Personality Testing for Leadership Roles

I recently wrote an academic piece on non-cognitive, or personality testing, for leadership roles. The main tools researched were the Five Factor Model, and the HEXACO Model, as they stand out for their strong empirical foundations, cross-cultural validity, and ability to predict important workplace outcomes such as job performance, leadership effectiveness, and ethical behaviour. Both of these tools show a higher level of scientific validity and reliability based in dimensional trait-based approaches grounded in decades of rigorous psychological research, over some of their morel popular counterparts, such as, Myers Briggs - MBTI, DISC or Insights Discovery, which simplify personality into typologies with limited scientific support.

Below I share some of the research that forms a literature review on the topic.

Carefully selecting the right leader is widely recognised as a necessary, but a challenging and complex process, given the potential risk and impact of hiring the wrong person (Hogan & Kaiser, 2005; Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2013). The kind of behaviours that promote trust between a leader and follower increase follower job performance and organisational citizenship behaviour while reducing undesirable outcomes such as employee disengagement and intention to quit (Colquitt et al., 2007; Dirks & Ferrin, 2002).

As will be shown through the course of this literature review, there are several important avenues to explore in terms of leader selection, specifically, how non-cognitive testing, the primary focus of this assignment, is currently used, though limited in addressing the challenge of identifying the right leader for the right culture.

Given the limitations placed on this assignment by way of wordcount, the following will serve as a brief insight into a complex, multifaceted, and overlapping field of theories and concepts managed by intentionally selecting two examples of non-cognitive testing, anchored to a specific role, that of leadership. Explored in this assignment are texts related to non-cognitive testing formats, the Five Factor Model, (from here referenced as FFM) the HEXACO model, the Dark Triad, and leader culture-fit, alongside several additional concepts that support the exploration of how we recruit or promote people into leadership roles using non-cognitive testing.

Leadership Selection and The Role of Personality Psychology

Moye et al. (2017) highlight the important role of leadership in determining organisational success and draw attention to the significant costs incurred when ineffective leaders are appointed. Hollenbeck, (2009) highlights the relational nature of leadership, flagging an inability to manage relationships as being the primary cause of executive failure. Despite the widespread use of assessment tools designed to navigate leadership selection and development, the issue of leader derailment remains prevalent.

Derailment is typically characterised by leaders being dismissed, demoted, or failing to reach their anticipated potential. This challenge has been an ongoing concern since the 1970s, with reported rates ranging from 30% to 67% across various studies (Hollenbeck, 2009; Moye et al., 2017). This research suggests that current assessment approaches may not be sufficiently effective in identifying and cultivating successful leadership. Moye et al. (2017) argue that there remains considerable scope for enhancing how assessments are employed to reduce derailment rates and improve leadership outcomes. Indeed, several texts reviewed for the purpose of this assignment highlight important gaps in the current approach with particular reference to non-cognitive testing.

Personality psychology offers various models of non-cognitive testing, which assess personality traits, values, and other psychological attributes not directly related to cognitive abilities, towards the goal of understanding human traits, in this case, with particular relevance to predicting performance in roles in the workplace. Non-cognitive testing has been critiqued for the varying levels of predictive validity regarding job performance. However, they do score high in utility, and their widespread use can be attributed to the affordability and ease of administration at scale, which makes it a practical choice for many organisations (Morgeson et al., 2007), (Hogan, Hogan, and Kaiser, 2010).

Two significant contributions to the field are the FFM developed by Costa & McCrae (1985, 1992), who used factor-analytic approaches. Separately, Goldberg (1981, 1993) advanced a lexical approach, identifying similar personality dimensions. Ashton and Lee (2001, 2007) later developed the HEXACO model, expanding upon lexical studies and introducing Honesty-Humility as a distinct trait.

The Evolution of Personality Models: From the FFM to HEXACO

The FFM of personality, formalised by McCrae and Costa (1987, 1992), emerged from foundational research by Tupes and Christal (1961) and was later refined through contributions by Norman (1963), Digman (1990), and Goldberg (1990). This model, consisting of Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience, has become a prominent framework in personality psychology. Goldberg (1990) played a pivotal role in reinforcing the FFM through lexical analysis, demonstrating its cross-cultural stability and empirical robustness. However, despite its widespread use, criticism stands, regarding its ability to capture ethical and interpersonal dimensions (Ashton & Lee, 2007).

