leadership skills profile - sigma assessment · pdf filethe leadership skills profile ......

Lead

ersh

ip S

kills

Pro

file

Advancing the Science of Human Assessment since 1967.

Leadership Skills Profile

Douglas N. Jackson, Ph.D.

Technical Manual

LSP

ii

Copyright © 2003 by SIGMA Assessment Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in whole or in part in any form or by any means without written permission of SIGMA Assessment Systems, Inc.

Version 1.07. Printed in Canada.

SIGMA Assessment Systems, Inc.P.O. Box 610757, Port Huron, MI 48061-0757Phone: 800-265-1285 • Web: www.SigmaHR.com

Research Psychologists Press, Inc.P.O. Box 3292, Station B, London, ON N6A 4K3Phone: 800-401-4480 • Web: www.RPP.on.ca

iii

ContentsChapter 1 Introduction to the Leadership Skills Profile .............................. 1

Nature and Purpose .............................................................................. 1Personality as a Predictor of Job Performance ..................................... 1

Chapter 2 Format, General Considerations, Administration, and Scoring of the LSP ...................................................................................... 5

Format ................................................................................................... 5General Considerations ......................................................................... 5Descriptions of Scales ........................................................................... 5Appropriate Populations ........................................................................ 5Test User Qualifications Needed to Use the LSP .................................. 5

Table 2-1: Leadership dimensions measured by the LSP .............. 6Norms ................................................................................................... 8Administering the LSP ........................................................................... 9Recommended Uses of the LSP ........................................................... 9Security .................................................................................................. 9Scoring .................................................................................................. 9The LSP Report ..................................................................................... 9

Figure 2-1: Sample abbreviated LSP-SR Report - The Introduction, Executive Summary, Profiles for 17 of 42 dimensions, and a detailed analysis of three of 42 dimensions .... 11

Chapter 3 Construction of the LSP .......................................................... 15Rationale ............................................................................................. 15Basic Assumptions Underlying the Development of the LSP .............. 16The Method of Personality Scale Construction for the LSP ................ 16The Differential Reliability Index .......................................................... 17Minimum Redundancy Item Analysis .................................................. 18Item Efficiency Index ......................................................................... 19

Table 3-1: Illustration of Different Item Properties upon which Item Selection Strategies might be based ........................ 19

Figure 3-1: Procedure for Reducing Redundancy in a Set of Personality Scales .................................................... 21

Chapter 4 Empirical Evaluation of the LSP .............................................. 23Reliability ............................................................................................. 23

Table 4-1: Alpha reliability coefficients for the SWS ..................... 23Validity ................................................................................................. 23Multiple Correlations with 360 degree Feedback Performance

Ratings ........................................................................................... 24

iv

Table 4-2: Multiple correlations between LSP personality scales and managerial and executive leadership skills derived from 360 degree feedback coworker ratings ............. 24

Canonical Correlation Analysis ............................................................ 25Table 4-3: Canonical correlation analysis of 42 LSP personality

variable factors and six managerial performance dimensions (N = 243) ................................................ 26

Development of the LSP Report .......................................................... 26

References ..................................................................................................... 29

1

Chapter 1

Introduction to the Leadership Skills Profile

Nature and PurposeThe Leadership Skills Profile (LSP) is a unique, empirically based system that ana-lyzes the strengths and weaknesses of managerial and executive candidates on 42 dimensions of expected job performance. It serves as an aid in executive selection, placement, and succession planning. The report contains a set of profile charts for each of the 42 performance dimensions. These are organized under four headings: Cognitive Managerial Skills, Interpersonal Managerial Skills, Personal Manage-

rial Qualities, and Teamwork, Supervision, Planning and Productivity. In addition, for each of the 42 dimensions there is narrative text that discusses the respondent’s expected level of performance on the dimension and reasons for this expected level of performance based on the individual’s personality, including their interpersonal style and how they approach their work.

Personality as a Predictor of Job PerformanceA number of quantitative aggregations of the psychological research literature have found personality to be a valid predictor of job performance across a wide range of organizations (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Frei & McDaniel, 1998; Mount, Barrick, & Stewart, 1998; Robertson & Kinder, 1994; Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991; Vinchur, Shippmann, Switzer, & Roth, 1998). Unlike measures of cognitive ability, research indicates that personality measures do not yield any substantial evidence of adverse impact on minority groups (Schneider, Hough, & Dunnette, 1996). Thus, the use of personality measures for selection is on the rise. There are a number of reasons for this: (a) there is an increasing awareness of the benefits of rational selection methods. For higher-level positions, this can be measured in hundreds of thousands of dollars or more; (b) senior managers require interpersonal skills, skills that can be assessed quantitatively using modern psychological tests and assessments; (c) there have been large-scale corporate shifts towards service-oriented industries (Schneider, Hough, & Dunnette, 1996) that require leadership that is attuned to service requirements; and (d) more compelling and sophisticated information regarding links between personality and the performance of job incumbents has become available, not only on overall job performance, but with respect to differentiated facets of job performance as well.

Chapter 1

2

Overall, accumulated research findings on personality assessment indicate that scores on well-developed personality measures (Cascio, 2000):

a) are stable over time;b) in general, do not unfairly discriminate against ethnic or minority groups;c) are capable of predicting important work-related outcomes;d) can be constructed to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Quantitative aggregations of the research literature on personality-job performance relationships by Barrick and Mount (1991), and by Tett, Jackson, and Rothstein (1991) and others have highlighted the challenges inherent in the use of personality question-naires in personnel selection. Many past efforts directed at validating personality-job performance relationships have been hampered by some or all of the following: (a) the use of poorly constructed personality measures, with mutually redundant scales saturated with response biases, and without adequate evidence of construct validity; (b) a failure to attend to the quality of criterion performance measures, and to their appropriateness; (c) a failure to obtain reliable, differentiated predictor and criterion measures, through the principle of aggregation; and (d) problems of multicolinearity and capitalization on chance in the inappropriate application of correlational tech-niques (Blinkhorn & Johnson, 1990; Jackson & Rothstein, 1992). The LSP employs a set of personality measures that have been used in a wide variety of studies with proven validity when evaluated in terms of managerial and executive performance (there are more than 2000 citations in the psychological literature to the personality questionnaires on which the LSP questionnaire is based).

There are a good many reasons why it is difficult to undertake the kind of empiri-cal work on senior managers that was required for the LSP. Not the least of these is the fact that it is a rare organization that has in place formal, reliable, quantitative procedures for the performance evaluation of executives. And performance data across different organizations are usually not comparable. Nor is it easy to gather systematic personality data on managers and executives.

To overcome these and other difficulties, the LSP validational data were based on performance appraisals gathered for non-administrative purposes from a wide variety of organizations using common rating forms and a common metric. Manage-rial positions usually require a variety of duties and functions performed (Gellatly, Paunonen, Meyer, Jackson, & Goffin, 1991; Yukl & Van Fleet, 1990). Accordingly, in the development of the LSP we incorporated a broad array of leadership skill and performance dimensions, which in turn required a comprehensive set of personality scales for their prediction.

What is unique about the LSP is that it is based on the responses of a large number of senior managers and executives drawn from more than 62 organizations. Predic-tions for each of the 42 managerial and leadership skills were based on an analysis of the relationships between 37 personality scales, and 360-degree feedback ratings

Introduction to the Leadership Skill Profile

3

from an average of more than 17 judges per participant. The use of a substantial number of judges for each participant ensured that aggregate performance evaluations were dependable, which in turn enhanced the validity of personality-performance relationships.

