Hogan Development Survey

Manual
Acknowledgements
Over the last five years, a number of people have assisted us with the development of the
Hogan Development Survey (HDS). We are grateful for their contributions and it is a plea-
sure to acknowledge them. Paul Babiak and Tom-Erik Dybwad commented on the item pool.
John Thompson created the computer program for the interpretive report and has continued
to refine the scoring systems. Kimberly Brinkmeyer, Doug Klippel, Suzan Rybicki, Robert
Smither, and Ron Walker helped gather the original data sets. Suzan Rybicki developed and
maintained the HDS archive and computed the statistical analyses. Heather Heidelberg and
Dallas Stovall contributed technical assistance and test scoring. Ann Ferguson provided
production support, and day-to-day help has come from M. Gooch, B. Dings, M. Paddy, and
L. M. Gracie. At the University of Tulsa, Judy McHenry produced the written material, includ-
ing design, layout, and graphics. We thank all of them for their assistance.
Robert Hogan
Joyce Hogan
Tulsa
1997
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Conceptual Background............................................................................ 1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1
Hypotheses .................................................................................................................................... 2
Development Guidelines ................................................................................................................. 4
Chapter 2: Inventory Construction .............................................................................. 7
Development .................................................................................................................................. 7
Definitions of the Scales ................................................................................................................. 8
Composition of the HDS ................................................................................................................. 9
Chapter 3: Validity ....................................................................................................... 13
Construct Validity .......................................................................................................................... 13
Correlations with Other Measures.................................................................................................. 13
Excitable ............................................................................................................................. 14
Skeptical ............................................................................................................................. 15
Cautious .............................................................................................................................. 16
Reserved ............................................................................................................................. 19
Leisurely .............................................................................................................................. 19
Bold..................................................................................................................................... 21
Mischievous......................................................................................................................... 22
Colorful ................................................................................................................................ 23
Imaginative .......................................................................................................................... 26
Diligent ................................................................................................................................ 26
Dutiful .................................................................................................................................. 27
Chapter 4: Interpretations and Uses.......................................................................... 29
Scale by Scale Interpretation......................................................................................................... 29
Excitable ............................................................................................................................. 29
Skeptical ............................................................................................................................. 30
Cautious .............................................................................................................................. 31
Reserved ............................................................................................................................. 31
Leisurely .............................................................................................................................. 32
Bold..................................................................................................................................... 33
Mischievous......................................................................................................................... 33
Colorful ................................................................................................................................ 34
Imaginative .......................................................................................................................... 35
Diligent ................................................................................................................................ 35
Dutiful .................................................................................................................................. 36
Sample HDS Profile Interpretations ............................................................................................... 37
Moving Away Profile .......................................................................................................... 39
Moving Against Profile ....................................................................................................... 40
Moving Toward Profile ........................................................................................................ 41
Corporate Stalker Profile ...................................................................................................... 42
Litigious Profile .................................................................................................................... 43
Fear-driven Salesman Profile ............................................................................................... 44
Uses ............................................................................................................................................ 45
Chapter 5: Administering and Scoring ...................................................................... 47
Paper-and-pencil Administration .................................................................................................... 47
How to Administer Paper-and-pencil HDS Forms........................................................................... 47
Materials ............................................................................................................................. 47
Completing the Answer Sheet .............................................................................................. 47
Conducting the Testing Session .................................................................................................... 49
Administrators Script for Conducting a Testing Session ................................................................ 49
How to Administer Computer On-line Testing ................................................................................. 51
Materials ............................................................................................................................. 51
Using the On-line System.................................................................................................... 51
How to Score the HDS Answer Sheets.......................................................................................... 52
Keyed Data Entry ................................................................................................................ 52
Optical Scanning of Answer Sheets ..................................................................................... 52
Mail-in or FAX Scoring ......................................................................................................... 52
References................................................................................................................... 55
List of Tables, Figures, and Appendices
Tables
Table 2.1 Descriptive Statistics and Reliabilities for the HDS .............................................................. 10
Table 2.2 Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations for HDS Scales by
Demographic Group ............................................................................................................. 11
Table 2.3 HDS Scale Intercorrelations ................................................................................................. 11
Table 2.4 Principal Components Analysis of HDS Scales ................................................................... 12
Table 3.1 Correlations Between the Hogan Personality Inventory and the HDS.................................... 15
Table 3.2 Correlations Between the MMPI Standard Scales and the HDS ........................................... 17
Table 3.3 Correlations Between the MMPI Personality Disorder Scales
and the HDS........................................................................................................................ 17
Table 3.4 Correlations Between the Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory
and the HDS........................................................................................................................ 18
Table 3.5 Correlations Between the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal
and the HDS........................................................................................................................ 20
Table 3.6 Correlations Between the Industrial Reading Test and the HDS ............................................ 21
Table 3.7 Correlations Between Observers Description Ratings
and the HDS........................................................................................................................ 24
Table 3.8 Principal Components Analysis of the HPI, MVPI, and HDS ................................................ 28
Figures
Figure 1.1 Overlapping Themes from HDS and DSM-IV, Axis 2 Personality Disorders .......................... 5
Figure 4.1 A Quick Guide for Interpreting the HDS................................................................................ 37
Figure 4.2 Average HDS Profile ............................................................................................................ 38
Figure 4.3 Average HPI Profile .............................................................................................................. 38
Figure 4.4 Moving Away HDS Profile .................................................................................................. 39
Figure 4.5 Moving Away HPI Profile .................................................................................................... 39
Figure 4.6 Moving Against HDS Profile ............................................................................................... 40
Figure 4.7 Moving Against HPI Profile................................................................................................. 40
Figure 4.8 Moving Toward HDS Profile ................................................................................................ 41
Figure 4.9 Moving Toward HPI Profile.................................................................................................. 41
Figure 4.10 Corporate Stalker HDS Profile.............................................................................................. 42
Figure 4.11 Corporate Stalker HPI Profile ............................................................................................... 42
Figure 4.12 Litigious HDS Profile ............................................................................................................ 43
Figure 4.13 Litigious HPI Profile ............................................................................................................. 43
Figure 4.14 Fear-driven Salesman HDS Profile ....................................................................................... 44
Figure 4.15 Fear-driven Salesman HPI Profile ......................................................................................... 44
Figure 5.1 Sample Answer Sheet ......................................................................................................... 48
Figure 5.2 HDS Data File Variable Specifications ................................................................................. 53
Appendices
Appendix A: HDS Norms for the Total Sample ........................................................................................... 59
Appendix B: Sample HDS Interpretive Report ............................................................................................ 61
Conceptual Background 1
C H A P T E R
1
Conceptual Background
Introduction
The Hogan Development Survey (HDS) is designed to assess eleven common dysfunctional
dispositions. These dispositions: (a) are caused by peoples distorted beliefs about how others
will treat them; and (b) negatively influence peoples careers and life satisfactions. Before de-
scribing the development of the HDS, some background comments may help the reader better
understand the purpose of this inventory.
Sigmund Freud, Alfred Adler, Karen Horney, and H. S. Sullivan all studied self-defeating behav-
ior. However, they explained this behavior very differently. Freud was concerned exclusively with
intrapsychic processesevents occurring inside the mindwhereas the others were concerned
with interpersonal processesevents occurring between people. Consequently, the others are
known as interpersonal theorists. Freud thought everyone (who has not been psychoanalyzed) is
neurotic; the interpersonal theorists thought that the problems most people have are much less
severe than a neurosis. Freud thought people could be characterized in terms of how they man-
age their neuroses; the others thought people could be characterized in terms of their expecta-
tions about how others will treat them. Because some of these expectations are wrong, they tend
to behave in ways that others find annoying and that, over time, may interfere with their life goals.
Freuds view that everyone is somewhat neurotic is surely incorrectpeople who are neurotic
are severely impaired and most people are not deeply disturbed. Nonetheless, his view pre-
vailed and inspired the early history of personality measurement; that, in turn, led to the develop-
ment of instruments such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI; Hathaway &
McKinley, 1943; MMPI 2, Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989).
Adler, Horney, Sullivan and the later interpersonal theorists are probably right in their view that,
although everyone is not neurotic, the nature of experience in childhood is such that almost every-
one feels inadequate about something. That is, childhood is almost inevitably stressful and most
people develop expectations of being criticized in certain situations; they
also develop methods for dealing with the criticism. For Freud, all neuroses have a single cause
a failure to resolve the Oedipus complex; for the interpersonal theorists there are many reasons
for feeling inadequate, and almost everyone feels insecure about somethingfew of us had
perfect childhoods.
The interpersonal theorists have had far less influence on personality assessment than Freud,
despite the importance of the problems they analyze. Other than research on the interpersonal
circumplex inspired by Leary (1957) and elaborated brilliantly by Wiggins (1979), there has been
little systematic effort to classify the key interpersonal processes. In our judgment, the first step in
studying these processes is to develop a taxonomy of what we call dysfunctional dispositions.
Horney (1950) identified 10 neurotic needs which seem to be the first taxonomy of flawed
interpersonal tendencies. She later summarized these needs in terms of three themes: (1) mov-
ing toward peoplei.e., managing ones insecurities by building alliances; (2) moving away
from peoplei.e., managing ones feelings of inadequacy by avoiding contact with others; and
(3) moving against peoplei.e., managing ones self-doubts by dominating and intimidating
others. We believe that Horneys taxonomy is a useful first step in classifying the dysfunctional
dispositions; moreover, it is implicit in the classification of personality disorders contained in
DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association, 1994).
Hypotheses
We would like to proposeas a hypothesisthat the DSM-IV, Axis 2 personality disorders can
serve as a provisional taxonomy of flawed interpersonal strategies. Like all taxonomies, it is
subject to revision as data emerge that cannot be interpreted or incorporated into the taxonomy.
We would like to propose a second hypothesis, one that concerns the structure of personality.
Researchers often organize personality variables in a hierarchy defined by many specific behav-
iors and/or narrow traits at the bottom and by a few broad and/or general traits at the top. Al-
though this is sensible, there is a second natural hierarchy of personality concepts that extends
from terms characterizing people with good interpersonal skills, to terms describing flawed skills,
to terms referring to non-existent skills. This second hierarchy reflects the fact that interpersonal
competency is probably normally distributed; thus, a few people at one end of the distribution are
self-assured and highly effective in interaction, and a corresponding few at the other end are
profoundly self-doubting and incompetenteven neurotic. In the middle of this distribution is the
majority of the populationpeople whose development included failure, disappointment, loss,
fights, accidents, illness, injury, family discord, experiments with forbidden behaviors, and feel-
ings of guilt, loneliness, powerlessness, humiliation, inadequacy and betrayalabout whose
lives Adler, Horney, and Sullivan wrote so perceptively.
2 Conceptual Background
Conceptual Background 3
In our view, the Five-Factor Model (Wiggins, 1996) is a cross-section of this personality hierar-
chy at the competent end of the distribution. At the incompetent end, Harkness, McNulty, and
Ben-Porath (1995) propose what they call the PSY-5, where agreeableness turns into hostility
and conscientiousness turns into delinquency. Finally, then, the personality disorders can be seen
as a cross-section in the middle of the distribution, a cross-section that has not been well-de-
fined in psychometric terms.
The two foregoing hypotheses suggest that the personality disorders occupy a psychological
space half-way between the domain mapped by measures of normal personality such as the
California Psychological Inventory (CPI; Gough, 1987) or the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI;
R. Hogan & Hogan, 1995), and measures of abnormal personality such as the MMPI. This sug-
gests one justification for developing the HDSthe personality disorders concern a region of
interpersonal behavior that has not been adequately mapped or measured. But the most impor-
tant reason for paying attention to the personality disorders, in our judgment, is that they occur so
frequently at every level of society and have detrimental effects on interpersonal and career ef-
fectiveness. Consider the following two examples.
First, R. Hogan worked for two years as a probation officer; he investigated five or six cases of
troubled adolescents each week and then wrote evaluations. In this process, he found the stan-
dard categories of psychiatric diagnosis unhelpful because they fit so few cases. Instead, he
relied on the personality disorders to make sense of his investigations. Thus, most juvenile delin-
quentswho are only somewhat disturbed in a psychiatric senseare more easily classified in
terms of the personality disorders than in terms of the standard psychiatric categories because
the problems they have are usually unrelated to neurosis or psychosis.
