Risk Type and Dark Side Personality Characteristics in the Auditing Profession

Risk Type and Dark Side Personality Characteristics within the Auditing professionby Becky Playfoot

Executive SummaryThis report looks firstly at the association between Risk Types and ‘dark-side’ characteristics, as measured by the Hogan

Development Survey (HDS). Secondly, we draw inferences from the associations between Risk Type and dark side personality

characteristics with regard to auditors, shedding more light on the nature of those Risk Types which are most prevalent within

the auditing profession. It must be noted that while we are not measuring dark side characteristics in auditors directly, we

are applying the results yielded from our study investigating the relationship between Risk Type and the HDS to the auditor

sample. This report will first look at what the HDS measures and its applicability to a work context. The report also discusses

the association between Risk Types and HDS scales, adding a further dimension of knowledge to risk taking at work, and

finally how these results apply to the auditor sample.

What does the HDS measure?The HDS was developed to measure factors that contribute to leadership failure. There is a large amount of research looking

into leadership performance, but many studies have yielded inconsistent results. Research looking into why leaders fail is

much more convergent and the HDS aims to assess these derailment factors. It measures eleven aspects of personality that

are generally considered positive characteristics, but can be overplayed under stress or periods of intoxicating success. Both

are situations when a person can let their guard down. For example, high scorers on the scale Diligent Perfectionist may

be very conscientious and structured in their approach to work. When stressed, this may turn into an over preoccupation

with details and getting things ‘just right’, so that deadlines are missed. This tendency may also be reflected in being over

critical of other’s work.

The eleven HDS scales can be grouped into three main themes: Moving Away, Moving Against and Moving Towards. Each

of these themes are related to the way a person handles insecurity and are closely linked to self-defeating interpersonal

styles identified by Horney (1950). Trickey and Hyde (2009) describe the themes and the contributing scales as:

Moving Away or Intimidation – gaining security by unnerving people or discouraging involvement. This theme is composed

of the following scales:

» Excitable: Passionate and excitable but moody, easily irritated, easily disappointed by others, and emotionally volatile.

» Sceptical: Cynical, alert to signs of mistreatment, sensitive to criticism, suspicious of others’ motives.

» Cautious: Unassertive, easily embarrassed, fearful of making mistakes, slow to contribute.

» Reserved: Remote, unaware of their impact on others, uncommunicative.

» Leisurely: Resistant to advice or interruptions, uncooperative.

Moving Against or Flirtation and Seduction – winning recognition with self-promotion and charm. This theme is composed

of the following scales:

Copyright © 2012 Psychological Consultancy Ltd www.psychological-consultancy.com

» Bold: Very self-confident, have high opinion of themselves and their abilities, arrogant.

» Mischievous: Risk taking, carefree, lack guilt, charming, exploitative.

» Colourful: Attention seeking, superficial, enjoy the sound of their own voices.

» Imaginative: Have many ideas, maybe too many, and can think and act in unusual or eccentric ways that make

others feel uncomfortable.

Moving Towards or Ingratiation – Obtaining approval by being loyal and indispensible. This theme is composed of the

following scales:

» Diligent: Exacting, focused on detail, meticulous, critical of others’ work, and tends to micromanage.

» Dutiful: Eager to please, accommodating, acquiescent and reluctant to make decisions independently or against

popular opinion.


Risk Type, Dark Side Personality Characteristics and the Auditing Profession

Dark Side ThemesThe results from a combination of both the RAB-QSA study and our analysis of the relationship between Risk Type and the

HDS clearly indicate that overall, the Auditing profession is one with a very measured approach to risk and risk management.

Our research has shown that auditors are made up mostly of Deliberate Types, which is characterized as being calm,

confident, prepared and optimistic when dealing with risk and uncertainty. The second most prevalent Type, Composed,

is similar to the Deliberate Type though they differ mainly in that they often tend not to be aware risk or its effect on others.

We now know that the HDS scales are also associated with specific risk taking styles, with those scales in Moving Away

associated with a lack of confidence and optimism to take risks, those in Moving Against related to a risk taking style driven

by a desire for spontaneity and excitement seeking and those in the Moving Towards theme associated more with a planful

and measured approach to risk taking. Auditors are most likely to fall into both the Moving Towards and Moving Against

categories. Those in the Moving Toward theme may be too measured and planned to take risks. Moving Towards looks at

dealing with insecurity by being loyal and eager to please others. They will adopt a planned approach to decision making

and at the extreme will plan risk out of their lives altogether. Secondly, those with high scores on the Moving Against theme

will be risk taking due to a desire for spontaneity and excitement seeking. Moving Against concerns dealing with insecurity

through self-promotion and charm. This is particularly the case for those with high scores on the Mischievous scale and

supports previous descriptions of people with this tendency being risk taking (Trickey and Hyde, 1998).