5

Chapter 2

Format, General Considerations, Administration, and Scoring of the LSP

FormatThe LSP is comprised of 42 scales, measured by more than 300 statements or

items rated on a 5-point Likert scale, with response options ranging from Strongly

Disagree to Strongly Agree. It requires approximately 40 minutes to complete. The

items describe characteristic behavior, attitudes, interests, and activities related to

work. The applicant is instructed to read the statement and decide whether or not it

describes him or her using the graded scale. The following is an example of an item

that might be included on the LSP: “It is unusual for me to fall behind in my work.”

General ConsiderationsThe LSP is based on the items and scales derived from the Jackson Personality

Inventory-Revised (JPI-R; Jackson, 1976, 1992, 1994, 1997), the Personality Re-

search Form (PRF; Jackson, 1964, 1974, 1984, 1997), and the Survey of Work Styles

(SWS; Jackson & Gray, 1993). Only personality scores predicting managerial skills

at a statistically significant level were included in prediction formulas. The develop-

ment of the LSP was greatly facilitated by access to these instruments and the body

of research accompanying them.

Descriptions of ScalesThe leadership dimensions and their definitions are listed in Table 2-1. The perfor-

mance dimensions assessed by the LSP will be differentially important for different

jobs, although some, like productivity, will be relevant to virtually all jobs.

Appropriate PopulationsBased on previous research we judge the vocabulary used in the LSP items at ap-

proximately the fifth-grade reading level (Reddon & Jackson, 1989). This was the

level of the PRF and the JPI-R from which many of the items were drawn.

Test User Qualifications Needed to Use the LSPBecause the LSP is a sophisticated tool used in high-stakes situations, in the

absence of a Master’s level degree in psychology or higher, a qualification course

is required to effectively and accurately interpret the results. Identifying Effective

Chapter 2

6

Table 2-1: Leadership dimensions measured by the LSP

Leadership Scale Description

Cognitive Managerial SkillsTechnical Orientation Demonstrating technical proficiency or expertise acquired through education,

training, or experience.

Analytical Orientation Demonstrating a preference for problems requiring precise, logical reasoning, and showing an ability to dissect and understand complex, multifaceted problems.

Decisiveness The ability to make clear-cut and timely decisions with the appropriate amount of information.

Creativity Demonstrating the ability to initiate original and innovative ideas, products, and approaches.

Thoroughness The ability to attend to detail and develop a comprehensive approach to problems.

Objectivity The ability to maintain a realistic perspective and keep personal biases to a minimum.

Risk Taking The willingness to take sound, calculated risks, based on good judgment, in situations where the outcome is uncertain.

Interpersonal Managerial SkillsOpen-Mindedness A willingness to consider new ideas and approaches, as well as input from

others.

First Impression The ability to create a positive impact through social confidence, sincerity, dress, and verbal fluency.

Interpersonal Relations Relating to others in an outgoing, friendly, warm, and personable manner in order to establish and maintain effective interpersonal relationships.

Sensitivity Showing a supportive, considerate, sensitive, and caring attitude toward the needs, concerns, moods, agendas, interests, and aspirations of others.

Social Astuteness The ability to accurately read and respond diplomatically to organizational trends and norms, as well as effectively deal with organizational politics.

Conflict Management The ability to mediate and resolve conflicts and disagreements in a manner best for all parties involved.

Communication Keeping subordinates and superiors informed about decisions, events, and developments that affect them.

Formal Presentation The ability to deliver an interesting, informative, and organized presentation.

Persuasiveness The ability to sell others on ideas, approaches, products, and services.

Negotiation The ability to negotiate outcomes that further the interests of the organization, and when possible, also further the interests of opposing groups.

Personal Managerial QualititesListening Taking the time to listen to others’ questions, concerns, and viewpoints,

identifying the relevant information, and conveying it to the other person.

Achievement & Motivation Demonstrating the motivation to work hard, be successful, achieve difficult goals, and complete challenging tasks.


7

Table 2-1 continued

Leadership Scale DescriptionSelf-Discipline The ability to resist impulse, maintain focus, and see a project through to

completion.

Flexibility The ability to adapt one’s style or approach in order to adjust to changing circumstances or to achieve an objective.

Independence The ability to be self-starting and work independently of others when necessary.

Self-Esteem Demonstrating a high level of self-worth and self-confidence.

Emotional Control Maintaining personal composure during times of stress or pressure, when things are uncertain, or when faced with conflict or disagreement.

Dependability The ability to be counted on to meet commitments and deadlines.

Ambition Demonstrating a desire for increased influence and promotion in the organizational hierarchy.

General Leadership Effectiveness

Influencing and guiding the behavior of others in a certain direction by providing motivation, coaching, and support.

Teamwork, Supervision, Planning, & ProductivityAssuming Responsibility The willingness to step forward and take charge of a difficult situation,

without being asked to do so.

Vision Seeing the “big picture” in the organization, industry, and economy, including having a clear sense of the company’s ideal future state and communicating this to others in a compelling way.

Emphasizing Excellence Setting challenging goals and high quality standards, and expecting subordinates to perform at their highest level.

Organizational Spokesperson

Serving as figurehead and spokesperson for one’s unit, and effectively promoting and defending the interests of one’s subordinates.

Subordinate Involvement Consulting with subordinates, soliciting suggestions, and taking these suggestions seriously.

Facilitating Teamwork The ability to promote teamwork, cooperation, and identification with the work group.

Inspirational Role Model The ability to set a positive and inspirational example for subordinates to follow.

Short-Term Planning Establishing short-term goals and objectives for subordinates and for the work unit, and developing action steps to achieve them.

Strategic Planning The ability to establish a long-range direction for the organization or unit, set broad goals that align with the direction, and identify the means to reach those goals.

Organizing the Work of Others

Clearly defining roles and responsibilities for subordinates, and letting them know exactly what tasks should be done and what results are expected.

Delegation Delegating responsibility and authority to subordinates and giving them discretion in determining how to do their work.

Chapter 2

8

Leaders: LSP Qualification Course is an online course that equips test users with the

knowledge and skills needed to interpret the LSP. The course, developed by Industrial/

Organizational psychologists and experts in corporate education, equips participants

with an understanding of personality-based assessments and their application with

respect to leadership selection. Topics covered include fundamentals of psychological

testing, the steps involved in constructing a valid and reliable assessment, ethical

considerations involved in using personality assessments, and how to apply this

knowledge in the effective interpretation of LSP reports. Although LSP reports are

designed to be interpretable by end users through computer-scored results that include

algorithms for determining scale and overall scores, this course provides essential

background information with respect to personality assessments and fundamentals

of psychological testing and measurement.

It is important to note that if an organization wishes to undertake its own vali-

dational research with the LSP, participation by a person or persons skilled in such

research is recommended.

Norms Adult LSP norms were based on the responses of 243 senior managers and execu-

tives. The participants were drawn from a variety of organizations. Job titles ranged

from president, vice-president, chief financial officer, divisional general manager, and

other senior and upper middle management positions. All major functions were rep-

resented in the positions, including administration, accounting and finance, research

and development, manufacturing, sales, marketing, engineering, law, and human

resources. A substantial number of different industries were represented, including

pharmaceuticals, defense manufacturing, computer hardware, computer software,

office products, health care, medical instrumentation, hazardous waste disposal,

electronics, construction materials, laser technology, importing, energy, telecommu-

nications, public accounting, public utilities, and others. Participants were referred

by their organizations or appeared on their own initiative to undertake a structured

counseling program to develop and improve management and leadership skills.

Table 2-1 continued

Leadership Scale DescriptionMonitoring & Controlling Checking on the performance of subordinates, giving them personalized

feedback, and taking disciplinary action when necessary.

Motivating Others Showing enthusiasm and providing encouragement, recognition, constructive criticism, and coaching to subordinates.

