, 16:

270-301.

Allen, M. T., Bynum, B. H., Oliver, J. T. Russell, T. L., Young, M. C., & Babin, N. E. (2014).

Predicting leadership performance and potential in the US Army officer candidate school

(OCS). Military Psychology, 26(4), 310-326.

Amabile, T. M. & Glazebrook, A. H. (1982). A negativity bias in interpersonal evaluation.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,18, 1-22.

Anderson, C., & Brion, S. 2014. Perspectives on power in organizations. Annual Review of

Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1: 67-97.

Anderson, C., Brion, S., Moore, D. A., & Kennedy, J. A. (2012). A status-enhancement account

of overconfidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 718-735.

Anderson, C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2006). Power, optimism, and risk-taking. European Journal of

Social Psychology, 36, 511–536.

Anderson, C. & Kilduff, G.J. (2009), Why do dominant personalities attain influence in

face-to-face groups? The competence-signaling effects of trait dominance, Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 2, pp. 491-503.

Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & Paunonen, S. V. (2002). What is the central feature of extraversion?

60

Social attention versus reward sensitivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

83, 245–252.

Atinc, G. Simmering, M. J., & Kroll, M. J. 2012. Control variable use and reporting in macro

and micro management research. Organizational Research Methods, 15: 57-74.

Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence. An essay on psychology and religion.

Chicago: Rand MacNally.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions

and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.

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

Big Five personality dimensions and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,

78, 111-118

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

Barrick, M.R., Mount, M.K. & Strauss, J.P. (1993). Conscientiousness and performance of sales

representatives: Test for the mediating effect of goal setting. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 78, 715-722.

Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., & Piotrowski, M. (2002). Personality and job performance: Test

of the mediating effects of motivation among sales representatives. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 87, 43-51.

Bartram, D. (2005). The Great Eight competencies: A criterion-centric approach to validation.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1185–1203.

Bartram, D., Brown, A., Fleck, S., Inceoglu, I., & Ward, K. (2006). OPQ32 Techinical Manual.

61

Thames Ditton: SHL Group.

Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership. New York: Free Press.

Bauer, T. N., Erdogan, B., Liden, R. C., & Wayne, S. J. (2006). A longitudinal study of the

moderating role of extraversion: leader-member exchange, performance, and turnover

during new executive development. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 298-310.

Benyus, J. M., Bremmer, I., Pujadas, J., Christakis, N. A., Collier, P., Warnholz, J., et al. (2009).

Breakthrough ideas for 2009. Harvard Business Review, 87(2), 19-40.

Blalock, H., Jr. (1969). Multiple indicators and the causal approach to measurement error.

American Journal of Sociology, 75: 264-272.

Blickle, G., Ferris, G. R., Munyon, T. P., Momm, T., Zettler, I., Schneider, P. B., & Buckley,

M. R. (2011). A multi-source, multi-study investigation of job performance prediction by

political skill. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 60, 449–474.

Blickle, G., Meurs, J. A., Zettler, I., Solga, J., Noethen, D., Kramer, J., et al (2008). Personality,

political skill, and job performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72, 377–387.

Blickle, G., Wendel, S., & Ferris, G.R. (2010). Political skill as moderator of personality–job

performance relationships in socioanalytic theory: Test of the getting ahead motive in

automobile sales. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 326–335.

Bligh, M. C. (2009). Personality theories of leadership. Encyclopedia of Group Processes &

Intergroup Relations,

Blodgett, J. G., Bakir, A., & Rose, G. M. (2008). A test of the validity of Hofstede’s cultural

framework. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 25(6), 339-349.

Bolino, M. C. & Turnley, W. H. (2003). More than one way to make an impression: Exploring

62

profiles of impression management. Journal of Management, 29, 141–160.

Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality and transformational and transactional

leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 901-910.

Bouchard, G., Lussier, Y., Sabourin, S., 1999. Personality and marital adjustment: utility of the

five-factor model of personality. Journal of Marriage and the Family 61 (3), 651–660.

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 (1), 53–81.

Boudreau, J. W., Boswell, W. R., Judge, T. A. & Bretz, R. D. Jr, (1999).Personality and

cognitive ability as predictors of job search and separation among employed

managers(CAHRS Working Paper #99-13). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, School of

Industrial and Labor Relations, Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies

Bowden, A. O. (1926). A study of the personality of student leaders in the United States. Journal

of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 21, 149–160.

Bowen, C. C., Swim, J. K., & Jacobs, R. R. (2000). Evaluating gender biases on actual job

performance of real people: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30,

2194–2215.

Bozionelos, N. (2004). The relationship between disposition and career success: A British study.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 403-420.

Brouwers, S. A., Van de Vijver, F.J.R, Van Hemert, D. A .(2009). Variation in Raven's

Progressive Matrices scores across time and place. Learning and Individual Differences,

Vol. 19, 3, 330 – 338

Brown, A. & Bartram, D. (2009). OPQ32 Technical Manual. SHL Group Limited.

Brown, A., & Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2011a). Item response modeling of forced-choice

63

questionnaires. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71, 460–502.

Caldwell, D., & O’Reilly, C. (1990). Measuring person – job fit using a profile comparison

process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 648 – 657.

Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. Cambridge,

England: University of Cambridge Press.

Carson, R. C. (1969). Interaction concepts of personality. Chicago: Aldine.

Chatman, J. A. (1991). Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in public

accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 459 – 484.

Chen, C, Huang, Y, Huang Y, & Liu, I. 2011. The mediating processes linking applicant

personality traits and interviewer evaluation. International Journal of Select and

Assessment, 19(3), 287-300.

Chiaburu, D. S., Oh, I., Berry, C. M., Li, N., & Gardner, R. G. 2011. The five-factor model of

personality traits and organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 96: 1140-1166.

Connelly, M. S., Gilbert, J. A., Zaccaro, S. J., Threlfall, K. V., Marks, M. A., & Mumford, M. D.

(2000). Exploring the relationship of leadership skills and knowledge to leader

performance. Leadership Quarterly, 11(1), p65, 22p.

