Business-focused Inventory of Personality (BIP)

1. Abstract

The Business-focused Inventory of Personality (BIP)—originally developed in Germany as the Bochumer Inventar zur berufsbezogenen Persönlichkeitsbeschreibung by Rüdiger Hossiep and Michael Paschen—is a standardized, criterion-oriented psychometric instrument designed to assess non-pathological personality traits, motivational drivers, and behavioral styles specifically relevant to professional and organizational environments. Departing from general-purpose taxonomies such as the generic Five-Factor Model (FFM), the BIP contextualizes dispositional constructs within the daily demands of occupational life. The standard self-report form comprises 220 items organized into 14 primary scales subsumed under four overarching operational domains: Occupational Orientation (Achievement Motivation, Power Motivation, Leadership Motivation), Occupational Behaviors (Conscientiousness, Flexibility, Action Orientation), Social Competencies (Social Sensitivity, Openness to Contact, Sociability, Team Orientation, Assertiveness), and Psychological Constitution (Emotional Stability, Working under Pressure, Self-Confidence). Additionally, the instrument includes an Impression Management scale and several supplementary experimental scales (Sense of Control, Competitiveness, Mobility, and Time Orientation). Items are evaluated using a fully anchored 6-point Likert response format ranging from “completely true” to “completely untrue.” Psychometrically, the instrument exhibits acceptable to high internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha values typically ranging between .74 and .89 across primary scales) and stable test-retest reliability across multi-week and multi-month intervals. Construct and criterion validity have been substantiated through systematic correlations with external occupational benchmarks, including managerial rank, salary trajectory, objective work outcomes, self-other agreement indices, and established general personality inventories such as the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-R). The BIP is widely utilized internationally in executive assessment, personnel selection, leadership development, coaching, and career counseling.

2. Keywords

Business-focused Inventory of Personality, BIP, Bochumer Inventar zur berufsbezogenen Persönlichkeitsbeschreibung, work-related personality, personnel selection, occupational orientation, social competencies, leadership assessment, psychometrics, contextualized personality assessment

3. Authors

The Business-focused Inventory of Personality was conceptualized and developed by Dr. Rüdiger Hossiep and Dr. Michael Paschen at the Ruhr-Universität Bochum in Germany:

• Dr. Rüdiger Hossiep: Senior Academic Director and Head of the Project Team for Test Development (Projektteam Testentwicklung) at the Faculty of Psychology, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Bochum, Germany. Dr. Hossiep is a recognized specialist in occupational psychology, psychometrics, personnel assessment, and diagnostic development for organizational settings.
• Dr. Michael Paschen: Industrial and organizational psychologist, consultant, and executive coach. Dr. Paschen has held senior leadership roles in management consultancies and corporate human resource development, contributing extensively to applied diagnostic methodologies and executive appraisal systems.

The standard test forms, standardization data, and international adaptations (including British English, American English, French, Italian, and other European translations) are published and distributed internationally by Hogrefe Publishing Group (Hogrefe Verlag).

4. Purpose

The fundamental purpose of the Business-focused Inventory of Personality (BIP) is to systematically evaluate personality dimensions, occupational values, and behavioral dispositions that directly influence job performance, managerial efficacy, interpersonal collaboration, and career progression. While classical instruments like the NEO-PI-R or the MBTI measure personality across broad, non-contextualized life domains, the BIP was engineered to bridge the conceptual and ecological gap between general trait psychology and the functional demands of modern corporate settings.

Organizational and Applied Applications

In applied settings, the BIP fulfills several critical organizational mandates:

• Personnel Selection and Placement: Providing validated diagnostic profiles to evaluate job-person fit (P-O fit and P-J fit) for specialist, managerial, and executive positions. The context-specific framing of items mitigates applicant skepticism and enhances face validity.
• Executive Coaching and Talent Development: Identifying an individual’s developmental blind spots, interpersonal frictions, and coping reserves. Feedback profiles enable targeted coaching interventions centered on behavioral self-regulation and managerial competencies.
• Succession Planning and Assessment Centers: Supplementing behavioral simulations, group exercises, and competency-based interviews with standardized normative data on dispositional drives and psychological resilience.
• Career Counseling and Outplacement: Assisting individuals in aligning their intrinsic motivational hierarchies (e.g., leadership motivation vs. operational autonomy) with appropriate corporate cultures and vocational paths.