Attracting Staff The ability to hire and retain staff, and keep turnover at an acceptable level.

Productivity Accomplishing an above average quantity and quality of work.


9

Administering the LSPThe LSP should be completed in a quiet setting free from distractions and without the

intrusion of advice from others. Although it may be given under supervised condi-

tions, this is not essential. Any suitable office environment or even a home setting is

suitable. The LSP is available for online administration at www.SigmaTesting.com.

Recommended Uses of the LSPThe LSP was designed to help identify superior job candidates and to make informed

employee succession planning decisions. It should be used in conjunction with other

information. For selection, examples of other information sources include interviews,

cognitive ability assessments, and references. For succession planning, the LSP

should be used in conjunction with data on past performance. Using the LSP in this

manner will provide a more comprehensive and accurate snapshot of an employee’s

strengths, weakness, and potential effectiveness.

Furthermore, SIGMA strongly recommends against dehiring employees based

on the results of the LSP, or any personality-based selection assessment. Neither

SIGMA, nor its partners, nor its Affiliates will be held liable for any resulting legal

claims made by former employees dehired as a result of their LSP results.

SecurityConfidential LSP results should be stored in a secure location with access restricted

only to those individuals who have authorized use for the LSP reports. If the LSP

reports are administered as part of leadership development initiative, reports should

be delivered to participants in sealed envelopes. No copies of the LSP reports should

be retained in the organization’s files unless strict security measures are in place.

ScoringThe LSP is scored automatically using our convenient online system: www.

SigmaTesting.com.

The LSP ReportThe LSP report provides an introduction and sets of unique profiles for each job

applicant. The executive summary contains a profile indicating expected Overall

Leadership Performance, as well as profiles for effective Interpersonal Leadership

Skills and Task Orientation, the respondent’s ability to initiate and to bring projects

to successful completion. In addition, Interpersonal Leadership Skills and Task

Orientation are plotted on a two-dimensional grid that depicts their joint operation.

This is followed by four profiles which present the respondent’s percentile ranks on

42 performance dimensions. A percentile rank can vary from 0 to 99, and indicates

Chapter 2

10

the percentage of people in the comparison group who obtained a raw score lower

than the respondent’s score. The profiles are followed by scale descriptions and an

in-depth analysis of the implications of the individual’s personality on the 42 leader-

ship skills. Statements made in the report are based on statistically significant empiri-

cal findings of personality data and 360-degree feedback ratings of managers and

executives. An abbreviated sample report of the LSP Selection Report is provided

on the following pages.


11

Figure 2-1: Sample abbreviated LSP-SR Report - The Introduction, Executive Summary, Profiles for 17 of 42 dimensions, and a detailed analysis of three of 42

dimensions

Leadership Skills Profile - Selection ReportR e p o r t for: S a m Sample

M a y 9 , 2010

IntroductionT h i s i n t e r p r e t i v e r e p o r t h e l p s t h e r e a d e r u n d e r s t a n d h o w s p e c i f i c a s p e c t s o f M r . S a m p l e ' sp e r s o n a l i t y , b e h a v i o r , a n d s t y l e a f f e c t h i s a n t i c i p a t e d l e a d e r s h i p p e r f o r m a n c e . B e c a u s e o ft h e c a n d i d d e s c r i p t i o n s u s e d i n t h i s r e p o r t , i t s h o u l d n o t b e s h o w n t o M r . S a m p l e . T h i sr e p o r t i s c o n f i d e n t i a l a n d s h o u l d n o t b e p l a c e d i n g e n e r a l p e r s o n n e l f i l e s o r i n o t h e rl o c a t i o n s w h e r e u n a u t h o r i z e d p e r s o n s m i g h t a c c e s s it.

T h e L S P r e p o r t c o n t a i n s f o u r m a j o r s e c t i o n s : ( a ) a n e x e c u t i v e s u m m a r y f e a t u r i n g t h r e es u m m a r y s c o r e s , ( b ) a p r o f i l e o f t h e 4 2 l e a d e r s h i p c o m p e t e n c i e s s o r t e d b y s c o r e , ( c ) a s e to f p r o f i l e s o f t h e 4 2 l e a d e r s h i p c o m p e t e n c i e s s o r t e d i n t o b r o a d m a n a g e r i a l s k i l lc a t e g o r i e s , a n d ( d ) a d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s o f M r . S a m p l e ' s p r e d i c t e d p e r f o r m a n c e o n e a c h o ft h e 4 2 c o m p e t e n c i e s . F o r e a c h l e a d e r s h i p c o m p e t e n c y , t h e r e p o r t c o n t a i n s a d e f i n i t i o n , ad e s c r i p t i o n o f M r . S a m p l e ' s e x p e c t e d l e v e l o f p e r f o r m a n c e , a n d a s e t o f s t a t e m e n t sd e s c r i b i n g t h e p a r t i c u l a r f a c t o r s i n h i s p e r s o n a l i t y , i n t e r p e r s o n a l s t y l e , a n d m e t h o d f o ro r g a n i z i n g w o r k t h a t d e t e r m i n e h i s l e v e l o f p e r f o r m a n c e o n t h a t l e a d e r s h i p s k i l l o rcompetency.

A l l o f t h e d a t a a n d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s i n t h i s r e p o r t a r e b a s e d o n p r o f e s s i o n a l l y s u p e r v i s e ds t a t i s t i c a l s t u d i e s o f t h e p e r s o n a l i t y a n d p e r f o r m a n c e o f e x e c u t i v e s a n d m a n a g e r s i n aw i d e v a r i e t y o f o r g a n i z a t i o n s . T h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t i n g t h e g e n e r a la c c u r a c y o f t h i s r e p o r t . N e v e r t h e l e s s , i t s h o u l d b e r e c o g n i z e d t h a t 1 0 0 p e r c e n t a c c u r a c y i sn o t a t t a i n a b l e i n p r e d i c t i n g h u m a n b e h a v i o r . A c c o r d i n g l y , s o m e s t a t e m e n t s w i l l b e m o r ea p p l i c a b l e t o t h e r e s p o n d e n t t h a n w i l l o t h e r s . W h e r e m u l t i p l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s a n de x p l a n a t i o n s a r e p r e s e n t , a l l e x p l a n a t i o n s a r e h e l p f u l , b u t s o m e w i l l b e m o r e i m p o r t a n tt h a n o t h e r s , d e p e n d i n g o n t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n a n d t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f h i sp o s i t i o n . S o m e o f t h e c o m m e n t s m a y a p p e a r t o b e e x c e s s i v e l y n e g a t i v e , b u t i t i si m p o r t a n t t o r e m e m b e r t h a t a m a n a g e r i s u s u a l l y n o t c a l l e d u p o n t o e n g a g e i n a c t i v i t i e sr e q u i r i n g e v e r y s k i l l a n a l y z e d i n t h i s r e p o r t a n d t h a t e a c h p o s i t i o n w i l l e m p h a s i z e ad i f f e r e n t p a t t e r n o f l e a d e r s h i p skills.

O c c a s i o n a l l y , s o m e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s m i g h t a p p e a r t o b e i n c o n f l i c t w i t h o t h e r s f o r r e l a t e ds k i l l s . T h e s e a p p a r e n t i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s a r e u s u a l l y d u e t o t h e i m p r e c i s i o n o f l a n g u a g e , o rt o n u a n c e s o f m e a n i n g a t t a c h e d t o r e l a t e d a s p e c t s o f p e r s o n a l i t y . T r y t o f o c u s o n t h eo v e r a l l p a t t e r n o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s , r a t h e r t h a n o n s i n g l e interpretations.

