John Lutz - Pilot Study Five Factor Model Profiles as Predictors for Derailer Behavior

Running head: PILOT: PREDICTING DERAILER BEHAVIORS USING BIG 5 PROFILES 1
Pilot Study: Identifying Five Factor Model Profiles as Predictors for Derailer Behaviors
John Lutz
Queens University of Charlotte
Author note
This paper was written for the McColl School of Business MSOD program, fall 2015.
Contact: jlutziv@gmail.com, 518-248-4132
© Copyright, 2015 by John Lutz. All rights reserved.

PILOT: PREDICTING DERAILER BEHAVIORS USING BIG 5 PROFILES 2
Abstract
Executive derailment holds severe consequences for both the manager that derails and the
organization that he derails in. The purpose of this pilot effort was to identify five factor model
personality profiles that correspond to workplace behaviors that lead to leadership derailment.
Data was collected from students from the McColl School of Business at Queens University of
Charlotte that were administered a five factor model profile assessment and a 360-feedback
instrument focused on derailer behaviors. A five factor model profile was derived for each of the
19 derailer behaviors proposed by the Center for Creative Leadership. Limitations in sample
population, instrument response, and lack of support in the literature limit the accuracy of the
identified personality profiles as predictors for derailer behaviors. This pilot is the first study to
seek empirical evidence of specific five factor model profile predictors for derailer behaviors.
Keywords: Executive derailment, preventing derailment, five factor model, workplace
behavior, Workplace Big 5 Profile, Schoolplace Big 5 Profile, Derailer 360

Pilot Study: Identifying Five Factor Model Profiles as Predictors for Derailer Behaviors
In modern speech, the term derailment conjures severe images. How can such a harsh
term be used to describe an occurrence in a manager’s career? In the same manner as an engine
can go careening off of its rails, so too can an aspiring manager find his or herself displaced from
their meteoric rise through an organization. This career derailment can be just as violent as its
namesake, individuals who have experienced naught but success as they progress in their career
can collide with the immovable, when they are perceived to not have the ability to do the job that
they have been promoted to do.
The individual manager derails themselves (Lombardo & Eichinger, 1989), as in the
individual is the root cause of their derailment; however, it is often a group within their
organization that perceives that they cannot meet the requirements of their current position and
make the decision to remove the manager from the position, demote them, or to prevent their
further promotion (Lombardo & Eichinger, 1989; Leslie & Van Velsor, 1996). Derailment
occurs not when a manager is placed in a no-win situation or when that manager betrays
organizational trust by committing fraud or breaches of integrity, rather, it occurs when that
manager’s behaviors do not align with the requirements of the situation that manager has been
placed in. Furthermore, derailment is not simply the act of getting passed over for a promotion
when the opportunity arises, it occurs when a manager can absolutely go no further in an
organization, even if they were expected to. As a manager rises through the ranks of his or her
organization, the stakes change, and there is considerably less room for error; which can increase
the likelihood of derailment occurring (Lombardo & Eichinger, 1989).
As early as the 1960s, the idea that an executive’s behavior can impact his or her
effectiveness was in popular literature and thinking. Peter Drucker’s 1967 book, The Effective

Executive, promoted the idea that there was not a cookie cutter form for an effective executive
manager and that the individual’s behavior when facing adversity would dictate their ability to be
effective (Drucker, 1967). Also in the latter half of the twentieth century, work by individual
researchers and consultants, and institutions such as the Center for Creative Leadership (CCL)
led to the identification of specific behaviors that can cause managers to derail. While derailment
attributed to the individual can be quite severe, managers can be proactive in preventing their
own derailment by recognizing and addressing potential derailer behaviors before things go
wrong. Identifying these derailer behaviors can be accomplished through assessment and
receiving feedback.
As successful managers are generally told exactly what they are doing right and not what
they are doing wrong, self-evaluation can be biased, even unintentionally (Gentry, Braddy,
Fleenor, & Howard, 2008). Three hundred and sixty degrees of feedback are recommended as
tools for managers to understand how their behavior is perceived by those around them
(Lombardo & Eichinger, 1989). Access to complete feedback allows for the exposure of
potential blind spots as well as reinforcement of goals the manager may already be working
towards developing.
Identifying an individual’s current attitudes towards the derailer behaviors could have an
immediate impact on how that individual understands the way that others perceive them.
Additional value could be added to a manager’s development by being able to predict how likely
they were to lean towards a derailer behavior in the future. Identifying potential predictors for
derailer behaviors is the purpose of this work.
The effort of identifying derailer behavior predictors will be accomplished by providing a
review of the literature on derailment behaviors and how personality can drive workplace

behavior, providing a detailed description of the methodology employed in this study, presenting
the study’s findings, discussing the results derived from those findings, discussing the limitations
inherent to this effort, and the next steps for research on this concentration.
Literature Review
In relation to the vast body of literature on leadership, the volume of work focused solely
on leadership derailment is minimal. This review will focus on several topics present in the
literature reviewed. These topics are: the definition of derailment, the causes of derailment,
preventing derailment, personality as a driver for derailment, the five factor model of personality,
and personality as a predictor for derailment behaviors. Although the literature presents these
topics in a variety of contexts, this review will focus on relating these topics to the relationship
between derailment and personality.
Defining Derailment
In an effort to better understand the concept of derailment, an operable definition must
first be established. The exact definition of derailment, mainly in who derailment can apply to,
evolved somewhat through the progression of the literature. Early thinking in the field of derailer
research promoted a narrow definition of derailment (Kovach, 1986; Lombardo & McCall,
1983). According to Lombardo and Eichinger (1989), derailment, by definition, was “reserved
for that group of fast-track managers who want to go on, who are slated to go on, but who are
knocked off the track. “Such managers [that derail] are demoted, plateaued early, or fired” (p. 1).
As work in the field continued, the scope of the definition grew to not only include those
executives who were on the fast track but also managers who have reached “at least the general
manager level” (Leslie & Van Velsor, 1996, p. 1).

Leslie and Van Velsor (1996) also further expanded the definition of derailment to a
derailed manager being one who leaves the organization against their will or who has plateaued
(during their ascension through the organization). Leslie and Van Velsor propose, in their
definition of derailment, that the manager being forced out of the organization or who has been
plateaued was in that position due to a “perceived lack of fit between personal characteristics and
skills and demands of the job” (p. 1).
Current literature favors an even broader definition of derailment in terms of who can
derail and at what level. Recent articles do not limit derailment to fast tracking executives or to
individuals at the general manager level; recent thinking suggests that derailment can occur for
any leader or manager who faces a changing status quo or transition in responsibilities (Carson,
Shanock, Heggestad, Andrew, Pugh, Walter, 2012; Martin & Gentry, 2011; Lipkin, 2013). The
operational definition of derailment used in this study is most closely related to the contemporary
definition; for the purpose of this study, derailment is not limited to those on the fast track but
any individual facing a situation requiring new behaviors.
Why Derailment Occurs
Alongside the concept of what derailment is, the causes of derailment also emerge in the
literature. The early thinking in the field, which limited derailment to fast track managers and
executives, asserts that derailment was caused by common themes that arose and hampered
executive effectiveness in adverse situations. McCall and Lombardo (1983) compared groups of
executives who derailed with a group of executives who succeeded. From that comparison,
McCall and Lombardo identified twelve shortcomings and behaviors on behalf of the individual
which led to derailment. These twelve reasons included skill shortcomings, behaviors such as
aloofness and arrogance, and situational shortcomings such as performance problems and

burnout (McCall & Lombardo, 1983). Along with their reasons for derailment, McCall and
Lombardo also asserted that derailment can occur when a behavior that was considered a
strength became a weakness, an idea which was carried forward into many other works in the
field (Lombardo & Eichinger, 1989; Lombardo, Ruderman, & McCauley, 1988; McCall &
Lombardo, 1983).
In Bentz’s (1985) work with executives from the Sears Corporation, he also cites
shortcomings on behalf of the executive as the major causes of derailment, including the lack of
certain skills (administration, disciplined judgement, and business knowledge), the inability to
cope, the failure to lead or influence, and overriding personality defects (an early allusion to
personality driving workplace behavior). The inclusion of the idea that a personality defect can
cause leadership derailment speaks to the concept that a manager can be highly skilled and
capable but may not possess the full range of capabilities allowing effective response to the
environmental changes which accompany a transition to a different level of management.
Echoing the assertion of Lombardo & McCall, Kovach, in her 1986 work identified two
major reasons for why executives derail, behavioral characteristics that lead to early success but
hinder at executive levels and the failure to acquire the necessary personal power to lead and
influence groups of people in large organizations (p. 45). Kovach expands on these two themes
by providing a linkage to leadership development theory and by asserting that the organization
also plays a part in keeping those leaders on track (1986). Kovach’s work is unique in the early
literature on derailment in that it identifies the difference between the fast track and an apparent
fast track that aspiring managers are placed on; those on the fast track are nurtured but for those
on the apparent fast track, the organization does not provide shooting stars with the necessary
tools to develop and thus do not help prevent derailment (p. 47).