Costa, P.T., McCrae, R.R., 1988. Personality in adulthood: a six-year longitudinal study of self-

reports and spouse ratings on the NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology 54 (5), 853–863.

Cowley, W. H. (1931). Three distinctions in the study of leaders. Journal of Abnormal and

Social Psychology, 26, 304–313.

Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and

64

prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,

69, 117−132.

Dai, G., De Meuse, K. P., & Tang, K. Y. (2013) The role of learning agility in executive career

success: The results of two field studies. Journal of Managerial Issues, 25(2), 108-131,

105.

Deary I. J. , Penke L, & Johnson W. 2010. The neuroscience of human intelligence differences.

Nat. Rev. Neurosci.11: 201–11

Digman, J. M. (1997). Higher-order factors of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 73, 1246–1256.

Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five- factor model. In Annual

review of psychology (Vol. 41, pp. 417— 440). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.

Dreher, G. F., Dougherty, T. W., & Whitely, W. (1989). Influence tactics and salary attainment:

A gender-specific analysis. Sex Roles, 20, 535–550.

Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). GRT: Perseverence

and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92,

1087–1101.

Duckworth, A. L., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005). Self-discipline outdoes IQ in predicting

academic performance of adolescents. Psychological Science, 16, 939–944.

Dubois, N., & Beauvois, J.-L. (2005). Normativeness and individualism. European Journal of

Social Psychology, 35, 123–146.

Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale,

NJ: Erlbaum. Ferris, G.R. and Kacmar, K.M. (1992) Perceptions of organizational

politics. Journal of Management, 18,1, 93–116.

65

Ferris, G. R., Davidson, S. L., & Perrewé, P. L. (2005). Political skill at work: Impact on work

effectiveness. Mountain View, CA: Davis-Black.

Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Perrewe, L, P. L., Brouer, R. L., Douglas, C., & Lux, S. (2007).

Political skill in organizations. Journal of Management, 33, 290–320.

Filer, R. K. (1981). The influence of affective human capital on the wage equation. Research in

Labour Economics, 4, 367–416.

Furnham, A., & Fudge, C. (2008). The five factor model of personality and sales performance.

Journal of Individual Differences, 29, 11–16.

Gannon, M. (2004). Understanding global cultures: Metaphorical journeys through 28 nations,

clusters, and continents (3ed ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Guadagno, R. E., & Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Gender Differences in Impression Management in

Organizations: A Qualitative Review. Sex Roles, 56(7-8), 483–494.

Gelissen, J., & de Graaf, P. M. (2006). Personality, social background, and occupational

career success. Social Science Research, 35, 702-726

Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The Big-Five factor

structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216–1229.

Gough, H. G. (1990). Testing for leadership with the California Psychological Inventory. In K.

E. Clark & M. B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadership (pp. 355–379). West Orange, NJ:

Leadership Library of America.

Gough, H. G. (1988). Manual for the California Psychological Inventory. Palo Alto, CA:

Consulting Psychologists Press.

Grant, A. M. 2014. Rethinking the extraverted sales ideal: The ambivert advantage.

Psychological Science, 24(6), 1024-1030.

66

Graziano, W. G., & Eisenberg, N. H. (1997). Agreeableness: A dimension of personality. In R.

Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 795–

824). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Graziano, W. G., Habashi, M. M., Sheese, B. E., & Tobin, R. M. (2007). Agreeableness,

empathy, and helping: A Person - Situation perspective. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 93, 583–599.

Graziano, W. G., & Tobin, R. M. (2002). Agreeableness: Dimension of personality or

social desirability artifact? Journal of Personality, 70,695-727.

Grimm SD, Church AT, Katigbak MS, Reyes JA. 1999. Self-described traits, values, and

moods associated with individualism and collectivism: testing I-C theory in an

individualistic (U.S.) and a collectivistic (Philippine) culture. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol.

30:466–500

Hall, E. T., & Hall, M. R. (1990). Understanding cultural differences: Germans, French, and

Americans. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Harrell, T. W. (1969). The personality of high earning MBA’s in big business. Personnel

Psychology, 22, 457–463.

Harrell, T. W., & Alpert, B. (1989). Attributes of successful MBAs: A 20-year longitudinal

study. Human Performance, 2, 301–322.

Holland, J.L., 1973. Making Vocational Choices: A Theory of Careers. Prentice-Hall,

Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1999). Is there a universal need for

positive self-regard? Psychological Review, 106, 766–794.

Helgeson, V. S. (1994). Relation of agency and communion to wellbeing: Evidence and potential

67

explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 412–428.

Heslin, P. A. (2005). Conceptualizing and evaluating career success. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 26, 113–136.

Hofstede G. 1980. Culture’s Consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage

Hofstede, G. & Hofstede, G.J. (2005), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind,

McGraw-Hill, New York, NY (revised and expanded, 2nd ed.).

Hogan, J. C. (1978). Personological dynamics of leadership. Journal of Research in Personality,

12, 390–395.

Hogan, R. (1983). A socioanalytic theory of personality. In M. M. Page (Ed.), 1982 Nebraska

Symposium on Motivation (pp. 55–89). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership. American

Psychologist, 49, 493–504.

Hogan, R., Hogan, J., & Busch, C. 1984. How to measure service orientation. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 69, 167-173.

Hogan, J., & Holland, B. (2003). Using theory to evaluate personality and job-performance

relations: A socioanalytic perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 100–112.

Hogan, R., Jones, W., & Cheek, J. M. (1985). Socioanalytic theory: An alternative to armadillo

psychology. In B. R. Schlenker (Ed.), The self and social life (pp. 175–198). New York:

McGraw-Hill

Hogan, R., & Shelton, D. (1998). A socioanalytic perspective on job performance. Human

Performance, 11, 129–144.

Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2005). What we know about leadership. Review of General

Psychology, 9, 169-180.

68

Hooijberg, R., & Choi, J. (2000). Which leadership roles matter to whom? An examination of

rater effects on perceptions of effectiveness. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 341–364.