W h e n r e v i e w i n g a n i n d i v i d u a l ' s s t r e n g t h s a n d w e a k n e s s e s , t h e y s h o u l d b e e v a l u a t e d i nt e r m s o f p o s i t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t s . I t w i l l b e h e l p f u l t o w e i g h e a c h s t a t e m e n t o f e x p e c t e dp e r f o r m a n c e i n t e r m s o f h o w i m p o r t a n t i t i s t o j o b p e r f o r m a n c e , a n d t o t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n .I t i s a l s o r e c o m m e n d e d t h a t y o u c o n s i d e r t h e i n f o r m a t i o n p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s r e p o r t w i t h i nt h e c o n t e x t o f o t h e r c a n d i d a t e d a t a ( i . e . s t r u c t u r e d i n t e r v i e w s , a p t i t u d e t e s t i n g , p a s tp e r f o r m a n c e etc.).

Copyright 2003-2009 SIGMA Assessment Systems, Inc., P.O. Box 610757, Port Huron, MI 48061-0757 Phone: 800-265-1285

Chapter 2

12

Figure 2-1: Sample abbreviated LSP-SR Report (continued)

LSP Selection ReportSam Sample Page 2

LSP-SR Executive SummaryT h i s p a g e p r o v i d e s a n o v e r v i e w o f M r . S a m p l e ' s r e s u l t s . I t b e g i n s w i t h a c h a r t b a s e d o nt h e s u m o f a l l 4 2 l e a d e r s h i p c o m p e t e n c i e s . A s e c o n d c h a r t d i v i d e s M r . S a m p l e ' s o v e r a l lr e s u l t s i n t o t w o b r o a d d i m e n s i o n s , h i s I n t e r p e r s o n a l L e a d e r s h i p Effectiveness, a n d h i sT a s k Orientation ( h i s f o c u s o n c o m p l e t i n g t h e t a s k s f o r w h i c h h e h a s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ) .F i n a l l y , M r . S a m p l e ' s s c o r e s o n t h e s e t w o b r o a d d i m e n s i o n s a r e p l o t t e d o n a p e r f o r m a n c eg r i d w i t h I n t e r p e r s o n a l L e a d e r s h i p Effectiveness a s t h e v e r t i c a l a x i s a n d T a s kOrientation a s t h e horizontal.

A l l s c o r e s i n t h i s r e p o r t a r e e x p r e s s e d i n t e r m s o f p e r c e n t i l e s , w h i c h d i f f e r f r o mp e r c e n t a g e s i n t h a t t h e y c o m p a r e M r . S a m p l e ' s e x p e c t e d p e r f o r m a n c e w i t h t h a t o f a l a r g eg r o u p o f s e n i o r m a n a g e r s a n d e x e c u t i v e s . B y d e f i n i t i o n , a s c o r e a t t h e 5 0 t h p e r c e n t i l e i sa v e r a g e . F o r m o r e i n f o r m a t i o n o n p e r c e n t i l e s a n d h o w t o p r o p e r l y i n t e r p r e t t h i s r e p o r t ,p l e a s e r e f e r t o t h e L S P manual.

O v e r a l l E x p e c t e d L e a d e r s h i p PerformanceLow Average High

Percentile 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Overall Leadership Performance 94T h e p e r c e n t i l e s c o r e i s t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f p e r s o n s i n a c o m p a r i s o n g r o u p o f m a n a g e r s a n d e x e c u t i v e s r e c e i v i n g a l o w e rt e s t s c o r e . A p e r c e n t i l e s c o r e o f 5 0 i s average.

I n t e r p e r s o n a l L e a d e r s h i p E f f e c t i v e n e s s a n d T a s k OrientationLow Average High

Percentile 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Interpersonal Leadership Effectiveness 94

Task Orientation 93T h e p e r c e n t i l e s c o r e i s t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f p e r s o n s i n a c o m p a r i s o n g r o u p o f m a n a g e r s a n d e x e c u t i v e s r e c e i v i n g a l o w e rt e s t s c o r e . A p e r c e n t i l e s c o r e o f 5 0 i s average.

P e r f o r m a n c e GridBEST

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·10

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·20

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·30

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·40

50

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·60

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·70

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·80

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·90

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·100

Inte

rper

sona

l Lea

ders

hip

Effe

ctiv

enes

s

··················································

10

··················································

20

··················································

30

··················································

40 50

··················································

60

··················································

70

··················································

80

··················································

90

··················································

100Task Orientation

12

340

Mr. Sample

E x p l a n a t i o n : C a n d i d a t e s f a l l i n g i nq u a d r a n t 1 h a v e s c o r e d a b o v e a v e r a g eo n b o t h m e a s u r e s a n d h a v e t h e g r e a t e s tp o t e n t i a l t o s u c c e e d i n t h e j o b r o l e .C a n d i d a t e s f a l l i n g i n q u a d r a n t 4 h a v es c o r e d b e l o w a v e r a g e o n b o t hm e a s u r e s a n d h a v e t h e l e a s t p o t e n t i a lt o s u c c e e d i n t h e j o b role.



13



LSP-SR Scores By CategoryT h e p r o f i l e s b e l o w d i v i d e M r . S a m p l e ' s s c o r e s i n t o b r o a d m a n a g e r i a l s k i l l c a t e g o r i e s . U s e e a c h p r o f i l e t oe x a m i n e t h i s p e r s o n ' s p r e d i c t e d p e r f o r m a n c e o n r e l a t e d l e a d e r s h i p a s p e c t s . D e t a i l e d i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h ec a n d i d a t e i s p r e s e n t e d i n t h e n e x t s e c t i o n i n t h e s a m e o r d e r a s t h e s e profiles.

C o g n i t i v e M a n a g e r i a l SkillsLow Average High

Percentile 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Technical Orientation 46

Analytical Orientation 49

Decisiveness 88

Creativity 86

Thoroughness 18

Objectivity 47

Risk Taking 91T h e p e r c e n t i l e s c o r e i s t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f p e r s o n s i n a c o m p a r i s o n g r o u p o f m a n a g e r s a n d e x e c u t i v e s r e c e i v i n g a l o w e rt e s t s c o r e . A p e r c e n t i l e s c o r e o f 5 0 i s average.

I n t e r p e r s o n a l M a n a g e r i a l SkillsLow Average High

Percentile 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Open-Mindedness 92

First Impression 96

Interpersonal Relations 93

Sensitivity 98

Social Astuteness 97

Conflict Management 87

Communication 19

Formal Presentation 72

Persuasiveness 93

Negotiation 91T h e p e r c e n t i l e s c o r e i s t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f p e r s o n s i n a c o m p a r i s o n g r o u p o f m a n a g e r s a n d e x e c u t i v e s r e c e i v i n g a l o w e rt e s t s c o r e . A p e r c e n t i l e s c o r e o f 5 0 i s average.


Chapter 2

14



LSP-SR Detailed AnalysisC o g n i t i v e M a n a g e r i a l Skills

T e c h n i c a l OrientationPercentile 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

46

D e m o n s t r a t i n g t e c h n i c a l p r o f i c i e n c y o r e x p e r t i s e a c q u i r e d t h r o u g h e d u c a t i o n , t r a i n i n g , o rexperience.

M r . S a m p l e ' s e x p e c t e d p e r f o r m a n c e f o r T E C H N I C A L O R I E N T A T I O N i s i n t h eS L I G H T L Y B E L O W AVERAGE range.

M r . S a m p l e ' s t e n d e n c y t o u s e h i s s o c i a l s k i l l s t o p e r s u a d e a n d i n f l u e n c e o t h e r s m a yl e a d h i m t o f o c u s o n i n t e r p e r s o n a l i s s u e s r a t h e r t h a n s p e n d i n g a d e q u a t e t i m e o nt e c h n i c a l i s s u e s a n d developments.