The auditor sample does contrast most distinctly with those who fall within the theme of Moving Away. Those with HDS scores

in the Moving Away theme may lack the confidence and optimism to take risks. This theme is associated with dealing with

insecurity through hostility and social withdrawal.

HDS Scales and Risk TypeWith regards to the specific HDS scales, those in the Deliberate group had the lowest overall mean score on the Excitable

scale. Excitable concerns excitability that can turn into emotional volatility under pressure. It is a tendency to swing from

enthusiasm for specific people and projects to disappointment or disaffection with them. Others would tend to find such

people hard to work with because they are moody, irritable, bad tempered and/or inconsistent. This reinforces the evidence

favouring the Deliberate Type as being more associated with emotional stability during risky situations. This also suggests

that the auditing profession is one that requires a certain degree of emotional stability, consistency and optimism at work

when dealing with uncertainty. Those of the Intense Risk Type are most likely to score highly in this area.

Research also indicates that Deliberate Types tend to score lowest on the Cautious scale. Those who score highly on this

scale have a tendency to be over concerned with making mistakes and being embarrassed. Such people are reluctant

to take the initiative for fear of being criticised and are hard to work with because they are rule-bound and unwilling to

take chances or express controversial opinions. The Wary Risk Type had the highest score on the Cautious HDS scale, closely

followed by Intense.

The Adventurous Risk Type had the highest scores on the Mischievous scale. The Adventurous Risk Type is linked to being

impulsive, flexible, confident and almost oblivious to risk. High scores on Mischievous are risk taking, impulsive and somewhat

impatient. The link between Adventurous and Mischievous is intuitive. Those in the Wary Risk Type had the lowest mean

score on this scale. They are very much the opposite of those with high scores on Mischievous, being risk averse rather than

risk taking and prudent rather than impulsive and impatient.

Those with the Wary Risk Type also had the highest score on Diligent. As well as being associated with caution and pessimism,

Wary is also linked to be conscientious and systematic. Those with high scores on the Diligent scale are conscientious,

attentive to detail, but when under pressure have problems delegating are and overly critical. The least ‘Dilligent’ Risk

Type was Carefree. This type is characterised by flexibility and impulsivity, polar opposites to the descriptions of someone

high on Diligent.


In sum, people with the Wary Risk Type are also likely to be fearful of making mistakes (Cautious), with a good attention

to detail (Diligent) and are less likely to be charming and exploitative (Mischievous). Those in the Intense Risk Type group

are likely to be passionate but emotionally volatile (Excitable). People in the Deliberate group are less likely to be moody

and overly passionate (Excitable) and less likely to be unassertive and easily embarrassed (Cautious). The Adventurous

Type is associated with being exploitative and guilt free (Mischievous) and those in the Carefree group are less likely to

be meticulous and detail focused (Diligent). This new insight into Risk Type and derailment factors will provide coaches

with valuable information on helping people get the best out of their Risk Type and to be aware of the possible ‘dark side’

of the various types that can appear when someone has let their guard down. It also allows coaches to look at the risk

element associated with each HDS scale. With regards to the auditor sample, the results from the HDS and Risk Type study

suggests that the auditing profession is one that thrives upon a confident, consistent, level headed approach to work and

all the uncertainty that auditors face within their profession.

Comparison between Auditor Risk Types and the General Population

Figure 1: Auditor Risk Type profiles in comparison to the General Population



Appendices Excitable descriptive statistics across Risk Types.

N Mean Excitable Score Excitable Std. Deviation

Wary 6 6.17 3.82

Intense 9 6.56 1.81

Prudent 5 3.00 2.00

Deliberate 5 2.00 1.58

Spontaneous 7 6.14 2.19

Typical 5 3.20 1.3

Composed 9 2.78 1.99

Carefree 15 4.33 3.02

Adventurous 12 2.75 3.08

Total 73 4.15 2.89

Cautious descriptive statistics across Risk Types.

N Mean Cautious Score Cautious Std. Deviation

Wary 6 7.33 3.33

Intense 9 7.11 2.62

Prudent 5 5.20 3.96



Typical 5 4.4 3.65


Carefree 15 4.47 3.23


Total 73 4.49 3.16

Mischievous descriptive statistics across Risk Types.

N Mean Cautious Score Cautious Std. Deviation

Wary 6 4.17 1.17

Intense 9 7.11 1.62

Prudent 5 4.40 1.14



Typical 5 5.40 2.19


Carefree 15 7.40 2.1


Total 73 6.71 2.34

Diligent descriptive statistics across Risk Types.

N Mean Diligent Score Diligent Std. Deviation

Wary 6 12.17 0.75

Intense 9 8.89 2.62

Prudent 5 9.80 1.92



Typical 5 10.4 2.61

Composed 9 8.11 3.3

Carefree 15 6.47 2.42


Total 73 8.36 2.93

Documents

Risk Type and Dark Side Personality Characteristics in the Auditing Profession