Second, in reviewing the literature on leadership, the authors (R. Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan, 1994)
noticed that there is little agreement regarding the characteristics that define effective leader-
ship, but there is considerable agreement regarding the characteristics of managerial incompe-
tence. Bentz (1985) identifies leadership styles associated with managerial derailment in the
retail industry (e.g., playing politics, moodiness, and dishonesty). Researchers at the Center for
Creative Leadership and at Personnel Decisions International similarly conclude that managers
who are technically competent but who fail are variously perceived as arrogant, vindictive, un-
trustworthy, selfish, emotional, compulsive, overcontrolling, insensitive, abrasive, aloof, too am-
bitious, or unable to delegate (Hazucha, 1991; Lombardo, Ruderman, & McCauley, 1988; McCall
& Lombardo, 1983). Bentzs observations overlap substantially with those from the Center for
Creative Leadershipmanagers who are typified by dysfunctional dispositions are unable to
build a constituency to support them in the pursuit of their agendas. Our point is that the themes
that predict managerial incompetence strongly resemble the personality disorders. Like the Five-
Factor Model, which is reliably replicated in various languages and cultures, the standard per-
sonality disorders seem to reflect common themes in the lives of people who are getting by but
perhaps gradually failing, or at least not realizing their potential.
The empirical literature clearly indicates that measures of psychopathology such as the Ror-
schach and the MMPI are uncorrelated with indices of effective occupational performance (Kelly
& Fiske, 1951). In 1992 as an experimental exercise, we included a measure of personality
disorders in a study of insurance claims examiners; we discovered, to our great surprise, that
several scales of the inventory were robust predictors of performance in the negative direction
(Arneson, Millikin-Davies, & Hogan, 1993). In fact, these scales predicted job performance bet-
ter than the HPIan inventory of normal personalityalthough they predicted in the negative
direction. We concluded that measures of personality disorders, unlike measures of neurosis
and psychosis, will predict (negative) reliable occupational outcomes. At this point we decided
to develop the HDS.
Development Guidelines
In developing the HDS, we were guided by four considerations. The first concerns what to mea-
sure. We regard the personality disorders described in the DSM-III-R and DSM-IV as lists de-
signed by committees; as such, they are inevitably somewhat arbitrary and generally not founded
in science. The construction of the HDS departs from the DSM-IV, Axis 2 taxonomy in two ways.
First, we retained the category of Passive-Aggressive personalitybecause we think it is an
important theme in the behavior of some normal, employed adults. Second, our measure of the
Antisocial personality is designed to assess classic psychopathic tendenciesmanipulation,
deceitfulness, and exploitationrather than a delinquent lifestyle. Table 1.1 presents the 11
HDS scales, their descriptors, and the personality disorders they most closely resemble.
The second consideration concerns how to conceptualize the constructs listed in Table 1.1.
Many people define the personality disorders as types; each construct, they believe, refers to a
distinctive cluster of behaviors that characterize certain types of people. A person with a high
score on a narcissism scale, for example, will manifest more tendencies typical of a narcissist
than a person with a low score. In our view, however, the constructs are dimensions. Each per-
sonality disorder refers to a distinct themea dysfunctional dispositionappearing in interper-
sonal relations. People are normally distributed on these dimensions, and any single person
may have high or low scores on any of the dimensions.
The third consideration we used in developing the HDS has to do with how to measure the
various personality disorders. The standard approach to constructing these scales is to write
items for each personality disorder using the diagnostic criteria listed in the DSM-IV. For ex-
ample, the criteria for the Avoidant personality include sensitivity to criticism, anxiety proneness,
fearfulness, and low self-confidence. To develop an Avoidant scale, therefore, a test author would
write items reflecting each of these themes. The problem is that the DSM-IV assigns many of the
same attributes to more than one personality disorder. For example, being sensitive to criticism
is a criterion for diagnosing four of the standard 10 disorders, and items concerning being sen-
sitive to criticism would appear on four of an inventorys scales
4 Conceptual Background
Conceptual Background 5
Figure 1.1
Overlapping Themes from HDS and DSM-IV, Axis 2 Personality Disorders
HDS Themes DSM-IV Personality Disorders Themes
Excitable Moody and hard to please; Borderline Inappropriate anger; unstable
intense but short lived and intense relationships
enthusiasm for people, alternating between idealization
projects, or things. and devaluation.
Skeptical Cynical, distrustful, and Paranoid Distrustful and suspicious of
doubting others true others; motives are interpreted
intentions. as malevolent.
Cautious Reluctant to take risks for Avoidant Social inhibition, feelings of
fear of being rejected or inadequacy, and hyper-
negatively evaluated. sensitivity to criticism or
rejection.
Reserved Aloof, detached, and Schizoid Emotional coldness and
uncommunicative; lacking detachment from social
interest in or awareness of relationships; indifferent to
the feelings of others. praise and criticism.
Leisurely Independent; ignoring Passive- Passive resistance to adequate
peoples requests and Aggressive* social and occupational
becoming irritated or performance; irritated when
argumentative if they persist. asked to do something he/she
does not want to do.
Bold Unusually self-confident; Narcissistic Arrogant and haughty
feelings of grandiosity and behaviors or attitudes;
entitlement; over-evaluation of grandiose sense of self-
ones capabilities. importance and entitlement.
Mischievous Enjoying risk taking and testing Antisocial Disregard for the trugh;
the limits; needing excitement; impulsivity and failure to plan
manipulative, deceitful, cunning, ahead; failure to conform with
and exploitative. social norms.
Colorful Expressive, animated, and Histrionic Excessive emotionality and
dramatic; wanting to be noticed attention seeking; self-
and needing to be the center of dramatizing, theatrical, and
attention. exaggerated emotional
expression.
Imaginative Acting and thinking in creative Schizotypal Odd beliefs or magical thinking;
and sometimes odd or unusual behavior or speech that is odd,
ways. eccentric, or peculiar.
Diligent Meticulous, precise, and Obsessive- Preoccupations with
perfectionistic; inflexible about Compulsive orderliness, rules, perfection-
rules and procedures; critical of ism, and control; overconscien-
others performance. tious and inflexible.
Dutiful Eager to please and reliant on Dependent Difficulty making everyday
others for support and decisions without excessive
guidance; reluctant to take advice and reassurance;
independent action or go difficulty expressing disagree-
against popular opinion. ment out of fear of loss of
support or approval.
Note: *From DSM-III-R
constructed in this manner. This builds in item overlap and necessarily reduces the power of
such inventories to discriminate among people. To avoid this problem when developing the HDS,
we wrote items directed at the heart of each construct, then carefully reviewed the item content
across scales to eliminate item overlap and enhance the discriminatory power of the entire in-
ventory. Thus, for example, items on the Skeptical (Paranoia) scale concern suspiciousness,
mistrust, and a heightened readiness to confront persons suspected of giving offense, whereas
items on the Reserved (Schizoid) scale concern being aloof, insensitive, and indifferent to the
problems of others. The content of each scale is independent of the content of the other scales.
The final consideration shaping the development of the HDS concerns the actual content of the
items. Because the HDS is intended to be used in everyday contexts for career development,
job placement, promotion, and other people decisionsas opposed to being used to make
mental health status or medical evaluationsthe items reflect themes from the world of work
e.g., how one is perceived at work, how one relates to supervisors, co-workers, and friends,
attitudes toward competition and success, etc. In addition, to further enhance the acceptability of
the HDS in everyday applications, the scales have been renamed so as to not stigmatize unnec-
essarily persons receiving high scores on the various dimensions. Finally, we are aware of the
implications of recent rulings, especially the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA; 1990),
as they affect test item content (R. Hogan, Hogan, & Roberts, 1996). To the degree that it was
possible, we eliminated items with obvious medical or psychiatric content.
6 Conceptual Background
Inventory Construction 7
C H A P T E R
2
Inventory construction
Development
As noted in Chapter 1, the scales of the Hogan Development Survey (HDS) have their roots in
the taxonomies of the personality disorders. The original model for the HDS is the PROFILE,
developed by Warren Jones (1988) shortly after the appearance of the DSM III, Axis 2 personal-
ity disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 1987). Jones intended to use the PROFILE as
a psychometrically defensible alternative to the inventories of personality disorders available to
clinical psychologists at the time. We used the PROFILE for about five years with our clients in
business and industry and conducted several validity studies. We began to see associations
between PROFILE scores and problem managers, and other indications that personality dys-
function is related to failures in the achievement of career potential.
We concluded that there is a role for the assessment of dysfunctional dispositions in the work-
place. However, we were concerned about the overt clinical content of the PROFILE and its
emphasis on anxiety and depression. With the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990 (ADA; 1990), it became clear that scales of the PROFILE would be seen as evaluations of
mental disabilities, which are prohibited for pre-offer employment inquiries. We saw a need for a
non-clinical inventory that would assess interpersonal behaviors that adversely affect the perfor-
mance or reputation of people at work. We envisioned a tool to be used primarily for profes-
sional development and coaching rather than personnel selection.
As mentioned in Chapter 1, at least three sources influenced our thinking about the scales of the
HDS. The first was the DSM-IV, Axis 2 personality disorders. The second was the literature on
managerial derailmenta literature that became accessible through the technical reports and
popular publications from the Center for Creative Leadership. The third source was data from
appraisals of others at work, and, in particular, evaluations of first line supervisors by their subor-
dinates (Millikin-Davies, 1992). In our view, first line supervisors probably affect the productivity
and satisfaction of more workers than any other element of organizational structure. Therefore,
we targeted for assessment the problems that these supervisors display most frequently.
8 Inventory Construction
Our strategy for writing the items focused on the distinctive characteristics of each dysfunctional
disposition. We wrote items with work-related and interpersonal content, and we avoided items
referring to clinical themes, religious beliefs, or sexual preferences. Like the HPI, the items are
designed to reflect what a person with that particular disposition might say or do. Finally, we tried
to develop scales with non-overlapping and homogeneous themes and to avoid repeating de-
scriptors across scales. This was challenging because symptoms such as anxiety are common
to many of the standard personality disorders. We also tried to minimize intercorrelations be-
tween the scales.
We began working on the HDS on Labor Day weekend, 1992. We wrote items for one scale at
a time. We wrote an initial set of items, tested samples of people, computed internal consistency
reliabilities and correlations with other well-established measures, reviewed the data, and re-
vised the items so as to: (a) enhance internal consistency reliability and; (b) sharpen convergent
and discriminant validity. We also solicited and received valuable input from many colleagues in
the United States and Europe concerning the content of the scales. The HDS is the product of six
cycles of item writing, revision, testing, and further revision. The final set of items was defined
during the summer of 1995.
Between 1995 to 1996, we tested over 2,000 people, including employed adults, job applicants,
prisoners, and graduate students. The ages in these samples ranged from 21 years to 64 years,
with a mean of 38.5 years. There were 1,532 men and 322 women, 620 whites and 150 blacks.
We estimate that about 15% of the sample were college educated.
Definitions of the Scales
The 11 HDS scales are defined as follows:
Excitable concerns seeming moody and inconsistent, being enthusiastic about new persons or
projects and then becoming disappointed with them.
Skeptical concerns seeming cynical, distrustful, overly sensitive to criticism, and questioning
others true intentions.
Cautious concerns seeming resistant to change and reluctant to take even reasonable chances
for fear of being evaluated negatively.
Reserved concerns seeming socially withdrawn and lacking interest in or awareness of the
feelings of others.
Leisurely concerns seeming autonomous, indifferent to other peoples requests, and becoming
irritable when they persist.
Inventory Construction 9
Bold concerns seeming unusually self-confident and, as a result, unwilling to admit mistakes or
listen to advice, and unable to learn from experience.
Mischievous concerns seeming to enjoy taking risks and testing the limits.
Colorful concerns seeming expressive, dramatic, and wanting to be noticed.
Imaginative concerns seeming to act and think in creative and sometimes unusual ways.
Diligent concerns seeming careful, precise, and critical of the performance of others.
Dutiful concerns seeming eager to please, reliant on others for support, and reluctant to take
independent action.
Composition of the HDS
The HDS contains 168 items in the form of statements to which a respondent indicates agree
or disagree. Each scale contains 14 items that were derived rationally using the distinguishing
features of each syndrome. There is no item overlap among the 11 scales. The items were
screened for content that might seem offensive or to invade privacy. There are no items concern-
ing sexual preferences, religious beliefs, criminal or illegal behavior, racial/ethnic attitudes, or
attitudes about disabled individuals. Fourteen additional items appear on an experimental so-
cial desireability scale.
Readability statistics computed on the 168 items indicated an average sentence length of 6.8
words and an average word length of 4.0 characters. A Flesch-Kincaid reading level analysis
shows that the inventory is written at a fifth grade level.
Table 2.1 presents descriptive statistics and reliabilities for each of the HDS scales. Because
the response coding uses a 2-point scale (0 = disagree, 1 = agree), and each scale contains 14
items, scale scores range from 0 to 14. Items are scored in the direction of the syndrome, so that
higher scores represent more dysfunctional tendencies. With the exception of the test-retest
reliabilities, the data in Table 2.1 are based on an archival sample of 2,071 adults, most of whom
are job applicants or incumbents. Table 2.1 indicates that the highest mean scale scores appear
for the Diligent, Dutiful, and Bold scales, respectively. The lowest mean scale scores appear for
Excitable, Cautious, and Reserved scales. The Colorful scale is the most variable (SD = 2.94),
whereas the Dutiful scale is the least variable (SD = 2.13). Internal consistency or alpha reliabilities
(Cronbach, 1951) vary between .50 (Dutiful) and .78 (Excitable) with an average alpha of .67.
Test-retest reliabilities were computed for a sample of graduate students (N = 60) over a three
month interval and the highest scale reliability was for Excitable (.87) and the lowest was for
Leisurely (.58), with an average value of .75. The standard error of measurement was consistent
across all scales and averaged .06.
10 Inventory Construction
Table 2.1
Descriptive Statistics and Reliabilities for the HDS
Number Inter-
Scale Name of Items Mean SD Alpha Item r r
tt
SE
Excitable 14 3.2 2.85 .78 .20 .87 .06
Skeptical 14 4.5 2.78 .76 .18 .65 .06
Cautious 14 3.3 2.60 .73 .16 .77 .06
Reserved 14 4.2 2.33 .66 .12 .59 .05
Leisurely 14 4.7 2.29 .58 .09 .58 .05
Bold 14 7.7 2.73 .69 .14 .78 .06
Mischievous 14 6.1 2.60 .59 .09 .72 .06
Colorful 14 7.4 2.94 .72 .16 .85 .07
Imaginative 14 5.6 2.54 .64 .11 .73 .06
Diligent 14 9.8 2.23 .65 .12 .77 .05
Dutiful 14 7.9 2.13 .50 .06 .73 .05
Table 2.2 contains scale means and standard deviations by gender, race, and age. As seen,
men and women obtain comparable scores across all scales; the largest mean difference is .5
points on the Reserved scale. The largest race difference occurs on the Cautious scale with
Whites scoring slightly higher (.4 points) than Blacks. Comparing younger and older people,
those under 40 years have a slightly higher mean score on the Skeptical scale (.7 points). Gen-
erally, the average scores for men and women are similar, average scores for Whites and Blacks
are similar, and average scores for younger and older persons are similar.
Table 2.3 presents the intercorrelations between the HDS scales based on a sample of 2,071
respondents. As seen, the highest correlations in the matrix are between the Excitable scale and
the Cautious (r = .59) and the Skeptical (r = .54) scales. The most independent scale is Diligent,
with correlations of .22 or less with the other scales. All scales have about three meaningful
correlations with other scales. The only inverse pattern of relations in the matrix is for the correla-
tions with the Colorful scale.
Table 2.4 presents a principal components analysis of the correlation matrix presented in Table
2.3. As seen, three components account for 62% of the variance in the matrix. The first compo-
nent is defined by the Excitable, Skeptical, Cautious, Reserved, and Leisurely scales and this
component resembles the theme of moving away from people in Horneys (1950) model of
flawed interpersonal tendencies. The second component is defined by the Bold, Mischievous,
Colorful, and Imaginative scales and corresponds to Horneys theme of moving against people.
The third component is defined by the Diligent and Dutiful scales and
Inventory Construction 11
corresponds to Horneys theme of moving toward people. Because the measurement goal of
the HDS is to cover the major themes of flawed interpersonal behavior and because many of
these themes co-exist in the same person, we judged it would be difficult to develop eleven
scales that are statistically independent. The results in Tables 2.3 and 2.4 show that the relations
between the HDS scales are sensible and interpretable.
Table 2.2
Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations for
HDS Scales by Demographic Group
Male Female Black White Under 40 40 & Above
(n = 1,532) (n = 322) (n = 150) (n = 620) (n = 907) (n = 801)
Scale Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Excitable 3.2 2.86 3.0 2.63 3.0 2.59 2.9 2.72 3.3 3.02 3.3 2.77
Skeptical 4.5 2.83 4.3 2.39 4.5 2.64 4.2 2.48 4.9 3.02 4.2 2.53
Cautious 3.3 2.60 3.2 2.62 2.8 2.41 3.2 2.47 3.3 2.73 3.5 2.55
Reserved 4.3 2.40 3.8 2.01 4.2 2.16 4.0 2.25 4.4 2.43 4.1 2.25
Leisurely 4.7 2.31 4.6 2.28 4.6 2.31 4.7 2.26 4.8 2.46 4.7 2.16
Bold 7.7 2.77 7.8 2.56 8.0 2.76 7.7 2.84 7.7 2.77 7.7 2.74
Mischievous 6.0 2.66 6.1 2.41 6.0 2.54 6.1 2.68 6.2 2.68 5.8 2.53
Colorful 7.3 3.01 7.6 2.75 7.2 2.87 7.4 3.08 7.5 2.96 7.1 3.01
Imaginative 5.5 2.56 5.8 2.51 5.8 2.55 5.5 2.51 5.8 2.63 5.3 2.48
Diligent 9.9 2.24 9.7 2.15 10.0 2.07 9.8 2.14 9.8 2.30 9.8 2.19
Dutiful 7.9 2.12 7.8 2.14 8.0 2.05 7.8 2.16 8.0 2.14 7.9 2.13
Table 2.3
HDS Scale Intercorrelations
EXC SKE CAU RES LEI BOL MIS COL IMA DIL DUT
Excitable
Skeptical .54
Cautious .59 .36
Reserved .47 .44 .43
Leisurely .39 .47 .40 .32
Bold -.13 .18 -.25 -.12 .13
Mischievous .06 .30 -.16 .01 .16 .45
Colorful -.21 -.07 -.41 -.32 -.09 .50 .45
Imaginative .16 .30 -.04 .02 .19 .35 .48 .38