Theoretical and Practical Rationale

The theoretical rationale rests on empirical findings in Industrial and Organizational (I-O) Psychology demonstrating that personality inventories framed with occupational reference points (known as “contextualization” or “frame-of-reference effects”) yield higher criterion-related validity than generic, decontextualized personality questionnaires. By prompting candidates with scenarios and self-evaluations firmly anchored in professional interactions, workplace deadlines, and leadership dilemmas, the BIP reduces frame-of-reference ambiguity, stabilizes construct validity, and demonstrates higher predictive power for workplace criteria such as task performance, organizational citizenship behaviors, and vocational tenure.

5. Psychological Construct

The BIP conceptualizes occupational personality as a multi-tiered architecture of dispositional tendencies, motivational orientations, behavioral habits, and emotional self-regulation capacities. The 14 primary scales are grouped into four core domains, supported by an impression management index and several supplementary scales.

Domain 1: Occupational Orientation (Berufliche Orientierung)

This domain captures the fundamental motivational engines and internal aspirations driving career progression:

• Achievement Motivation (Leistungsmotivation): Gauges the respondent’s internal aspiration toward excellence, continuous self-improvement, and the willingness to tackle demanding work targets. High scorers continuously evaluate their performance against elevated standards, whereas low scorers prefer stable, predictable requirements without continuous competitive pressure.
• Power Motivation (Gestaltungsmotivation): Assesses the desire to exert strategic influence, shape organizational processes, direct resources, and leave an impact on the working environment. High scorers actively seek institutional leverage and decision-making authority.
• Leadership Motivation (Führungsmotivation): Reflects the explicit willingness and intrinsic desire to assume managerial responsibility, direct subordinates, coordinate group efforts, and take accountability for the collective outputs of a team.

Domain 2: Occupational Behaviors (Berufliches Handeln)

This domain evaluates operational execution, problem-solving persistence, and adaptive execution under real-world workplace constraints:

• Conscientiousness (Gewissenhaftigkeit): Measures precision, diligence, structural adherence, dependability, and meticulous attention to qualitative detail in occupational duties. High scorers demonstrate rigorous organization and duty orientation; extremely high scorers may risk excessive perfectionism.
• Flexibility (Flexibilität): Measures an individual’s openness to change, readiness to adapt to shifting workplace priorities, comfort with ambiguity, and tolerance for structural reorganization.
• Action Orientation (Handlungsorientierung): Reflects the decisiveness and rapid conversion of plans into concrete operational implementation. It captures the speed of initiating tasks and the mental resilience needed to overcome cognitive hesitation or paralysis by analysis.

Domain 3: Social Competencies (Soziale Kompetenzen)

This domain encompasses the interpersonal faculties essential for collaborative success, organizational politics, and team synergy:

• Social Sensitivity (Sensitivität): Gauges emotional empathy, diplomatic tact, perceptive awareness of organizational micro-climates, and the ability to accurately interpret the non-verbal and emotional states of colleagues and clients.
• Openness to Contact (Kontaktfähigkeit): Measures the proactive behavioral tendency to establish initial interactions with strangers, cultivate professional networks, and expand business contacts.
• Sociability (Geselligkeit): Assesses the preference for constant interpersonal exchange, friendliness, warmth, and the enjoyment of team-based affiliation versus isolated autonomous working styles.
• Team Orientation (Teamorientierung): Reflects cooperative intent, willingness to subordinate individual egoistic priorities to collective team goals, and trust in shared group efforts.
• Assertiveness (Durchsetzungsstärke): Measures interpersonal firmness, rhetorical determination, and the readiness to defend organizational positions, negotiate rigorously, and manage conflict constructively even when encountering resistance.