B e c a u s e M r . S a m p l e m a y n o t b e s u f f i c i e n t l y s a t i s f i e d w i t h s o m e a s p e c t s o f h i s w o r k ,h e c o u l d h a v e d i f f i c u l t y c o n c e n t r a t i n g a n d r e m a i n i n g f o c u s e d o n t e c h n i c a l issues.

A n a l y t i c a l OrientationPercentile 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

49

D e m o n s t r a t i n g a p r e f e r e n c e f o r p r o b l e m s r e q u i r i n g p r e c i s e , l o g i c a l r e a s o n i n g , a n ds h o w i n g a n a b i l i t y t o d i s s e c t a n d u n d e r s t a n d c o m p l e x , m u l t i f a c e t e d problems.

M r . S a m p l e ' s a n t i c i p a t e d l e v e l o f A N A L Y T I C A L O R I E N T A T I O N i s i n t h e S L I G H T L YB E L O W AVERAGE range.

I n d i v i d u a l s l i k e M r . S a m p l e , w h o t e n d t o b e d i s s a t i s f i e d w i t h s o m e a s p e c t s o f t h e i rj o b s , m a y n o t b e i n c l i n e d t o a p p l y t h e s k i l l s a n d k n o w l e d g e n e e d e d t o e f f e c t i v e l ys o l v e j o b - r e l a t e d p r o b l e m s . A s a r e s u l t , M r . S a m p l e m a y n o t p e r f o r m o p t i m a l l y w h e na n a l y z i n g c o m p l e x issues.

M r . S a m p l e s e e m s t o p r e f e r a s y s t e m a t i c a n d o r g a n i z e d a p p r o a c h t o p r o b l e m s o l v i n g ,w h i c h m a y c a u s e h i m t o b e c o m e a b s o r b e d i n t h e d e t a i l s . T h i s t e n d e n c y c o u l d a f f e c th i s a b i l i t y t o e v a l u a t e a b r o a d r a n g e o f o p t i o n s i n a r r i v i n g a t t h e b e s t solution.


15

Chapter 3

Construction of the LSP

The development of the LSP has its foundation in the measures on which it is based: the PRF (1999), the JPI-R (1994), and the SWS (1993). These personality measures are among the most elaborately constructed measures in existence. For example, the initial item pool forming the basis for the LSP was over 4700 items. In contrast to some other questionnaires in which one or two factors predominate — often associ-ated with response sets — these measures were developed explicitly with the aim of reducing biases and redundancy among scales, a property that contributes to each scale’s unique capacity to predict external criteria. Furthermore, these measures are relatively comprehensive in the personality domain. We do not rely only on “the Big Five” personality factors. The proposition that personality is more complex than can be accounted for by five factors is supported in Chapter 4, not only by the fact that all of the 37 personality scales contained in the LSP question booklet significantly contributed to at least one canonical variate, but, as well, by our finding that the ad-dition of the Type A measure, the Survey of Work Styles, contributed incrementally to validities. Furthermore, the measures employed showed variations in the direction in which they predict various performance dimensions. Many personality scales predict some performance dimensions positively, while predicting others negatively. The use of a wide variety of personality scales permits a degree of differentiation and refinement in the prediction of leadership performance that is not possible using broader, less differentiated personality scales.

RationaleThe rationale for the method of scale construction used for the LSP is based upon and extends that employed in the development of the author’s Personality Research Form (Jackson 1970; Jackson 1964, 1974, 1987, 1997; Wiggins, 1973, pp. 409-415). These procedures were employed sequentially in an effort to produce scales having particular optimum properties, including (a) freedom from response bias, (b) fidelity of items to scale definitions, (c) high empirical item content saturation, (d) high scale homogeneity and item content representativeness, and (e) normal distributions for scale scores. Previous experience has indicated that a personality scale construction program designed to meet these requirements results in scales possessing construct validity as measured by substantial reliability and convergent and discriminant validity. Some of these procedures have been described in detail in the published literature. They will be summarized here. Some of the description

Chapter 3

16

contained in this manual is necessarily technical. For the sake of completeness in describing the selection of the LSP items, certain information in the following sec-tions depends on work contained in previous publications of the author.

Basic Assumptions Underlying the Development of the LSPBefore describing the actual procedures used in the development of the LSP, it is important to provide the underlying assumptions on which these procedures were based. The body of research conducted by the author and others that followed from these assumptions is considerable. The conduct of this research has provided con-siderable support for the procedures employed for the LSP. For example, we have demonstrated and published research bearing on findings that certain item selection procedures were more effective in producing valid scales, that certain procedures were more effective in maximizing reliability, while minimizing variance associ-ated with response bias, and that certain procedures were effective in minimizing redundancy among a set of personality scales, among other findings.

The underlying assumptions guiding LSP scale development can be summarized in four propositions:(a) an explicit, theoretically-based definition of the construct is essential prior to

developing the item pool for the questionnaire;(b) the development of a large item pool provides an important foundation for

identifying the most efficient and most valid items for a questionnaire measure of personality;

(c) the use of careful item analytic procedures designed to maximize homogeneity and minimize response bias will considerably increase the fidelity of measure-ment;

(d) both convergent and discriminant validity must be addressed at the earliest stages of scale construction. Accordingly, the use of procedures to minimize correlations between scales in item selection is essential to the development of personality scales that will show appropriate levels of construct-relevant valid-ity;

The Method of Personality Scale Construction for the LSPThe scales comprising the LSP are based on scales from the author’s PRF, JPI-R, and SWS. What follows in this section is a summary of the rationale and the stages of scale development that culminated in the personality questionnaire designed for the LSP.

Briefly, the steps employed in the LSP scale construction were as follows. First, a careful study of each of the constructs was undertaken. Relevant reference works, theory, and research were evaluated both as background data to aid in the formula-tion of definitions, and as a means of designating types of appropriate items. Next, a large pool of items — well over a hundred for each scale — was developed. Each item was hypothesized to bear some conceptual link to the construct or trait be-


17

ing measured. Following critical review by two or more editors, these items were administered under controlled conditions to large samples of respondents, totaling well over a thousand. Considerable care was exercised in the administration of pro-visional scales. In addition, provisional booklets contained items serving to identify respondents who answered non-purposefully. Each scale was comprised equally of positively-and-negatively keyed items. Responses to these items were summed for each respondent to yield a total score. A series of computer programs was written, not only to complete summary statistics, but also to aid in decision making. Many of the decisions required in item selection and scale construction, because of their number and complexity, would have been inordinately time consuming without the efficiency of the computer.

Biserial correlations were computed between each item and the total provisional scale of which it was a member, for related scales, and for a large set of heteroge-neous items scaled for desirability, which comprised the provisional Desirability Scale. Items were retained for further analysis only if they showed higher correla-tions with the scale to which they belonged, than to any irrelevant scale, including Desirability. Many items were eliminated on this basis. Items were also eliminated which showed extreme endorsement proportions. Such items carry little information, tend to have unstable correlations, are usually extreme in desirability, and generally possess only modest reliability.

The Differential Reliability IndexThe items surviving these hurdles were retained for further analyses. Since it was important to maximize reliable content-saturated variance in relation to variance associated with desirability response bias, an item index designed to test for this property was developed. This index, designated the Differential Reliability Index (DRI), is defined by the formula:

DRI = / r2ig-r

2idy

where:

r2ig is the biserial correlation between an item and its own scale, and

r2idy

is the biserial correlation between an item and a desirability scale.

The Differential Reliability Index may be considered the portion of the variance for a given item associated with the total scale score for a given trait, from which the variance shared by the item and a desirability scale has been subtracted. This Index was selected from a number of other alternatives because it most efficiently suppressed desirability variance, and because of its simple and intuitively appealing rationale.