Hough, L. M., & Dilchert, S. (2010). Personality: Its measurement and validity for employee

selection. In J. L. Farr and N. T. Tippins (Eds.), Handbook of employee selection(pp. 299-

319). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.

Howard, A., & Bray, D.W. (1988). Managerial lives in transition: Advancing age and changing

times. Adult development and aging. New York: Guilford.

Hunter, S.T. & Cushenbery, L. (2014). Is being a jerk necessary for originality? Examining the

role of disagreeableness in the sharing and utilization of original ideas. Journal of

Business and Psychology.

Hunter, J.E. & Hunter, R.F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job

performance. Psychological Bulletin. 96: 73-98.

Inesi ME. 2010. Power and loss aversion. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 112:58–69

Jaskolka, G., Beyer, J. M., & Trice, H. M. (1985). Measuring and predicting managerial success.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 26,189–205

Javidan, M., House, R.J., Dorfman, P.W., Hanges, P.J. and Luque, M.S. (2006), Conceptualizing

and measuring cultures and their consequences: a comparative review of GLOBE’s and

Hofstede’s approaches, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 37, pp. 897-914.

Jensen-Campbell,L. A.,Adams, R.,Perry,D. G., Workman, K. A., Furdella, J. Q., & Egan, S. K.

(2002). Agreeableness, extraversion, and peer relations in early adolescence:

Winning friends and deflecting aggression. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 224–

251.

Jensen-Campbell, L. A., Knack, J. M., Waldrip, A. M., & Campbell, S. D. (2007). Do big five

69

personality traits associated with self-control influence the regulation of anger and

aggression? Journal of Research in Personality, 41(2), 403-424.

Joyce, W. F., Nohria, N., & Roberson, B. (2003).What really works: The 4 - 2 formula for

sustained business success. New York: Harper Business.

Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and transformational

leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 (5), 751-765

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership:

A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765-780.

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Werner, M. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative

and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 765–780.

Judge, T. A., Cable, D. M., Boudreau, J. W., & Bretz, R. D. (1995). An empirical investigation

of the predictors of executive career success. Personnel Psychology, 48, 485–519.

Judge, T. A., Colbert, A. E., & Ilies, R. (2004). Intelligence and leadership: A quantitative review

and test of theoretical propositions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 542-552

Judge, T.A., Higgins, C.A., Thoresen, C.J., Barrick, M.R., 1999. The big five personality traits,

general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology 52

(3), 621–652.

Judge, T. A., Jackson, C. L., Shaw, J. C., Scott, B. A., & Rich, B. L. (2007). Self-efficacy and

work-related performance: The integral role of individual differences. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 92, 107-127.

Judge, T. A., Livingston, B. A., & Hurst, C. (2012). Do nice guys -- and gals -- really finish last?

The joint effects of sex and agreeableness on income. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 102, 390-407.

70

Kaiser, R. B., Hogan, R., & Craig, S. B. (2008). Leadership and the fate of organizations.

American Psychologist, 63(2), 96-110.

Kenny, D. A., & Zaccaro, S. J. (1983). An estimate of variance due to traits in leadership.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 678–685.

Kim, H., & Markus, H. R. (1999). Deviance or uniqueness, harmony or conformity: A

cultural analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 785–800.

Kim, S. & McLean G. N. (2014). The impact of national culture on informal learning in the

workplace. Adult Education Quarterly, (64)1, 39-59.

Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Leadership: Do traits matter? Academy of

Management Executive, 5, 48–60.

Kluckhohn, F. & Strodtbeck, F. (1961), Variations in Value Orientations, Row, Peterson,

Westport, CT.

Kohn, M.L., Schooler, C., 1978. The reciprocal effects of the substantive complexity of work

and intellectual flexibility: a longitudinal assessment. American Journal of Sociology 87

(6), 24–52.

Kohn, M.L., Schooler, C., 1982. Job conditions and personality: a longitudinal assessment of

their reciprocal effects. American Journal of Sociology 87 (6), 1257–1286.

Kohs, S. C., & Irle, K. W. (1920). Prophesying army promotion. Journal of Applied Psychology,

4, 73–87.

Kotter, J.P. (1982) What effective general managers really do. Cambridge: Harvard Business

Review.

Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New York: Ronald Press.

Leary, M. R. (1995). Self-presentation: Impression management and interpersonal

71

behavior. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Leonard, R. (1997). Theorizing the relationship between agency and communion. Theory

Psychology (7) 823-835.

LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (1998). Predicting voice behavior in work groups. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 83, 853–868.

Lewellyn KB, Muller-Kahle MI. 2012. CEO power and risk taking: evidence from the subprime

lending industry. Corp. Gov. Int. Rev. 20:289–307

Lewis, K.M. (2000). When leaders display emotion: How followers respond to negative

emotional expression of male and female leaders. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

21, 221–234.

Lezak, M. D. (1995). Neuropsychological assessment (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University

Press.

Li, N., Liang, J., & Crant, J. M. (2010). The role of proactive personality in job satisfaction and

organizational citizenship behavior: A relational perspective. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 95, 395–404.

London, M. & Stumpf, S. (1983). Effects of candidate characteristics on management

promotions: an experimental study. Personnel Psychology, 42, 241-259.

Lord, R. G., De Vader, C. L., & Alliger, G. M. (1986). A meta-analysis of the relation between

personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity generalization

procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 402–410.

Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J., & De Vader, C. L. (1984). A test of leadership categorization theory:

Internal structure, information processing, and leadership perceptions. Organizational

Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 343–378.

72

MacCann, C., Joseph, D. L., Newman, D. A., & Roberts, R. D. (2014). Emotional intelligence is

a second-stratum factor of intelligence: Evidence from hierarchical and bifactor models.

Emotion, 14, 358-374.

Marinova, S. V, Moon, H., Kamdar, D. (2014). Getting ahead or getting along? The two-facet

conceptualization of conscientiousness and leadership emergence. Organizational

Science, 24(4):1257-1276.

Marquardt, M., Berger, N., & Loan, P. (2004). HRD in the age of globalization. New York, NY:

Basic Books.