Lombardo, Ruderman, and McCauley (1988) utilized the reasons for derailment
developed by previous authors in the field to develop the Executive Inventory Scale (EIS) which
consolidated the previously identified causes of derailment. The scales created for the EIS were:
handling business complexity, handling of subordinates, honor, personal drive for excellence,
organizational savvy, composure, sensitivity, and staffing (Lombardo, Ruderman, & McCauley,
1988, p. 210). The results of Lombardo’s, et al, work indicated that not only did these themes
provide a reason for why individuals derailed, but they could be also be used to predict
derailment (Lombardo, et al, 1988, p. 211).
Lombardo and Eichinger’s 1989 work, Preventing Derailment, identifies that derailment
occurs when an individual faces a new situation with old behaviors (p. 3). Lombardo and
Eichinger also echo the important assertion that derailment is preventable and that those in
danger of derailment can be helped if potential derailment behaviors are recognized. Lombardo
and Eichinger further reinforce that early strengths can become weaknesses and can cause an
individual to “slide into trouble” if the individual does not remain attentive to the changing
demands of a new position (1989, p. 8). The Lombardo and Eichinger 1989 work also presents a
list of derailment reasons or behaviors which are the basis for the nineteen derailer behaviors (or
career stallers and stoppers) that are presented in their work, For Your Improvement (Lombardo
& Eichinger, 1996). The nineteen derailer behaviors presented in For Your Improvement are the
basis for the Derailer 360 test instrument used in this study. Lombardo and Eichinger’s (1996)
nineteen derailer behaviors are
 inability to adapt to differences
 poor administrative skills
 overly ambitious

 arrogance
 betrayal of trust
 blocked personal learner
 lack of composure
 defensiveness
 lack of ethics and values
 failure to build a team
 failure to staff effectively
 insensitive to others
 key skill deficiencies
 non-strategic thinker
 overdependence on an advocate
 overdependence on a single skill
 over-managing
 performance problems
 political missteps.
Lombardo and Eichinger’s 1989 work also supports the effectiveness of 360 degree
feedback for helping individuals identify potential derailer behaviors, and, like Kovach (1986)
supports the thinking in the field that increasing the variety of experience for managers can
reduce the potential for derailment.
In 1995, Leslie and Van Velsor, also from the CCL, produced a work inquiring as to if
the reasons for derailment had changed from the studies conducted earlier in the twentieth
century; furthermore they compared causes of derailment in both North American and European

leaders. Leslie and Van Velsor’s findings indicated that the majority of reasons for derailment
remained similar to previous reasons with the exception of the prevalence of an overdependence
on a mentor and a reframing of the concept of derailment due to differences with management
(1996, p. 32). Derailing due to mentor over-dependency was still cited as a possibility due to the
impact that mentors can have on aspiring managers and that differences with management could
translate into derailment by failure to adapt with organizational culture or changes in the
organizational environment (Leslie & Van Velsor, 1996). Another notable aspect of Leslie and
Van Velsor’s work was the assertion that derailment did not necessarily mean the end, that the
derailed individual can move on and recover; mainly by using the derailment as a learning
experience for future endeavors (1996, p. 1).
Lois Frankel’s 1994 article, Preventing Individual’s Career Derailment, cites research
conducted by the CCL as the basis of her work on derailment and asserts that derailment occurs
when situational requirements change but the individual’s behaviors do not. Frankel also makes
the assertion that promotions are not the only reason that an individual’s behaviors may not
match the situation, changes in organizational culture and lateral or physical moves could also
have a causal effect (1994, p. 298). Frankel suggests executive coaching as a method of helping
individuals identify and address potential derailer behaviors; for further reading on coaching as a
reformative measure for derailment, Alix Felsing of Queens University of Charlotte conducted
extensive research and reported her findings in her 2014 capstone project (2014).
In the literature the broadening of the definition or scope of who can derail does not cause
an apparent departure from the assertion of why derailment occurs. The early writings in the field
discuss derailment occurring when a manager’s or executive’s responsibilities change in such a
way that the individual is not prepared for nor is capable of effectively carrying out those new

responsibilities (Bentz, 1985; Kovach, 1986; Lombardo & McCall, 1983; Lombardo &
Eichinger, 1989). Echoing Frankel’s assertion that promotions are not the only cause for the
conditions of derailment to occur, the idea that derailment can occur for managers or leaders at
any level in an organization illuminates the fact that the individual’s inability to effectively
respond to changes in responsibilities or demands of a position is what fundamentally leads to
derailment (Carson, et al, 2012; Lombardo, Ruderman, McCauley, 1988; Martin & Gentry,
2010).
Building upon the broadening of scope for who can be affected by derailment, Shipper
and Dillard (2000) researched the impact of derailment across different phases of an individual’s
career. Shipper and Dillard supported CCL thinking that derailment was caused by workplace
behaviors; specifically they asserted that derailment was the result of the lack of effectiveness
concerning skills that are broken up into two categories, up-front skills and managerial skills
(2000). Shipper and Dillard do assert that derailment can be prevented and recovery can be
fostered through increasing the manager’s self-awareness and capabilities (2000, p. 341).
Just as the subject of leadership made its way into the realm of popular media, so too has
derailment; popular, non-academic, sources tend to treat derailment with relatively broad net
encompassing leadership failure. The causes of derailment cited by some authors can still be
related to the themes developed by CCL and other researchers. For example, derailment is given
causation from the derailment behaviors of being too busy to win, too proud to see, and being too
afraid to lose (Lipkin, 2013).
As the research of the CCL and the nineteen derailer behaviors are generally accepted in
the recent literature, there are other works, that provide differing perspectives on why leadership
derailment can occur. Researchers from the Oliver Wyman Learning Center published a work on

personal and organizational derailment at the c-suite level which cited additional derailer
behaviors such as the inability to take risks and the inability to think on one’s feet when the clear
solution to a problem does not exist (Dotlich, Cairo, & Rhinesmith, 2008, p. 47). This thinking
goes along with the idea that derailment can occur because of a situational change, especially in
times of crisis or adversity, when managers are placed in a position that requires immediate
action that may be outside their normal operating experiences; thus describing poor decision
making skills as a cause of derailment (Gentry, Katz, & McFeeters, 2009; Higgans & Freedman,
2013).
Preventing Derailment
A common theme in the literature reviewed was that managers and organizations can
prevent derailment. With the early work of CCL researchers regarding derailment as preventable
in nature, means for identifying potential derailer behaviors were created. An outcome of early
derailment research was to create assessments or instruments to help provide feedback on
derailer behaviors. In 1985, Lombardo published the Executive Inventory based upon the reasons
for derailment identified by earlier CCL work (Lombardo, et al, 1988). The significance of
instruments like the Executive Inventory is that managers who were on course for derailment
could utilize self-assessment to spot these behaviors and hopefully help prepare the manager for
the future.
As a tool to spot behavior, Lombardo and Eichinger developed a derailment checklist to
identify derailer behaviors. Once these blind spots were exposed using the derailment checklist,
development could then occur (1989, p.14). The work of Lombardo and Eichinger recommended
that in addition to self-assessment, obtaining 360 degree feedback would help potential derailers
get a better understanding of their blind spots (1989, pg. 14). The idea that once a derailer

behavior is identified, then it can be addressed is a major aspect of the literature in the field, from
the 1980s to today (Brookmire, 2012, Lombardo & McCauley, 1988; Nelson & Hogan, 2009;
Robertson, 2014).
A supporting strategy for uncovering and handling derailer blind spots identified in the
literature is the use of executive coaching. In the literature, works by Frankel (1989) and Nelson
and Hogan (2008) both support the efficacy of coaching to help the individual develop strategies
to address derailer behaviors and mitigate their impact. Furthermore, coaching is recommended
to help those who have already derailed to get back on track (Gaddis & Foster, 2015; Kovach,
1989; Shipper & Dillard, 2000).
A second major theme for preventing derailment present in the literature reviewed is
intentionally expanding a manager’s experience in order to help arm them for future situations.
Again, increasing the variety of experience for managers is a theme that emerged in the early
works in the field and continued on (Bentz, 1985; Gentry & Chappelow, 2009; Lombardo &
Eichinger, 1989). The strategy of increasing an individual’s level of experience is linked to the
inclusion of intentionally developing the individual in order to prevent derailment (Gaddis, 2014;
Frankel, 1994, Kovach, 1986). Kovach takes the relationship of development and derailment a
step farther by asserting that derailment can actually provide the experience to prevent derailing
again in the future (1989). Echoing Kovach’s assertion, the power of learning from the
experience of derailment as an aid to career recovery is proven effective for managers in the
early and middle phases of their career by the work of Shipper and Dillard published in 2000.
Personality Driving Derailer Behaviors
Embracing the thinking that derailment is caused by the inability to effectively respond to
changes in the demands of a position or situation, the logical question is why the impending

derailer wouldn’t be able to respond and make the necessary changes? Identifying the root causes
of derailer behavior is the focus of a theme existing in the literature in the early 2000s and
onward, behaviors or shortcomings that lead to derailment are caused by individual personality
(Gentry, Mandore, & Cox, 2007). The thinking that individual personality can drive work
behavior is supported by the idea that an individual’s personality can determine the behavioral
response to a given stimuli (Livesley, 2001). Hogan states that he “is convinced that effective
leadership is rooted in individual personality (1994, p. 10). As Hogan et al’s work progressed,
dysfunctional workplace behavior was attributed to the dark side of personality (Hogan &
Hogan, 2001).
In addition to the reasons for derailment cited by CCL researchers, Hogan & Hogan
(2001) introduced the idea that derailment, or managerial incompetence, can be a result of the
individual possessing at least some level of DSM-IV dysfunctional personality disorders
(American Psychiatric Association, 1994; Costa & Widiger, 1994). Hogan and Hogan used
DSM-IV personality disorders as the basis of the Hogan Development Survey or HDS, and
created an indication of potential derailment correlating to each disorder. The HDS derailment
indicators were based off of the respondent’s relation to the following aspects of personality
disorder:
 borderline
 paranoid
 avoidant
 schizoid
 passive-aggressive
 narcissistic