Items were next ranked in terms of the magnitude of the Differential Reliability Index within each scale. The desired number of items were chosen from those items showing the highest rankings. Kuder-Richardson formula 20 reliability coefficients, scale intercorrelations, and other summary statistical data were then obtained.

Chapter 3

18

The requirement that items correlate highest with their proper scale, and, par-ticularly, the requirement that this relationship not be substantially a function of desirability bias, tends to produce finished scales with relatively high reliability and discriminant measurement properties. Scales constructed in this way tend not to be spuriously correlated due to desirability. In the absence of such spurious correlation, optimal conditions exist for discriminating among individuals on the basis of their different scale scores, and for making inferences regarding test patterns.

Minimum Redundancy Item AnalysisFollowing the above procedures, a second analysis based on new samples was undertaken to minimize the correlations between scales. The primary emphasis in the selection items was to prepare a set of scales having minimal interscale cor-relations. There are several advantages of minimizing the redundancy within a set of measures. When tests are used to predict a criterion, each test in the battery will contribute unique variance to the predictor equation to the extent that it does not share variance with other measures. Thus, other things being equal, the smaller the common variance among a set of variables, the greater will be each variable’s aver-age contribution to the multiple correlation. When a set of measures is considered to reflect a number of constructs, as is the case with the LSP, it is even more important that measures of each construct be distinct and uncorrelated. If the scales tend to correlate substantially, there may be confusion between the constructs. Minimum redundancy among predictor scales will enhance convergent and discriminant validity because each measure will tend to be associated with relevant criterion constructs to a greater extent than it is with irrelevant constructs. Thus, whether the task is one of empirical prediction, or construct measurement within the framework of expecting convergent and discriminant validity for the set of measures, differential prediction will be possible to the extent that the set of measures contains substantial reliable and specific variance. Thus, the goal of item analysis would become one of attempt-ing to maximize reliable, specific scale variance while minimizing sources of error and common variance between scales. The item analysis employed for the LSP was designed as a multivariate approach to minimum redundancy item analysis. The approach employed was developed in collaboration with J.A. Neill and is described at length by Neill and Jackson (1976). An elaborate algorithm was developed for taking into account a number of sources of item and scale variance, designed to yield an optimum combination of parameters providing the best combination of scale homogeneity and minimum redundancy among scales.

A perusal of Table 3-1 will provide a basis for understanding some of the consid-erations employed in the selection of item parameters for LSP scale construction. In comparing item A with item B in Table 3-1, it is apparent that item A would be considered superior because it shows a higher correlation with its own scale than does item B, while they both show the same pattern of correlations with irrelevant scales. In comparing item B with item C, however, the level of the item-scale correlation is


19

Table 3-1: Illustration of Different Item Properties upon which Item Selection Strategies might be based

Biserial Correlations

Same Scales Irrelevant Scales G X Y ZItem A .65 .40 .00 .00Item B .50 .40 .00 .00Item C .50 .00 .25 .00Item D .50 .25 .00 .00Item E .50 .00 .00 .35

Product Moment Correlation betweenscale G and irrelevant scales .40 .30 -.40

identical. Item C would be judged as more acceptable than item B because it does not correlate as highly with extraneous scales. Next, consider a comparison of item C with item D. Since items C and D are equivalent in terms of the previous criteria, the decision between the two items should take into account correlations between scales. Scale G (at the bottom of Table 3-1) correlates .40 with scale X but only .30 with scale Y. Item C, the one that is correlated with irrelevant scale Y, should be selected because its inclusion would contribute less to the redundancy among scales. Finally, item E is superior to items B, C, or D because it would involve selection of an item correlating positively with a negatively-related extraneous scale, which would tend to reduce scale intercorrelations more than would retention of any of the other items. Thus, each of the foregoing examples involves a successively more refined basis on which items might be selected for inclusion in a personality scale. On the one hand, a test author might attempt intuitively to incorporate such considerations into item selection by judgmentally reviewing item statistics and making a choice from among items showing various patterns of correlations with their own and with extraneous scales. On the other hand, from what is known about the superiority of actuarial procedures for handling quantitative of data of this sort, an analytical procedure was preferred. Thus, it was considered prudent in the present instance to develop objective indices taking into account the considerations reviewed here. Accordingly we undertook an evaluation of alternative weighting systems.

Item Efficiency Index In the construction of LSP, an index incorporating a number of statistical decision rules was developed. On the basis of alternative parameter weights, an Item Efficiency

Index (IEI) is calculated for each item so that items within each scale may be ranked along a single continuum of item efficiency. The index is designated as follows:

IEI = — • |rig|

L – B • —————————————— , h Ö g|r

ig|

|rig|

rgh

|rgh|

Σ — • — •|rgh |

K•|rih |

L

h = 1

ns rih

|rih|

Σ |rgh |

K

h = 1

ns

Chapter 3

20

Where:

rig

is the biserial correlation of item i with its own scale g ;

rih is the biserial correlation of items i with one of the other ns scales;

rgh

is the product moment correlation between the scale in question (g) and one of the other ns scales; and

B , L , and K are parameters to be estimated.

The initial quantity in the Item Efficiency Index is the item’s biserial correlation with its own scale. From a power of that correlation, a quantity is subtracted reflecting a weighted function of the item’s biserial correlations with the other scales, together with the magnitude and direction of the scale’s product moment correlation with the other scales. Manipulation of the K and L parameters controls the relevant contribution of the scale intercorrelation and item-scale correlation, respectively, to the Item Efficiency Index. Manipulation of the B parameter controls the absolute contribution of these factors combined.

Figure 3-1 surveys the general procedure used for computing the Item Efficiency Index. Raw data for each respondent were scored so that scale scores were avail-able. The intercorrelation matrix was computed between the scales. A matrix of biserial correlations between items and scales was also computed. A set of values for the B , L , and K parameters was input, and, with the available scale intercor-relations and item biserial correlations, an Item Efficiency Index was computed for every item. The items within each scale were then ranked on the IEI separately for positively- and negatively-keyed items. Using a variety of multivariate procedures for evaluating redundancy and scale homogeneity, it was determined that one set of parameter values yielded a superior combination of estimates of redundancy and homogeneity. The values for B , L , and K respectively, which proved to be optimal, were 4, 2, and 1. On the basis of these values, the items for each personality scale in the LSP were ranked in terms of the IEI, Using these parameters, the average scale intercorrelation proved to be .15, and this combination also yielded the small-est amount of variance for the first factor, the smallest amount of variance for the first four factors, the largest number of factors whose eigenvalues exceeded unity, and the lowest value for the Gini Index (Kendall & Stuart, 1969), an index of the complexity of a curve adapted for the purpose of evaluating a plot of eigenvalues bearing on mutual scale redundancy.

Although statistical procedures played a major role in LSP item selection, it was decided that statistical procedures should be supplemented by other procedures. There is also an important role for human judgment (Goldberg & Slovic, 1967; Jackson, 1971; Ashton & Goldberg, 1973). Items still required final editorial review to achieve representativeness of content, lack of ambiguity, substantive cogency, and, particularly, simplicity and compactness of style. The final decision regarding the acceptability of an item was thus judgmental, incorporating the foregoing criteria, together with the Item Efficiency Index, the item’s correlation with a desirability scale, and its index of the proportion of individuals endorsing the item. Items with extreme endorsement proportions (generally below .20 or above .80) were eliminated. These


21

Score 22 40-item scales

Read raw item data

Matrix of scale intercorrelation

Biserial r of every item with every

scale

Read set of B, L, K

Items ranked on IEI by scale

IEI for every item

Key produced for best

item

Yes

No

Scoring Key for best 20 items

per scale

Scoring Key for worst 20 items

per scale

Score data with new key

Intercorrelate 22 subscales

Components analysis

Key for worst items?