McAdams, D. P. (1985). Power, intimacy, and the life story: Psychological inquiries into

identity. Homewood, IL: Dow-Jones-Irwin.

McHenry, J. J., Hough, L. M., Toquam, J. L., Hanson, M. A., & Ashworth, S. (1990). Project A

validity results: The relationship between predictor and criterion domains. Personnel

Psychology, 43, 335–354.

McCrae,R.R.(1989).Why I advocate the Five-factor model: Joint analyses of the NEO-PI and

other instruments. In: Buss, D.M. and Cantor,N.(Eds), Personality Psychology: Recent

Trends and Emerging Directions, pp.237±245,Springer,NewYork.

McHenry, J. J., Hough, L. M., Toquam, J. L., Hanson, M. A., & Ashworth, S. (1990). Project a

validity results: The relationship between predictor and criterion domains. Personnel

Psychology, 43, 335–354

McCrae, R.R., Jang, K.L., Livesley, W.J., Riemann, R., Angleiter, A., 2001. Sources of

structure: genetic, environmental, and artifactual Influences on the covariation of

personality traits. Journal of Personality 69 (4), 511–535.

Meier, B. P., & Robinson, M. D. (2004). Does quick to blame mean quick to Anger?: The role of

73

agreeableness in dissociating blame and anger. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 30, 856-867.

Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Peake, P. K. (1988). The nature of adolescent competencies predicted

by preschool delay of gratification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,

687–696.

Morling, B., Kitayama, S., & Miyamoto, Y. (2002). Cultural practices emphasize influence

in the US and adjustment in Japan. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 311–

323.

Motowidlo, S. J., Borman, W. C., & Schmit, M. J. (1997). A theory of individual differences in

task and contextual performance. Human Performance, 10, 71-83.

Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Stewart, G. L. (1998). Five-Factor model of personality and

performance in jobs involving interpersonal interactions. Human Performance, 11, 145–

165.

Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Strauss, J. P. (1999). The joint relationship of conscientiousness

and ability with performance: Test of the interaction hypothesis. Journal of Management,

25(5), 707-721.

Muchinsky, P. M., & Monahan, C. J. (1987). What is person-environment congruence?

Supplementary versus complementary models of fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior,

31(3), 268–277.

Mueller, G. & Plug, E. (2006) Estimating the effect of personality on male and female earnings,

Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 60(1), pp. 3-22

Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Harding, F. D., Owen Jacobs, T., & Fleishman, E. A. (2000).

Leadership skills for a changing world: Solving complex social problems. Leadership

74

Quarterly, 11, 11–35.

Murphy, K., & Dzieweczynski, J. (2005). Why don’t measures of broad dimensions of

personality perform better as predictors of job performance? Human Performance, 18,

343–357.

Ng, T. W. H., Eby, L. T., Sorensen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. (2005). Predictors of objective and

subjective career success: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 58, 367–408.

Nicholson, N., & de Waal-Andrews, W. (2005). Playing to win:Biological imperatives, self-

regulation, and trade-offs in the game of career success. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 26, 137–154.

Nisbett, R. E., Aronson, J., Blair, C., Dickens, W., Flynn, J., Halpern, D. F., & Turkheimer, E.

(2012). Intelligence: New findings and theoretical development. American Psychologist,

67(2), 130-159.

Nyhus, E. K. & Pons, E, (2005). "The effects of personality on earnings," Journal of Economic

Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 363-384, June.

O’Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture: A

profile comparison approach to assessing person – organization fit. Academy of

Management Journal, 34, 487 – 516.

Park, L.E., Streamer, L., Huang, L., & Galinsky, A.D. (2013). Stand tall, but don’t put your feet

up: Universal and culturally-specific effects of expansive postures on power. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 965-971.

Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., & Schroeder, D. A. (2005). Prosocial behavior:

Multilevel perspectives. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 365–392.

Penner, L. A., Fritzsche, B. A., Craiger, J. P., & Freifeld, T. S. (1995). Measuring the prosocial

75

personality. In J. N. Butcher, & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.) Advances in personality

assessment, (Vol. 12). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Poole, M., J. Langan-Fox & M. Omodei (1993). Contrasting subjective and objective criteria as

determinants of perceived career success: A longitudinal study. Journal of Occupational

and Organizational Psychology,66, 39-54.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing

and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research

Methods, 40, 879-891.

Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation

hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42,

185–227.

Rank, O. (1945). Will therapy and truth and reality. New York: Knopf.

Raven, J., Court, J. H., & Raven, J. (1977). In The Manual for Raven’s Progressive Matrices and

vocabulary scales (Section 3). London: H. K. Lewis & Co.

Riggio, R. E., & Reichard, R. J. (2008). The emotional and social intelligences of effective

leadership. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23, 169–185.

Robert M. Wiseman 3Miller, J. S. & Wiseman, R. M. (2001). Perceptions of executive pay: does

pay enhance a leader's aura? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22: 703-711.

Robins, R.W., Fraley, R., Roberts, B.W., Trzesniewski, K.H., 2001. A longitudinal study of

personality change in young adulthood. Journal of Personality 69 (4), 617–640.

Rode, J. C., Arthaud-Day, M. L., Mooney, C. H., Near, J. P., Baldwin, T. T. (2008) Ability and

personality predictors of salary, perceived job success, and perceived career success in

the initial career stage. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 16(3), 292-299.

76

Roe, A., 1957. Early determinants of vocational choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology 4,

212–217.

Rudman, L. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of

counterstereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 74, 629–645.

Rueb, J. D., & Foti, R. J. (1990, April). Traits, self-monitoring, and leadership emergence. Paper

presented at the Fifth Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational

Psychology, Miami, FL.

Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel

psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings.

Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–274.

Schmeichel, B. J., Volokhov, R. N., & Demaree, H. A. (2008). Working memory capacity and

the self-regulation of emotional expression and experience. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 95, 1526–1540.

Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40: 437-453.

Schwartz SH. 1992. Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances

and empirical tests in 20 countries. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, ed.