 anti-social
 histrionic
 schizotypal
 obsessive-compulsive
 dependency (Hogan & Hogan, 2001, p. 42).
In their research, Hogan & Hogan used these scales in order to classify likelihood of
derailment based upon how derailed individuals or impending derailers scored against each
aspect of personality disorder (2001, p. 44). The key differentiator between the work of Hogan
and Hogan and previous literature in the field is the assertion that derailer behaviors are driven
by relationship to the DSM-IV personality disorders. The previous work by CCL researchers,
does not assert any specific connections between the derailer behaviors and specific aspects of
personality (Lombardo & Eichinger, 1989; Lombardo & Eichinger, 1996).
In his works, Hogan asserts that the manager’s personality drives their behaviors, and
thus a dysfunctional personality creates dysfunctional behavior. A more specific theme that
arises from Hogan’s works in the field is that as a result of the individual’s dysfunctional
personality having to interpret a situation ineffective or destructive behavior is be exhibited
(Hogan, 1994, Hogan & Hogan, 2001; Hogan & Holland, 2003, Hogan & Kaiser, 2005, Hogan
& Kaiser, 2008). Hogan et al’s work does not propose the assumption that all derailment is due
to the manifestation of psychopathy. Work by Hogan and additional researchers propose the idea
that not only does dysfunctional personality contribute to derailment behaviors, but derailment
behaviors can also be caused by good personality traits that have become a weakness (Burke,
2006; Dalal & Nolan, 2009). Hogan (1994) calls these good personality traits “the bright side” of
personality, in contrast to his dark side of personality.

The Five Factor Model
While Hogan’s (1994) dark side of personality is based around the DSM IV, the so called
bright side of personality is based around the Five Factor Model (FFM) of personality. Hogan
cites the FFM as a “relatively well defined and accepted taxonomy of personality (1994, p. 11);
this view is supported throughout the literature reviewed (Dalal & Nolan, 2009; Hogan &
Holland, 2003; Howard & Howard, 2010). Hogan goes on to state the FFM is used for the bright
side of personality because it provides insight to the “aspects of personality that can be seen in an
interview or in scores on a measure of normal personality” (1994, p. 11). To provide context for
how the FFM represents normal personality, it is valuable to understand its evolution as a
concept.
In an effort to standardize the description of what constitutes individual personality,
researchers challenged the contemporary psychological community of the early twentieth century
to develop groupings of words that described of individual personality traits out of the over four
thousand words that describe personality in the English dictionary (Allport & Odbert, 1936).
The response to Allport and Odbert’s challenge that is the basis of the current FFM was
presented by military researchers in the 1960s. Tupes and Christal (1961) published five factors
which described individual personality; those factors were: surgency (emotional reactivity),
agreeableness, dependability, emotional stability, and culture. Throughout the 1960s and into the
latter half of the twentieth century, including the advent of computer based factor analysis, the
five factors proposed by Tupes & Christal were validated and gained widespread acceptance
throughout the psychological community (Digman, 1990; McRae & Costa, 1987; Norman,
1963).

With the emergence of an accepted five factor structure for individual personality,
contemporary personality instruments were amended to incorporate it. Notably, the NEO
personality inventory was amended to include an additional two factors becoming the NEO + PI-
R personality assessment (McRae & Costa, 1987). To furthermore specify the NEO + PI-R
instrument to assess personality in the workplace, Howard & Howard of the Center for Applied
Cognitive Studies (CentACS) created the Workplace Big 5 Profile based upon the FFM (Howard
& Howard, 2010).
The FFM is generally represented as N E O A C; the CentACS Workplace Big 5 profile
(and the subsequent Schoolplace Big 5 Profile designed for students) gives the following names
to the five factors, or super-traits, of individual personality: (N) need for stability, (E)
extraversion, (O) originality, (A) agreeableness, and (C) consolidation (Howard, 2006). The
CentACS assessments measure each of the five super-traits on a continuum between zero to one
hundred and the United States norms indicate that the scores on each trait match what would be
expected for a normal distribution curve, the majority of scores center around fifty on the
continuum for each trait (Howard & Howard, 2010). Both the Workplace Big 5 Profile and
Schoolplace Big 5 Profile instruments are used in this study.
Using FFM Profiles to Predict Derailer Behaviors
Accepting that personality traits can be the root cause of derailer behaviors, and being
mainly rooted in Hogan’s, et al, contributions to the field, the literature asserts that assessment
and feedback can be accurate tools for illuminating blind spots and recognizing impending
derailer behavior (Dalal & Nolan, 2009, Hogan & Holland, 2003; Hogan & Kaiser, 2005, 2008;
Howard, 2006). As previously discussed, Hogan used the HDS to assess aspiring managers with
regards to dysfunctional personality (Hogan & Hogan, 2001); on the other hand however, the

Hogan Personality Instrument, or HPI, uses the light side of personality to predict the
effectiveness of work behaviors (not specific derailer behaviors). Like the Derailer 360
instrument used in this study, the HPI uses the five factor model to develop seven scales in which
participants are scored; those scales are adjustment, ambition, sociability, interpersonal
sensitivity, prudence, inquisitiveness, and learning approach (Hogan & Hogan, 1995).
While through Hogan’s recent work using both the HPI and HDS, the literature reviewed
supports that Hogan’s scales can be used to predict workplace behavior; there is very little
information on how personality either with the HDS, HPI, or assessments using the FFM can
connect to the nineteen derailer behaviors asserted in CCL literature. At the time of this writing,
searching for connections between the five factor model super traits and the nineteen CCL
derailer behaviors produced no peer reviewed publication.
Using the CentACS Workplace Big 5 Profile as a basis for an internet search pertaining
to derailer behaviors, a sample derailer report was found that suggests trait profiles which may
put an individual at risk for derailer behavior, but the basis for these relationships are not
provided (CentACS, 2010, p. 4). Table 1 illustrates the suggested CentACS super trait predictors
for derailer behavior. As a note, Table 1 uses the CentACS notation for scoring participants on
the continuum for each super trait, -- represents very low on the scale, - represents low on the
scale, = represents medium, + represents high on the scale, and ++ represents very high on the
scale (Howard & Howard, 2010). As can be seen in Table 1, the CentACS predictors do not
provide a full super-trait profile for each behavior, the reason for partial profiles were not given
in the literature.
Table 1
CentACS Big 5 Super Trait Profiles and Derailer Behaviors
Derailer Behavior Super Trait

N E O A C
Arrogance E- A- C+
Betrayal of Trust A-
Blocked Personal Learner O- A-
Defensiveness N+ O- A-
Failure to Build a Team E- A- C-
Failure to Staff N+/- E+/- O+/- A+/- C+/-
Insensitivity to Others N+ A-
Key Skill Deficiencies C-
Lack of Composure N++ A- C-
Lack of Ethics and Values N+ A- C-
Non-Strategic O-
Overdependence: Advocate N+ E- A+ C-
Overdependence: Skill O- C-
Overly Ambitious N+ E+ A- C+
Over Managing N+ E+ A- C+
Performance Problems C=
Political Missteps N+/- E+/- O+/- A+/- C+/-
Poor Administrator O+ A+ C-
Unable to Adapt N+ E+ O- A- C+
Literature Summary
The literature provides strong cases for why derailment occurs, both at the
individual and organizational level. A theme that echoed throughout the literature was that

behaviors which aided aspiring managers in earlier parts of their career could become
weaknesses as their careers progress and cause that manager to derail. The literature asserts that
the risk of derailment can be minimized or prevented all-together if these derailer behaviors are
proactively identified and addressed using assessment and feedback.. The literature also supports
that personality can be the cause of workplace behavior, both effective and ineffective. A gap is
present in the literature linking specific aspects of personality (i.e. traits from the five factor
model), to specific derailer behaviors.
Methodology
Approach Summary
The gap in the literature around specific super-trait predictors for individual derailer
behaviors provides a basis for the primary research question that this study seeks to answer; what
super-trait profiles indicate a tendency for each specific derailer behavior? An ancillary question
that arose from findings in the literature is whether or not the profiles derived while pursuing the
primary research question supports the CentACS derailer predictors. To answer the primary
question, a quantitative approach was used incorporating individual and 360 degree assessments
for collecting individual FFM profiles and derailment behavior tendencies. Participants were
asked to complete the Workplace or Schoolplace Big 5 Profile as well as complete the Derailer
360 alongside three or more raters of their own choosing. Individual participant scores for each
instrument were compared, and the profiles for those participants who’s scores demonstrated a
potential threat of displaying derailer behavior were used to observe if any consistent profile
emerged for each of the nineteen derailer behaviors.