Diligent -.10 .03 -.04 -.06 .05 .22 -.06 -.03 .00
Dutiful .01 -.13 .21 -.09 .04 -.13 -.22 -.15 -.10 .19
12 Inventory Construction
Table 2.4
Principal Components Analysis of HDS Scales
Component
Scale I II III
Excitable .81
Skeptical .75 .34
Cautious .74 -.34
Reserved .70
Leisurely .67
Bold .78
Mischievous .77
Colorful -.35 .72
Imaginative .69
Diligent .80
Dutiful .68
Note: Percent of Variance = 61.6
Validity 13
C H A P T E R
3
Validity
Construct Validity
Chapter 2 concerns the development of the HDS scales and their technical or psychometric
propertiesi.e., their internal consistency and temporal stability. The evidence presented in
Chapter 2 suggests that these fundamental technical properties are acceptable, which leads to
the next questionwhat do scores on the HDS scales mean?
This is the issue of validity, a topic that is much discussed but often misunderstood. Our view (cf.
R. Hogan & Hogan, 1997) is that the meaning of a personality scale must be discoveredit
cannot be stipulated in advanceand it must be discovered in the pattern of external non-test
correlates of the scale in question (Hogan & Nicholson, 1988).
We have a theory about the content of each scale. Each scale is designed to assess a particular
syndrome, a unique theme that occurs in interpersonal behavior, a theme that usually has nega-
tive implications defined in terms of a persons ability to build relationships and establish a ca-
reer. Thus, the validity of the HDS scales depends not only on having robust external correlates,
but also on having external correlates that make sense given our theory of each scales content
(see also R. Hogan, Hogan, & Roberts, 1996).
Correlations with Other Measures
In the sections that follow, we define the syndrome each scale is intended to capture, then we
review the evidence regarding the pattern of external correlates for each scale. We provide evi-
dence from six sources for each scale. First, we review correlations with the Hogan Personality
Inventory (HPI; R. Hogan & Hogan, 1995). The HPI is a 206-item measure of normal personality,
based on the Five-Factor Model (Wiggins, 1996) and normed on 30,000 working adults. Sec-
ond, we present correlations with the standard scales of the MMPI, the best-known and most
highly respected measure of psychopathology in the world. Third, we review correlations be-
tween the HDS and a special set of MMPI scales developed by Morey, Waugh,
14 Validity
and Blashfield (1985) to assess the standard DSM-III personality disorders. Fourth, we com-
pare the HDS scales with the Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI; J. Hogan & Hogan,
1996), a 200-item measure of 10 motivational themes that are prominent in the history of psy-
chology. Fifth, we present correlations between the HDS scales and measures of cognitive
ability that are often used to evaluate candidates for management positions. Sixth, we present
correlations between scores on each scale and descriptions of a persons performance as a
manager from the perspectives of subordinates, peers, and supervisors. And finally, we
intercorrelated the scale scores of the HPI, the MVPI, and the HDS, factor analyzed the
intercorrelations, and followed this with a varimax rotation. The result was a six-factor solution.
An examination of the loadings of each HDS scale gives additional insight into the meaning of
the scale scores.
Excitable. The Excitable scale is designed to model the Borderline personality as it is seen in
working adults. Excitable people tend to become enthusiastic about new relationships or projects,
perhaps even to idealize them, then to discover flaws or shortcomings in the idealized object and
to become disillusioned, discouraged, and upset. The person will then tend to reject that which
she/he formerly idealized and to sever the relationship; such persons have many terminal quar-
rels with former friends and a history of repeated job turnover.
The behavior resembles Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, and Walls (1978) description of a child who
is ambivalently attached to its primary caretakersan eager approach to the caretaker followed
by an angry rejection and turning away. It also resembles what the early theorists (Lewin, 1935)
described as an approach-avoidance conflictan oscillation between approaching and fleeing
a goal object. We can speculate that, as children, these people experienced an unusual amount
of rejection from family members or peers. This rejection left them with an unfilled need for be-
longing and acceptance and a tendency to reach out for it; at the same time, they expect to be
rejected and are unusually alert to signs of rejection. They have sufficient social skills to begin
relationships, but their expectation of rejection robs them of the flexibility needed to sustain the
relationships.
These people have never been able to evaluate their belief that rejection is inevitable; like moths
they continue to return to the flamethey initiate interactions that they expect will fail, and the
expectation turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy. As a result, high scores on the Excitable scale
implicate more overt unhappiness than high scores on the other scalesbecause they continu-
ally repeat a self-defeating cycle of rejection and disappointment.
Table 3.1 indicates that, of all the HDS scales, the Excitable scale has the largest negative cor-
relation (-.76) with the Adjustment scale of the HPI. The HPI Adjustment scale is a good proxy for
the first factor of the MMPI (cf. R. Hogan & Hogan, 1996). Table 3.2 indicates that the Excitable
scale is more highly correlated with the MMPI standard scales than any other HDS scale. The
correlation of -.67 with the MMPI K scale suggests that persons with highscores on the Excitable
scale are often anxious and unhappy and they make little effort to disguise it.
Validity 15
Table 3.3 shows that the Excitable scale has its largest correlation (r = .67) with the MMPI content
scale for Borderline personality disorder. The -.38 correlation between Excitable and the Affilia-
tion scale of the MVPI in Table 3.4 suggests that high scorers deny a need for interpersonal
relations and friendships. In a joint factor analysis (see Table 3.8) using the HPI, MVPI, and the
HDS, the Excitable scale primarily loads, in the negative direction, on the fourth component
which is defined by the HPI Adjustment and Ambition scalesboth with positive loadings. This
suggests that the Excitable scale is heavily saturated with neuroticism or, in the modern par-
lance, negative affectivity. Table 3.5 shows that this scale is uncorrelated with the Watson-Glaser
Critical Thinking Appraisal scale, a cognitive measure often used for managerial assessments
(Watson & Glaser, 1980). The same result appears in Table 3.6 for the Industrial Reading Test
(Psychological Corporation, 1989).
Managers with high scores on the Excitable scale are described (see Table 3.7) by subordi-
nates and peers as yelling at people when they make mistakes (.30), not expressing emotions
appropriately (.30), easily upset (.29), self-doubting (.28), not calm (-.27), and moody (.26). The
overall picture of a high scorer is a person who may seem modest, quiet, and pleasant, and who
is able to initiate relationships, but who is also easily offended and upset and, as a result, may
abandon commitments and obligations.
Skeptical. The Skeptical scale is designed to model the Paranoid personality as seen in work-
ing adults. Skeptical people believe that the world is a dangerous place, full of people who will
trick and deceive them, steal from them, or otherwise harm them in some way. As a result, they
are wary, suspicious, and alert for signs of betrayal in their friends, family, coworkers, and em-
ployers. They also tend to be perceived as bright, to detect patterns in the behavior of others that
are logical, plausible, and often real, and they can defend their views about the intentions of
others with remarkable skill and conviction.
Table 3.1
Correlations Between the Hogan Personality Inventory and the HDS
School
Scales Adjustment Ambition Sociability Likeability Prudence Intellectance Success
Excitable -.76** -.63** -.18** -.60** -.66** -.19** -.50**
Skeptical -.60** -.51** -.11* -.52** -.60** -.11* -.40**
Cautious -.60** -.70** -.37** -.41** -.34** -.26** -.42**
Reserved -.45** -.53** -.32** -.67** -.55** -.17** -.30**
Leisurely -.15** -.26** -.12* -.28** -.33** -.13** -.24**
Bold .08 .28** .34** .14** .09 .27** .34**
Mischievous -.05 .12** .48** -.05* -.35** .31** .08**
Colorful .15** .44** .67** .29** .04 .35** .34**
Imaginative -.28** -.06 .31** -.14** -.37** .32** -.01*
Diligent .00 .09 -.14** .16** .36** .10* .08*
Dutiful -.02 -.06 -.08 .29** .33** -.07 -.01
Note: *: p < .05; **: p < .01; one-tailed test.
N=826
16 Validity
A prototype of the Skeptical person might have been James Jesus Angleton, the brilliant and
refined head of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) counter-espionage unit during the 1970s.
Angleton became persuaded that a Russian double agent had infiltrated the CIA; in his relent-
less efforts to find the potential spy, he badly demoralized the agency. Angleton was finally fired
in apparent disgrace for these disruptions; nonetheless, the subsequent Aldrich Ames case
suggests that he may have been right about the existence of a double agent working for the CIA.
Skeptical people believe they were deceived at some point in their development. In order to
protect themselves from future betrayal, they have become especially alert and watchful. Their
alertness pays off because there are in fact people in the world who want to take advantage of
them. The problem is that they also alienate potential friends and allies whom they incorrectly
suspect of being their enemies.
Paranoid tendencies are notoriously difficult to capture in assessment procedures because these
people tend to be suspicious, smart, and alert. Although the items on the Skeptical scale largely
reflect suspiciousness and mistrust, the scale loads on the same factor as the Excitable scale.
Tables 3.1 and 3.2 show that the correlations between the Skeptical scale and the HPI and the
MMPI largely track the correlations for the Excitable scale, although they are somewhat lower.
Table 3.3 shows that the Skeptical scale has its largest correlation with the MMPI content scale
for Paranoid personality disorder. Table 3.4 shows that the Skeptical scale is correlated with
MVPI scales for Hedonism (.35), Power (.26), and Recognition (.33); such people are energetic,
achievement-oriented, and impulsive. In a joint factor analysis (see Table 3.8) using the HPI,
MVPI, and the HDS, the Skeptical scale loaded primarily on the first component which is defined
by the Power, Recognition, and Commercial scales of the MVPI, and the Bold, Mischievous, and
Colorful scales of the HDS. This component reflects energy, drive, social skills, and shrewdness;
thus, there are some positive features to high scores on the Skeptical scale.
Tables 3.5 and 3.6 show that the Skeptical scale is uncorrelated with either the Watson-Glaser or
the Industrial Reading Test. Managers with high scores on the Skeptical scale are described as
(see Table 3.7) easily disappointed (.28), needs attention (.28), feels mistreated (.26), easily hurt
by criticism (.25), easily upset (.23) and questions peoples loyalty (.19).
Cautious. The Cautious scale is designed to model the Avoidant personality as seen in work-
ing adults. Cautious people doubt their own abilities; at the same time, they are greatly con-
cerned about making mistakes and being criticized for doing so. This creates a kind of rigidity
born of insecurity in which a Cautious person is reluctant to do anything other than what has
worked in the pastworked in the sense of allowing the person to avoid criticism. At work, such
people will adhere to rules even when doing so is counterproductive. They will also resist innova-
tion out of a concern for making errors. And their life style will be organized around efforts to
avoid surprises and keep their affairs manageable and predictable.
Validity 17
Table 3.2
Correlations Between the MMPI Standard Scales and the HDS
SCALES HS D HY PD MF MA K PA PT SC SI
Excitable .35** .36** -.03 .60** .06 .32** -.67** .37** .66** .52** .45**
Skeptical .23* .18 -.14 .44** -.03 .36** -.45** .26** .43** .43** .30**
Cautious .30** .43** .05 .32** .15 -.01 -.36** .27** .49** .32** .61**
Reserved .08 .21* -.18* .25** .05 .20* -.25** .24** .32** .31** .40**
Leisurely .31** .28** -.06 .28** .11 .36** -.54** .42** .50** .51** .42**
Bold .14 -.20* -.06 -.01 .03 .44** -.26** .21* .13 .28** -.10
Mischievous .13 -.15 -.06 .33** .00 .57** -.43** .31** .29** .37** .01
Colorful .13 -.18 .04 .05 .07 .46** -.15 .15 .07 .16 -.34**
Imaginative .16 -.09 .04 .26** .30** .52** -.38** .38** .27** .42** .01
Diligent .06 -.15 -.17 -.09 -.03 .17 -.13 -.11 -.03 .04 -.07
Dutiful .01 .01 -.07 -.17 .12 -.09 -.04 -.13 -.04 -.10 -.11
Note: HS = Hypochondriasis; D = Depression; HY = Hysteria; PD = Psychopathic Deviate; MF = Masculinity-Femininity;
MA = Hypomania; K = Subtle Defensiveness; PA = Paranoia; PT = Psychasthenia; SC = Schizophrenia; SI = Social Introversion; *: p
< .05, **: p < .01; one-tailed test.
N=140
Table 3.3
Correlations Between the MMPI Personality Disorder Scales and the HDS
SCALES MBDL MPAR MAVD MSZD MPAG MNAR MANT MHST MSTY MCPS MDEP
Excitable .67** .56** .43** .23* .55** .01 .56** -.20* .49** .57** .29**
Skeptical .49** .62** .21* .27** .38** .24** .48** -.07 .54** .37** .11
Cautious .28** .28** .60** .29** .27** -.36** .21* -.38** .33** .32** .27**
Reserved .29** .39** .24** .47** .25** -.01 .31** -.32** .30** .16 .09
Leisurely .43** .58** .38** .38** .46** .07 .36** -.33** .61** .48** .21*
Bold .28* .35** .02 -.06 .24* .55** .10 .21* .35** .17 -.05
Mischievous .44** .47** .05 .03 .49** .38** .45** .14* .39** .31** .03
Colorful .16 .17 -.19* -.32** .22* .53** .14 .51** .12 .17 -.06
Imaginative .32** .43** .07 .10 .41** .37** .27** .18 .49** .30** .01
Diligent .14 .03 .05 .01 .03 .17 -.03 .13 .11 .14 -.11
Dutiful -.03 -.24** .03 -.30** -.06 -.11 -.27** .21* -.07 .00 .07
Note : MBDL = Borderline; MPAR = Paranoid; MAVD = Avoidant; MSZD = Schizoid; MPAG = Passive Aggressive; MNAR = Narcissis-
tic; MANT = Antisocial; MHST = Histrionic; MSTY = Schizotypal; MCPS = Compulsive; MDEP = Dependent; * p: < .05; **: p < .01;
one-tailed test.
N=140
18 Validity
We can speculate that persons with high scores on the Cautious scale were raised by parents
who were overprotective, controlling, and highly critical, and who never let their child explore, test
his/her abilities, or manage his/her life. The syndrome associated with the Cautious scale re-
sembles a failure at Eriksons second stage of psychosocial development or Freuds anal stage
of development. The child, as a result, is guilt prone, rigid, conforming, and reluctant to learn new
skills or to experiment. As a manager, these people will tend to micromanage their staff, resist
innovation, and be reactive rather than proactive, in a defensive effort to avoid criticism. At the
extreme, such people may continue to do their work in their customary way even when new
procedures are clearly preferable and superior.
Table 3.1 shows that the Cautious scale correlates -.70 with the HPI Ambition scale and -.60 with
the HPI Adjustment scale, suggesting that high scorers are self-critical and unassertive. Table
3.2 shows that the Cautious scale is most highly correlated (.61) with the MMPI Social Introver-
sion scale, which further supports the unassertive theme found with the HPI. Table 3.3 shows that
the Cautious scale is the HDS scale most highly correlated with the MMPI scale for Avoidant
personality disorder (.60). In a joint analysis including the HPI, MVPI, and HDS (see Table 3.8),
the Cautious scale forms a component with the Leisurely scale of the HDS and the Hedonistic
scale of the MVPI, a syndrome that can be described as defensive self-indulgence.
Table 3.4
Correlations Between the Motives, Values, Preferences
Inventory and the HDS
SCALES AES AFF ALT COM HED POW REC SCI SEC TRA
Excitable .01 -.38** -.09** -.15** .15** -.07* .10** -.08* .14** .00
Skeptical .07* -.11** -.04 .10** .35** .26** .33** .09** .10** -.04
Cautious -.04 -.41** -.01 -.21** .12** -.18** -.02 -.13** .23** .06
Reserved .02 -.63** -.27** -.10** .03 -.09** -.04 .05 .09** -.06*
Leisurely .02 -.15** .00 .04 .24** .14** .19** .00 .16** .04
Bold .16** .26** .10** .42** .15** .57** .51** .25** .00 .05
Mischievous .20** .28** .04 .22** .32** .47** .43** .19** -.34** -.16**
Colorful .26** .40** .04 .26** .22** .42** .52** .17** -.31** -.09**
Imaginative .33** .14** .08* .13** .23** .31** .37** .24** -.29** -.07*
Diligent -.03 -.02 .21** .18** -.04 .15** -.01 .20** .39** .28**
Dutiful -.02 -.01 .27** .00 .02 -.17** -.10** -.07* .25** .14**
Note: AES = Aesthetic; AFF = Affiliation; ALT = Altruistic; COM = Commercial; HED = Hedonistic; POW = Power; REC = Recognition; SCI
= Science; SEC = Security; TRA = Tradition; *: p < .05; **: p < .01; one-tailed test.
N=735
Tables 3.5 and 3.6 show that the Cautious scale is uncorrelated with either the Watson-Glaser or
the Industrial Reading Test. Table 3.7 shows that managers with high scores on the Cautious
scale are described as self-doubting (.28), consistent (.20), feeling inadequate (.18), not rational
(.25), and not expressing emotions appropriately (.20).
Validity 19
Reserved. The Reserved scale is designed to model the Schizoid personality as seen in work-
ing adults. Reserved people are introverted, shy, misanthropic, and imperceptive or uninsightful
about social, interpersonal, or political cues. Their imperceptiveness may be a function of delib-
erately tuning other people out; whatever the reason, they seem unconcerned about the welfare
of others, indifferent to their moods and feelings, and unaware of or indifferent to how others
react to them.
Related to their social gaucheness is a preference for working alone and a tendency to be more
interested in data and things than people. Such people can have successful careers in technical
fields, but their indifference, stiffness, and insensitivity make them poor managers. The Chief
Financial Officer of a hospital with which we have worked is a good example of this type. Each
morning when he comes to work, he gets off the elevator, marches to his office without greeting
anyone, goes into the office, shuts the door, hangs up his coat, and sits down at his desk. Only
then will he respond to other people, and then only after they knock on his closed door. He is self-
confident, bright, and very good with numbers, but his staff dislikes him because he communi-
cates with them so infrequently and incompetently.
We suspect there is a genetic component to high scores on this scalebecause shyness is
known to be hereditary (cf. Jones, Cheek, & Briggs, 1991). A disposition toward shyness com-
bined with parents who were withdrawn and uncommunicative would likely create a child who
was withdrawn and awkward around peers. Feedback from peers might further exacerbate a
childs tendency toward social withdrawal. There are, nonetheless, some real benefits to this
pattern of interpersonal behavior. On the one hand, being genuinely indifferent to the problems of
others can reduce the amount of stress in ones life. On the other hand, just as people seem
compelled to try periodically to cheer up a depressed person, so people feel compelled to try to
coax the Reserved person out of his or her shell; this coaxing must to some degree reinforce the
reserved behavior.
The correlations in Table 3.1 suggest that persons with high scores on the Reserved scale are
imperceptive and socially maladroit (Likeability, Ambition), impulsive and noncompliant (Pru-
dence), and somewhat self-doubting or unhappy (Adjustment). Correlations with the standard
scales of the MMPI (Table 3.2) suggest that persons with high scores on the Reserved scale are
aloof and stand-offish (Si). Table 3.3 shows that the Reserved scale is most strongly correlated
with the MMPI scale for Schizoid personality. The results of a joint analysis of the HPI, MVPI, and
HDS suggests that the Reserved scale is a measure of introversion and misanthropy (see Table
3.8). Tables 3.5 and 3.6 show that the Reserved scale is uncorrelated with either the Watson-
Glaser or the Industrial Reading Test. Table 3.7 shows that supervisors, peers, and subordinates
describe managers with high scores on the Reserved scale as self-centered (.19), socially inept
(.17), disliking to meet new people (.21), and unkind (.18), but as following company policy (-.15).
20 Validity
Leisurely. The Leisurely scale is designed to assess passive-aggressive tendencies as seen
in working adults. Such people are preoccupied with their own goals and dreams and they resent