To address these limitations, Ashton et al. (2004) extended the FFM by introducing the HEXACO model, which includes a sixth factor, Honesty-Humility, and reconceptualises Agreeableness and Emotionality. This addition captures traits such as sincerity, fairness, and modesty, which were previously underrepresented in the FFM but are crucial for understanding ethical behaviour, relevant to leadership (Ashton & Lee, 2007). Cross-cultural research supports Honesty-Humility as a distinct dimension, particularly in its associations with prosocial tendencies and the Dark Triad traits of narcissism and Machiavellianism (Hilbig & Zettler, 2009).

In terms of predictive validity, the HEXACO model has been found to outperform the FFM in assessing workplace delinquency, sexual harassment, and unethical decision-making (Lee & Ashton, 2005; Ashton & Lee, 2008). Its inclusion of Honesty-Humility provides a more precise framework for evaluating leadership behaviours in ethical and complex situations (Lee & Ashton, 2012). Additionally, the HEXACO model aligns with evolutionary theories, such as reciprocal and kin altruism, offering a deeper theoretical foundation for understanding personality’s adaptive functions (Ashton, Lee, & Son, 2000). While the FFM remains widely used due to its efficiency and standardisation, HEXACO’s broader scope arguably enhances its applicability across diverse contexts, particularly in leadership and integrity-based assessments.

Limitations of the Five-Factor Model

Although the FFM is widely regarded as a reliable and valid model for assessing general personality traits, its predictive utility in explicit applied contexts remains debated, specifically, ethical behaviour and moral decision-making (McCrae & Costa, 2008). Moutafi, Furnham, and Tsaousis (2006) found that while the FFM is useful for broad personality descriptions, its ability to predict leadership performance is moderate, particularly when situational and contextual factors are not considered. The model’s reliance on stable trait dimensions may overlook the dynamic and evolving nature of personality expression in different environments, limiting its capacity in context-dependent scenarios.

The FFM's dependence on a lexical approach, based on identifying key personality traits through language, also invites several questions. One concern is whether all participants share a universal understanding of the words and phrases used in the development of the model. Cross-cultural, socio-economic, or educational standing creates differences in language use, and interpretation can introduce biases. As McCrae and Costa (1997) noted, the lexicon used to develop the FFM was largely derived from Western cultures which raises concerns about potential cultural bias in the model. This could limit its fairness and applicability in non-Western contexts, as personality traits may be framed differently across cultures.

Additionally, the FFM’s reliance on self-report questionnaires, which assess an individuals' awareness of their own traits and behaviours, introduces concerns about the reliability of the model. Furnham and Cheng (2000) highlighted that self-report measures are susceptible to biases such as social desirability and lack of self-insight and awareness, further undermining the reliability of the tool. Social awareness, or the ability to perceive and understand social dynamics, is not well captured by the FFM’s assessment format. This limitation makes it difficult to measure how a potential leader will react in complex, social contexts, which is a critical concern when applying the FFM to real-world selection scenarios.

There is arguably an oversimplification of human behaviour into five broad dimensions, which does not provide sufficient range for understanding how people may react in previously unexperienced complex, high-pressure situations. Block (1995) criticised this simplification, noting that it fails to capture the richness of personality and the situational variability in behaviour. This limitation is particularly relevant when considering the tool’s use in settings like leadership recruitment or promotion, where understanding nuanced behaviours and reactions under pressure is critical. Furthermore, the benign nature of many questions in the FFM, which lack contextual relevance, further detracts from its ability to predict future behaviour in real-world, high-stakes situations.

While Soto and John (2017), McCrae and Costa (1997), and Matthews et al. (2003) highlight the developmental dynamics, predictive value, and cross-cultural applicability of the FFM, they do not directly address criticisms of its reliability, cultural bias, or oversimplification. Their research supports the model’s validity over time but doesn’t resolve concerns about its limited scope in capturing complex human behaviour or its reliance on self-report measures, which affect reliability. While these studies emphasise the practical utility of the FFM, they complement rather than counter the earlier arguments about its shortcomings.