The Participants
The participants of this research study were recruited exclusively from the Queens
University McColl School of Business; all undergraduate students, graduate students and faculty
members were invited to participate (several hundred individuals). All participation in this study
was voluntary in nature and participants were not compensated for their involvement, financially
or academically; informed consent was obtained for the use of all participant responses in data
analysis.
Out of all those invited to participate, 29 individuals volunteered and were included in the
study. Demographically, the subject pool consisted of:
 7 males and 22 females,
 29 Students,
 7 BA students, 2 MBA students, and 20 MSOD students.
The 29 participants of this study completed both the Big 5 profile and had at least one response
provided (self or others) to the derailer 360. To maintain confidentiality, participant’s names
were removed during data analysis and were replaced with a subject number for both the Big 5
profile and Derailer 360 results; those numbers were linked so that the correct sets of data were
compared during data analysis.
Unlike the studies cited in the literature review, participants of this effort were not
recruited as someone who had derailed previously or who had received feedback that they were
an impending derailer; likewise, they were not recruited as being fast trackers or for being
exceptionally successful. The participants of this study were made up of individuals representing
a range of career status, ranging from those having little professional experience to being senior
managers at major corporations. The makeup of industries represented by the participants in this

study also varied; however, participant career level, employment status, and industry were not
official demographics requested during data collection.
The Instruments
The tools used for this study were the Workplace Big 5 Profile, the Schoolplace Big 5
Profile, and the Derailer 360. All three tools used in this study were administered using the
CentACS online platform. The Workplace and Schoolplace Big 5 Profiles were developed by
CentACS are validated instruments and have been in use for quite some time by consultants in
the CentACS network. The Derailer 360 was developed in 2014 by the author of this research
study as a means to help individuals gain feedback on how they and others perceive the
participant in leaning towards the nineteen derailer behaviors. While the internal reliability of the
Derailer 360 has been analyzed, the instrument has not been validated for repeatability; this
study marks the first real world application of the Derailer 360 since initial reliability analysis.
The items and internal reliability for each derailer behavior assessed in the Derailer 360 are listed
in Appendix A.
Both the Workplace and Schoolplace Big 5 profiles were made available to participants
so that students with limited professional experience could be included in the study. The
Schoolplace Big 5 profile reports results for the individual in the same format as the Workplace
Big 5 but has inventory items that are more relatable to participants whose work experience is
related to being a student. The Derailer 360 tool was the same item list for all participants, both
for self-rating and for rating by others.
Participant Response
For the 29 participants, responses for the Big 5 profiles were 100%, the responses to the
Derailer 360 were not. Participants were asked to provide three additional raters for the Derailer

360; while all participants provided additional raters, only a handful of participants actually had
three other raters respond in addition to their self-rating. Furthermore, some participants had
their raters respond but did not complete their self Derailer 360 rating or vice versa, where the
self-rating was the only one completed. The lack of response to the Derailer 360 was a road
block to the efficacy of the outcome study; however the data collected provided the opportunity
to pilot the process of answering the primary research question of what personality profiles
indicate a tendency for each derailer behavior.
To counteract the lack of responses to the Derailer 360 and to provide as many data
points as possible in piloting the analysis process, the Derailer 360 composite responses were not
used; for each Derailer 360 respondent, the self and others ratings were treated as separate data
sets. For example, for participant number two, their self-assessment and then their combined
assessment by others were treated as two separate points by which to compare derailer behaviors
to five factor personality profile. Using the individual scores from the self and others ratings
categories provided 51 sets of data rather than the 21 that would have been available had the
composite scores been used. Future application of the process being piloted in this study will
require complete Derailer 360 response.
The Data
By using the Derailer 360 self and other ratings as individual data points, 51 sets of data
were derived for use in the study (N= 51). Each data set used in the study included a five factor
model profile and corresponding scores for each of the nineteen derailer behaviors. The Derailer
360 scores presented a challenge in analysis; of the 969 individual Likert scale (0 to 5.0) scores
from the Derailer 360 results, only 11 scores were less than a 3.0 in a single derailer behavior
category. So that enough data could be made available to create samples of the subject

population that reflected a potential threat of displaying derailer behaviors, a score of less than
4.0 was considered to be at risk for that behavior. Using 4.0 as the cutoff point to consider an
individual at risk was an assumption based solely upon the responses collected and was not
based upon an empirical statistic.
Using a 3.9 or less on the Likert scale, sample groups of the subject population were
identified for each derailer behavior with the exception of blocked personal learner, only one
participant data set reflected a score of less than 4.0 for that behavior. Table 2 provides the
sample size available for each group of participants who were identified as at risk for each the
nineteen derailer behaviors.
Table 2
At Risk for Derailer Behavior Sample Sizes
Derailer Behavior n Derailer Behavior n
Arrogance 10 Non-Strategic 16
Betrayal of Trust 7 Overdependence: Advocate 18
Blocked Personal Learner 1 Overdependence: Skill 9
Defensiveness 11 Overly Ambitious 23
Failure to Build a Team 12 Over Managing 21
Failure to Staff 21 Performance Problems 24
Insensitivity to Others 8 Political Missteps 15
Key Skill Deficiencies 13 Poor Administrator 11
Lack of Composure 26 Unable to Adapt 12
Lack of Ethics and Values 10

While the sample sizes for each group of derailer behavior “at-risk” participants are not overly
large, the samples do provide a means of making an initial observation and the ability to pilot the
process of identifying a corresponding personality profile.
For participants scoring below 4.0 in a given derailer behavior, the five factor personality
profile super-trait scores were recorded. Tables 3 through Table 21 illustrate the super-trait
scores for each behavior:
Arrogance.
Table 3
Arrogance “at risk” Profiles (n=10)
Derailer
Score N E O A C
3.0 48 45 44 48 45
3.5 51 41 43 49 49
3.8 51 31 49 62 42
3.8 61 49 57 57 51
3.5 61 49 57 57 51
3.8 61 48 57 52 49
3.9 59 60 60 22 53
3.5 55 54 60 45 56
3.3 55 54 60 45 56
3.8 60 36 37 63 61
Betrayal of trust.
Table 4
Betrayal of Trust “at risk” Profiles (n=7)

Derailer
Score N E O A C
3.0 48 41 43 45 45
3.0 51 41 43 45 49
3.8 51 43 44 48 49
3.0 51 45 57 49 51
3.0 55 49 60 49 51
3.5 55 54 60 57 56
3.3 61 54 63 62 56
Blocked personal learner.
Table 5
Blocked Personal Learner “at risk” Profile (n=1)
Derailer
Score N E O A C
3.0 48 45 44 48 45
Defensiveness
Table 6
Defensiveness “at risk” Profiles (n=11)
Derailer
Score N E O A C
3.0 48 45 44 48 45
3.8 42 45 58 48 60
3.0 51 41 43 49 49
3.8 51 41 43 49 49
3.8 51 31 49 62 42

3.5 61 49 57 57 51
3.3 61 49 57 57 51
3.8 61 48 57 52 49
3.8 55 54 60 45 56
3.5 51 43 63 62 51
3.3 57 45 46 65 46
Failure to build a team.
Table 7
Failure to Build a Team “at risk” Profiles (n=12)
Derailer
Score N E O A C
3.5 48 45 44 48 45
3.8 54 52 61 55 39
2.8 51 41 43 49 49
3.9 51 41 43 49 49
3.3 51 31 49 62 42
3.8 51 31 49 62 42
3.8 61 49 57 57 51
3.8 54 51 49 48 50
3.8 52 53 56 48 48
3.8 55 54 60 45 56
3.5 51 43 63 62 51
3.9 51 43 63 62 51

Failure to staff effectively.
Table 8
Failure to Staff Effectively “at risk” Profiles (n=21)
Derailer
Score N E O A C
3.3 48 45 44 48 45
3.0 46 48 46 61 46
3.5 46 48 46 61 46
3.3 54 52 61 55 39
3.8 42 45 58 48 60
3.3 51 41 43 49 49
3.5 55 56 38 54 56
3.8 47 49 41 56 53
3.8 51 31 49 62 42
3.0 51 31 49 62 42
3.0 61 49 57 57 51
3.8 54 51 49 48 50
3.5 53 46 45 55 49
3.6 59 60 60 22 53
3.8 52 53 56 48 48
3.8 52 53 56 48 48
3.3 55 54 60 45 56
3.7 42 50 59 64 48
3.3 51 43 63 62 51
3.5 60 36 37 63 61
3.8 60 36 37 63 61

Insensitivity to others.
Table 9
Insensitivity to Others “at risk” Profiles (n=8)
Derailer
Score N E O A C
3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
3 3 3 3 3 3
3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3
3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8
3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3
Key skill deficiencies
Table 10
Key Skill Deficiencies “at risk” Profiles (n=13)
Derailer
Score N E O A C
3.0 48 45 44 48 45
3.5 46 48 46 61 46
3.7 46 48 46 61 46
3.8 42 45 58 48 60
3.5 51 41 43 49 49
3.8 53 49 43 43 47
3.8 51 31 49 62 42
3.5 61 49 57 57 51