being disturbed or interrupted. Although requests for greater focus, productivity, or effort will irri-
tate them, they wont express their irritation directly; rather, they will express it in relatively subtle
ways. For example, they are often late for meetings, they procrastinate, and they put off working
on tasks that dont interest them. They blame their non-performance on computer failures, lack of
adequate resources, lack of cooperation from someone else, or other factors beyond their con-
trol. As managers they tend to set up their staff for failure by not telling them what they want, and
then criticizing them for not delivering what they allege they actually wanted.
We can only speculate about the origins of passive aggression. The pattern may appear in chil-
dren who were talented or attractive, and who were indulged but somewhat neglected. This
combination left them feeling both special and resentful. Overtly and superficially compliant, they
became privately rebellious and vindictive.
Correlations with the HPI in Table 3.1 are not very helpful in interpreting the meaning of high
scores on the Leisurely scalethe theme on the HPI is one of mild alienation indicated by low
negative correlations with Ambition, Likeability, and Prudence. The correlations in Table 3.2 with
the MMPI standard scales are more helpful and suggest a syndrome of unhappiness (K, Pt),
suspiciousness and distrust (Pa), and odd thinking (Sc). These themes are further amplified in
Table 3.3, where moderately large correlations with Compulsive, Paranoid, Schizotypal, and
Passive-Aggressive personality disorder scales suggest a cautious and controlled interpersonal
style combined with a somewhat strange, skewed, and suspicious view of the world. As noted
above, in a joint analysis of the HPI, MVPI, and HDS (see Table 3.8), the Leisurely scale defines
a component we labeled defensive self-indulgencespoiled and self-indulgent but concerned
with staying out of trouble.
Tables 3.5 and 3.6 show that the Leisurely scale is uncorrelated with either the Watson-Glaser or
the Industrial Reading Test. Table 3.7 shows that people describe managers with high scores on
the Leisurely scale as delegating appropriately (.19) and not testing the limits (.17), but also as
resentful (.15), feeling mistreated (.16), and questioning others loyalty (.15).
Table 3.5
Correlations Between the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking
Appraisal and the HDS
SCALESEXC SKE CAU RES LEI BOL MIS COL IMA DIL DUT
Watson-Glaser .01 .06 -.02 .12 -.15 .09 .25** .32** .03 -.20* .07
Note: EXC = Excitable; SKE = Skeptical; CAU = Cautious; RES = Reserved; LEI = Leisurely; BOL= Bold; MIS = Mischievous; COL=
Colorful; IMA= Imaginative; DIL= Diligent; DUT= Dutiful; *: p < .05; **: p < .01; one-tailed test.
N=125
Validity 21
Table 3.6
Correlations Between the Industrial Reading Test and the HDS
SCALESEXC SKE CAU RES LEI BOL MIS COL IMA DIL DUT
Industrial Reading
Test .06 .11 .04 .13 -.03 .08 .18* .22* .06 -.09* .14
Note: EXC = Excitable; SKE = Skeptical; CAU = Cautious; RES = Reserved; LEI = Leisurely; BOL= Bold; MIS = Mischievous; COL=
Colorful; IMA= Imaginative; DIL= Diligent; DUT= Dutiful; *: p < .05; ** p: < .01; one-tailed test.
N=90
Bold. The Bold scale is designed to model Narcissistic tendencies as seen in working adults.
Narcissism is primarily defined by feelings of grandiosity and entitlement; by virtue of a persons
unique talents and attributes, she/he naturally deserves favors, praise, and recognition. Narcis-
sists avoid recognizing their failures and shortcomings by means of narcissistic withdrawal
they wont associate with or listen to people who might criticize themthey take more credit for
success than is fair, they blame their failures on others, and consequently they dont learn from
experience. They are often talented and capable, and their self-confidence encourages them to
take initiative, offer opinions, and claim major competenciese.g., I can get this country moving
again. As a result, they often rise rapidly in organizations, but others will find them hard to work
with because they can be overbearing, demanding, arrogant, and unrealistic. Their inability to
build a team and learn from experience usually leads to a fall from power.
An example of a high functioning narcissist could be the brilliant and imperious Douglas MacArthur,
who graduated first in his class from West Point and did well as an officer in World War I. Al-
though he languished in the 1920s and 1930s, McArthur led a brilliant defense and subsequent
campaign against the Japanese in the Philippines in World War II, for which he became justifi-
ably famous. He was fired by President Truman 10 years later for impetuous insubordination
during the Korean War. Talented, self-dramatizing, vain, overbearing, and self-aggrandizing,
General MacArthur embodied the strengths and shortcomings of the Narcissist at his best.
We can speculate that, as children, Narcissists were indulged, praised, and pampered (MacArthur
certainly was), but not required to exercise much self-control. Indulgence without controls is actu-
ally a form of rejection which leaves a child with the feeling both of being very special and of being
unworthy. The result is public self-confidence and self-assurance and private self-doubt.
Correlations with the HPI (Table 3.1) suggest that persons with high scores on the Bold scale are
seen as confident, outgoing, and bright. Correlations with the standard scales of the MMPI (Table
3.2) suggest that such persons are also active and energetic (Ma), and mildly unconventional in
their thoughts and behavior (K, Sc). Table 3.3 shows that the Bold scale is
22 Validity
most highly correlated with the MMPI scale for Narcissistic personality disorder. In an analysis
combining the HPI, MVPI, and HDS (Table 3.8), the Bold scale is part of the first component
which is defined by energy, potency, ascendancy, and impulsivity; thus, there are some distinctly
positive features to high scores on the Bold scale. Tables 3.5 and 3.6 suggest the Bold scale is
uncorrelated with cognitive ability. In Table 3.7, supervisors, peers, and subordinates describe
managers with high scores on the Bold scale as socially appropriate (.17), content with their
image (.19), and not a follower (.20), but also as self-promoting (.17), unrestrained (.22) and
testing the limits (.17).
Mischievous. The Mischievous scale is designed to assess the Antisocial personality disor-
der as seen in working adults. We agree with Lykken (1995) that the most important form of the
Antisocial personality is what Cleckley (1982) called a psychopatha person who is charming
but deceitful, easily bored, risk-taking, and careless about rules and conventions. The psycho-
path resembles the Narcissist in terms of social skill, impulsiveness, and an inability to learn from
experience, but psychopaths lack the Narcissists energy and career focus.
Psychopaths are naturally bright and socially skilled; they are raised by parents who are warm
and permissive, who indulge them, set no limits, and who find their evasions and deceptions
amusingpossibly because the parent(s) also tend to prevaricate and cut corners when it is
advantageouspsychopaths are often exposed to deceitful models in childhood. These chil-
dren learn early on that they can often have their way by being cute and by lying when it is conve-
nient and plausible to do so.
An example of a high functioning psychopath could be Kim Philby, a bright, charming, and unusu-
ally talented man, whose father, St. John Philby was a famous adventurer, scholar, British spy
and possible double agent. After graduating from Cambridge, Philbys exceptional talent and
interpersonal skill allowed him to rise rapidly in British intelligence in the 1930s. The novelist
Graham Greene, who worked for Philby during World War II, described him as the most impres-
sive person he ever knew. Nonetheless, Philby routinely seduced his friends wives, and he be-
came a Russian double agent and the greatest traitor in British history. He escaped to Russia
just as he was finally detected, where he lived like royalty but was never trusted by the Russians,
and where he finally died.
Correlations with the HPI (Table 3.1) suggest that persons with high scores on the Mischievous
scale will seem outgoing and entertaining (Sociability), impulsive and easily bored (Prudence),
and bright and imaginative (Intellectance). Correlations with the standard scales of the MMPI
(Table 3.2) suggest that persons with high scores on the Mischievous scale are energetic and
impulsive (Ma), somewhat socially inappropriate and nonconforming (K, Pd), and somewhat
odd in their thoughts and behavior (Sc). The Mischievous scale has its highest correlations with
the MMPI scales for Passive Aggressive, Paranoid, Antisocial, Borderline, Schizotypal, and
Narcissistic personality disorders (see Table 3.3). This is a complex syndrome involving en-
ergy, impulsivity, and odd mentation. In a joint analysis using the HDS, HPI, and MVPI (Table
3.8), the Mischievous scale loads on a component reflecting energy,
Validity 23
drive, and personal effectiveness. Tables 3.5 and 3.6 show that the Mischievous scale correlates
.25 with the Watson-Glaser and .18 with the Industrial Reading Test, further testifying to the talent
of such people. In Table 3.7, managers with high scores on the Mischievous scale are described
as arrogant (.17), deceitful (.17), testing the limits (.14), but socially appropriate (.16).
Colorful. The Colorful scale is designed to model the Histrionic personality disorder as it ap-
pears in working adults. People with high scores on the Colorful scale need frequent and varied
social contact, preferably while being at the center of attention. They develop considerable skill
at making dramatic entrances and exits and otherwise cleverly calling attention to themselves.
Interpersonally, they are gregarious, flirtatious, and often charming, but their interest in others
tends to be superficial and primarily oriented toward gaining immediate agreement on how at-
tractive they themselves are.
Because they have charm, wit, social presence, and the ability quickly to establish relationships
with others, they tend to do well in sales jobs. But as managers their need for attention, inability to
share credit, flightiness, lack of intellectual discipline, and short attention span tend to annoy and
disorient their subordinates.
A high functioning example of this interpersonal style could be President William Clinton. Clinton
reports that his mother taught him that, after entering a room full of strangers, he should leave with
everyone in the room liking him, a rule he still follows assiduously. He is an astonishingly good
campaigner because he seems unable to get enough human contact and this makes him inex-
haustible. His chaotic managerial style is legendarybut it hardly separates him from many
politiciansas is his phenomenal ability to connect with strangers and to convey the sense that
he feels their pain. His conversations turn into speeches, and his inability to stay focused on a
single topic and analyze it in depth is also well known. Finally, once again, he exemplifies the
charm and attractiveness of this style, as well as its shortcomings in a managerial role.
Table 3.1 shows that the Colorful scale is most highly correlated with the Sociability, Ambition,
Intellectance, and School Success scales of the HPI, suggesting that high scorers seem ener-
getic, outgoing, charismatic, bright, and imaginative. In Table 3.2, the Colorful scale is most
highly correlated with the MMPI Ma and Si standard scales. Such persons are extraverted, exu-
berant, and active. Table 3.3 shows that the Colorful scale is most highly correlated with the
MMPI scales for Narcissistic and Histrionic personality disorders. On the MVPI in Table 3.4, the
Colorful scale is substantially correlated with Recognition, Power, and Affiliation, suggesting a
somewhat compulsive need for attention and positive feedback. Tables 3.5 and 3.6 show that
the Colorful scale correlates .32 with the Watson-Glaser and .22 with the Industrial Reading Test,
further substantiating the view that high scorers seem bright and articulate. Finally in Table 3.7,
managers with high scores on the Colorful scale are described as limit testing (.27), unrestrained
(.24), noisy (.24), smooth talking (.21), and quick to become angry (.20).
2
4
V
a
l
i
d
i
t
y
Table 3.7
Correlations between Observers Description Ratings and the HDS
HDS Scale HDS Scale
Observerss Description Item r Observerss Description Item r
Excitable Mischievous
Yells at people when they make mistakes .30 Is deceitful .17
Expresses emotionsappropriately -.30 Isarrogant .17
Is easily upset .29 Is a follower -.16
Follows company policy -.29 Is unassuming -.16
Is self-doubting .28 Acts in a socially appropriate manner .16
Is fault finding .27 Is independent .16
Is tense .27 Is flighty .15
Is calm -.27 Tests the limits .14
Is moody .26
Is predictable -.24 Colorful
Accepts feedback well -.22 Tests the limits .27
Is quick to become angry .21 Is self-restrained -.24
Is quiet -.24
Skeptical Questions peoples loyalty -.24
Is not easily disappointed -.28 Is innovative .23
Needs attention .28 Is a follower -.21
Feels mistreated .26 Is a smooth talker .21
Is easily hurt by criticism .25 Is quick to become angry .20
Is tense .24 Is socially insightful .19
Is easily upset .23 Is the life of the office .17
Is fault finding .21 Is detail-oriented -.17
Is unassuming -.21 Is reserved -.16
Is uninterested in close relationships -.20
Questions peoples loyalty .19
V
a
l
i
d
i
t
y
2
5
Cautious Imaginative
Is self-doubting .28 Engages in horseplay .22
Is rational -.25 Is self-restrained -.20
Is consistent .20 Is socially insightful .20
Expresses emotions appropriately -.20 Is predictable -.18
Enjoys meeting new people -.19 Is the life of the office .18
Feels inadequate .18 Is imaginative .17
Is content with self-image -.17 Has odd attitudes .17
Is anxious .17 Is eccentric .16
Is uneasy around new people .17 Is calm -.16
Is flighty .15
Reserved Is innovative .15
Enjoys meeting new people -.21
Is self-cenered .19 Diligent
Is kind -.18 Is detail-oriented .22
Needs reassurance -.18 Is polite .20
Is socially inept .17 Is uninterested in close relationships -.17
Is considerate -.15 Is perfectionistic .15
Does not follow company policy -.15 Is organized .15
Is accommodating -.15
Dutiful
Leisurely Is predictable .15
Enjoys meeting new people -.19 Is a follower .15
Delegatestasks appropriately .19 Is unassuming .14
Tests the limits -.17 Makes own decisions -.13
Feels mistreated .16 Is empathetic .13
Is practical -.16 Is indecisive .13
Encourages constructive criticism -.15 Is nonconforming -.13
Questions peoples loyalty .15 Is self-restrained .13
Is resentful .15 Is rude -.13
Bold Note: r > 13; p < .05; one-tailed test.
Is self-restrained -.22 N=193
Is a follower -.20
Is easy going -.20
Is content with self-image .19
Is self-promoting .17
Acts in a socially appropriate manner .17
Tests the limits .17
Holds grudges -.17
Sociable .15
26 Validity
Imaginative. The Imaginative scale is designed to model the Schizotypal personality disorder
as it is found in working adults. People with high scores on the Imaginative scale tend to talk,
dress, and behave in ways that are different and even unusual, but these actions typically are not
self-conscious, affected, or necessarily designed to attract attention. These people are often
bright and/or well educated, and they are often strikingly original in their ideas and insights. Other
times, however, their ideas may be inappropriate or even disruptive.
Related to their imaginative and unusual insights is a kind of childish self-absorption; when they
are involved in their work, they can beat their worstsingle-minded, insensitive to the needs
and reactions of others, and unconcerned with the social or political fall-out that results from their
intense focus. At their best, however, they can be amazingly insightful about the motives of oth-
ers.
The same generalization is true for highly creative people; their originality and insight is the
source of innovation and even progress in an organization, but they are often hard to live with;
sometimes they are whimsical and charming, sometimes they are selfish and self-absorbed. At
all times, however, their speech, dress, and mannerisms tend to set them apart from their more
conventional and less creative peers.
Table 3.1 shows that the Imaginative scale is most highly correlated with the HPI scales for Intel-
lectance and Sociability in the positive direction and Prudence in the negative direction. Such
people will seem creative, impulsive, and non-conforming. The Imaginative scale is most highly
correlated with the Ma and Sc scales of the MMPI in the positive direction and the K scale in the
negative direction, suggesting that high scorers are energetic, odd thinking, and willing to admit
unflattering things about themselves (see Table 3.2). Table 3.3 shows that the Imaginative scale
is most highly correlated with the MMPI scale for the Schizotypal personality disorder. On the
MVPI in Table 3.4, the Imaginative scale is most highly correlated with Recognition, Aesthetic,
and Power needs, which adds a task-oriented component to the creative profile. The Imagina-
tive scale is uncorrelated with the cognitive measures in Tables 3.5 and 3.6. Table 3.7 shows that
managers with high scores on the Imaginative scale are described as engaging in horseplay
(.22), impulsive (.20), socially insightful (.20), unpredictable (.18), and the life of the office(.18).
Diligent. The Diligent scale is designed to model the Obsessive-Compulsive personality dis-
order as it appears in working adults. People with high scores on the Diligent scale are hard
working, well-organized, careful, conservative, socially appropriate, fussy, and perfectionistic.
Their meticulous attention to detail is useful and even important in many jobs, but it has a down
side too. Such people have trouble prioritizing their work because they believe that every task
must be done equally wellwhich becomes increasingly difficult as a person becomes busier.
They have trouble delegatingbecause they want to be sure that things are done rightwhich
deprives their subordinates of opportunities to learn. They tend to micromanage their staff, and
their conservatism may make them resistant to change. They will be good with details, but they
will rarely be a source of true innovation.
Validity 27
Such people resemble Freuds anal retentive personality typestingy, neat, and stubborn. Freud
suggested this behavior is caused by being severely toilet trained as a child; Erikson related the
behavior to over-zealous parenting in which care-takers monitor a childs behavior too closely
and the child develops too much self-control. Alternatively, one could see this syndrome as re-
flecting a child who is trying very hard to please his or her overcontrolling parents. Whatever the
developmental dynamics, high scores on the Diligent scale reflect excessive conformity but little
personal unhappiness.
Table 3.1 contains correlations with the HPI. The correlations with Prudence and Likeability sug-
gest persons with high scores on the Diligent scale are conforming, self-controlled, and socially
appropriate. Correlations with the MVPI (see Table 3.4) suggest that high scorers on the Diligent
scale are conservative and perhaps moralistic. Table 3.2 reveals no significant correlations with
the standard scales of the MMPI. Similarly, Table 3.3 contains no significant correlations with the
MMPI personality disorders scales, although the highest (nonsignificant) correlation is with the
Narcissistic scale. In a joint analysis with the HPI, MVPI, and HDS (Table 3.8), the Diligent scale
loaded on a component defined by the MVPI Security and Tradition scales, and by the HPI Pru-
dence scale, which is a syndrome of conformity, conservatism, and self-control. Managers with
high scores on the Diligent scale are described as detail-oriented (.22), polite (.20), perfectionistic
(.15), and organized (.15).
Dutiful. The Dutiful scale is designed to map the Dependent personality disorder as it is seen in
working adults. Such people are compliant, conforming, unctuous, and excessively eager to
please. Because they are so agreeable, they rarely make enemies; because they seldom criti-
cize or complain and because they dont threaten anyone, they tend to rise in organizations. As
managers, they will be tactful and considerate but, because they are so eager to please their
bosses, they avoid standing up for their subordinates. These people are characterized by exces-
sive timidity and conformity rather than anxiety and self-doubt.
28 Validity
Table 3.8