KR - 20s

Mean KR - 20

Mean | r |

EigenvaluesCumulative

proportion of variance per component

G

Another set of B, L, K?

Terminate Yes NoNo

Yes

Figure 3-1: Procedure for Reducing Redundancy in a Set of Personality Scales

procedures thus were aimed at providing a personality questionnaire which would combine scales having the properties of optimal reliability in relation to their length, minimal mutual redundancy, and comprised of items combining content saturation, freedom from irrelevant variance, lack of ambiguity, readability, and conciseness.

23

Chapter 4

Empirical Evaluation of the LSP

ReliabilityThe PRF, JPI-R, and SWS have displayed satisfactory internal consistency and test-retest reliabilities; the numerous reliability coefficients are reported in the respective manuals. For example, the SWS Manual (Jackson & Gray, 1993, p.10) reports reli-abilities in Table 4-1 for 163 business managers and the individuals comprising the original normative sample. In considering the reliability of the constituent scales for the LSP, it should be recognized that predictions of managerial performance di-mensions are not based on single scales, but on linear combinations of a number of scales. The scales selected for inclusion in a given prediction formula for a manage-rial performance dimension were those correlating with the performance dimension to a statistically significant degree.

Table 4-1: Alpha reliability coefficients for the SWS

Business Normative Scale Managers (N=163) Sample (N=233)

Impatience .82 .77 Anger .71 .81 Work Involvement .82 .84 Time Urgency .81 .82 Job Dissatisfaction .82 .84 Competitiveness .80 .73 Scale A .79 .81 Total Score .90 .91

ValidityBoth the JPI-R and the PRF, upon which the LSP is based, have consistently displayed solid evidence of convergent and discriminate validity with self and peer ratings, and with numerous other criterion measures, including measures of managerial performance. For example JPI-R and PRF scales have been shown to differentiate high and low ratings on performance dimensions derived from 360-degree feedback judgments by coworkers (Jackson & Carswell, 2002). Several other research studies have found the personality measures to be predictors of job performance in various

Chapter 4

24

industries and occupational roles, such as managers, salespersons, and accountants (e.g., Goffin, Rothstein & Johnston, 2000; Day & Silverman, 1989; Lamont & Lundstrom, 1977.)

There is published research on the relationships between the SWS and performance in a stressful work situation (Tett, Bobocel, Hafer, Lees, Smith, & Jackson, 1992). In addition the SWS has been shown to relate to physiological evidence of Type A behavior in business managers (Gray, Jackson, & Howard, 1990). All measures show meaningful correlations with executive performance. (Jackson, 1994, pp. 97-100). As the LSP scales are derived from these three standardized personality questionnaires, one can have confidence that the scales are measuring what they purport to measure.

Multiple Correlations with 360 degree Feedback Perfor-mance Ratings

Multiple correlations between the LSP personality scales and facets of leadership performance were also computed. These are listed below in Table 4-2. All are sta-tistically significant at the .05 level or better. It is clear that the personality scales contained in the LSP have important implications for managerial performance.

Table 4-2: Multiple correlations between LSP personality scales and managerial and executive leadership skills derived from 360 degree feedback coworker

ratings (N = 243)

R rxx Rc

Cognitive Managerial SkillsTechnical Skill .35 .66 .43Analytical Ability .41 .81 .46Decisiveness .39 .78 .44Creativity .47 .66 .58Thoroughness .36 .85 .39Objectivity .47 .85 .51Risk Taking .51 .77 .58

Interpersonal Managerial SkillsOpen Mindedness .43 .72 .51First Impression .42 .81 .47Interpersonal Relations .43 .85 .47Sensitivity .43 .73 .50Social Astuteness .48 .80 .54Conflict Management .37 .72 .44Communication .33 .78 .37Formal Presentation .37 .84 .40Persuasiveness .49 .89 .52Negotiation .42 .67 .51


25

Personal Managerial QualitiesListening .34 .84 .37Achievement/Motivation .46 .79 .52Self Discipline .42 .70 .50Flexibility .43 .76 .49Independence .40 .81 .44Self Esteem .42 .81 .47Emotional Control .51 .85 .55Dependability .38 .82 .42Ambition .51 .71 .61General Leadership .34 .85 .37

Teamwork, Supervision, Planning, & ProductivityAssuming Responsibility .51 .84 .56Vision .49 .87 .53Emphasizing Excellence .40 .78 .45Company Representative .41 .73 .48Subordinate Involvement .33 .78 .37Facilitating Teamwork .33 .84 .36Inspirational Role Model .34 .63 .43Short Term Planning .32 .87 .34Strategic Planning .39 .87 .42Organizing the Work of Others .31 .76 .36Delegation .32 .83 .35Monitoring/Controlling .40 .72 .47Motivating Others .37 .81 .41Attracting Staff .39 .87 .42

Note:- R refers to the multiple correlation between personality scales and each of the 42 leadership skills, rxx refers to the reliability of criterion 360 degree feedback ratings, and Rc refers to the corrected multiple correlations after taking into account the attenuation caused by criterion unreliability. All uncorrected multiple correlations are significant at the .05 level or better.

Canonical Correlation AnalysisAlthough multiple correlations provide an indication of the degree to which individual managerial performance behaviors are predicted by linear combinations of person-ality variables, an overall picture of the relevance of personality to the prediction of a broad spectrum of executive and managerial outcomes is best appraised using canonical analysis. Accordingly, the set of leadership performance variables derived from 360-degree feedback was subjective to a principal components factor analysis from which six components were extracted. These components were employed to calculate component scores. These component scores were in turn designated as the “criterion” battery which was to be “predicted” from the battery of LSP personal-ity factors. Table 4-3 provides the results from this canonical correlation analysis.

It is noteworthy that a total of five canonical variates reached statistical sig-nificance, with values ranging from .38 to .65. This indicates that these are five

Chapter 4

26

independent and orthogonal linear combinations of personality factors that predict managerial and executive leadership behaviors to a statistically significant degree, supporting the relevance of the personality dimensions measured by the LSP to broad dimensions of executive leadership performance.

Table 4-3: Canonical correlation analysis of 42 LSP personality variable factors and six managerial performance dimensions (N = 243)

Canonial R Chi Square Degrees of Freedom Significance Level

.65 420.1 150 .0001 .60 296.8 120 .0001 .55 193.9 92 .0001 .44 112.5 66 .0005 .38 63.4 42 .02

The results from the canonical analysis add strong support to the overall relevance of the personality scales employed in the LSP to important dimensions of executive performance.

Development of the LSP ReportThe statements contained in the LSP report were based on a review of the validity literature on these instruments, knowledge of the personality constructs that they were designed to measure, the extensive validational study of the personality mea-sures with senior executives, referred to above, and knowledge of the work roles of managers and executives based on such authorities as Yukl and Van Fleet (1990). The statements in the report are derived from the implications of a manager’s per-sonality on his/her performance. For example, to take a hypothetical example, a high score on the personality scale, Sociability, will contribute to a lower score on the performance dimension, Thoroughness. The following is a statement that might have appeared in the report: “Extroverted, sociable people, such as Mr. Sample, are distracted from paying attention to details by a tendency to spend time engaging in conversations with others.” A great deal of effort was undertaken in writing and editing these statements.

An additional scale, Productivity, was added to the LSP. The Productivity out-come measure was derived from a linear combination of separately validated scales: Achievement, Endurance, negative Play, Time Urgency, Work Involvement, and Job Satisfaction.