3.8 54 51 49 48 50
3.8 55 54 60 45 56
3.5 62 44 39 63 29
3.8 57 45 46 65 46
3.3 60 36 37 63 61
Lack of composure.
Table 11
Lack of Composure “at risk” Profiles (n=26)
Derailer
Score N E O A C
3.5 48 45 44 48 45
3.8 46 48 46 61 46
3.5 46 48 46 61 46
3.8 54 52 61 55 39
3.5 54 52 61 55 39
3.5 42 45 58 48 60
3.0 51 41 43 49 49
3.2 51 41 43 49 49
3.9 47 51 55 53 54
3.8 47 51 55 53 54
3.8 56 50 43 54 62
3.8 61 49 57 57 51
3.8 61 49 57 57 51
3.3 61 48 57 52 49

3.8 61 48 57 52 49
2.8 63 57 53 50 43
3.3 54 51 49 48 50
3.5 53 46 45 55 49
3.9 59 60 60 22 53
3.8 52 53 56 48 48
3.8 55 54 60 45 56
2.5 55 54 60 45 56
3.8 51 43 63 62 51
3.5 62 44 39 63 29
3.8 57 45 46 65 46
3.5 60 36 37 63 61
Lack of ethics and values.
Table 12
Lack of Ethics and Values “at risk” Profiles (n=10)
Derailer
Score N E O A C
3.3 48 45 44 48 45
3.5 46 48 46 61 46
3.8 51 41 43 49 49
3.8 61 49 57 57 51
3.5 61 49 57 57 51
3.5 61 48 57 52 49
3.8 61 48 57 52 49

3.5 55 54 60 45 56
3.5 55 54 60 45 56
3.3 51 43 63 62 51
Non-strategic
Table 13
Non-Strategic “at risk” Profiles (n=16)
Derailer
Score N E O A C
3.0 48 45 44 48 45
2.8 46 48 46 61 46
3.5 54 52 61 55 39
3.5 51 41 43 49 49
3.6 51 41 43 49 49
3.4 49 49 43 47 44
3.5 53 49 43 43 47
3.8 47 49 41 56 53
3.9 51 31 49 62 42
3.0 61 49 57 57 51
3.8 63 57 53 50 43
3.5 53 46 45 55 49
3.9 53 46 45 55 49
3.8 55 54 60 45 56
3.5 62 44 39 63 29
3.5 57 45 46 65 46

Overdependence on an advocate.
Table 14
Overdependence on an Advocate “at risk” Profiles (n=18)
Derailer
Score N E O A C
3.5 48 45 44 48 45
3.8 42 45 58 48 60
3.0 51 41 43 49 49
3.9 55 56 38 54 56
3.8 47 49 41 56 53
3.0 61 49 57 57 51
3.0 61 49 57 57 51
3.8 61 48 57 52 49
3.8 63 57 53 50 43
3.9 63 57 53 50 43
3.7 59 60 60 22 53
3.3 55 54 60 45 56
3.8 55 54 60 45 56
3.5 51 43 63 62 51
3.0 62 44 39 63 29
3.3 57 45 46 65 46
3.8 60 36 37 63 61
3.8 60 36 37 63 61

Overdependence on a single skill.
Table 15
Overdependence on a Single Skill “at risk” Profiles (n=9)
Derailer
Score N E O A C
3.5 48 45 44 48 45
3.8 46 48 46 61 46
3.9 55 56 38 54 56
3.8 61 49 57 57 51
3.8 61 48 57 52 49
3.8 55 54 60 45 56
3.8 62 44 39 63 29
3.8 57 45 46 65 46
3.8 60 36 37 63 61
Overly ambitious.
Table 16
Overly Ambitious “at risk” Profiles (n=23)
Derailer
Score N E O A C
3.0 48 45 44 48 45
3.8 46 48 46 61 46
3.8 46 48 46 61 46
3.5 54 52 61 55 39
3.5 54 52 61 55 39
3.8 49 50 62 61 29
3.8 51 41 43 49 49

3.8 49 49 43 47 44
3.1 55 56 38 54 56
3.8 53 49 43 43 47
3.8 51 31 49 62 42
3.7 51 31 49 62 42
3.8 41 51 66 58 64
3.5 61 49 57 57 51
3.5 61 49 57 57 51
3.8 63 57 53 50 43
3.3 54 51 49 48 50
3.8 53 46 45 55 49
3.7 59 60 60 22 53
3.7 52 53 56 48 48
3.5 55 54 60 45 56
3.3 57 45 46 65 46
3.7 60 36 37 63 61
Overmanager.
Table 17
Overmanager “at risk” Profiles (n=21)
Derailer
Score N E O A C
3.8 48 45 44 48 45
3.0 46 48 46 61 46
3.8 54 52 61 55 39

3.8 42 45 58 48 60
3.8 55 56 38 54 56
3.5 53 49 43 43 47
3.0 51 31 49 62 42
3.4 51 31 49 62 42
3.8 41 51 66 58 64
3.3 61 49 57 57 51
3 61 49 57 57 51
3.9 63 57 53 50 43
3.3 54 51 49 48 50
3.5 53 46 45 55 49
3.4 59 60 60 22 53
3.5 55 54 60 45 56
3.8 51 43 63 62 51
3.5 62 44 39 63 29
3.0 57 45 46 65 46
3.8 57 45 46 65 46
3.8 60 36 37 63 61
Performance problems.
Table 18
Performance Problems “at risk” Profiles (n=24)
Derailer
Score N E O A C
3.3 48 45 44 48 45

2.8 46 48 46 61 46
3.5 54 52 61 55 39
3.8 49 50 62 61 29
3.0 42 45 58 48 60
3.7 51 41 43 49 49
3.2 55 56 38 54 56
3.9 74 45 27 55 31
3.5 51 31 49 62 42
2.8 61 49 57 57 51
2.8 61 49 57 57 51
3.5 61 48 57 52 49
3.3 63 57 53 50 43
3.8 54 51 49 48 50
3.5 53 46 45 55 49
3.0 55 54 60 45 56
2.8 55 54 60 45 56
3.9 42 50 59 64 48
3.8 51 43 63 62 51
3.9 51 43 63 62 51
3.8 62 44 39 63 29
3.3 57 45 46 65 46
3.5 60 36 37 63 61
3.6 60 36 37 63 61

Political missteps.
Table 19
Political Missteps “at risk” Profiles (n=15)
Derailer
Score N E O A C
3.3 48 45 44 48 45
3.9 54 52 61 55 39
3.5 42 45 58 48 60
2.5 51 41 43 49 49
3.5 51 31 49 62 42
3.8 61 49 57 57 51
3.5 61 49 57 57 51
3.5 63 57 53 50 43
3.8 54 51 49 48 50
3.9 59 60 60 22 53
2.5 55 54 60 45 56
3.0 55 54 60 45 56
3.8 51 43 63 62 51
3.5 57 45 46 65 46
3.8 60 36 37 63 61
Poor administrator.
Table 20
Poor Administrator “at risk” Profiles (n=11)
Derailer
Score N E O A C
3.3 48 45 44 48 45

3.9 54 52 61 55 39
3.5 42 45 58 48 60
2.5 51 41 43 49 49
3.5 51 31 49 62 42
3.8 61 49 57 57 51
3.5 61 49 57 57 51
3.5 63 57 53 50 43
3.8 54 51 49 48 50
3.9 59 60 60 22 53
2.5 55 54 60 45 56
Unable to Adapt
Table 21
Unable to Adapt “at risk” Profiles (n=12)
Derailer
Score N E O A C
3.3 48 45 44 48 45
3.8 42 45 58 48 60
3.0 51 41 43 49 49
3.8 51 41 43 49 49
3.8 55 56 38 54 56
3.3 53 49 43 43 47
3.3 61 49 57 57 51
3.3 61 49 57 57 51
3.5 55 54 60 45 56

3.8 55 54 60 45 56
3.7 51 43 63 62 51
3.7 60 36 37 63 61
Findings
Data Analysis
Data analysis for this research effort was accomplished by identifying the frequency
distribution for big five super-trait responses for each derailer behavior. Using these frequency
distributions, the prevailing five factor model profiles were derived for each derailer behavior.
These derived five factor model profiles were the main output of this research effort. The
findings in this section are presented using the standard notation used by CentACS when
reporting Big 5 profile continuum results; results range from very low (--), low (-), medium (=),
high (+), and very high (++).
Arrogance.
From the ten data sets which were identified as being at risk for displaying the derailer
behavior of arrogance, the following profile was derived:
N=/+ E= O+ A= C=.
The frequency distribution for these super-trait responses are shown in Figure 1.
-- - = + ++
N 0 0 5 5 0
E 1 2 6 1 0
O 0 3 1 6 0
A 1 0 5 4 0
C 0 2 6 3 0
Figure 1. Arrogance Super-Trait Responses

Betrayal of trust.
From the seven data sets which were identified as being at risk for displaying the derailer
behavior of betrayal of trust, the following profile was derived:
N= E= O+ A= C=.
-- - = + ++
N 0 0 6 1 0
E 0 3 4 0 0
O 0 3 0 4 0
A 0 0 5 2 0
C 0 0 5 2 0
Figure 2. Betrayal of Trust Super-Trait Responses
The single data set which was identified as being at risk for displaying the derailer
behavior of blocked personal learner presented the following profile:
N= E= O- A= C=.
Defensiveness.
From the eleven data sets which were identified as being at risk for displaying the
derailer behavior of defensiveness, the following profile was derived:
N= E= O+ A= C=.
-- - = + ++
N 0 1 5 4 0
E 1 3 7 0 0
O 0 3 2 6 0
A 0 0 6 5 0
C 0 1 8 2 0
Figure 3. Defensiveness Super-Trait Responses

From the twelve data sets which were identified as being at risk for displaying the
derailer behavior of failure in building a team, the following profile was derived:
N= E= O+ A= C=.
-- - = + ++
N 0 0 11 1 0
E 2 4 6 0 0
O 0 3 3 6 0
A 0 0 7 4 0
C 0 3 8 1 0
Figure 4. Failure to Build a Team Super-Trait Responses
Failure to Staff Effectively
From the twenty one data sets which were identified as being at risk for displaying the
derailer behavior of failure in staff effectively, the following profile was derived:
N= E= O+ A=/+ C=.
-- - = + ++
N 0 2 15 4 0
E 2 4 13 2 0
O 0 6 6 9 0
A 1 0 10 10 0
C 0 3 13 5 0
Figure 5. Failure to Staff Effectively Super-Trait Responses
From the eight data sets which were identified as being at risk for displaying the derailer
behavior of being insensitive to others, the following profile was derived:
N= E= O+ A= C=.