Principal Components Analysis of the HPI, MVPI, and HDS
Components
Scale I II III IV V VI
Power (MVPI) .82
Bold (HDS) .75
Recognition (MVPI) .70
Commercial (MVPI) .60
Mischievous (HDS) .59
Colorful (HDS) .57
Skeptical (HDS) .52
Reserved (HDS) -.79
Affiliation (MVPI) .78
Likeability (HPI) .72
Altruistic (MVPI) .53
Sociability (HPI) .48
Security (MVPI) .71
Prudence (HPI) .63
Tradition (MVPI) .63
Diligent (HDS) .63
Dutiful (HDS) .44
Adjustment (HPI) .91
Ambition (HPI) .80
Excitable (HDS) -.55
Aesthetic (MVPI) .79
Intellectance (HPI) .72
School Success (HPI) .57
Imaginative (HDS) .51
Leisurely (HDS) .70
Hedonistic (HDS) .57
Cautious (HDS) .51
Note: Percent of Variance = 61.9
N=1,041
Interpretations and Uses 29
C H A P T E R
4
Interpretations and Uses
Scale by Scale Interpretation
This chapter provides some suggestions and examples of how to interpret HDS profiles. There
are four points to remember when interpreting profiles. First, virtually everyone can improve some
aspect of his/her social performance, and the HDS indicates where improvement might be help-
ful. Second, research shows that persons with lower scores on the HDS tend to have fewer
problems at work. Third, the interpretations of each scale are based on descriptions provided by
coworkers. Fourth, because people often dont realize that aspects of their interpersonal behav-
ior need improvement, the HDS provides an efficient and reliable way to highlight these issues
so that one can learn to manage them.
For interpretation, we suggest the following percentile ranges:
y Average scores = 0% to 40%
y Elevated scores = 41% to 89%
y High scores = 90% to 100%
Excitable. This scale concerns the tendency to develop strong enthusiasms for people, projects,
or organizations, and then to become disappointed with them. Persons with high scores tend to
let little things bother them, become annoyed easily, and change jobs more frequently than other
people. Others tend to find persons with high scores on this scale hard to work with because they
seem moody, hard to please, and dont handle pressure well.
Average scores suggest that the respondent:
y controls and expresses his/her emotions in a mature and appropriate manner
y is calm, stable, poised, and predictable
y doesnt dwell on minor problems
y is usually in a good mood
y is not easily disappointed
30 Interpretations and Uses
Elevated scores suggest that:
y others may perceive him/her as somewhat unpredictable
y others may see him/her as somewhat critical
y he/she may sometimes overreact to difficult situations
High scores suggest that:
y others may describe him/her as critical and easily irritated
y he/she may seem prone to emotional outbursts
y he/she may be easily upset with other people or projects
y if he/she becomes disappointed with people, he/she may give up and/or not follow
through on commitments
Skeptical. This scale concerns the tendency to mistrust others motives and doubt their inten-
tions, to be alert for signs that one is being deceived or mistreated, and to take action to defend
oneself against mistreatment. Although Skeptical people are shrewd and difficult to fool, others
may find them hard to work with because they take criticism personally, they readily feel misused,
they tend to be suspicious, and they are prone to retaliate when they feel they have been wronged.
Average scores suggest that the respondent:
y is open and cooperative
y encourages feedback and will accept it
y doesnt hold grudges or take criticism personally
y tends to trust other people and take their actions at face value
Elevated scores suggest that the respondent is:
y uncooperative when he/she doesnt understand why he/she should do something
y defensive and sensitive to criticism
y perhaps suspicious of authority
High scorers tend to be described as:
y having a chip on their shoulder
y being cynical, mistrustful, and easily angered
y suspicious of others actions and intentions
y fault finding
y possibly willing to bend the rules to defend themselves against perceived
mistreatment
Interpretations and Uses 31
Cautious. This scale evaluates the tendency to be conservative, careful, worried about making
mistakes, and reluctant to take initiative for fear of being criticized or embarrassed. Although
these people are usually good corporate citizens, others may find them hard to deal with be-
cause of their need to stay within the lines and their unwillingness to innovate or try new proce-
dures.
Average scorers will tend to be:
y decisive, adventurous, and unafraid to make mistakes
y willing to take on challenging tasks
y open to innovation
y willing to express his/her views on tricky issues
Elevated scorers will be described by others as:
y slow to act or make decisions
y reluctant to try new methods
y resistant to changes in policies and procedures
y needing encouragement when faced with challenging assignments
High scorers tend to:
y follow company policy carefully
y be described as unassertive, indecisive, conservative, and fretful
y be reluctant to make decisions
y slow to adopt new procedures or technology because they dont want to make a
mistake and get in trouble
y give up on difficult assignments
Reserved. This scale concerns the tendency to keep to oneself, to dislike working in teams or
meeting new people, and to be indifferent to the moods and feelings of others. Although persons
with high scores work well alone, others may find them hard to work with because they tend to be
reserved and uncommunicative, they rarely give others feedback, and they tend not to be very
insightful or perceptive about social cues or office politics.
Average scorers tend to:
y be perceptive, approachable, and to meet the public well
y be described as kind, considerate, and socially insightful
y enjoy working in teams and meeting new people
32 Interpretations and Uses
Elevated scorers are described by others as:
y uncomfortable around strangers
y preferring to work alone
y uninvolved with others and unconcerned about their problems
High scorers:
y dont call attention to themselves and prefer to work alone
y tend to be seen as unconcerned about other peoples problems
y seem unconcerned about the impression they make on others
y tend not to show public support for their employers
Leisurely. This scale concerns the tendency to insist on working according to ones own time-
table and standards of performance, to resist being hurried or coached by others, to become
resentful and irritated when asked to increase the speed or quality of ones performance, but to
mask the resentment well. Although persons with high scores on this scale can be outwardly
pleasant and sociable, others may find them hard to work with because of their procrastination,
tardiness, stubbornness, and reluctance to be part of a team.
Average scorers tend to be:
y coachable and responsive to feedback
y willing to express negative emotions
y described as cheerful and positive
y straightforward and outspoken
Elevated scores suggest that:
y others may see him/her as pleasant but sometimes hard to coach
y he/she may not be as cooperative as he/she seems
y he/she may tend to procrastinate
High scorers may:
y seem cooperative on the surface
y overvalue their independence
y feel mistreated or unappreciated when others make demands on them
y be perceived as procrastinating, stubborn, and not following through on
commitments
Interpretations and Uses 33
Bold. This scale concerns the tendency to overestimate ones talents and accomplishments,
ignore ones shortcomings, blame ones mistakes on others, have clear but unrealistic career
goals, and have a strong sense of entitlement. Although such people are often charismatic and
typically make a strong first impression, others may find them hard to work with because they
also tend to be demanding, opinionated, self-absorbed, and unwilling to learn from their mis-
takes.
Average scorers tend to be:
y modest, unpretentious, restrained, easy going, and willing to help others
y good listeners
y responsive to feedback
y good team players
Elevated scorers tend to be described as:
y unafraid of failure or rejection
y self-confident and assertive
y leaderlike and interesting
High scorers tend to be:
y confident, aggressive, ambitious, and visionary
y impulsive, self-promoting, and unresponsive to negative feedback
y competitive and demanding
y intimidating, especially to their subordinates
y unable to foster and develop a sense of loyalty or team work among their
associates at work
Mischievous. This scale concerns the tendency to appear charming, friendly, and fun loving,
but also to seem impulsive, excitement-seeking, and non-conforming. High scorers usually make
a favorable first impression, but others find them hard to work with because they tend to test
limits, ignore commitments, and take risks that may be ill-advised. Although they may seem
decisive, they can make bad decisions because they are often motivated by pleasure and dont
fully evaluate the consequences of their choices.
Average scorers tend to:
y seem responsible, self-controlled, reasonable, and trustworthy
y be described as honest, dependable, and sensible
y think through the consequences of their decisions
34 Interpretations and Uses
Elevated scorers tend to be:
y described as willing to make quick decisions
y bright, pleasure seeking, and adventurous
y at times, impulsive and risk taking
High scorers tend to:
y be engaging, attractive, interesting, quick witted, and charming
y be friendly and fun-loving
y be easily bored
y enjoy action, seek stimulation, and not think through the consequences of their
actions
Colorful. This scale concerns the desire to be the center of attention, to be recognized and
noticed by others. As a result, these people make dramatic entrances and exits, they are clever
at calling attention to themselves, and they enjoy entertaining others. Although they are lively and
engaging and typically make a good first impression, others may find them hard to work with
because they are impulsive, distractible, and disorganized. They often perform well in sales
positions.
Average scorers may:
y be described as quiet, modest, and unassuming
y be described as unpretentious and willing to share credit with others
y prefer to be a behind the scenes person who is unconcerned with being on center
stage
Elevated scorers may be seen by others as:
y entertaining, lively, and interesting
y unfocused and distractible
y active but not necessarily productive
High scorers are often described as:
y talkative, leaderlike, assertive, flirtatious, and creative
y enjoying having several things going on at the same time
y tending to manage by crisis
y having problems with organization and follow through
y self-promoting and not listening well
Interpretations and Uses 35
Imaginative. This scale concerns the tendency to think and act in ways that are unusual, differ-
ent, striking, and at times perhaps odd. Although persons with high scores tend to be colorful,
entertaining, creative, and often quite visible, others may find them hard to work with because
they can be unconventional, eccentric, and unaware of how their actions affect others.
Average scorers will be described as:
y sensible, practical, and level-headed
y dressing, speaking, and acting in a conservative manner
y quiet, modest, and reserved
Elevated scorers will be described as:
y original, curious, interesting, and unconventional
y a resource for solving problems in a team or organization
y having a knack for seeing things differently
High scorers will be described as:
y creative, innovative, unusual, and insightful
y unconventional and preoccupied
y a major source of innovation and change in an organization
y having trouble getting their ideas adopted because they can be easily bored and
may lack follow through
Diligent. This scale concerns the tendency to be unusually conscientious, orderly, and attentive
to detail. Persons with high scores on this scale tend to be organized, planful, and hardworking.
Nonetheless, others may find them hard to work with because they also tend to be picky, critical,
and stubborn. They may also create stress for themselves by trying to do too much, by not del-
egating, and by trying to do everything equally well.
Average scorers tend to be:
y not particularly detail-oriented
y relaxed, tolerant, and informal
y unconcerned with bureaucratic rules and procedures and willing to delegate
Elevated scorers will be described as:
y attentive to and good with details
y polite and mannerly
y orderly, rational, well-organized, and careful
36 Interpretations and Uses
High scorers tend to be described as:
y careful, conscientious, methodical, well-organized, and tidy
y setting high standards for their performance and taking pride in the accuracy and
precision of their work
y critical, controlling, and inflexible
y reluctant to delegate, which creates extra pressure for themselves and deprives
others of the opportunity to learn
Dutiful. This scale concerns the tendency to be eager to please others, to gain their approval,
and to defer to their judgment in order to maintain cordial relations with them. Such persons
seem pleasant, agreeable, and compliant, and they usually make a positive first impression.
Others may find them hard to work with because they are reluctant to make decisions on their
own, they are excessively careful to please their superiors, and they may not stick up for their
subordinates.
Average scorers tend to be described as:
y independent, not bothered by negative feedback, and willing to challenge the deci-
sions of his/her superiors
y self-reliant and tough-minded
y willing to go against the grain and go to bat for his/her people
Elevated scorers will tend to be:
y pleasant and easy to deal with
y polite, responsive, and a good team player
y reluctant to rock the boat or disagree with his/her superiors
High scorers tend to be described as:
y cordial, mannerly, attentive, and socially appropriate
y indecisive and conforming
y reluctant to act independently and relying on others to make decisions
y promising more than they can deliver in an effort to please others
Interpretations and Uses 37
Sample HDS Profile Interpretations
This section presents some examples of how to interpret the HDS. Figure 4.1 is a simplified
interpretive guide to understanding this section. As a general principle, we do not recommend
interpreting the HDS by itself; it is always useful to have other assessment data available against
which to check inferences based on the HDS. In our view, none of the published inventories of
personality disorders are particularly well-validated. Consequently, we would recommend checking
HDS scores with scores on well-validated measures such as the CPI, HPI, or MMPI. As a sec-
ond general principle, we do not recommend interpreting any single scale in isolation; scale
scores take their meaning from the context in which they appearnamely, the elevations of the
other scales. And as a third interpretive guideline, we consider scores from 0 to the 40th percen-
tile as average; scores from the 41st to the 89th percentile are elevated or above average, and
scores from the 90th to the 100th percentile are high.
Figure 4.1
A Quick Guide for Interpreting the HDS
Scale Average Scores High Scores
Excitable Predictable, calm, stable Unpredictable, emotional
Skeptical Trusting, forgiving Suspicious, vengeful
Cautious Adventurous, confident Timid, fretful
Reserved Insightful, sensitive Imperceptive, insensitive, detached
Leisurely Good natured Passive aggressive
Bold Modest, self-restrained Confident, self-promoting
Mischievous Conforming, risk-adverse Risk-taking, nonconforming
Colorful Quiet, unassuming Attention seeking, self-dramatizing
Imaginative Conventional, conservative Unconventional, original, creative
Diligent Tolerant, flexible Meticulous, inflexible, critical
Dutiful Independent, autonomous Conforming, eager to please
As a first step in interpreting the inventory, it is useful to recall the factor structure of the HDS as
seen in Table 2.4. The inventory can be decomposed into three broad components. The first is
defined by the Excitable, Skeptical, Cautious, Reserved, and Leisurely scales, and reflects a
syndrome whose components include feelings of insecurity, mistrust, hostility, and social with-
drawal. We suggested earlier that this syndrome seems to correspond to the interpersonal
theme that Horney (1950) characterized as moving away from others as a method for dealing
with insecurity. Persons with high scores on this syndrome are nervous, dysphoric, and often in a
bad mood. This component also resembles what Tellegen (1985) and others (cf. Watson & Clark,
1984) call negative affectivity.
38 Interpretations and Uses
The second component is defined
by the Bold, Mischievous, Colorful,
and Imaginative scales. This syn-
drome includes social (but not nec-
essarily private) self-confidence, im-
pulsivity, energy, competitiveness,
and a talent for self-display. This
seems to correspond to what
Horney (1950) labeled moving
against peopleoverwhelming,
coopting, intimidating, persuading,
manipulatingas a technique for
managing insecurity. This compo-
nent also resembles what Tellegen
(1985) and others call positive af-
fectivity.
The third component is defined by
the Diligent and Dutiful scales. This
is a syndrome consisting of confor-
mity, obedience, and eagerness to
pleasewhat Horney might have
described as moving toward
people, building alliances, and se-
curing approval as a way of dealing
with ones insecurities. Under-stand-
ing the way that the HDS scales clus-
ter is a useful aid to test interpreta-
tion.
Figures 4.2 and 4.3 show the aver-
age HDS and HPI profiles to use as
a comparison when interpreting
other profiles. The average HDS
profile is based on an archival
sample (N=2,071) and represents a
person who is described as some-
times unpredictable (Excitable), dif-
ficult to coach (Leisurely), self-con-
fident and assertive (Bold), adven-
turous (Mischievous), and lively
(Colorful). The average HPI profile
(N=30,054) depicts a person who
is described as reason-
Figure 4.2
Name: Average HDS Profile
Hogan Development Survey
Graphic Profile
Scales Percentiles
Score 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Exci table 64
Skeptical 58
Cauti ous 61
Reserv ed 62
Lei surely 66
Bol d 60
Mischi ev ous 58
Colorf ul 63
Imagi nativ e 64
Dil igent 57
Duti f ul 60
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Normal High
Figure 4.3
Name: Average HPI Profile
Hogan Personality Inventory
Personality Profile
This HPI Report is Valid and Interpretable
Scales Percentiles
Score 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Adj ust ment 49
Ambi ti on 47
Soci abi l i ty 52
Li keabi l i ty 60
Prudence 58
Intel l ect ance 54
School Success 58
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Interpretations and Uses 39
ably even-tempered (Adjustment),
approachable (Sociability), courte-
ous and friendly (Likeability), planful
(Prudence), and achievement driven
(School Success).
Moving Away Profile. Con-
sider now Figure 4.4.This profile is
heavily weighted by the first compo-
nent of the HDS; it typifies a person
who is prone to mercurial emotional
reactions that swing between pas-
sionate enthusiasm and intense dis-
taste (Excitable), who is keenly alert
for signs of betrayal and/or disap-
proval, and who, when he detects
those signs, may go postalchal-
lenge, accuse, confront, and retali-
ate (Skeptical).
Beneath the prickly exterior, this
person is insecure and unsure of
himself (Cautious), deeply resentful
of his superiors (Leisurely), but quiet,
withdrawn, and preferring to work
alone (Reserved). Therefore, his in-
security and resentment should go
largely unnoticed. While he is alone,
he generates interesting, odd, and
sometime far fetched theories about
his life (Imaginative) and what is
happening to him.
Although he is defensive, angry, and
aloof, he is also non-conforming and
independent (Diligent, Dutiful). Fig-
ure 4.5 is this mans HPI profile,
which suggests that in an interview,
he will seem bright and
imaginative (HDS Imaginative; HPI
Intellectance and School Success),
very agreeable and eager to please
(Likeability), and reasonably
Scor e 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Ex ci table 99
Skeptical 96
Cauti ous 99
Reserv ed 99
Lei surely 95
Bol d 63
Mischi ev ous 44
Colorf ul 30
Imagi nativ e 96
Dil igent 18
Duti f ul 30
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Normal High
Figure 4.4
Name: Moving Away
Hogan Development Survey
Graphic Profile
Scales Percentiles
Figure 4.5
Name: Moving Away
Hogan Personality Inventory
Personality Profile
This HPI Report is Valid and Interpretable
Scales Percentiles
Score 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Adj ustment 68
Ambi tion 7
Soci abil i ty 32
Li keabi li ty 100
Prudence 68
