This article describes the construction and validation of 7 scales for the California Psychological Inventory (Gough, 1975,1987) based on a socioanalytic interpretation of the Five-Factor Model. The scale construction differed from traditional rational and empirical approaches in that it regarded responses to personality items as speech acts-skilled performances that create an effect on an audience. Expected group differences across 10 samples (total N = 763) and relations with other personality inventory scores, vocational choice, educational achievement, drug use and anti-so-cia1 behavior, job performance, and observer ratings supported the construct validity of the scales. This article describes the construction of seven scales for the California Psychological Inventory (CPI; Gough, 1975,1987) designed to assess social performance. This set of scales, constructed in the late 1970s, prefigured the development of several personality inventories based on the Five Factor Model (FFM; Johnson, 1983) have mentioned these scales only in passing. By detailing the unique strategies underlying the construction of these CPI scales, this article clarifies the conditions under which FFM-based inventories such as the HPI and NEO-PI successfully predict real-life performance. The article is organized according to the four-step model of construct validation, called conceptual analysis, used by Gough (1987) to explicate the meaning of CPI scale scores. The article does not use the traditional method and results sections, although it does conclude with an overall discussion of the findings. Requests for reprints should be sent to

The authors used socioanalytic theory to understand individual differences in people's performance at work. Specifically, if predictors and criteria are aligned by using theory, then the meta-analytic validity of personality measures exceeds that of atheoretical approaches. As performance assessment moved from general to specific job criteria, all Big Five personality dimensions more precisely predicted relevant criterion variables, with estimated true validities of .43 (Emotional Stability), .35 (Extraversion-Ambition), .34 (Agreeableness), .36 (Conscientiousness), and .34 (Intellect-Openness to Experience).

Although psychologists know a great deal about leadership, persons who make decisions about real leaders seem largely to ignore their accumulated wisdom. In an effort to make past research more accessible, interpretable, and relevant to decision makers, this article defines leadership and then answers nine questions that routinely come up when practical decisions are made about leadership (e.g., whom to appoint, how to evaluate them, when to terminate them.

This article concerns leadership effectiveness studied from the reverse angle. We review the literature on managerial derailment and propose a taxonomy of derailment factors. We then describe an inventory designed to assess these factors, provide some evidence regarding the psychometric features of the inventory, and some evidence regarding its validity. We suggest that the base rate for managerial incompetence in any organization is quite high, and we propose our inventory is a useful device for management development ± because it focuses on dysfunctional dispositions known to be associated with failure as a manager.

The invisible college of psychologists who do research with measures of normal personality now largely agrees about the structure of personality; this group also agrees that competently developed personality measures are valid predictors of real world performance. Outside that college, however, there is still considerable skepticism regarding the meaning and validity of these measures. This article attempts to summarize the data needed to answer the most frequent questions about the use of personality measures in applied contexts. Our major conclusions are that (a) well-constructed measures of normal personality are valid predictors of performance in virtually all occupations, (b) they do not result in adverse impact for job applicants from minority groups, and (c) using well-developed personality measures for preemployment screening is a way to promote social justice and increase organizational productivity.

This article provides an example of the potential usefulness of personality measures in practical selection contexts Specifically, it describes the development and construct validation of a measure of service orientation. Service orientation-the disposition to be helpful, thoughtful, considerate, and cooperative-is an aspect of nontechnical performance that is important m a variety of jobs. In several studies with different classifications of personnel, the service-orientation measure showed steady and substantial correlations with overall job performance. The network of relationships between service orientation and other measures of social and cognitive functioning was also sensible and interpretable.The conventional wisdom of applied psychology, based on several earlier reviews (Ellis, 1946; Ghiselh & Barthol, 1953; Guion & Gottier, 1965), is that personality measures are not particularly useful as predictors of on-thejob performance. This view was probably fair given the evidence on which it was based.Advances in personality psychology over the past 15 years suggest, however, that it might be time to reexamine the role of personality measures in personnel selection (cf. Bernardin & Bownas, in press). As one example of the sort of development we have in mind, Hogan (1983) presented a theory of personality designed explicitly to link traits and everyday performance, which theory also provides.a detailed measurement model. Hogan suggested that standard personality dimensions (i.e., sociability, adjustment, conscientiousness, etc.) reflect social evaluations of everyday performance and should, therefore, contain important information about competencies relevant to the nontechnical aspects of job behavior.This article has two general goals. The first is to describe the development of a personality measure designed to be used in practical selection contexts and to evaluate its construct

No abstract

Real job applicants completed a 5-factor model personality measure as part of the job application process. They were rejected; 6 months later they (n = 5,266) reapplied for the same job and completed the same personality measure. Results indicated that 5.2% or fewer improved their scores on any scale on the 2nd occasion; moreover, scale scores were as likely to change in the negative direction as the positive. Only 3 applicants changed scores on all 5 scales beyond a 95% confidence threshold. Construct validity of the personality scales remained intact across the 2 administrations, and the same structural model provided an acceptable fit to the scale score matrix on both occasions. For the small number of applicants whose scores changed beyond the standard error of measurement, the authors found the changes were systematic and predictable using measures of social skill, social desirability, and integrity. Results suggest that faking on personality measures is not a significant problem in real-world selection settings.