Domain 4: Psychological Constitution (Psychische Konstitution)

This domain measures emotional resilience, mental stamina, and inner psychological balance under occupational friction:

• Emotional Stability (Emotionale Stabilität): Assesses subjective equanimity, resistance to psychosomatic strain, and recovery from professional setbacks without persistent anxiety, depressive rumination, or volatile emotional outbursts.
• Working under Pressure (Belastbarkeit): Measures functional performance preservation in the presence of acute deadlines, high workload volume, operational disruptions, and concurrent crisis scenarios.
• Self-Confidence (Selbstbewusstsein): Measures positive self-worth, belief in one’s competence to overcome professional hurdles, and poise when executing difficult tasks in the presence of critical observers.

Impression Management and Supplementary Dimensions

The BIP contains an integrated Impression Management Scale (Testverfälschung / Soziale Erwünschtheit) designed to detect intentional or semi-conscious positive self-presentation, faking good, or excessive socially desirable responding. Furthermore, supplementary experimental dimensions examine Sense of Control (internal versus external attribution of success/failure), Competitiveness (drive to outperform peers), Mobility (geographic and functional flexibility), and Time Orientation (long-term strategic planning vs. short-term tactical focus).

6. Theoretical Framework

The architectural foundation of the BIP synthesizes several prominent paradigms within cognitive, social, and industrial-organizational psychology.

1. Contextualized Trait Theory and Frame-of-Reference (FoR) Effects

Classical personality theories typically conceptualize traits as broad, unconditional behavioral dispositions across all living contexts (e.g., Big Five traits: Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Neuroticism). However, the theoretical model underlying the BIP draws heavily on the Frame-of-Reference (FoR) approach (Lievens, De Corte, & Schollaert, 2008; Hunthausen et al., 2003). When an item asks whether an individual is “sociable” or “detail-oriented” in general life, respondents retrieve mixed mental schemas ranging from domestic environments to social gatherings. By embedding explicitly occupational situational anchors (e.g., “When working under severe organizational deadlines…”), the BIP activates an occupational frame-of-reference, dramatically minimizing error variance caused by idiosyncratic context retrieval.

2. The Five-Factor Model (FFM) Adaptation

The structural mapping of the BIP maintains deep alignment with the FFM, while reconfiguring broad factors into actionable, compound occupational competencies:

• Neuroticism vs. Emotional Stability maps onto the BIP’s Psychological Constitution domain (Emotional Stability, Working under Pressure, Self-Confidence).
• Extraversion is disaggregated into operational workplace components: proactive networking (Openness to Contact), collaborative fellowship (Sociability), and drive for social influence (Leadership Motivation).
• Conscientiousness is refined into structural diligence (Conscientiousness) and executive delivery speed (Action Orientation).
• Agreeableness is bifurcated to balance cooperative team cohesion (Team Orientation) against necessary workplace competitiveness and boundary management (Assertiveness).

3. Trait Activation Theory and Need Theories of Motivation

The BIP operates under the postulates of Trait Activation Theory (Tett & Burnett, 2003), which posits that personality traits translate into observable work behavior only when situational cues provide relevant opportunities or demands. Furthermore, its Occupational Orientation domain directly incorporates David McClelland’s Trichotomy of Needs (Needs for Achievement, Affiliation, and Power), operationalizing these fundamental implicit and explicit motivational vectors into explicit work-related behavioral tendencies.

7. Validity

The psychometric validity of the BIP has been extensively scrutinized across various organizational cohorts, independent validation samples, and meta-analytic reviews.

Construct and Convergent Validity

Studies investigating convergent validity demonstrate robust correlations between the BIP scales and conceptually adjacent markers of standardized personality tools:

• BIP Emotional Stability, Working under Pressure, and Self-Confidence correlate strongly and inversely with NEO-PI-R Neuroticism (coefficients ranging from $r = -.58$ to $r = -.71$).
• BIP Conscientiousness aligns positively with NEO-PI-R Conscientiousness ($r = .59$ to $.68$).
• BIP Openness to Contact and Sociability exhibit convergent correlations with Extraversion facets ($r = .52$ to $.65$).
• BIP Assertiveness and Power Motivation correlate positively with measures of Dominance and Power ($r = .48$ to $.60$) on scales like the Jackson Personality Inventory (JPI).