MZanna, 25:1–66. New York: Academic

Searle, W. & Ward, C. (1990). Prediction of psychological and sociocultural adjustment during

cross-cultural transitions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14, 449-464.

See KE, Morrison EW, Rothman NB, Soll JB. 2011. The detrimental effects of power on

confidence, advice taking, and accuracy. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 116:272–

85

77

Seibert, S.E., Kraimer, M.L., 2001. The five-factor model of personality and career success.

Journal of Vocational Behavior 58 (1), 1–21.

Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2001). A social capital theory of career success.

Academy of Management Journal, 44, 219–237.

Shamosh, N. A., & Gray, J. R. (2007). The relation between fluid intelligence and self-regulatory

depletion. Cognition and Emotion, 21, 1833–1843.

Silver, C., Spilerman, S., 1990. Psychoanalytic perspectives on occupational choice and

attainment. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 9, 181–214.

Sorcher, M., & Brant, J. (2002). Are You Picking the Right Leaders? Harvard Business Review,

80(2), 78-86.

Spears LC. 2004. The understanding and practice of servant leadership. In Practicing Servant-

Leadership: Succeeding Through Trust, Bravery, and Forgiveness, ed. LC Spears, M

Lawrence, pp. 167–200. San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass

Spurk, D., & Abele, A. E. (2010). Who earns more and why? A multiple mediation model from

personality to salary. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26,87–103.

Stewart, G. L. (1996). Reward structure as a moderator of the relationship between extraversion

and sales performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 619–627.

Stewart, G.L., & Carson, K.P. (1995). Personality dimensions and domains of service

performance: A field investigation. Journal of Business and Psychology, 9, 365-378

Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership. New York: Free Press.

Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature.

Journal of Psychology, 25, 35–71.

Stumpf, S. A., & Tymon,W. G., Jr. (2012). The effects of objective career success on subsequent

78

subjective career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 81, 245–253.

Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York:Norton.

Sun, S., & van Emmerik, H. I.. (2014, September 1). Are Proactive Personalities Always

Beneficial? Political Skill as a Moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology.

Super, D. E. (1970). Work values inventory. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Sutin AR, Costa PT Jr, Miech R, & Eaton WW. (2009). Personality and Career Success:

Concurrent and Longitudinal Relations. Eur J Pers, 23(2):71-84.

Tiedens, L. Z. (2001). Anger and advancement, sadness and subjugation: The effect of negative

emotion expressions on social status conferral. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 80, 86–94.

Tosi HL, Misangyi VF, Fanelli A, Waldman DA, Yammarino FJ. 2004. CEO charisma,

compensation, and firm performance. Leadership Quarterly. 15:405–20

Tost L, Gino F, Larrick R. 2012. Power, competitiveness, and advice taking: why the powerful

don’t listen. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 117:53–65

Treadway, D. C., Ferris, G. R., Duke, A. B., Adams, G. L., & Thatcher, J. B. (2007). The

moderating role of subordinate political skill on supervisors’ impressions of subordinate

ingratiation and ratings of subordinate interpersonal facilitation. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 92, 848–855.

Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (1998). Riding the waves of culture (2nd ed.). New

York: McGraw Hill.

Van Iddekinge CH, Ferris GR, Heffner TS (2009) Test of a multistage model of distal and

proximal antecedents of leader performance. Personnel Psych. 62(3):463–395.

Waldman, D. A., & Avolio, B. J. (1986). A meta-analysis of age differences in job performance.

79

Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 33–38.

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Extraversion and its positive emotional core. In R. Hogan, J.

A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 767–793).

San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Ward C, & Chang WC. 1997. “Cultural fit:” a new perspective on personality and sojourner

adjustment. Int. J. Intercult. Relat. 21:525–33

Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1993). Where’s the culture in cross-cultural transition? Comparative

studies of sojourner adjustment. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,24, 221-249

White, L. A., Young, M. C., Hunter, A. E., & Rumsey, M. G. (2008). Lessons learned in

transitioning personality measures from research to operational settings. Industrial and

Organizational Psychology, 1, 291–295.

Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: The interpersonal

domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37: 395–412.

Wiggins, J. S. (1991). Agency and communion as conceptual coordinates for the understanding

and measurement of interpersonal behavior. In W. M. Grove & D. Ciccetti (Eds.),

Thinking clearly about psychology: Vol. 2. Personality and psychopathology (pp. 89–

113). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Wilkins, A., & Ouchi, W. 1983. Efficient cultures: Exploring the relationship between culture

and organizational performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28: 468-481.

Witt, L. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2003). Social skill as moderator of the conscientiousness–

performance relationship: Convergent results across four studies. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 88, 809–820.

Wolfe RN, Lennox RD, Cutler BL (1986) Getting along and getting ahead: Empirical support for

80

a theory of protective and acquisitive self-presentation. J. Personality Soc. Psych.

50(2):356–361.

Wosinska, W., Cialdini, R. B., Petrova, P. K., Barrett, D. W., Gornik-Durose, M., Butner, J., &

Griskevicius, V. ( 2009). Resistance to deficient organizational authority: The impact of

culture and connectedness in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(4),

834-851.

Wright, P. M., Kacmar, K. M., McMahan, G. C., & Deleeuw, K. (1995). P=f(M X A): Cognitive

ability as a moderator of the relationship between personality and job performance.

Journal of Management, 21,1129–1139.

Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Zaccaro, S. J., Foti, R. J., & Kenny, D. A. (1991). Self-monitoring and trait-based variance in

leadership: An investigation of leader flexibility across multiple group situations. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 76, 308–315.

Zeidner, M., Matthews, G., Roberts, R. D., & MacCann, C. (2003).Development of emotional

intelligence: Towards a multi-level investment model. Human Development, 46, 69–96.

Zhang, Z & Arvey, R. (2009). Effects of personality on individual earnings: Learning role

occupancy as a mediator. Journal of Business Psychology. 24:271-280.

81

APPENDIX A: Figures

Extraversion

Agreeableness

Leadership

Effectiveness

Rate of Promotion

Salary

Cognitive Ability

National Culture

Figure 1: Cognitive Ability and National Culture as moderating influences on the mediated relationship between personality and

career success.