Intel l ectance 78
School Success 44
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
40 Interpretations and Uses
self-confident (Adjustment), but pas-
sive, diffident, and unassertive (Am-
bition and Sociability). Although
lacking drive and assertiveness, this
man would otherwise make a very
positive impression as a job appli-
cant. In this case, the HDS suggests
he has enough social skill (as seen
by his score for Likeability) to hide
his seething resentment and pro-
found insecurity; these tendencies
will only appear during stress and/
or heavy work loads.
This man is a locomotive engineer
who works for a railroad. His work
requires that he spend long periods
of time alone and away from
homewhich suits him welldur-
ing which time he probably broods
on how he has been unappreciated
and mistreated by his managers.
Although the consequences of his
brooding may not suit society well,
his overall dysphoria will be hard to
detect on casual contact.
Moving Against Profile. Fig-
ure 4.6 contains a profile that is
heavily influenced by the second
component of the HDS; it is a per-
son who is outgoing and insightful
(Reserved), self-dramatizing, exu-
berant, and impulsive (Colorful), ex-
citement-seeking and limit-testing
(Mischievous), confident, bright, and
charismatic (Bold), creative and in-
novative (Imaginative), but also criti-
cal and attentive to details (Diligent).
The uniformly high scores on the
second component of the HDS sug-
gest public self-confidence and
Figure 4.6
Name: Moving Against
Hogan Development Survey
Graphic Profile
Scales Percentiles
Score 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Ex citabl e 48
Skepti cal 73
Cautious 43
Reserv ed 27
Lei surel y 85
Bold 92
Mi schiev ous 98
Colorf ul 98
Imaginativ e 96
Dil igent 81
Dutif ul 43
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Normal High
Figure 4.7
Name: Moving Against
Hogan Personality Inventory
Personality Profile
This HPI Report is Valid and Interpretable
Scales Percentiles
Score 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Adj ustment 34
Ambiti on 28
Soci abi l ity 100
Li keabi l ity 60
Prudence 42
Intel lectance 99
School Success 79
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Interpretations and Uses 41
private self-doubt. This suggestion
is confirmed by this persons low
score on the HPI Adjustment scale
(see Figure 4.7), which includes a
zero score on the Not Anxious HIC
of the HPI. The HPI also confirms
the view that this man will seem, dur-
ing an interview, to be bright, imagi-
native, colorful, and self-dramatizing.
Beneath the hail-fellow-well-met fa-
cade is a good deal of personal self-
doubt and generalized hostility (Lei-
surely). Not hidden is substantial
impulsivity (Mischievous), combined
with an attention to details (Diligent).
This person is a management
trainee in a Fortune 500 company;
he will make a strong impression
during an interview, but on a daily
basis his noisy self-promoting ten-
dencies will begin to be resented.
For development, he needs to prac-
tice listening, calm down, and not be
so hard on himself.
Movi ng Toward Prof i l e.
Figure 4.8 is typical of a profile
heavily weighted by the third com-
ponent of the HDS; it is the profile of
a person who is mild-mannered but
good-natured (Excitable, Skeptical,
Leisurely), modest and quiet (Bold,
Colorful), and reluctant to take risks
(Mischievous). Although he attends
to and is concerned about others
feelings (Reserved), he is very cau-
tious (Cautious), careful, conforming,
and reluctant to take chances (Dili-
gent, Dutiful). Figure 4.9 is this
persons HPI profile. This profile
suggests he will seem concrete-
mindedand unimaginative (Intellec-
tance and School Success), but
exceedingly
Figure 4.8
Name: Moving Toward
Hogan Development Survey
Graphic Profile
Scales Percentiles
Score 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Excitabl e 33
Skepti cal 10
Cautious 59
Reserv ed 16
Lei surel y 10
Bold 9
Mi schiev ous 9
Colorf ul 7
Imaginati v e 22
Dil igent 93
Dutif ul 90
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Normal High
Figure 4.9
Name: Moving Toward
Hogan Personality Inventory
Personality Profile
This HPI Report is Valid and Interpretable
Scales Percentiles
Score 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Adj ustment 46
Ambi ti on 32
Sociabi li ty 65
Li keabi li ty 80
Prudence 95
Intel l ectance 20
School Success 15
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
42 Interpretations and Uses
Figure 4.10
Name: Corporate Stalker
Hogan Development Survey
Graphic Profile
Scales Percentiles
Figure 4.11
Name: Corporate Stalker
Hogan Personality Inventory
Personality Profile
This HPI Report is Valid and Interpretable
Scales Percentiles
pleasant, cooperative, and easy to
supervise (Likeability, Prudence).
His high score for HPI Sociability
mirrors his low HDS score for Re-
served. In this case, there are strong
parallels between the HDS and the
HPI profiles.
This person will be in many ways an
exemplary employee because he
follows rules carefully and is unusu-
ally eager to please. However, he will
be reluctant to take any initiative and
he may resist innovation because he
is so cautious. His modesty and lack
of charisma suggests he wouldnt
perform well in sales or manage-
ment. He seems well-suited for his
present job as a locomotive engi-
neer.
Corporate Stalker Profile. Fig-
ure 4.10 is the profile of a person
who seems bright, energetic, dy-
namic, and self-promoting (Colorful);
innovative, imaginative, but perhaps
lacking good judgment (Imagina-
tive); tough, independent, and indif-
ferent to social expectations (Re-
served, Dutiful); and unconcerned
with details (Diligent). The high
scores on the component II scales
of the HDS suggest public self-con-
fidence and private self-doubt. The
high scores on the Mischievous, and
low scores on Diligent and Dutiful
scales, suggest impulsivity and non-
conformity. This persons HPI profile
(see Figure 4.11) confirms these
suspicions; his very low scores for
Adjustment and Prudence and his
very high scores for Sociability sug-
gest potential delinquency, modi-
fied only by his high score
Score 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Excitable 64
Skepti cal 58
Cauti ous 61
Reserv ed 83
Lei surely 17
Bold 60
Mi schiev ous 81
Col orf ul 100
Imagi nativ e 99
Dil i gent 15
Dutif ul 2
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Normal High
Score 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Adjustment 23
Ambi ti on 100
Sociabi li ty 96
Li keabi l ity 5
Prudence 12
Intel l ectance 91
School Success 95
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Interpretations and Uses 43
Figure 4.12
Name: Litigious
Hogan Development Survey
Graphic Profile
Scales Percentiles
Figure 4.13
Name: Litigious
Hogan Personality Inventory
Personality Profile
This HPI Report is Valid and Interpretable
Scales Percentiles
score for Ambitionhis career as-
pirations may moderate his natural
hostility and impulsivity. Overall, his
HPI suggests he is bright, charis-
matic, and very deceitful; however,
in an interview, one will be primarily
dazzled by his wit and interpersonal
skill. This points out the utility of the
HDS in penetrating beneath the inter-
personal glitter.
This person was a senior manager
in a large organization; his cha-
risma, intelligence, and ability to
manipulate his seniors put him on a
fast career track. However, his cava-
lier disregard for rules and his fla-
grant disregard for the feelings and
opinions of his peers and subordi-
nates finally caught up with him; for-
tunately for the persons below him, his
career finally derailed.
Litigious Profile. The profile seen
in Figure 4.12 is dominated by the
high scores on the Leisurely, Skep-
tical, Diligent, and Imaginative
scales. This person should be sus-
picious, resentful, easily upset, and
should have odd or unusual theories
about others intentions, as well as
being fussy, picky, critical, and judg-
mental. His HPI profile (see Figure
4.13) suggests he is ambitious, so-
ci al l y ski l l ed, i mpul si ve,
andachievement-orientedbut also
potentially delinquent (low Adjust-
ment and Prudence combined with
high Sociability). He should inter-
view well, so that his charisma and
interpersonal skill will mask his sus-
picious and resentful side, as well
as his deviousness and possible de-
linquency.
Score 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Adj ustment 6
Ambiti on 77
Soci abi li ty 67
Li keabi li ty 62
Prudence 17
Intel lectance 41
School Success 19
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Score 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Excitabl e 82
Skepti cal 94
Cautious 71
Reserv ed 7
Lei surel y 100
Bol d 73
Mi schiev ous 70
Colorf ul 64
Imaginati v e 86
Dil igent 92
Dutif ul 6
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Normal High
44 Interpretations and Uses
Figure 4.14
Name: Fear-Driven Salesman
Hogan Development Survey
Graphic Profile
Scales Percentiles
Figure 4.15
Name: Fear-Driven Salesman
Hogan Personality Inventory
Personality Profile
This HPI Report is Valid and Interpretable
Scales Percentiles
Scor e 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Ex ci table 60
Skeptical 73
Cauti ous 27
Reserv ed 27
Lei surely 85
Bol d 84
Mischi ev ous 98
Colorf ul 95
Imagi nativ e 96
Dil igent 42
Duti f ul 26
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Normal High
Score 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Adjustment 44
Ambi ti on 100
Sociabi li ty 85
Li keabi l ity 83
Prudence 34
Intel l ectance 95
School Success 79
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
This man works for a large and gen-
erally fair-minded corporation that
tries hard to be an equal employ-
ment opportunity organization, and
against whom he has filed a major
complaint with the EEOC after be-
ing denied a promotion.
Fear-driven Salesman Profile.
The most distinctive feature of the
profile contained in Figure 4.14 is
the elevation on all the scales of
Component IIBold, Mischievous,
Colorful, and Imaginative. This el-
evation suggests this man will seem
outgoing, confident, dynamic, risk-
taking, creative, impulsive, self-dra-
matizing, and highly entertaining. His
low scores on the Reserved and
Cautious scales suggest he is ad-
venturous and that he reads social
and political cues quickly and well.
His low scores on Diligent and Duti-
ful further suggest that he will be
somewhat indifferent to social feed-
back, independent, and not good
with details or follow through.
This pattern is typical of high pow-
ered sales people. A glance at this
mans HPI profile (see Figure 4.15)
confirms the inference that he has a
lot of potential for work in sales. In
fact, his HPI profilerelatively low
scores for Adjustment and Pru-
dence, and relatively high scores for
all the other scalesis prototypical
for successful sales peopledy-
namic, charming, socially skilled,
bright, imaginative, and flexible..
Missing from his HPI profile, of
course, is this mans high score on
Interpretations and Uses 45
the Leisurely scale. This high score suggests that, in addition to drive, charisma, and creativity,
this man has some fairly strong private self-doubts, that he is easily irritated by others at work,
and that he is likely to clash with his supervisor(s). And in fact this mans supervisor describes
him as a very good salesman but a shame-based over achiever who takes on too much and
sometimes leaves projects unfinished and details uncovered. For development, this man needs
to learn to relax, and to work closely with another person who will help him with detailed follow-
through. What he hashis talent for salescant really be taught. What he needs to learn is
some tolerance for frustration and to understand that he is more irritable and critical than is good
for his career.
Uses
In our experience there are three major uses for the HDS, although other applications may be-
come apparent as time goes by. The first and by far the most frequent use for the HDS is for
coaching and development. The HDS is relatively independent of the HPI, which means that a
person can have an attractive HPI profile and an unattractive HDS profile. This means, in turn,
that the person will interview well and make a positive first impression on others. Over time and
under pressure, however, the themes captured in the HDS profile will become apparent, and
may have an adverse impact on the persons career. Moreover, people are often unaware of the
tendencies that they display when they are stressed. Generally speaking, any developmental
effort must begin with an assessment, and that is certainly true in the case of dysfunctional dispo-
sitions. The HDS provides clear and explicit information regarding those aspects of a persons
interpersonal performance that need extra attention.
The second major use for the HDS is in selection contexts where a measure such as the MMPI is
normally usede.g., evaluating applicants for work as a police officer, security guard, airline
pilot, air traffic controller, etc. The HDS has four advantages relative to the MMPI. First, it is
much shorter. Second, the item content is much less offensive. Third, the items have fewer
disability-related implications. And finally, the scales are known to predict poor performance in
several jobs. The MMPI was validated against diagnostic statements by cliniciansi.e., a high
score on the Sc scale should predict a diagnosis of schizophrenia. The HDS, on the other hand
was validated against indices of job performancei.e., a high score on the Diligent scale should
predict an inability to prioritize or delegate. In principle, then, the HDS should be more useful
than the MMPI in employment contexts; conversely, the MMPI should be more useful than the
HDS when one is trying to make a psychiatric diagnosis.
The third use for the HDS is in selecting people for high level or responsible positions in organi-
zations. The best estimate of the failure rates for CEOs in corporate America is 60% (cf. DeVries,
1992). The reason for this high failure rate, in our judgment, is that senior managers are chosen
on the basis of an interviewwhich is the same thing as a beauty contest. The most charming
and articulate candidateassuming equal past credentialsgets the job. But the entire con-
cept behind the HDS is that many people who can put on a skillful performance for an hour or
two are often flawed in ways that wont appear in an
46 Interpretations and Uses
interview, and flawed in ways, in fact, that may actually enhance their performance in an inter-
viewe.g., narcissistic, histrionic, or psychopathic tendencies. Organizations are willing to screen
entry level employees for integrity, but they seem reluctant to screen upper level executives for
the same problemsand it is the latter group who are in a position to do real damage to an
organization (R. Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan, 1994).
Finally, the scales on the HDS provide reasonable clues as to how a person will perform as a
member of a team. Generally speaking, persons with high scores on the Cautious, Diligent, and
Dutiful scales will be good team players because they are so conforming and eager to please.
Conversely, persons with high scores on the Bold, Mischievous, Colorful, and Imaginative scales
will tend to be disruptive because they will want to be the center of attention, wont follow rules,
and compete with other team members. Persons with high scores on the Leisurely scale will do
fine face-to-face, but they will procrastinate on completing assignments away from the team
context. Persons with high scores on the Excitable, Skeptical, and Reserved scales will be less
than desirable team players because they are moody, aloof, distrustful, and/or obtuse.
Administering and Scoring 47
C H A P T E R
5
Administering and Scoring
Paper-and-pencil Administration
The HDS can be administered to individuals or small groups using either paper-and-pencil ma-
terials or computer software. Administration procedures depend on the mode of testing. Testing
time requires 20 minutes or less, depending on the testing mode and the test takers reading
speed. Although the inventory is written at a fifth grade reading level, it is intended to be used with
people who are sixteen years and older.
The HDS is designed to be used with other assessment tools for development, feedback, and
coaching for interpersonal behavior. The HDS contributes insightful information about potentially
derailing tendencies. It can also be used as a post-offer screening tool for persons who manage
others, work in close teams, or work in high stress occupations. Unless validated for use in entry-
level jobs, the HDS generally is not an appropriate off-the-shelf instrument for pre-employment
screening of hourly workers.
How to Administer Paper-and-pencil HDS Forms
Materials. The HDS is self-administered and consists of a 168-item booklet and an optically
scannable answer sheet. Test takers should use a No. 2 pencil to complete the answer sheet.
No responses or marks should be made in the test booklet; therefore, it can be reused. Items
appear in blocks of five in the test booklet and these correspond to the response groups on the
answer sheet. This allows the respondent to keep track of his or her progress.
Completing the Answer Sheet. The HDS answer sheet is one-sided and all information should
be completed (see Figure 5.1). Minimally, the respondent should complete the name and/or
identification (ID) grid. If names are to be used, the respondent must print the name in the
name grid and fill in the corresponding response circles on the answer sheet. If an ID num-
ber is used, the name grid can be left blank, The respondent must then fill in
his/her ID number under the grid entitled Social Security Number. The circles corresponding
48 Administering and Scoring
Figure 5.1
Administering and Scoring 49
to the ID numbers must be filled. Although both names and IDs can be used, answer sheets with
neither will result in scored reports that contain no identifying information.
If desired, the respondent should complete the grids for race, sex, and age. Information con-
tained in these grids should never be used to make personnel decisions; however, it is useful for
demographic tracking research. Employers should keep this information separate from the re-
sults of the inventory; HDS reports that exclude age, gender, and/or race information can be
obtained.
Conducting the Testing Session
Either individuals or small groups may take the paper-and-pencil form of the HDS. The time
required to complete the inventory in this form is approximately 20 minutes. There are no basic
differences between individual and small group administration other than encouraging no talk-
ing in the latter case. A few common-sense steps are required to conduct a productive paper-
and-pencil assessment session. Because the quality of the assessment results depends on the
attitude with which an individual approaches the assessment, the administrator should try to
build rapport with the respondent(s). Physical testing conditions should be comfortable and free
from distractions.
Administrators Script for Conducting a Testing Session. The administrator begins
the paper-and-pencil session by distributing the materials and going over the answer sheet with
the respondents to familiarize them with the format. As noted, there are grids on the answer
sheets for name, social security number (or employee identification number), age, race, and sex.
You may or may not want respondents to complete all of this information depending upon how
you are using the inventory. The demographic information is useful for equal employment oppor-
tunity research purposes. You should explain to the respondents how the demographic informa-
tion will be used and who will have access to it. Also on the answer sheet, it is important that they
fill-in some form of identification--either a name or an identification number (such as social secu-
rity or employee identification).
A sample script follows that could be used by someone administering the HDS to an individual or
a small group of respondents. Directions for the administrator to read out loud follow the capital-
ized ADMINISTRATOR and are set in boldface type. Instructions to the administrator are in pa-
renthesis ( ). Administrators should maintain a courteous and pleasant tone of voice throughout
the session.
Script begins:
ADMINISTRATOR: Good morning/afternoon. Im (name). I want to welcome you to
todays assessment session. To complete the assessment today, you will need a No. 2
pencil, an assessment booklet, and an answer sheet. The first thing I will do is pass out
50 Administering and Scoring
these items. Please do not start looking at the questions in the booklet until I have said