Criterion-Related and Predictive Validity

Criterion validation studies published in the technical manuals and independent peer-reviewed literature indicate significant relationships between BIP scale scores and extrinsic career metrics:

• Hierarchical Advancement and Executive Rank: Leadership Motivation, Assertiveness, and Working under Pressure consistently differentiate between middle-management and upper-executive tiers, with higher-level leaders scoring significantly higher (Cohen’s $d$ ranging from $0.45$ to $0.80$).
• Objective Salary Benchmarks: In multi-thousand employee samples, scale composites involving Achievement Motivation, Power Motivation, and Emotional Stability demonstrate statistically significant correlations with annualized compensation, holding age and tenure constant ($r = .22$ to $.36, p < .001$).
• Job Performance Ratings: Meta-analytic evaluations of contextualized personality assessments (including the BIP) reflect operational validities ($
  ho$) for predicting overall managerial and specialist job performance in the range of$.25$ to $.38$, substantially outperforming generic non-contextualized Big Five inventories.

Self-Other Agreement

The BIP provides an Observer-Report form (consisting of 42 items, 3 per primary scale). Empirical examinations of multi-source ratings (comparing self-assessments with peer, supervisor, and direct-report ratings) report convergent validity correlations between self-ratings and observer-ratings ranging between $r = .35$ and $r = .58$. Inter-rater agreement is highest for observable, expressive social traits (e.g., Assertiveness, Sociability) and comparatively lower for internalized emotional states (e.g., Emotional Stability, Sensitivität).

Critical Psychometric Considerations

Despite strong criterion performance, psychometric critiques exist (e.g., Prewett, Tett, & Christiansen, 2013). Reviewers have noted that in some early validation studies, criteria were heavily reliant on concurrent, self-reported occupational variables rather than longitudinal objective performance metrics. Furthermore, while marketed as a leadership diagnostic, independent scholars have cautioned that the inventory captures generalized managerial behavioral tendencies rather than specialized, advanced leadership paradigms (such as transformational or servant leadership).

8. Reliability

The BIP exhibits robust empirical reliability indices across both the standard German normative samples and international adaptations.

Internal Consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha)

Across the 14 primary scales, internal consistency values typically conform to high psychometric standards for non-clinical diagnostic inventories. In the comprehensive standardization samples ($N > 9,000$ in German norms; $N > 1,200$ in UK English standardization samples), Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) coefficients are distributed as follows:

• Occupational Orientation: Achievement Motivation ($lpha = .81 – .84$), Power Motivation ($lpha = .78 – .82$), Leadership Motivation ($lpha = .83 – .87$).
• Occupational Behaviors: Conscientiousness ($lpha = .79 – .83$), Flexibility ($lpha = .74 – .79$), Action Orientation ($lpha = .78 – .83$).
• Social Competencies: Social Sensitivity ($lpha = .76 – .81$), Openness to Contact ($lpha = .84 – .88$), Sociability ($lpha = .79 – .83$), Team Orientation ($lpha = .77 – .82$), Assertiveness ($lpha = .80 – .85$).
• Psychological Constitution: Emotional Stability ($lpha = .84 – .88$), Working under Pressure ($lpha = .82 – .86$), Self-Confidence ($lpha = .81 – .85$).
• Impression Management Scale: Displays internal consistency ranging from $lpha = .71$ to $.77$.

Test-Retest Reliability (Temporal Stability)

Test-retest stability coefficients ($r_{tt}$) evaluated over intervals ranging from four weeks to six months demonstrate notable temporal consistency, confirming that the instrument assesses stable dispositional traits rather than transient emotional states:

• Short-term intervals (4 to 8 weeks): Test-retest correlations fall within the range of $r_{tt} = .80$ to $.89$.
• Medium- to long-term intervals (6 months to 1 year): Stability coefficients remain robust between $r_{tt} = .71$ and $.81$, consistent with general personality longitudinal literature.

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Given the high reliability of the individual scales, the Standard Error of Measurement is appropriately constrained, allowing practitioners to calculate reliable confidence intervals around individual stanine and sten scores during executive profiling.