82

Figure 2

Extraversion predicting Job Performance

NOTE: The dependent variable on the y-axis is mean-centered so values are shown above and below zero.

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

Predictor -1 SD Predictor +1 SD

Low Agreeableness, HighCognitive Ability

Low Agreeableness, LowCognitive Ability

High Agreeableness,High Cognitive Ability

High Agreeableness, LowCognitive Ability

83

Figure 3

Extraversion predicting Salary

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

Predictor -1 SD Predictor +1 SD

LowAgreeableness,High CognitiveAbilityLowAgreeableness,Low CognitiveAbilityHighAgreeableness,High CognitiveAbilityHighAgreeableness,Low CognitiveAbility

84

Figure 4

Extraversion predicting Average Rate of Promotion

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

Predictor -1 SD Predictor +1 SD

Low Agreeableness,High CognitiveAbility

Low Agreeableness,Low Cognitive Ability

High Agreeableness,High CognitiveAbility

High Agreeableness,Low Cognitive Ability

85

Figure 5

Extraversion and National Culture predicting Salary

4.95

5.00

5.05

5.10

5.15

5.20

5.25

5.30

5.35

Low Extraversion High Extraversion

Sa

lary

Collectivism

Individualism

86

Figure 6

Extraversion and Gender predicting Job Performance

2.30

2.35

2.40

2.45

2.50

2.55

2.60

2.65

Low Extraversion High Extraversion

Jo

b P

erfo

rma

nce

Female

Male

87

Figure 7

Agreeableness and Cognitive Ability predicting Salary

NOTE: the y-axis (representing salary) metric has been reset due to mean-centering.

5.20

5.25

5.30

5.35

5.40

5.45

5.50

Low Agreeableness High Agreeableness

Sa

lary Low Cognitive

Ability

High Cognitive

Ability

88

APPENDIX B: Tables

Table 1

ICC Values

Job Performance Salary Average Rate of Promotion

Manager Function Country Manager Function Country Manager Function Country

MSb .295 .394 .371 .030 .042 .152 .167 .210 .202

MSe .204 .264 .261 .006 .022 .015 .183 .171 .170

τ00 .06* .00† .01† .01** .00* .01** -.01 .00 .00

ICC .23 .00 .04 .50 .00 .33 .00 .00 .00

As demonstrated above, there is non-trivial variance due to nesting by Manager and Country for Leadership Effectiveness and Salary.

89

Table 2

Pooled Within-Group Correlations and Descriptive Statistics

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Age 43.87 8.39 1

2. Gender .62 .49 .14** 1

3. Agreeableness 5.28 1.23 .03 -.13** 1

4. Extraversion 5.23 1.25 .07† -.12** .23** 1

5. Cognitive Ability 53.71 24.58 .14** -.02 -.17** .03 1

6. Collectivism/Individualism 74.97 27.04 -.27** .03 .14** -.22** -.46** 1

7. Job Performance 5.59 1.12 -.08† .-.08* -.02 .14** .06 .03 1

8. Average Rate of Promotion .32 .41 -.10* -.02 .05 -.03 -.05 .17** .04 1

9. Salary 118,158 25,243 -.06 .04 .03 -.11** -.18** .42** .16** -.11*

N= 607

*p < .05, **p<.01, †p<.10

F = 0, M = 1

Note: Collectivism/Individualism ranges from 0-100, with lower scores representing Collectivistic cultures.

While raw mean and SD of salary is reported above, the log of salary was used for all analyses (including reported correlations above)

in order to make data more interpretable.

90

Table 3 (Hypothesis 1)

Model Mediator

Job Performance Outcome

Salary Indirect Effect Ext. on Salary

Outcome

Avg. Rate of Prom. Indirect Effect

Ext. on Avg. Rate of Prom.

Effect R2 Effect R2 Effect Effect R2 Effect

Model 1

Constant -3.546**

Age -.003*

Extraversion .058** .028**

Model 2

Constant -4.889** -.122

Age -.001 -.003*

Extraversion -.019** -.010

Job Perf. .063** .045** .004* .029 .012* .002

Indirect Effect of Extraversion on Salary and Average Rate of Promotion through Job Performance

N = 607

*p < .05, **p < .00

Note: Regarding data in all tables, variables have been centered around Manager and Country means in order to eliminate nesting

effects. Additionally, the log of salary was used for all analyses.

Abbreviations are as follows: Job Perf. is “Job Performance,” Ext. is “Extraversion,” and Avg. Rate of Prom. is “Average Rate of

Promotion.”

91

Table 4 (Hypothesis 2)

Model Mediator

Job Performance Outcome

Salary Indirect Effect Agr. on Salary

Outcome

Avg. Rate of Prom. Indirect Effect

Agr. on Avg. Rate of Prom.

Effect R2 Effect R2 Effect Effect R2 Effect

Model 1

Constant -3.904**

Age -.002†

Agreeableness -.008 .007

Model 2

Constant -4.771** .021

Age -.001 -.003*

Agreeableness .006 .018

Job Perf. .056** .029** -.000 .026 .014* -.000

Indirect Effect of Agreeableness on Salary and Average Rate of Promotion through Job Performance

N = 607

*p < .05, **p < .00, † < .10

Abbreviations are as follows: Job Perf. is “Job Performance,” Agr. is “Agreeableness,” and Avg. Rate of Prom. is “Average Rate of

Promotion.”

92

Table 5 (Hypothesis 3)

Model Mediator

Job Perf. Outcome

Salary Conditional Indirect Effect

Ext. on Salary Outcome

Ext. Rate of Prom. Conditional Indirect

Effect Ext. on

Avg. Rate of Prom.