-- - = + ++
N 0 0 5 3 0
E 1 2 4 1 0
O 0 3 1 4 0
A 1 0 4 3 0
C 0 0 7 1 0
Figure 6. Insensitivity to Others Super-Trait Responses
Key skill deficiencies.
From the thirteen data sets which were identified as being at risk for displaying the
derailer behavior of possessing key skill deficiencies, the following profile was derived:
N= E= O-/= A+ C=.
-- - = + ++
N 0 1 8 4 0
E 1 3 9 0 0
O 0 5 5 3 0
A 0 1 5 7 0
C 1 1 8 3 0
Figure 7. Key Skill Deficiencies Super-Trait Responses
Lack of composure.
From the twenty six data sets which were identified as being at risk for displaying the
derailer behavior of lacking composure, the following profile was derived:
N= E= O+ A+ C=.
-- - = + ++
N 0 1 15 10 0
E 0 5 19 2 0
O 0 6 8 12 0
A 1 0 17 8 0

C 1 3 17 5 0
Figure 8. Lack of Composure Super-Trait Responses
From the ten data sets which were identified as being at risk for displaying the derailer
behavior of lacking ethics and values, the following profile was derived:
N= E= O+ A= C=.
-- - = + ++
N 0 0 6 4 0
E 0 2 8 0 0
O 0 2 1 7 0
A 0 0 6 4 0
C 0 0 8 2 0
Figure 9. Lack of Ethics and Values Super-Trait Responses
Non-strategic.
From the sixteen data sets which were identified as being at risk for displaying the
derailer behavior of non-strategic thinking, the following profile was derived:
N= E= O- A= C=.
-- - = + ++
N 0 0 12 4 0
E 1 3 11 1 0
O 0 7 6 3 0
A 0 1 9 6 0
C 1 4 10 1 0
Figure 10. Non-Strategic Super-Trait Responses
From the eighteen data sets which were identified as being at risk for displaying the
derailer behavior of overdependence on an advocate, the following profile was derived:

N+ E= O+ A= C=.
-- - = + ++
N 0 1 7 10 0
E 0 5 9 4 0
O 0 7 3 8 0
A 1 0 9 8 0
C 1 2 9 6 0
Figure 11. Overdependence on an Advocate Super-Trait Responses
From the nine data sets which were identified as being at risk for displaying the derailer
behavior of overdependence on a single skill, the following profile was derived:
N+ E= O- A+ C=.
-- - = + ++
N 0 0 4 5 0
E 0 2 6 1 0
O 0 4 2 3 0
A 0 0 4 5 0
C 1 0 5 3 0
Figure 12. Overdependence on a Single Skill Super-Trait Responses
Overly ambitious.
From the twenty three data sets which were identified as being at risk for displaying the
derailer behavior of being overly ambitious, the following profile was derived:
N= E= O=/+ A=/+ C=.
-- - = + ++
N 0 1 16 6 0
E 0 4 16 3 0

O 0 6 8 8 1
A 1 1 11 10 0
C 1 6 12 4 0
Figure 13. Overly Ambitious Super-Trait Responses
Over managing.
From the twenty one data sets which were identified as being at risk for displaying the
derailer behavior of being an over manager, the following profile was derived:
N= E= O= A+ C=.
-- - = + ++
N 0 2 11 8 0
E 2 3 13 3 0
O 0 5 8 7 1
A 1 1 8 11 0
C 1 4 11 4 0
Figure 14. Over Manager Super-Trait Responses
Performance Problems.
From the twenty four data sets which were identified as being at risk for displaying the
derailer behavior of performance problems, the following profile was derived:
N= E= O+ A=/+ C=.
-- - = + ++
N 0 2 13 8 1
E 1 6 15 2 0
O 1 6 6 11 0
A 0 0 12 12 0
C 3 3 12 6 0
Figure 15. Performance Problems Super-Trait Responses

Political missteps.
From the fifteen data sets which were identified as being at risk for displaying the
derailer behavior of committing political missteps, the following profile was derived:
N= E= O+ A= C=.
-- - = + ++
N 0 1 8 6 0
E 1 3 9 2 0
O 0 3 4 8 0
A 1 0 8 6 0
C 0 3 8 4 0
Figure 16. Political Missteps Super-Trait Responses
Poor Administrator.
From the eleven data sets which were identified as being at risk for displaying the
derailer behavior of being a poor administrator, the following profile was derived:
N= E- O- A= C-/=.
-- - = + ++
N 0 1 6 4 0
E 0 6 4 1 0
O 0 6 1 4 0
A 1 0 6 4 0
C 2 4 4 1 0
Figure 17. Poor Administrator Super-Trait Responses
Inability to adapt.
From the twelve data sets which were identified as being at risk for displaying the
derailer behavior of being unable to adapt to differences, the following profile was derived:
N= E- O-/+ A= C=.

-- - = + ++
N 0 1 8 3 0
E 0 4 7 1 0
O 0 6 0 6 0
A 0 1 7 4 0
C 0 0 7 5 0
Figure 18. Inability to Adapt Super-Trait Responses
Derived profile summary.
The Big 5 profile derived for each derailer behavior is shown below in Table 22.
Table 22
Derived Big 5 Super Trait Profiles per Derailer Behaviors
Derailer Behavior Super Trait Profile
Arrogance N=/+ E- O+ A= C=
Betrayal of Trust N= E= O+ A= C=
Blocked Personal Learner N= E= O- A= C=
Defensiveness N= E= O+ A= C=
Failure to Build a Team N= E= O+ A= C=
Failure to Staff N= E= O+ A=/+ C=
Insensitivity to Others N= E= O+ A= C=
Key Skill Deficiencies N= E= O-/= A+ C=
Lack of Composure N= E= O+ A+ C=
Lack of Ethics and Values N= E= O+ A= C=
Non-Strategic N= E= O- A= C=
Overdependence: Advocate N+ E= O+ A= C=
Overdependence: Skill N+ E= O- A+ C=

Overly Ambitious N= E= O=/+ A=/+ C=
Over Managing N= E= O= A+ C=
Performance Problems N= E= O+ A=/+ C=
Political Missteps N= E= O+ A= C=
Poor Administrator N= E- O- A= C-/=
Inability to Adapt N= E- O-/+ A= C=
Results
The goal of this research effort was to answer the primary and ancillary research
questions; what personality profiles indicate a tendency for each derailer behavior and do the
personality profiles identified support the derailer predictors used by CentACS. The profiles
derived for each of the at-risk data sets are based upon relatively small sample sizes, but are
representative of the participants in this study. Deriving these profiles from the available data
provides a means for piloting this process for application to a larger participant sample.
The Big 5 profiles of the twenty nine participants in this study were well in line with the
Workplace and Schoolplace Big 5 Profile US population norms; at the time of this writing,
norms have not been established for the Derailer 360, but no data was collected regarding the
participant’s experience with derailment. To answer the primary research question and to verify
if the findings derived from this study are accurate indicators for derailment behaviors, the
findings are inconclusive and repeating this analysis on additional participant groups is required.
Furthermore, there is no support or opposition for these findings present in the literature, by
which to validate these findings.

The profiles derived in this study do provide data points for answering the ancillary
research question and comparing the list of super-trait predictors for derailment presented by
CentACS. Table 1, above, lists the super-trait scores / profiles which indicate a predictor for the
threat of each derailment behavior. This study provided a derived profile for each of the derailer
behaviors while the list from CentACS, for most behaviors, did not list an entire profile. Of the
list presented by CentACS, only the predictors for non-strategic thinking and performance
problems matched the derived profiles. No assumptions were made regarding the position of the
traits that were not included in the CentACS predictors.
Comparing the Derived Profiles to the CentACS Predictors
Arrogance.
The CentACS super-trait predictors for arrogance were E- A- C+, the profile derived
from this study was N=/+ E- O+ A= C=. The derived profile’s low extraversion super-trait score
supports the CentACS predictors; however, the medium accommodation and consolidation
scores do not.
Betrayal of trust.
The CentACS super-trait predictor for betrayal of trust was A-, the profile derived from
this study was N= E= O+ A= C=. The derived profile does not support the CentACS predictor.
The CentACS super-trait predictors for a blocked personal learner were O- A-, the profile
derived from this study was N= E= O- A= C=. The derived profile’s low originality super-trait
score supports the CentACS predictors; however, the medium accommodation score does not.
The blocked personal learner derailer behavior data set only consisted of a single participant
profile.