The results from the LSP report are informative in a number of ways. First, data on the performance of senior managers and executives, whose effectiveness have important economic benefits, are rarely reported. The LSP Report has the unique advantage of being based on personality scales validated in terms of managerial and executive performance. Thus, the LSP provides a unique opportunity to identify the underlying factors for effective executive performance. Second, the differences in


27

the composition of these performance factors implies that there are dramatically different styles of leadership, and that no one style will always be the most suitable in a particular situation. Third, the data are unique in that they reflect the ratings of a relatively large number of judges, which, in the aggregate, provide reliable estimates of the performances of the executives on each of the dimensions. These reliabilities would not have been nearly as high if we had followed the usual practice of em-ploying only one or two raters, the procedure normally followed in administrative performance appraisal. Fourth, because of the diverse sample drawn from different positions in different industries, the normative ratings were sufficiently differenti-ated to yield enough variance to permit multivariate analysis and the emergence of stable, interpretable dimensions. Fifth, the 42 scales used for appraising executive performance span a very wide range of behaviors relevant to leadership performance. Thus, one can have some confidence that the performance dimensions describe important aspects of executive performance. Sixth, because the data were based on confidential ratings that were not intended to be used for administrative purposes, motivation leading to distortions attributable to leniency bias and halo simplification effects, which frequently occur in data collected for administrative purposes (Landy & Farr, 1980), are reduced.

The 42 performance scales are used to assess leadership ability in the LSP rather than the broad performance factors often used in performance appraisals are in our view superior for three important reasons. First there remains substantial specificity in the original scales, permitting a differentiated appraisal of expected performance. Second, the constructs implicit in the rating scale names, being closer to specific behaviors, are more understandable and communicable. Third, some of the initial meaningfulness of the scales is lost in definitions of broad factors. For example, if success in a particular job required high negotiation skill, it might be better to select people who were high on ratings of Negotiation, rather than on the factor on which Negotiation is related. This is because some valid aspects of effective negotiation might be captured by Negotiation ratings but not contained in the broader factor. Thus, selecting on only a composite broad dimension might not give sufficient weight to certain variables that would be deemed important if a proper job analysis has been undertaken. In summary, there are sound arguments supporting our choice of the differentiated performance constructs contained in the LSP.

29

ReferencesAshton, S. G., & Goldberg, L. R. (1973). In response to Jackson’s challenge: The com-

parative validity of personality scales constructed by the external (empirical)

strategy and scales developed intuitively by experts, novices, and laymen.

Journal of Research in Personality, 7, 1-20.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job

performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.

Blinkhorn, S., & Johnson, C. (1990). The insignificance of personality testing. Nature,

348, 361-372.

Cascio, W. F. (2000). Costing human resources: the financial impact of behavior in

organizations. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing.

Day, D. V., & Silverman, S. B. (1989). Personality and job performance: Evidence of

incremental validity. Personnel Psychology, 42(1), 25-36.

Frei, R. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (1998). Validity of customer service measures in per-

sonnel selection: A review of criterion and construct evidence. Human

Performance, 11, 1-27.

Gellatly, I. R., Paunonen, S .V., Meyer, J. P., Jackson, D. N., & Goffin, R. D. (1991).

Personality, vocational interest, and cognitive predictors of managerial job

performance and satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 12,

221-231.

Goffin, R. D., Rothstein, M. G., & Johnston, N. G. (2000). Predicting job performance

using personality constructs: Are personality tests created equal? In R. D.

Goffin & E. Helmes (Eds.), Problems and solutions in human assessment:

Honoring Douglas N. Jackson at seventy (pp. 249- 264). Norwell, MA:

Kluwer Academic.

Goldberg, L. R., & Slovic, P. (1967). Importance of test item content: An analysis of

corollary of the deviation hypothesis. Journal of Counseling Psychology,

14, 462-472.

Gray, A., Jackson, D.N., & Howard, J. H. (1990). Identification of a coronary-prone

profile for business managers: comparison of three approaches to Type A

assessment. Behavioral Medicine, 16, 67-75.

Jackson, D. N. (1964, 1974, 1984, 1997). Personality Research Form. Port Huron, MI:

Sigma Assessment Systems.

Jackson, D. N. (1970). A sequential system for personality scale development. In C.D.

Spielberger (Ed.). Current topics in clinical and community psychology,

vol.2 (pp. 61-96). New York: Academic Press.

References

30

Jackson, D.N. (1971). The dynamics of structured personality tests: 1971. Psychological

Review, 78, 229-248. (Reprinted as a Warner Modular Publication, 1973,

320, 1-20.)

Jackson, D. N. (1976, 1992, 1994, 1997). Jackson Personality Inventory-Revised. Port

Huron, MI: Sigma Assessment Systems.

Jackson, D. N. (1994). Jackson Personality Inventory-Revised Manual. Port Huron, MI:


Jackson, D. N. (1999). Personality Research Form Manual. Port Huron, MI: Sigma

Assessment Systems.

Jackson D.N., & Carswell, J. (2002). Leadership Development Report Manual. Port

Huron, MI: Sigma Assessment Systems.

Jackson, D. N., & Gray, A. M. (1993). Survey of Work Styles Manual. Port Huron, MI:


Jackson, D. N., & Rothstein, M. (1992). Evaluative personality testing in personnel

selection. The Psychologist, 6, 8-11.

Kendall, M. G., & Stuart, A. (1969). The advanced theory of statistics. Vol. 1. London:

Charles Griffen & Co.

Lamont, L. M., & Lundstrom, W. J. (1977). Identifying successful industrial salesmen

by personality and personal characteristics. Journal of Marketing Research,

14(4), 517-529.

Landy, F. J., & Farr, J. L. (1980). Performance rating. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 72-107.

Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Stewart, G. L. (1998) Five-factor model of personal-

ity and performance in jobs involving interpersonal interactions. Human

Performance, 11, 145-165.

Neill, J.A., & Jackson, D.N. (1976). Minimum redundancy item analysis. Educational

and Psychological Measurement, 36, 123-134.

Reddon, J. R., & Jackson, D. N. (1989). Readability of three adult personality tests:

Basic Personality Inventory, Jackson Personality Inventory, and Personality

Research Form-E. Journal of Personality Assessment, 53, 180-183.

Robertson, I. T., & Kinder, A. (1994). Personality and job competencies: The criterion-

related validity of some personality variables. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 66, 225-244.

Schneider, R. J., Hough, L. M., & Dunnette, M. D. (1996). Broadsided by broad traits:

How to sink science in five dimensions or less. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 17, 639-655.

Tett, R.P., Bobocel, R., Hafer, C., Lees, M.C., Smith, C.A., & Jackson, D.N. (1992).

The dimensionality of type A behavior within a stressful work simulation.

Journal of Personality, 533-551.

References

31

Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as predictors

of job performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 44,

703-742.

Vinchur, A. J., Schippmann, J. S., Switzer, F. S., & Roth, P. L. (1998). A meta-analytic

review of predictors of job performance for salespeople. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 83 (4), 586-597.

Wiggins, J. S. (1973). Personality and prediction: Principles of personality assessment.

Reading: Addison-Wesley.

Yukl, G. A., & Van Fleet, D. D. (1990). Theory and research on leadership in organiza-

tions. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.) Handbook of Industrial

and Organizational Psychology (2nd ed.) Vol. 3 (pp. 147-197). Palo Alto,

CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

SIGMA Assessment Systems, Inc. Research Psychologists Press, Inc.P.O. Box 610757, Port Huron, MI 48061-0757 P.O. Box 3292, Station B, London, ON N6A 4K3

leadership skills profile - sigma assessment · pdf filethe leadership skills profile ......

Documents