Effect R2 Effect R2 Effect Effect R2 Effect

Model 1

Constant -3.711**

Age -.004*

Extraversion .009

Cog Ability -.003

Ext X Cog Ab -.001 .035**

Model 2

Constant -4.889** -.122

Age -.001 -.003*

Extraversion -.019** -.010

Job Perf. .063** .045** .003 at 1 SD above mean

.004 at 1 SD below mean

.029 .012† .001 at 1 SD above mean

.002 at 1 SD below mean

Conditional Indirect Effect of Extraversion on Salary and Average Rate of Promotion through Job Performance

N = 607

*p < .05, **p < .00, † <. 10

93

Abbreviations are as follows: Job Perf. is “Job Performance,” Ext. is “Extraversion,” Avg. Rate of Prom. is “Average Rate of

Promotion”, and Cog Ab is “Cognitive Ability”

94

Table 6 (Hypothesis 4)

Model Mediator

Job Perf. Outcome

Salary Conditional Indirect Effect

Agr. on Salary Outcome

Avg. Rate of

Prom.

Conditional Indirect

Effect Agr. on

Avg. Rate of Prom.

Effect R2 Effect R2 Effect Effect R2 Effect

Model 1

Constant -3.540**

Age -.003

Agreeableness .045

Cog Ability .006

Agr X Cog Ab .001 .014†

Model 2

Constant -4.771** .021

Age -.001 -.003*

Agreeableness .006 .018

Job Perf. .056** .029** .001 at 1 SD above mean

-.001 at t SD below mean

.026 .014* .000 at 1 SD above mean

-.001 at 1 SD below mean

Conditional Indirect Effect of Agreeableness on Salary and Average Rate of Promotion through Job Performance

N = 607

*p < .05, **p < .00, † <. 10

95

Abbreviations are as follows: Job Perf. is “Job Performance,” Agr. is “Agreeableness,” Avg. Rate of Prom. is “Average Rate of

Promotion” and Cog Ability is “Cognitive Ability.”

96

Table 7 (Hypothesis 5)

Model Mediator

Job Perf. Outcome

Salary Conditional

Indirect Effect Ext. on Salary

Outcome

Avg. Rate of Prom. Conditional Indirect Effect Ext. on Avg. Rate of Prom.

Effect R2 Effect R2 B Effect R2 Effect

Model 1

Constant -3.304**

Age -.003*

Extraversion .125

Agreeableness .039

Ext. X Agr. .012 .032**

Model 2

Constant -4.879** -.122

Age -.001 -.003*

Extraversion -.019** -.010

Job Perf. .063** .045** .005 at 1 SD above

.004 at 1 SD below

.029 .012† .002 at 1 SD above mean

.002 at 1 SD below mean

Indirect Effect of Agreeableness and Extraversion on Salary and Average Rate of Promotion through Job Performance

N = 607

*p < .05, **p < .00, † <. 10

97

Abbreviations are as follows: Job Perf. is “Job Performance,” Ext. is “Extraversion,” Avg. Rate of Prom. is “Average Rate of

Promotion,” and Agr is “Agreeableness.”

98

Table 8 (Hypothesis 6)

Model Outcome

Job Perf. Outcome

Salary

Outcome

Avg. Rate of Prom.

B R2 ΔR2 B R2 ΔR2 B R2 ΔR2

Model 1

Constant -3.286** -5.375** .577

Age -.003* .000 -.003*

Extraversion .050 -.026 .063

Agreeableness .086 -.034 .156†

Cog. Ab. .002 -.005 .007

Ext. X Agr. .008 -.001 .013

Ext. X Cog. Ab. -.001 -.000 .000

Agr. X Cog. Ab. .001 .04** -.001* .05** .001† .02†

Model 2

Constant 1.832 -4.090** -3.875*

Age -.003* .000 -.003*

Extraversion 1.031** .220** -.789*

Agreeableness 1.035** .205† -.670*

99

Cog. Ab. .104** .021† -.082*

Ext. X Agr. .189** .044* -.144*

Ext. X Cog. Ab. .019** .005* -.017*

Agr. X Cog. Ab. .020** .004* -.015*

Ext. X Agr. X Cog. Ab. .004** .06** .02** .001* .06* .01** -.003** .04** .02**

Interactive Effect of Agreeableness, Extraversion, and Cognitive Ability on Job Performance, Salary and Average Rate of Promotion

N = 607

*p < .05, **p < .00, † <. 10

Abbreviations are as follows: Job Perf. is “Job Performance,” Ext. is “Extraversion,” Agr is “Agreeableness,” Cog. Ab. Is “Cognitive

Ability,” and Avg. Rate of Prom. is “Average Rate of Promotion.”

100

Table 9 (Hypothesis 7)

Model Mediator

Job Perf. Outcome

Salary Conditional Indirect

Effect Ext. on

Salary

Outcome

Avg. Rate of

Prom.

Conditional Indirect Effect Ext. on Avg. Rate of Prom.

Effect R2 Effect R2 Effect Effect R2 Effect

Model 1

Constant -3.220**

Age -.003†

Extraversion .114*

Coll./Ind. .004

Ext. X Coll./Ind. .001 .03**

Model 2

Constant -4.879** -.1222

Age -.001 -.003*

Extraversion -.019** -.010

Job Perf. .063** .04** .005 at 1 SD above*

.003 at 1 SD below*

.029 .01† .002 at 1 SD above mean

.001 at 1 SD below mean

Conditional Indirect Effect of Extraversion and National Culture on Salary and Average Rate of Promotion through Job Performance

N = 607

*p < .05, **p < .00, † <. 10

101

Abbreviations are as follows: Job Perf. is “Job Performance,” Ext. is “Extraversion,” Coll./Ind. is “Collectivism/Individualism”, and

Avg. Rate of Prom. is “Average Rate of Promotion.”

102

Table 10 (Hypothesis 8)

Model Mediator

Job Perf. Outcome

Salary Conditional Indirect

Effect Agr. on

Salary

Outcome

Avg. Rate of

Prom.

Conditional Indirect Effect Agr. on Avg. Rate of Prom.

