In order to optimize recruitment and the overall outcome of educational programmes, it is crucial to understand personal determinants of achievement. While several cognitive abilities and skills individually predict performance in academic and professional settings, it is less clear how personality translates into performance. This study addresses the impact of the Big Five personality trait, conscientiousness, on academic performance and instructor performance ratings and examines the mediating role of self-efficacy. Analysis of longitudinal data (Time 1: n = 166 (conscientiousness); Time 2: n = 161 (self-efficacy); Time 3: n = 136 (military performance) and n = 156 (academic performance)) from three military academies in Norway showed that conscientiousness was related to both military and academic performance. Moreover, self-efficacy emerged as a partial mediator for the relationship between conscientiousness and performance.

Since the turn of the millennium, a growing academic interest has emerged regarding the dark side of leadership, both in general and specific contexts. Characteristics of military organisations may either reduce or exaggerate the prevalence and impact of destructive leadership. It is therefore pertinent to explore antecedents and outcomes of destructive leadership in the military context as compared to other settings. Here, we systematically reviewed the current literature and performed a meta-analysis of destructive forms of leadership in a military context. The reviewed studies (K = 27) primarily employed context-free instruments, applied cross-sectional designs, and examined outcomes of destructive leadership. Both active (e.g., abusive supervision) and passive (e.g., laissez-faire) forms of destructive leadership were examined in the meta-analysis (K = 22, N = 10,716). The mean correlation to performance, attitude, health, and well-being was −.29 for active destructive leadership, −.29 for passive forms of destructive leadership and, in comparison, .32 for constructive and effective forms of leadership. Our findings demonstrate that passive and active forms of destructive leadership in a military context may contribute equally to detrimental outcomes, and that successful strategies to prevent and handle consequences of destructive leadership must address both forms of unwanted leadership behaviour. ARTICLE HISTORY

The goal of personnel selection is to find predictors that, together, maximize the explained variance in important job outcomes such as Task Performance or Work Engagement. Common predictors include Intelligence and Big Five Personality. Using Person-Organization Fit (P-O Fit) for selection purposes has been discussed, but, beyond Intelligence and Personality, evidence of the incremental predictive validity of P-O Fit in relation to task performance and work engagement is scarce. This study examines the practical utility of indirectly measured P-O Fit as a selection tool in a military setting. Measures of objective P-O Fit were obtained from actual applicants in a military selection setting and combined with self-report measures of Work Engagement upon organizational entry, and supervisor-rated Task Performance approximately two weeks later. P-O Fit predicted both Task Performance (R 2 = .041) and Work Engagement (R 2 = .038). More importantly, P-O Fit yielded incremental predictive validity in relation to both outcomes, also after controlling for intelligence and personality traits. While our initial models (including age, gender, intelligence, and personality) explained 25.1% and 5.8% of the variance in work engagement and task performance, respectively, this increased to 26.3% and 6.3%, respectively, after the inclusion of P-O Fit. Implications for practical use in selection systems are discussed.