Limitations of the HEXACO Model

As with the FFM, the HEXACO model is also questionable in terms of oversimplification, western bias, and an inability to predict behaviours in complex and diverse settings. The HEXACO model, like the FFM, faces challenges with trait overlap within its own dimensions. For example, Honesty-Humility and Agreeableness share common aspects such as modesty and fairness, while Emotionality and Neuroticism overlap in traits related to anxiety and emotional instability (Lee & Ashton, 2008; Ashton & Lee, 2007). This overlap complicates the model's ability to maintain distinct, separate traits, which can impact the clarity and utility of personality assessments. While there are arguable developments that may serve personnel selection in leadership roles, there is a lack of clear development that addresses the limitations of the FFM.

The Shift Towards Narrow Personality Facets

Recent advancements in employee selection have increasingly emphasised the utility of personality questionnaires, particularly advocating for the use of narrow personality facets over broad factor-based models such as the above discussed, FFM and HEXACO (Hughes & Batey, 2017). Narrow facets, which refer to specific, lower-order traits within broader personality dimensions, have been shown to offer greater predictive validity—outperforming broad factors by two to six times when predicting job performance (Hughes & Batey, 2017; Hogan & Holland, 2003). This facet-level specificity addresses persistent critiques that generalised models like FFM and HEXACO lack the granularity required to capture the competencies and contextual demands of specific job roles (Ones & Viswesvaran, 1996). However, despite the superior predictive accuracy of narrow models, broad models remain popular in practice due to their efficiency and ease of standardisation, leaving a gap in optimising large-scale selection processes without sacrificing predictive precision.

Nevertheless, the shift toward narrow facets holds some challenges. Morgeson et al. (2007) note that increased specificity may heighten susceptibility to impression management and faking, compromising the authenticity of assessment results. Additionally, being over reliant on narrowly defined traits risks producing fragmented personality profiles that may overlook the hierarchical and integrative nature of personality (Roberts et al., 2014). Similar limitations can be observed in current applications of the Leader Culture-Fit Framework, which, while grounded in person–environment fit theory (Caplan, 1987; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005), may fail to account for the complexity of leadership behaviours when overly focused on discrete attributes. Although methodological principles such as parallel attributes, commensurate measures, and evaluative judgments improve alignment between leader traits and cultural values (Burns, Kotrba, & Denison, 2013; Edwards, 1991), there is still a need for further refinement to balance depth of assessment with broader leadership dynamics and adaptability.

Culture-Fit Leadership

Parallel to the narrow facet discourse, culture-fit leadership has gained prominence, with personality assessments used to align leader values and motives with organisational culture (Hughes & Batey, 2017). This approach has demonstrated benefits in enhancing leadership effectiveness, cohesion, and organisational performance (Nieminen, Biermeier-Hanson, & Denison, 2013; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). Yet, arguments remain, that an overemphasis on leader–culture congruence, seeking culture fit, rather than culture add, risks creating homogeneity, limiting diversity and innovation (Chatman & O’Reilly, 2016; van Dijk, van Engen, & Paauwe, 2012). Despite strong support for the predictive validity of narrow facets and culture-fit frameworks, current literature reveals critical gaps. Specifically, there is the need to refine broad factor models and leader–culture fit methodologies to integrate the benefits of nuanced trait measurement while mitigating concerns over authenticity, diversity, and long-term adaptability.

Conclusion and Opportunities

Future research may focus on developing hybrid models that maintain the attractive utility elements of non-cognitive testing while leveraging the predictive strengths of narrow facets and culture-fit strategies while addressing concerns over authenticity, diversity, and adaptability. The FFM and HEXACO models have scope for incremental validity, meaning they can be refined by integrating additional assessment methods, and potentially making use of new technologies. Combining non-cognitive testing with situational judgement tests (SJTs) or behavioural interviews for example, could significantly improve predictive validity in leadership selection (Lievens, Sackett, & De Corte, 2005; Weekley & Ployhart, 2006) (Klehe & Latham, 2006), however, the utility element would require further study. Broad factor models such as the FFM and HEXACO remain valuable but require refinement to balance depth of assessment with leadership dynamics.