Defensiveness.
The CentACS super-trait predictors for defensiveness were N+ O- A+, the profile derived
from this study was N= E= O+ A= C=. The derived profile’s high originality super-trait score
supports the CentACS predictors; however, the medium need for stability and accommodation
scores do not.
The CentACS super-trait predictors for failure to build a team were E- A- C-, the profile
derived from this study was N= E= O+ A= C=. The derived profile does not support the
CentACS predictors.
Failure to staff effectively.
The CentACS super-trait predictors for failure to staff effectively were N+/- E+/- O+/-
A+/- C+/-, the profile derived from this study was N= E= O+ A=/+ C=. The derived profile’s
high originality and accommodation super-trait scores support the CentACS predictors; however,
the derived profile had an equal distribution of medium accommodation scores, as well as
medium need for stability, extraversion, and consolidation scores which do not support the
CentACS predictors.
The CentACS super-trait predictors for insensitivity to others were N+ A-, the profile
CentACS predictors.

Key skill deficiencies.
The CentACS super-trait predictor for key skill deficiencies was C-, the profile derived
from this study was N= E= O-/= A+ C=. The derived profile does not support the CentACS
predictors.
Lack of composure.
The CentACS super-trait predictor for lack of composure was N++ A- C-, the profile
derived from this study was N= E= O+ A+ C=. The derived profile does not support the
CentACS predictors.
The CentACS super-trait predictor for lack of ethics and values was N+ A- C-, the profile
CentACS predictors.
Non-strategic
The CentACS super-trait predictor for non-strategic thinker was O-, the profile derived
from this study was N= E= O- A= C=. The derived profile’s low originality super-trait score
supports the CentACS predictor.
The CentACS super-trait predictors for overdependence on an advocate were N+ E- A+
C-, the profile derived from this study was N+ E= O+ A= C=. The derived profile’s high need
for stability super-trait score supports the CentACS predictor; however, the medium
extraversion, accommodation, and consolidation scores do not support the CentACS predictors.

The CentACS super-trait predictors for overdependence on a single skill were O- C-, the
profile derived from this study was N+ E= O- A+ C=. The derived profile’s low originality
super-trait score supports the CentACS predictor; however, the medium consolidation score does
not.
Overly ambitious.
The CentACS super-trait predictor for being overly ambitious was N+ E+ A- C+, the
profile derived from this study was N= E= O=/+ A=/+ C=. The derived profile does not support
the CentACS predictors.
Over managing.
The CentACS super-trait predictor for being an over manager was N+ E+ A- C+, the
profile derived from this study was N= E= O= A+ C=. The derived profile does not support the
CentACS predictors.
Performance problems.
The CentACS super-trait predictor for performance problems was C=, the profile derived
from this study was N= E= O+ A=/+ C=. The derived profile’s low consolidation super-trait
score supports the CentACS predictor.
Political missteps.
The CentACS super-trait predictors for political missteps were N+/- E+/- O+/- A+/- C+/-,
the profile derived from this study was N= E= O+ A= C=. The derived profile’s high originality
super-trait score supports the CentACS predictor; however, the derived profile’s medium need
for stability, extraversion, accommodation, and consolidation scores do not support the CentACS
predictors.

Poor administrator.
The CentACS super-trait predictors for being a poor administrator were O+ A+ C-, the
profile derived from this study was N= E- O- A= C-/=. The derived profile’s low super-trait
score for consolidation supports the CentACS predictor; however, the derived profile had an
equal distribution of medium consolidation scores, as well as low originality and medium
accommodation scores which do not support the CentACS predictors.
Inability to adapt.
The CentACS super-trait predictors for the inability to adapt were N+ E + O- A- C+, the
profile derived from this study was N= E- O-+ A= C=. The derived profile’s low super-trait
score for originality supports the CentACS predictor; however, the derived profile had an equal
distribution of high originality scores, as well as medium need for stability, accommodation, and
consolidation scores which do not support the CentACS predictors.
Limitations
While this study does provide value in terms of piloting the process for deriving FFM
profiles and presenting comparative data for supporting or contradicting the CentACS super-trait
predictors, limitations were present that reduce the study’s overall contribution to the field of
derailment. These limitations specifically reduce the study’s effectiveness in providing accurate
five factor profiles which correspond to derailer behaviors. The limitations inherent to this study
are comprised of three major aspects, the Derailer 360 instrument, the participant population, and
the design demographics.
Derailer 360
As stated previously, the Derailer 360 is a new instrument that has not been, except for
initial reliability testing, validated in a real world application prior to this study. Due to this

factor, the repeatability of the instrument has not been analyzed and validated. This creates a
scenario where the Derailer 360 may require further revision to ensure that it provides
participants with a clear understanding of how they are perceived as displaying derailer
behaviors. Furthermore, the Derailer 360 responses used in this study were not totally complete,
with some responses missing self-ratings or ratings by others. These incomplete responses
reduce the value of the Derailer 360 results because they may provide biased responses and fail
to provide full “360 degree” feedback on the participant.
Participant Population
Along with the incomplete responses to the Derailer 360, the overall number of responses
is also a limitation of this effort. While there were fifty one data sets available for analysis, there
were only twenty nine usable Big 5 profiles. By not having a unique profile for every set of
derailer behaviors, the results were potentially skewed due to the lack of variation in FFM
profiles, and an opportunity is missed to have a unique profile correspondent to the remainder of
Derailer 360 score sets.
The participants used for this study were chosen for convenience rather than applicability
to derailment. All participants were students of the McColl School of Business, and with the
inclusion of undergraduate subjects, participant ages varied considerably, potentially including
subjects as young as nineteen. At age nineteen and even until the early thirties, an individual’s
personality may not be totally developed, which could lead to skewed results (Howard &
Howard, 2010).
Design Demographics
The design demographics for this study also created a limitation on the efficacy of its
output. The design population for this effort included undergraduate students, graduate students,

and staff at the Queens University of Charlotte McColl School of Business; however, no
requirements were set in terms of either career experience or experience with derailment.
Furthermore, no demographics were collected regarding participant occupation or industry. In
this case, the population surveyed may not be representative of the general population.
Another aspect of the design demographics which may have caused bias in the instrument
response was both the small number of required peer raters (three peers raters were requested)
and that no requirement was made for those raters to be in any specific roles relative to the
participant. With a limited number of peer responses combined with potentially subjective
responses due to personal relationship with those being rated, the Derailer 360 results were
potentially biased towards the positive end of the scale. Both of these factors were evident with
the relatively high scores observed on the Derailer 360 results, requiring the at risk point to be
moved to 4.0 on the Likert scale.
Future Research
Recognizing the limitations of this study does not merely provide a critical perspective on
its findings, but also provides a means for identifying avenues and strategies for future research.
Any future research effort should include mitigation of the limitations listed above. Over time
and through continued application and revision, the Derailer 360 instrument can be validated and
fine-tuned to provide as accurate as possible results for where an individual is perceived to stand
with regards to derailer behaviors. Along with increasing the sample size, obtaining a higher
response rate would also be a priority to add more variation to both the Derailer 360 responses as
well as the participant five factor model profiles.
Another opportunity for future research, as well as increasing the contribution of this type
of work to the field, would be to repeat this effort with multiple groups of participants in real

world applications. Expanding the scope of the participant sample could not only increase the
variation in instrument response but also increase variety in terms of Derailer 360 raters thus
decreasing bias.
Once limitations have been overcome or repeated application of this treatment to separate
participant groups has resulted in a validated list of five factor personality profiles which apply
to the general population, other potential research objectives emerge. Opportunities exist for
exploration into identifying personality profiles for derailment in specific demographics, i.e.
industry, career level, gender, etc. Further opportunity is present in identifying specific sub-trait
profiles which could be attributed to individual derailer behaviors. The results of these types of
research endeavors would lend themselves to identifying means for helping managers “stay on
the tracks” and prevent impending derailment by creating FFM profile specific guides for
addressing and combatting each derailer risk.
Conclusion
Derailment is a risk for those moving up in the world; it can leave significant impact to
both the individual and the organization in its wake. While derived from small sample sizes, the
findings of this research effort provided a pilot for the analysis process and an initial observation
into the five factor model profiles that prevailed for participants considered “at-risk” for each of
the nineteen derailer behaviors. This study also provided data points for comparison to five
factor model super-trait aspects currently used to predict derailer behaviors by CentACS. It is the
hope of the author that the data presented in this work, as well as data derived from future
research, can be used to help individuals avoid derailment by identifying and addressing blind
spots or ineffective behaviors before it is too late.