9. Factor Analysis

The dimensional architecture of the BIP was derived through an iterative sequence of exploratory factor analyses (EFA) and subsequently confirmed via structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Scale Construction

During test construction, an initial item pool of 315 items was generated based on extensive literature analysis, pilot testing, and expert focus groups involving human resource directors and industrial psychologists. Principal Component and Common Factor Analyses with oblique (Promax/Oblimin) rotations yielded clear factor demarcations, isolating 14 distinct, theoretically cohesive sub-dimensions while eliminating items exhibiting severe cross-loadings ($> .30$ on non-target factors) or low primary loadings ($< .35$). This resulted in the standard 14-scale model.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Confirmatory factor analytical investigations typically evaluate both the 14 primary first-order factors and higher-order structural configurations:

• First-Order Model: A 14-factor CFA model demonstrates acceptable to good fit indices across adult working samples (Comparative Fit Index $[ ext{CFI}] ge .90 – .93$; Tucker-Lewis Index $[ ext{TLI}] ge .89 – .92$; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation $[ ext{RMSEA}] le .045 – .055$; Standardized Root Mean Square Residual $[ ext{SRMR}] le .052$).
• Higher-Order 4-Domain Structure: Fitting the 14 primary scales into the theoretical four broad second-order domains (Occupational Orientation, Occupational Behaviors, Social Competencies, Psychological Constitution) confirms substantial inter-scale cohesion, though certain scales (e.g., Assertiveness and Leadership Motivation) exhibit cross-domain structural ties, reflecting the empirical interplay between interpersonal dominance and motivational orientation.

Structural Relationship to Big Five Taxonomy

Joint factor analyses of the BIP alongside the Big Five reveal that while BIP factors align meaningfully with the classic five dimensions, the BIP extracts distinct variance specific to corporate contexts. The factors Leadership Motivation and Power Motivation load onto a composite “Agency/Dominance” factor that is far more pronounced than in general personality inventories, confirming the diagnostic utility of contextualized scale structuring.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The BIP is a professionally administered, structured psychometric tool available in digital and paper-and-pencil formats.

Structural Specifications

• Test Type: Contextualized, self-report and observer-report personality and motivational inventory.
• Target Population: Working adults, specialists, managers, and executives aged 20 and above.
• Administration Modality: Online via the Hogrefe Testsystem (HTS), computer-based localized testing, or traditional paper-and-pencil booklets. Group or individual administration.
• Completion Time: Approximately 35 to 45 minutes for the standard self-report form; 10 to 15 minutes for the observer-report form.

Item Count and Scale Distribution

• Full Self-Report Version: Approximately 210 to 220 items depending on the specific national adaptation (original German 2nd edition: 210 items; British/international version: 220 items).
• Scale Breakdown: 14 primary scales containing between 12 and 18 items per scale; 1 Impression Management validity scale (approx. 10–14 items); 4 supplementary exploratory scales (Sense of Control, Competitiveness, Mobility, Time Orientation).
• Observer-Report Version: 42 items (3 high-loading marker items selected per primary scale).

Response Scale

• Self-Report Anchors: Fully anchored 6-point Likert scale:
  • 1 = Completely untrue (trifft überhaupt nicht zu)
  • 2 = Mostly untrue (trifft weitgehend nicht zu)
  • 3 = Rather untrue (trifft eher nicht zu)
  • 4 = Rather true (trifft eher zu)
  • 5 = Mostly true (trifft weitgehend zu)
  • 6 = Completely true (trifft vollkommen zu)

  Note: The use of an even 6-point scale deliberately prevents a neutral midpoint bias, compelling respondents to evaluate behavioral alignment.

• Observer-Report Anchors: 9-point semantic differential scale ranging from 1 to 9.

Scoring and Normative Transformations

• Item Keying: Items are balanced between positively and negatively keyed statements to counter acquiescence bias. Negatively worded items are reverse-scored prior to aggregation.
• Standard Scores: Raw scale scores are calculated and converted into standardized normative scores: Standard Nine (Stanine, mean = 5, SD = 2) or Standard Ten (Sten, mean = 5.5, SD = 2) scores.
• Reference Norms: Comprehensive normative tables are provided for representative adult working populations, as well as specific stratification groups (e.g., executive norms, administrative norms, functional area norms, and gender-specific tables).
• Profile Interpretation: Results are graphed into visual competency profiles highlighting personal strengths, potential developmental risks, and alignment with target job competency benchmarks.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Business-focused Inventory of Personality is a commercial, copyrighted psychometric tool protected by international intellectual property laws.