to begin. Although this inventory is not timed, we will probably need about twenty
minutes to complete everything.
(Pass out an answer sheet, test booklet, and a couple of sharpened No. 2 pencils to each re-
spondent.)
ADMINISTRATOR: On the upper left section of the answer sheet, please print your last
name first. Then print your first name using the last 10 spaces. Look below your name,
and fill in the circles that match the letters in your name. Note that there is a circle to
complete for each blank box. Please make only one mark in each column of letters and
use a heavy dark mark that completely fills the chosen response circle. These response
circles appear in all areas of the answer sheet. By filling in the circles carefully, you
ensure that the information on the answer sheet will be recognized correctly in the
scanning and scoring process. If you make an error or change your mind, erase your
initial choice carefully and completely. Then fill in the correct circle.
(Now, if applicable:)
ADMINISTRATOR: Fill in the [social security/identification number]. This number is being used
to identify your results and to match your HDS results with other information you have
completed.
ADMINISTRATOR: Please fill in the grids for race, sex, and age. This information is for
demographic research purposes only.
ADMINISTRATOR: Please follow along with me silently while I read the instructions on
the inside cover of the test booklet. If you have any questions, please raise your hand
or come up to me after weve finished reading the instructions. (Next, read aloud the in-
structions contained in the test booklet.)
ADMINISTRATOR: (after you have finished reading the booklet instructions) Are there any ques-
tions? If not, please note that this inventory contains 168 statements to which you should
respond. These statements appear in blocks of five in the booklet and the response
options on the answer sheet are also in blocks of five. So, as you respond to each
statement, make sure the number in the booklet is the same as the number on the an-
swer sheet. Please respond to all of the statements, taking care to fill in the appropriate
response circle and complete the entire answer sheet. When you finish, please give me
your materials. I would like to thank you for your participation today. You may now be-
gin.
ADMINISTRATOR: (At the end of 20 minutes) As you finish, take a moment to check your
answer sheet for completeness. Please check each statement, the name field, and the
demographic fields.
Script ends.
Administering and Scoring 51
Anticipate that questions may arise. Some common ones include:
y Do I have to respond to all of the statements? Answer: Yes, try to answer all the
questions. Leave blank only the statements that you feel you absolutely cannot
answer.
y What does statement ___ mean? Answer: It is better that you decide for your-
self. If you cannot answer it, leave it blank.
As testing proceeds, your role as administrator is to monitor the examination process. This in-
cludes eliminating distractions, helping individuals with questions, and collecting all completed
materials. For security purposes, make sure you obtain all materials originally distributed. You
should scan each completed answer sheet for neatness and accuracy of demographic responses.
Erase stray marks and make sure the circles chosen by the respondent are filled in completely
and that identification appears. As the completed answer sheets are turned in, thank each re-
spondent for participating.
How to Administer Computer On-line Testing
Materials. The HDS can be taken directly on the computer. In this mode, the respondent uses
the keyboard to complete the information requested on the computer screen. Each inventory
question is displayed on the screen and the test taker selects and keys in a response using 1
for true and 0 for false.
The on-line testing system requires an IBM PC/XT/AT/PS2
1
or compatible computer with at least
one floppy diskette drive, a 10 megabyte hard drive, 512 kilobytes of RAM, and 1 parallel port.
The system was developed under MS-DOS version 3.3
2
, however, it will operate under any DOS
version 2.10 or later. A keyboard is required, but a mouse is not needed.
Software for the HDS on-line testing, scoring, and report generating system must be installed on
the computer systems hard drive in order to operate the system. This software is available on
either 5.25 inch or 3.5 inch floppy diskettes. Instructions and technical support for installation and
operation of the system are available from Hogan Assessment Systems.
If printed reports are desired, a printer will be needed. The type of printer must be defined during
the installation of the software. Refer to the HDS software users manual for more information.
Using the On-line System. The test administrator initiates the program for on-line HDS admin-
istration. First, the test taker will see the title screen displayed and the first entry window.
1
Registered trademark of International Business Machines
2
Registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation
52 Administering and Scoring
Using the keyboard, the test taker types in the name and ID number. Following this, instructions
to complete the inventory are displayed. Using the space bar and the cursor control keys, the
respondent moves through the inventory as one item at a time is displayed on the screen. The
respondent may scroll back to previous items. When the test taker completes the inventory, the
screen prompts the test taker to inform the administrator.
The test administrator can score the data file created using the scoring utility that is also part of
the system. From the scored data, the test administrator can choose to print scores from the
HDS scales, graphs of the scales, or interpretive reports. The test scores will be stored in an
archive file and may be recovered from this file later.
How to Score the HDS Answer Sheets
The HDS answer sheets can be scored using any of following three methods. Each of these
methods is easy to use, computerized, and requires the use of software that scores the inventory
and generates the type of report selected. Both on-site and mail-in scoring services are avail-
able. For test security, there are no hand scoring keys. Scoring methods are described next.
Keyed Data Entry. Users can score answer sheets on their own computers with HDS scoring
software. Data from the answer sheet are entered into a computer by an operator who keys in
each of the 168 item responses. The system provides for multiple score sheets to be key en-
tered and the data stored. Then, all cases are scored, and reports are generated and written to
a file. The program will display the number of inventories processed, and the printing status of the
report.
This method allows the user complete control of processing test results. The answer sheets are
maintained at the users office and only the user has access to the test information. Results are
immediate and printed in the users office. When using the ASCII text raw data file or the scored
data file, refer to Figure 5.2 for the variable listing, variable names, variable order, and data
definitions.
Optical Scanning of Answer Sheets. Users may score their own HDS answer sheets by means
of a computer and a scanner available from National Computer Systems. With this equipment,
completed HDS answer sheets are loaded into the scanner tray and an operator activates the
scanning program.
The operator does not key in the test responses. The scanner reads the marked answers and
sends the data to a computer file.
Mail-in or FAX Scoring. For users who do not score tests on-site, answer sheets can either
be mailed or faxed to Hogan Assessment Systems for processing. For mailing, answer sheets
should not be folded; they should be marked properly with a No. 2 pencil,
Administering and Scoring 53
Figure 5.2
HDS Data File Variable Specifications
Raw Data File
Record Variable Columns Coding Values
All Case # 1-3
All Record 5-6
1 Name 8-37 Last name, First name, no comma,
no middle initial, all caps
1 Id Number 38-46 Social security number, 9 digits only
1 Gender 48 1 = Male, 2 = Female
1 Age 50-51 2 digits
1 Race 53 1 = American Indian, 2 = Asian,
3 = Black, 4 = White, 5 = Hispanic,
6 = Other
1 Code 57-58 Opitional scoring variable, 2 digits
2 I1-I56 8-63 1 = true
3 I57-I112 8-63 0 = false
4 I113-I168 8-63 blank = missing
Scored Data File
Record Variable Columns Coding Values
All Case # 1-3
All Record 5-6
1 Name 8-37 Last name, First name, no comma,
no middle initial, all caps
1 Id Number 38-46 Social security number, 9 digits only
1 Gender 48 1 = Male, 2 = Female
1 Age 50-51 2 digits
1 Race 53 1 = American Indian, 2 = Asian,
3 = Black, 4 = White, 5 = Hispanic,
6 = Other
1 Code 57-58 Opitional scoring variable, 2 digits
2 EXC SKE CAU RES LEI BOL MIS 8-51 Scale Raw Scores
COL IMA DIL DUT
3 EXC SKE CAU RES LEI BOL MIS 8-51 Scale Raw Scores
COL IMA DIL DUT
4 PEXC PSKE PCAU PRES PLEI 8-51 Scale Percentile Scores
PBOL PMIS PCOL PIMA PDIL PDUT
table continues
54 Administering and Scoring
HDS Variable Names & Labels
Scale Labels
EXC EXCITABLE PEXC EXCITABLE PERCENTILE
SKE SKEPTICAL PSKE SKEPTICAL PERCENTILE
CAU CAUTIOUS PCAU CAUTIOUS PERCENTILE
RES RESERVED PRES RESERVED PERCENTILE
LEI LEISURELY PLEI LEISURELY PERCENTILE
BOL BOLD PBOL BOLD PERCENTILE
MIS MISCHIEVOUS PMIS MISCHIEVOUS PERCENTILE
COL COLORFUL PCOL COLORFUL PERCENTILE
IMA IMAGINATIVE PIMA IMAGINATIVE PERCENTILE
DIL DILIGENT PDIL DILIGENT PERCENTILE
DUT DUTIFUL PDUT DUTIFUL PERCENTILE
and in good condition. Mailed in answer sheets will be processed within 24 hours from the time
they are received and reports will be returned according to the users instructions. For faxed
answer sheets, the user should transmit a cover sheet with report return instructions followed by
a copy of the HDS answer sheet. Answer sheets should be completed using clear, dark marks.
Faxed transmissions will be processed within 24 hours from the time they are received and
reports will be returned according to the users instructions.
To request test scoring from Hogan Assessment Systems, include the company name, complete
address, contact person, and telephone number along with the answer sheets to be scored.
Send completed answer sheets with scoring instructions to:
Hogan Assessment Systems, Test Scoring Services
P.O. Box 521176
Tulsa, OK 74152
Fax transmissions to:
Hogan Assessment Systems, 918-749-0635
Contact Hogan Assessments Systems for more details and for software updates at
918-749-0632.
References 55
References
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disor-
ders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychiatric Association. (1987). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disor-
ders (3rd ed., rev.). Washington, DC: Author.
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 102(b)(7), 42 U. S. C. A. 12112.
Arneson, S., Millikin-Davies, M., & Hogan, J. (1993). Validation of personality and cognitive
measures for insurance claims examiners. Journal of Business and Psychology, 7, 459-
473.
Bentz, V. J. (1985, August). A view from the top: A thirty year perspective of research devoted
to discovery, description, and prediction of executive behavior. Paper presented at the
93rd Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles.
Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom, W. G., Graham, J. R., Tellegen, A., & Kaemmer, B. (1989). Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2): Manual for administration and scoring. Min-
neapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Cleckley, H. (1982). The mask of sanity (3rd ed.). St. Louis: C. V. Mosby.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16,
297-334.
DeVries, D. L. (1992). Executive selection: Advances but no progress. Issues & Observations,
12, 1-5.
Gough, H. G. (1987). Manual for the California Psychological Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Con-
sulting Psychologists Press.
Harkness, A. R., McNulty, J. L., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (1995). The personality psychopathology five
(PSY-5): Construct and MMPI-2 scales. Psychological Assessment, 7, 104-114.
Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1943). Manual for the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory. New York: Psychological Corporation.
56 References
Hazucha, J. F. (1991). Success, jeopardy, and performance: Contrasting managerial outcomes
and their predictors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapo-
lis.
Hogan, J., & Hogan, R. (1996). Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory manual. Tulsa: Hogan
Assessment Systems.
Hogan, J., & Roberts, B. W., (1996). Issues and non-issues in the fidelity-bandwidth trade-off.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 222-234
Hogan, R. (1983). Socioanalytic theory of personality. In M. M. Page (Ed.), 1982 Nebraska
Symposium on Motivation: Personalitycurrent theory and research (pp. 55-89). Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press.
Hogan, R. (1995). A socioanalytic perspective on the Five-Factor Model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.),
Theories of the Five-Factor Model (pp. 163-179). New York: Guilford.
Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (1997). Theoretical frameworks for assessment. In P. R. Jeanneret and
R. Silzer (Eds.), Individual Assessment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (1995). Hogan Personality Inventory manual. Tulsa, OK: Hogan As-
sessment Systems.
Hogan, R., & Nicholson, R. (1988). The meaning of personality test scores. American Psy-
chologist, 43, 621-626.
Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership: Effectiveness
and personality. American Psychologist, 49, 493-504.
Hogan, R., Hogan, J., & Roberts, B. W. (1996). Personality measurement and employment
decisions: Questions and answers. American Psychologist, 51, 469-477.
Horney, K. (1950). Neurosis and human growth. New York: Norton.
Jones, W. H. (1988). Users manual for PROFILE. Unpublished report.
Jones, W. H., Cheek, J. M., & Briggs, S. R. (Eds.) (1991). Shyness: Perspectives on research
and treatment. New York: Plenum.
Kelly, E. L., & Fiske, D. W. (1951). The prediction of performance in clinical psychology. Ann
Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Leary, T. F. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New York: Ronald Press.
References 57
Lewin, K. (1935). Dynamic theory of personality. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lombardo, M. M., Ruderman, M. N., & McCauley, C. D. (1988). Explanations of success and
derailment in upper-level management positions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 2,
199-216.
Lykken, D. T. (1995). The antisocial personalities. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
McCall, M. W., Jr., & Lombardo, M. M. (1983). Off the track: Why and how successful execu-
tives get derailed ( Tech. Rep. No. 21). Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
McCall, M. W., Jr., Lombardo, M. M., & Morrison, A. M. (1988). Lessons of experience. Lexing-
ton, MA: Lexington.
Millikin-Davies, M. A. (1992). An exploration of flawed first-line supervision. Unpublished doc-
toral dissertation, University of Tulsa, Tulsa.
Morey, L. C., Waugh, M. H., & Blashfield, R. K. (1985). MMPI Scales for the DSM-III personality
disorders: Their derivation and correlates. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 245-
251.
Psychological Corporation. (1989). The Industrial Reading Test manual. San Antonio, TX:
Author.
Tellegen, A. (1985). Structures of mood and personality and their relevance to assessing anxi-
ety, with emphasis on self-reports. In A. H. Tuma and J. D. Maser (Eds.), Anxiety and anxiety
disorders (pp. 681-706). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. (1984). Negative affectivity: Disposition to experience aversive emo-
tional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 465-490.
Watson, G., & Glaser, E. M. (1980). Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal manual. San
Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait descriptive terms: The interpersonal
domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 295-412.
Wiggins, J. S. (Ed.) (1996). The five-factor model of personality. New York: Guilford.
Appendix A 58
Appendix A: HDS Norms for the Total Sample
Hogan Development Survey Norms
(N=2,071)
Score EXCITABLE SKEPTICAL CAUTIOUS RESERVED LEISURELY BOLD MISCHIEVOUS COLORFUL IMAGINATIVE DILIGENT DUTIFUL
0 15 4 11 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 0
1 33 12 29 7 6 1 3 2 4 0 0
2 51 25 47 25 17 3 8 5 11 1 1
3 64 42 61 45 34 7 17 10 24 1 2
4 74 58 72 62 50 12 30 17 36 2 6
5 82 70 81 74 66 22 44 27 52 5 14
6 87 79 88 83 80 32 58 40 64 8 25
7 91 86 92 90 88 45 70 53 77 15 42
8 93 91 95 95 94 60 81 64 86 25 60
9 96 94 97 97 97 73 90 74 93 39 77
10 97 96 99 99 99 84 95 84 97 57 89
11 99 98 100 100 100 91 98 91 99 77 96
12 100 99 100 100 100 97 100 96 100 92 99
13 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 100 99 100
14 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Appendix B: Sample HDS Interpretive
Report
The Hogan Development Survey
Interpretive Report
John Doe
Reporduced from the Hogan Development Survey
Copyright 1997, 1999, by Hogan Assessment Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.
999999999
Page 1 John Doe 2/12/2002
P.O BOX 521176 TULSA, OK 74152 (800) 756-0632 FAX: (918) 749-0635 WEB: www.hoganassessments.com
Introduction
The Hogan Development Survey (HDS) measures eleven patterns of interpersonal behavior that
tend to appear when a person is stressed, tired, or distracted. Although these tendencies may limit
peoples' careers, they are often unaware of them. The HDS highlights these tendencies so that
they can be managed.
The HDS dimensions are defined below, the next page contains your profile on these dimensions.
Excitable
Skeptical
Cautious
Reserved
Leisurely
Bold
Mischievous
Concerns seeming moody, easily irritated, and hard to please, and dealing
with stress by quitting or ending relationships.
Concerns mistrusting others' intentions, being alert for signs of
mistreatment, and then challenging or blaming others when it seems to
occur.
Concerns being overly concerned about making mistakes or being
embarrassed, and becoming defensive and conservative when stressed.
Concerns seeming independent, uncaring, aloof, uncomfortable with
strangers, and dealing with stress by withdrawing and being
uncommunicative.
Concerns wanting to work according to one's own pace and standards,
and feeling put upon when asked to work faster or differently.
Concerns the tendency to over evaluate one's talents, not admit mistakes
or take advice, and blustering and bluffing when under pressure.
Concerns taking risks, testing limits, making hasty decisions, not learning
from experience, and demanding to move on when confronted with
mistakes.
Colorful
Imaginative
Diligent
Dutiful
Concerns expecting to be seen as talented and interesting, ignoring
other's requests, and becoming very busy when under pressure.
Concerns being eccentric-acting and thinking in creative and sometimes
unusual ways-and becoming unpredictable when stressed.
Concerns having high standards of performance for self and others, being
meticulous, precise, picky, critical, and stubborn when under pressure.
Concerns being cordial, agreeable, and eager to please, reluctant to take
independent action, and conforming when under pressure.
999999999
Page 2 John Doe 2/12/2002
P.O BOX 521176 TULSA, OK 74152 (800) 756-0632 FAX: (918) 749-0635 WEB: www.hoganassessments.com
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
AVERAGE HIGH
36
43
29
59
55
94
85
Percentile
Scale
Excitable
Skeptical
Cautious
Reserved
Leisurely
Bold
Mischievous
Graphic Profile
Hogan Development Survey
Interpretive Report
77
58
81
42
Colorful
Imaginative
Diligent
Dutiful
0
Norms: General Norms
The graph above shows Mr./Ms. Doe's scores on each scale. Scores shown are in
percentiles.The percentile scores indicate the percentage of people from a comparison (or
'norm') group who score at or below Mr./Ms. Doe's obtained score.
999999999
Page 3 John Doe 2/12/2002
P.O BOX 521176 TULSA, OK 74152 (800) 756-0632 FAX: (918) 749-0635 WEB: www.hoganassessments.com
Excitable
Scale Description
This scale is concerned with the tendency to develop strong enthusiasms for people, projects, or
organizations, and then become disappointed with them. People with high scores tend to let little
things bother them, become annoyed easily, and change jobs more frequently than others. Coworkers
tend to find people with high scores on this scale hard to work with because they seem moody,
irritable, and hard to please.
Score = 36th percentile
Mr./Ms. Doe received a low score on the Excitable scale. Such people tend to:

controls and expresses his/her emotions in a mature and appropriate manner

is calm, stable, poised, and predictable
doesn't dwell on minor problems
Skeptical
Scale Description
This scale is concerned with the tendency to mistrust others' motives and doubt their intentions, to be
alert for signs that one is being deceived or mistreated, and to take action to defend oneself when
wrongly treated. Although these people are shrewd and difficult to fool, others may find them hard to
work with because they take criticism personally, they readily feel misused, they tend to be suspicious,
and they are prone to retaliate when they feel they have been wronged.

uncooperative when he/she doesn't understand why he/she should do something

displaying a healthy degree of skepticism about the motives of others
perhaps suspicious of authority
Score = 43rd percentile
Mr./Ms. Doe received an average score on the Skeptical scale. Such people tend to:
is usually in a good mood
is not easily disappointed

999999999
Page 4 John Doe 2/12/2002
P.O BOX 521176 TULSA, OK 74152 (800) 756-0632 FAX: (918) 749-0635 WEB: www.hoganassessments.com
Cautious
Scale Description
This scale evaluates the tendency to be conservative, careful, concerned about making mistakes, and
reluctant to take initiative for fear of being criticized or embarrassed. Although these people are
usually good corporate citizens, others find them hard to work with because of their need to stay within
the lines and their unwillingness to innovate or try new procedures.
Score = 29th percentile
Mr./Ms. Doe received an average score on the Cautious scale. This suggests that he/she will tend to
be:

decisive, adventurous, and unafraid to make mistakes

willing to take on challenging tasks
open to innovation
Reserved
Scale Description
This scale concerns the tendency to keep to oneself, to dislike working in teams or meeting
new people, and to be indifferent to the moods and feelings of others. Although persons with
high scores work well alone, others may find them hard to work with because they tend to be
withdrawn and uncommunicative, and they tend to not be very insightful or perceptive about
social cues or office politics.

uncomfortable around strangers

preferring to work alone
uninvolved with others and unconcerned about their problems
Score = 59th percentile
Mr./Ms. Doe's score on the Reserved scale is elevated, suggesting that others may describe
him/her as:
willing to express his/her views on tricky issues
999999999
Page 5 John Doe 2/12/2002
P.O BOX 521176 TULSA, OK 74152 (800) 756-0632 FAX: (918) 749-0635 WEB: www.hoganassessments.com
Leisurely
Scale Description
This scale is concerned with the tendency to want to work according to one's own timetable and
standards of performance. Higher scorers tend to resist being hurried or instructed by others and to
become resentful and irritated when asked to increase the speed or quality of one's performance, but
to mask the resentment well. Although people with high scores on this scale can be outwardly
pleasant and sociable, others may find them hard to work with because of their procrastination,
tardiness, stubbornness, and reluctance to be part of a team.
Score = 55th percentile
Mr./Ms. Doe's score on the Leisurely scale was elevated, suggesting that:

others may see him/her as pleasant but sometimes hard to coach

he/she may not be as cooperative as he/she seems
he/she may tend to procrastinate
Bold
Scale Description
This scale is concerned with the tendency to overestimate one's talents and accomplishments, ignore
one's shortcomings, blame one's mistakes on others, have clear but unrealistic career goals, and to
have a strong sense of entitlement. Although such people are often charismatic and typically make a
strong first impression, others may find them hard to work with because they also tend to be
demanding, opinionated, self-absorbed, and unwilling to learn from their mistakes.

confident, aggressive, ambitious, and visionary

impulsive, self-promoting, and unresponsive to negative feedback
competitive and demanding
Score = 94th percentile
Mr./Ms. Doe received a high score on the Bold scale. Such people tend to be:

intimidating, especially to their subordinates

often unable to foster and develop a sense of loyalty or team work among their associates at
work
999999999
Page 6 John Doe 2/12/2002
P.O BOX 521176 TULSA, OK 74152 (800) 756-0632 FAX: (918) 749-0635 WEB: www.hoganassessments.com
Mischievous
Scale Description
This scale is concerned with the tendency to appear charming, friendly, fun loving, and insightful, but
also to be impulsive, excitement-seeking, and non-conforming. High scorers usually make a
favorable first impression, but others may find them hard to work with because they tend to test the
limits, ignore commitments, and take risks that may be ill-advised. Although they may seem decisive,
they can make bad decisions because they are often motivated by pleasure and don't fully evaluate
the consequences of their choices.
Score = 85th percentile
Mr./Ms. Doe's score on the Mischievous scale is elevated. Such persons tend to be:

described as willing to make quick decisions

bright, pleasure seeking, and adventurous
at times impulsive and risk taking
Colorful
Scale Description
This scale concerns the desire to be the center of attention and to be recognized and noticed by
others. As a result, these people learn how to make dramatic entrances and otherwise call attention
to themselves and they enjoy entertaining others. Although they are colorful and engaging and
typically make a good first impression, others may find them hard to work with because they are
impulsive, distractible, and disorganized. They often perform well in sales positions.

entertaining, lively, and interesting

unfocused and distractible
active but not always productive
Score = 77th percentile
Mr./Ms. Doe's score on the Colorful scale is elevated. This suggests that others may see him/her as:
999999999
Page 7 John Doe 2/12/2002
P.O BOX 521176 TULSA, OK 74152 (800) 756-0632 FAX: (918) 749-0635 WEB: www.hoganassessments.com
Imaginative
Scale Description
This scale is concerned with the tendency to think and act in ways that are unusual, different, striking,
and perhaps at times odd. People with high scores tend to be colorful, entertaining, creative, and
often quite visible. However, others may find them hard to work with because they can be
unconventional, eccentric, and unaware of how their actions affect others.
Score = 58th percentile
Mr./Ms. Doe's score on the Imaginative scale is elevated. Persons with scores in this range tend to be
described as:

original, curious, interesting, and unconventional

a resource for solving problems in a team or organization
having a knack for seeing things differently
Diligent
Scale Description
This scale is concerned with the tendency to be unusually conscientious, orderly, and attentive to
detail. People with high scores on this scale tend to be organized, planful, and hardworking.
Nonetheless, others may find them hard to work with because they also tend to be picky, critical, and
stubborn. They may also create stress for themselves by trying to do too much, by not delegating,
and by trying to do everything equally well.

attentive to and good with details

orderly, rational, well-organized, and careful
polite and mannerly
Score = 81st percentile
Mr./Ms. Doe received an elevated score on the Diligent scale, suggesting that others will describe
him/her as:
999999999
Page 8 John Doe 2/12/2002
P.O BOX 521176 TULSA, OK 74152 (800) 756-0632 FAX: (918) 749-0635 WEB: www.hoganassessments.com
Dutiful
Scale Description
This scale is concerned with the tendency to be eager to please others, to gain their approval, and to
defer to their judgement in order to maintain a cordial relationship with them. Such people seem
pleasant, agreeable, and compliant, and they usually make a positive first impression. Others may find
them hard to work with because they are reluctant to make decisions on their own, they are
excessively careful to please their superiors, and they may not stick up for their subordinates.
Score = 42nd percentile
Mr./Ms. Doe received an elevated score on the Dutiful scale. This suggests he/she will tend to be:

pleasant and easy to deal with

polite, responsive, and a good team player
reluctant to rock the boat or disagree with his/her superiors
999999999
Page 9 John Doe 2/12/2002
P.O BOX 521176 TULSA, OK 74152 (800) 756-0632 FAX: (918) 749-0635 WEB: www.hoganassessments.com