References
Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological
Monographs, 47(1)
American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM).
Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
Bentz, V.J. (1985) A view from the top: A thirty year perspective of research devoted to the discovery,
description, and prediction of executive behavior, paper presented at the 93rd Annual
Convention of the American Psychological Association in Los Angeles, August.
Brookmire, D. (2012). Avoid derailers. Leadership Excellence, 29(5), 16.
Burke, R. J. (2006). Why leaders fail: Exploring the darkside. International Journal of Manpower,
27(1), 91-100.
Carson, M., Shanock, L., Heggestad, E. D., Andrew, A. M., Pugh, S., & Walter, M. (2012). The
relationship between dysfunctional interpersonal tendencies, derailment potential behavior, and
turnover. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27(3), 291-304.
CentACS. (2010). Sample derailer report. Charlotte, NC: Center for Applied Cognitive Studies.
Costa, P., & Widiger, T. (1994). Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality.
American Psychological Association: Washington, DC.
Dalal, D. K. & Nolan, K. P., (2009). Using dark side personality traits to identify potential failure.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2 (2009), pp. 434-436.
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual review of
psychology, 41(1), 417-440.

Dotlich, D., Cairo, P., & Rhinesmith, S. (2008). Complexity, diversity, and uncertainty-- The shaky New
ground for CEOs. People & Strategy, 31(2), 44-51.
Drucker, P. F. (1967). The effective executive. London, England: Heinemann.
Felsing, A. (2014). A guide for coaches to use with clients who have derailed. Charlotte, NC: Queens
University of Charlotte.
Frankel, L. P. (1994). Preventing individuals’ career derailment. Employment Relations Today, 21(3),
295-305.
Gaddis, B. H. and Foster, J. L. (2015), Meta-analysis of dark side personality characteristics and critical
work behaviors among leaders across the globe: Findings and implications for leadership
development and executive coaching. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 64: 25–54.
Gentry, W. A. (2010). Derailment: How successful leaders avoid it. In E. Biech (Ed.), The ASTD
leadership handbook .Alexandria, VA: ASTD Press.
Gentry, W. A., & Chappelow, C. T. (2009). Managerial derailment: Weaknesses that can be fixed. In R.
B. Kaiser (Ed.), The perils of accentuating the positives. Tulsa, OK: Hogan Press.
Gentry, W. A., Katz, R. B., & McFeeters, B. (2009). The continual need for improvement to
avoid derailment: A study of college and university administrators. Higher Education Research
and Development, 28, 335-348.
Gentry, W. A., Braddy, P. W., Fleenor, J. W., & Howard, P. J. (2008). Self-observer rating discrepancies
on the derailment behaviors of Hispanic managers. The Business Journal of Hispanic Research,
2(1), 76-87.
Gentry, W. A., Mondore, S. P., & Cox, B. D. (2007). An exploratory study of managerial derailment
characteristics and personality preferences. Journal of Management Development, 26, 857-873.

Higgins, G., & Freedman, J. (2013). Improving decision making in crisis. Journal of Business
Continuity & Emergency Planning, 7(1), 65-76.
Hogan, R. (1994). Trouble at the top: Causes and consequences of managerial incompetence. Consulting
Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 46(1), 9-15.
Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2001). Assessing leadership: A view from the dark side. International Journal
of Selection and Assessment, 9(1-2), 40-51.
Hogan, J., & Holland, B. (2003). Using theory to evaluate personality and job-performance relations: A
socioanalytic perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 100-112.
Hogan, J., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2010). Management derailment. In S. Zedeck (Ed.) American
Psychological Association Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 3 (555-
575). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association
Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2005). What we know about leadership. Review of General Psychology,
9(2), 169-180.
Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2008). Quality control: Why leaders need to understand personality.
Leadership in Action, 28(5), 3-7.
Howard, P. & Howard, J. (2010) The owner’s manual for personality at work (2nd ed.). Charlotte, NC:
The Center for Applied Cognitive Studies.
Howard, P. (2006). The owner’s manual for the brain (3rd ed.). Austin, Tx: Bard Press.
Kovach, B. E. (1986). The derailment of fast-track managers. Organizational Dynamics, 15(2), 41-48.
Kovach, B. E. (1989). Successful derailment: What fast-trackers can learn while they're off the track.
Organizational Dynamics, 18(2), 33.
Leslie J. & Van Velsor, E. (1996). A look at derailment today: North America and Europe. Greensboro,
NC: Center for Creative Leadership

Lipkin, N. (2013). Leadership Derailers: Three keep leaders up at night. Leadership Excellence, 30(11),
6-7.
Livesley, W. J. (Ed.). (2001). Handbook of personality disorders: Theory, research, and treatment. New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
Lombardo, M. M., & Eichinger, R. W. (1989). Preventing derailment: What to do before it’s too late.
Technical Report Series; No. 138g. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Lombardo, M, & Eichinger, R. (1996). For your improvement. Minneapolis, MN: Lominger Limited
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(3), 199-
216.
Martin, J., & Gentry, W. A. (2011). Derailment signs across generations: More in common than
expected. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 14, 177-195.
McCall, M. W., & Lombardo, M. M. (1983). Off the track: Why and how successful executives get
derailed (No. 21). Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across
instruments and observers. Journal of personality and social psychology, 52(1), 81.
Nelson, E., & Hogan, R. (2009). Coaching on the Dark Side. International Coaching Psychology
Review, 4(1), 9-21.
Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor
structure in peer nomination personality ratings. The Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 66(6), 574.
Robertson, P.P. (2014). Why top executives derail: A performative-extended mind and a law of optimal
emergence. Journal of Organisational Transformation & Social Change, 11(1), 25-49.

Shipper, F., & Dillard, J. R. (2000). A study of impending derailment and recovery of middle managers
across career stages. Human Resource Management, 39(4), 331-345.
Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1961). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings (No. ASD-
TR-61-97). San Antonia, TX: Lackland Air Force Base Personnel Research Lab.

Appendix A
1 Arrogance
α .939
Treats colleagues as equal.
Seeks to understand the perspectives of other people.
Typically accepts the feedback of others.
Open to new ideas or solutions from any other personnel or source, not only being
open to new ideas or solutions from certain personnel or sources.
2 Betrayal of Trust
α .904
Does not lie to others.
Will not sacrifice others for personal gain.
Does not go behind the backs of peers or superiors.
Avoids putting others down in public.
3 Blocked Personal Learner
α .923
Is committed to continuous improvement.
Is considered a curious person.
Shows interest in pursuit of knowledge.
Enjoys learning about the jobs of peers and direct reports.
4 Defensiveness
α .914
Is open to listening to feedback from others.
Takes responsibility for failures.
Refrains from pointing fingers and blaming others.
Appreciates others questioning their ideas.
5 Failure to Build a Team
α .932
Leads teams effectively.
Builds strong morale in teams
Allows team members to provide feedback.
Allows team members to have a say in how the team works.
6 Failure to Staff Effectively
α .924
Provides effective feedback to direct reports.
Establishes effective succession plans.
Values staff members with opposing viewpoints.
Handles negative personnel issues well.
7 Insensitive to Others
α .922
Listens well.
Considerate of others feelings.
Seeks first to understand rather than to be understood.
Considers how their actions affect others.

8 Key Skill Deficiencies
α .901
Can transition from the expert role to generalist role when required.
Is perceived as being self-aware.
Effectively makes difficult decisions.
Considered to be a strong communicator.
9 Lack of Composure
α .906
Has a reputation for not overreacting.
Hides frustration well.
Maintains composure in stressful situations.
Rises to the occasion during difficult circumstances.
10 Lack of Ethics and Values
α .958
Never disregards ethical standards during decision making.
Would not cheat to get ahead.
Does the right thing.
Sets the standard for ethical behavior in the workplace.
11 Non-Strategic
α .923
Actively plans beyond day-to-day operations.
Is considered a systems thinker.
Proactively scans the environment on a regular basis for new trends.
Has no problem seeing the big picture and connections across the whole system.
12 Overdependence on Advocate
α .900
Does not need to seek a mentor’s advice for every decision.
Handles problems on their own, without seeking the intervention of a mentor.
Weighs advice when received and does not blindly follow what they’re told.
Does not brown-nose.
13 Overdependence on Single Skill
α .908
Appreciates diverse skillsets.
Actively seeks to expand their skillset.
Does not approach every problem the same way.
Does not consistently repeat the same mistakes.
14 Overly Ambitious
α .801
Focuses on long term results.
Focuses on managing their team rather than their career.
Does not over delegate.
Does not get overwhelmed by taking on too many projects or responsibilities.

15 Over-Managing
α .932
Trusts the decisions of others.
Emphasizes teaching, not telling.
Actively listens to direct reports.
Utilizes feedback from employees when working on a project.
16 Performance Problems
α .891
Can manage a project from beginning to end.
Uses conflict constructively.
Does not shirk their responsibilities.
Does not jump to conclusions.
17 Political Missteps
α .936
Does not make comments which indicate personal biases.
Has treated direct reports and peers well on their way up through the organization.
Treats others respectfully.
Allows others speak their minds.
18 Poor Administrator
α .881
Can easily communicate important information.
Keeps good records of completed projects.
Possesses a high attention to detail.
Puts effort into memos and other documents.
19 Unable to Adapt to Differences
α .888
Does not have difficulty seeing a problem from more than one perspective.
Does not dwell on the unimportant parts of a problem.
Is not a rigid thinker.
Thinks about their actions before making a decision.

John Lutz - Pilot Study Five Factor Model Profiles as Predictors for Derailer Behavior

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to John Lutz - Pilot Study Five Factor Model Profiles as Predictors for Derailer Behavior

Similar to John Lutz - Pilot Study Five Factor Model Profiles as Predictors for Derailer Behavior (20)

John Lutz - Pilot Study Five Factor Model Profiles as Predictors for Derailer Behavior