Publication Timeline

• 1998: First official German edition published by Hogrefe Verlag (Göttingen, Germany) as the Bochumer Inventar zur berufsbezogenen Persönlichkeitsbeschreibung (BIP).
• 2003: Second expanded and revised German edition published.
• 2006–Present: International adaptations published, including the British English edition (Hogrefe Ltd), French, Danish, Italian, Czech, and American English research adaptations.

Licensing, Permissions, and Qualification Requirements

• Publisher & Copyright: Hogrefe Publishing Group. All rights reserved.
• Purchase and Administration Fees: The BIP is a commercial instrument. Users must purchase official test booklets, scoring keys, or electronic administration credits via the Hogrefe Testsystem (HTS). Costs vary by jurisdiction, quantity, and selected reporting tier (e.g., standard profile report vs. narrative leadership interpretive report).
• User Qualification Level: Controlled under test purchase qualification standards (typically Level B or equivalent qualification in occupational testing). Buyers must hold a recognized degree in psychology, organizational behavior, or related fields, or possess certified training in psychometric testing accredited by professional bodies (e.g., British Psychological Society [BPS], European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations [EFPA]).
• Academic Research Permissions: University researchers and postgraduate students may apply to the publisher for academic discounts or specialized research administration licenses under strict non-commercial research agreements.

12. References

The following peer-reviewed articles, books, and psychometric monographs provide foundational validation and theoretical perspectives regarding the Business-focused Inventory of Personality and contextualized occupational personality assessment:

• Connelly, B. S., & Ones, D. S. (2010). An other perspective on personality: Meta-analytic integration of observers’ accuracy and predictive validity. Psychological Bulletin, 136(6), 1092–1122. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020712
• Connolly, J. J., Kavanagh, E. J., & Viswesvaran, C. (2007). The convergent validity between self- and observer ratings of personality: A meta-analytic review. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15(1), 110–117. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2007.00371.x
• Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H. G. (2006). The International Personality Item Pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(1), 84–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007
• Grucza, R. A., & Goldberg, L. R. (2007). The comparative validity of 11 modern personality inventories: Predictions of behavioral acts, informant reports, and clinical indicators. Journal of Personality Assessment, 89(2), 167–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890701468568
• Hossiep, R., & Paschen, M. (2003). Bochumer Inventar zur berufsbezogenen Persönlichkeitsbeschreibung (BIP) (2. überarbeitete und neu normierte Aufl.). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
• Hunthausen, J. M., Truxillo, D. M., Bauer, T. N., & Hammer, L. B. (2003). A field study of frame-of-reference effects on personality test validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 545–551. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.545
• Joseph, D. L., Jin, J., Newman, D. A., & O’Boyle, E. H. (2015). Why does self-reported emotional intelligence predict job performance? A meta-analytic investigation of mixed EI. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(2), 298–342. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037681
• Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 530–541. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.530
• Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The big five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52(3), 621–652. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1999.tb00174.x
• Lievens, F., De Corte, W., & Schollaert, E. (2008). In search of the core of contextualized personality inventories: The role of Frame-of-Reference instructions and items. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 107(2), 205–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.02.006
• Munyon, T. P., Summers, J. K., Thompson, K. M., & Ferris, G. R. (2015). Political skill and work outcomes: A theoretical extension, meta-analytic investigation, and agenda for the future. Personnel Psychology, 68(1), 143–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12066
• Prewett, M. S., Tett, R. P., & Christiansen, N. D. (2013). A review and comparison of 12 personality inventories on key psychometric characteristics. In N. D. Christiansen & R. P. Tett (Eds.), Handbook of personality at work (pp. 191–225). Routledge.
• Schyns, B., & Schilling, J. (2013). How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta-analysis of destructive leadership and its outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 138–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.09.001
• Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 500–517. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.500

13. Items of the Scale