Effect R2 Effect R2 Effect Effect R2 Effect

Model 1

Constant -3.580**

Age -.003†

Agreeableness .054

Coll./Ind. .004

Agr. X Coll./Ind. .001 .03**

Model 2

Constant -4.771** .021

Age -.001 -.003*

Agreeableness .006 .018

Job Perf. .056** .03** .001 at 1 SD above

-.001 at 1 SD below

.026 .01* -.000 at 1 SD above mean

-.001 at 1 SD below mean

Conditional Indirect Effect of Agreeableness and National Culture on Salary and Average Rate of Promotion through Leadership

Effectiveness

N = 607

*p < .05, **p < .00, † <. 10

103

Abbreviations are as follows: Job Perf. is “Job Performance,” Agr. is “Agreeableness,” Coll./Ind. is “Collectivism/Individualism,” and

Avg. Rate of Prom. is “Average Rate of Promotion.”

104

Table 11 (Exploratory A)

Model Outcome

Job Performance

B R2 ΔR2

Model 1

Constant -3.184**

Age -.003

Gender -.621

Extraversion .128**

Extraversion X Gender -.114* .04** .02**

Interaction of age and gender to determine Job Performance

N = 607

*p < .05, **p < .00, † <. 10

105

Table 12 (Exploratory B)

Model Outcome

Salary

B R2 ΔR2

Model 1

Constant -5.268

Age -.000

Agreeableness -.033*

Cognitive Ability -.005*

Agreeableness X Cognitive Ability -.001* .04** .01**

Interaction of age and gender to determine Salary

N = 607

*p < .05, **p < .00, † <. 10

106

APPENDIX C: Additional Materials

Breakdown of Population

Individualistic Cultures Collectivistic Cultures

M F M F

Function

IT 20 12 3 0

Commercial 1 2 0 1

Communications 0 0 1 0

Finance 0 0 21 14

Franchise 1 1 4 1

Global Procurement 4 4 0 3

General Management 7 1 1 1

Human Resources 5 14 4 8

Legal 2 2 1 1

Marketing 17 23 18 9

Procurement 0 0 0 1

Research & Development 8 8 7 5

Sales 154 79 4 19

Supply Chain 37 14 3 18

Insights 0 1 0 0

MEM 0 1 0 0

Quality Assurance 0 1 0 0

Agreeableness Range 1.83 – 8.11 2.00 – 9.17 2.50 – 8.33 2.67 – 7.00

Extraversion Range 1.56 – 8.83 2.00 – 8.11 3.22 – 8.67 1.33 – 7.56

107

Job Performance Items

These items were written to capture leadership job performance as defined by this specific

organization. That is, effective leaders at this company possess the following attributes.

Which performance level best describes the employee’s performance, as you have observed it on

this job dimension:

1. Motivation / Drive / Work Ethic: Pushes him/herself beyond what others do, seek out

challenges, works hard, is a self-started, does not need supervision

2. Career Ambition: Wants to get ahead, does what is necessary to advance his/her career

(within professional and ethical boundaries)

3. Achievement Orientation: Takes initiative and ownership complete work, aims for strong

results, does whatever is necessary to get it done right (including taking reasonable risks)

4. Openness: Is comfortable with change, looks for diverse experiences

5. Learning: Looks for learning opportunities, asks for feedback, applies learning to other

areas

This employee:

6. Has a special talent for dealing with people.

7. Is open to new ideas and approaches to business issues.

8. Is comfortable with change.

9. Has conveyed to me a clear and targeted career trajectory.

10. Had expressed a clear interest in advancement within this company.

11. Displays flexibility and creativity in his/her thinking and problem solving.

12. Seeks opportunities to work on new projects.

13. Is willing to take a stand on complex issues.

14. Can be depended on to tell the truth regardless of circumstances.

15. Takes personal as well as business risks.

16. Clearly demonstrates commitment to seeing the organization succeed.

17. Has established a robust network of colleagues within and outside of this company.

18. Persists in overcoming obstacles to complete important tasks.

19. Makes innovative suggestions to improve our team, function, or business.

20. Takes the initiative to solve work problems.

DANIEL KUYUMCU

DanielKuyumcu@gmail.com

EDUCATION

Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA Doctor of Philosophy, Industrial/Organizational Psychology, 2015 Master of Science, Industrial/Organizational Psychology, 2013

8/2011-8/2015

The College of New Jersey, Ewing, NJ Bachelor of Arts, Industrial/Organizational Psychology, May, 2011 Double Minor in Marketing and French GPA: 3.74 cumulative/3.76 in major Honors: Cum Laude, National Honor Society in Psychology, Dean’s List

8/2007-5/2011

PUBLICATIONS & MANUSCRIPTS

Church, A., Kuyumcu, D., & Rotolo, C. (In Press). Survey Feedback: Driving Change through Organizational Surveys. Oxford Bibliographies. Castille, C.M., Kuyumcu, D., & Bennett, R.J. (Manuscript in Preparation). Prevailing to their Peers’ Detriment: Organizational Constrains Activate Coworker-Directed Machiavellian Undermining. Kuyumcu, D., & Dahling, J. J. (2014). Constraints for some, opportunities for others? Interactive and

indirect effects of Machiavellianism and organizational constraints on task performance ratings. Journal of Business and Psychology. 29:301-310.

Dahling, J.J., Kuyumcu, D., & Librizzi, E. (2012). Machiavellianism, unethical behavior, and well-being in

organizational life. R.A. Giacalone and M.D. Promislo (Eds.), Handbook of unethical workplace behavior: Implications for well-being. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.

CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS

Kuyumcu, D. & Grandey, A.G. Does psychological safety buffer or exacerbate Machiavellian undermining?. Presented at 2014 Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Conference, Honolulu, HI.

Castille, C. M., Kuyumcu, D., & Bennett, R.J. Prevailing to their peers’ detriment: A study in

Machiavellian undermining. Presented at 2014 Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Conference, Honolulu, HI.

Ramsey, M.A., Castille, C.M., Dullaghan, R., Kuyumcu, D., Carr, A.E., Lam, A., Smoak V.J., & Tuller, M.

Engineering internships to enhance the reputation of the field. Panel discussion to be held at 2014 Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Conference, Honolulu, HI.

Kuyumcu, D. & Dahling, J.J. Interactive effects of Machiavellianism and organizational constraints on task performance. Presented at 2013 Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Conference, Houston, TX.