Two of the Hogan Assessment tools (the Hogan Development Survey and the Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory) were used to demonstrate and underscore the importance of understanding the motivation and values that drive leader behaviors in an effort to help mitigate an executive's likelihood of derailment.

1. RESEARCH POSTER PRESENTATION DESIGN © 2011
www.PosterPresentations.com
With one third of executives failing in their
roles (Stamoulis, 2009), the stakes could not be
higher for selecting the “right” executives and
supporting their individual development once in-
role. This study investigated the relationship
between leaders’ motives and their propensity
to exhibit derailing behaviors, as measured by
the Hogan Development Survey. Based on data
from 517 executives, results indicate a positive
and statistically significant relationship between
two self-interest motives, power and
recognition, and higher derailment risk. These
findings underscore the importance of
understanding the motivation and values that
drive leader behaviors in an effort to help
mitigate an executive’s likelihood of derailment.
Abstract
Objectives
Participants and Procedure
As part of RHR International’s comprehensive
individual assessment process, 517 executives
completed online versions of the HDS and MVPI.
The final sample includes 382 men and 135
women executives, and is representative of a
variety of industries. Assessment data was
collected between 2011 and 2013.
Measures
The assessment of motivation included in the
current study was the Hogan Motives, Values,
and Preferences Inventory (MVPI). The MVPI is
designed to assess a person’s “interests,
motives, and drivers,” and the “fit between an
individual and the organizational culture”
(Hogan, Hogan, & Warrenfeltz, 2007, pp. 88).
The MVPI is comprised of ten subscales that
measure a person’s primary drivers.
Derailment risk was measured by the Hogan
Development Survey (HDS). The HDS is designed
to measure eleven self-limiting behaviors that
will likely be seen in high-stress situations that
involve change or a perceived decreased need
to manage one’s image (Hogan & Hogan, 2001).
Derailment behaviors “interfere with a person’s
ability to build relationships with others and
create cohesive, goal-oriented teams” (Hogan,
et al, 2007, p. 52). The HDS is comprised of
eleven subscales which are correlated with the
Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM) definitions
of personality disorders. When expressed in the
workplace, these traits “negatively influence
people’s careers, relationships, and life
satisfactions” (Hogan, et al, 2007, p. 52).
Methods
Both the MVPI and HDS generate scores ranging
from 1 to 100. High scores indicate significant
endorsement of items within a particular
subscale. For the purposes of this study, “low
risk” indicates that an executive has scored
above 90 on one or fewer HDS subscales (n=351;
68%). Of the “low risk” population, 54% (n=279)
have one score and 14% (n=72) have no HDS
scores above 90. Executives with two or more
HDS scores above 90 were categorized as “high
risk” (n=166, 32% of sample). The mean number
of risks per executive is 1.13 (N=517).
Analyses included a review of selected MVPI
scales and a comparison of the motivational
profile scores of “high risk” executives against
others. Additional analyses included a review of
descriptives, outliers, skewness and kurtosis, a
one-way analysis of variance, independent
samples t-tests and correlations.
Results (continued) Discussion
These findings have significant implications.
First, organizations would benefit by more
carefully considering candidates’ motives when
making hiring decisions. For those leaders who
have strong Recognition and Power motives,
managers should consider whether there are
ample experiences available and an
organizational culture that can fulfill these
motivations. If not, there may be a greater
likelihood of derailment. Second, there are
developmental implications for existing
organizational leaders. Development work with
executives displaying high Recognition and
Power needs should focus on developing
strategic awareness of these motives and
identifying the specific behaviors they inform.
Developmental interventions might involve
enabling a leader to become more aware of
“what is driving them.” Hogan (2007) argues
that awareness of potential derailers is an
important intervention. This research suggests
that understanding one’s motives is also quite
valuable. Using these findings, managers can
watch for subordinates who may display trends
of these motives and suggest early intervention
through developmental resources. Finally, in
one’s own development, it may be quite
beneficial to retain and enhance more “social”
interests by thinking of others, as one’s risk of
derailment significantly drops when these
drivers inform leadership behaviors.
References
Douglas, H., Bore, M., & Munro, D. (2012). Distinguishing the dark
triad: evidence from the Five-Factor model and the Hogan Development Survey.
Scientific Research, Vol 3(No 3), 237-242.
Fernandez, J., & Hogan, R. (2002). Values-Based Leadership. The Journal for
Quality and Participation, Winter, 2002.
Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2001). Assessing leadership: A view from the dark side.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol 9, 40-51.
Hogan, R., Hogan, J., & Warrenfeltz, R. (2007). The Hogan Guide: Interpretation
and Use of Hogan Inventories. Hogan Assessment Systems, USA.
Inyang, B. (2013). Exploring the concept of leadership derailment: defining new
research agenda. International Journal of Business and Management, Vol 8, No
16, 1-9.
Stamoulis, D. (2009). Senior Executive Assessment. Wiley-Blackwell, UK.
Thomas, J., Dickson, M., & Bliese, P. (2001). Values Predicting Leader
performance
in the U.S. Army Reserve Officer Training Corps Assessment Center: evidence
for
a personality-mediated model. The Leadership Quarterly, Vol 12, (No 2), 181-
196. Contact
Beau River, PsyD, briver@rhrinternational.com
Britta Eriksen, BA, beriksen@rhrinternational.com
Michael Milad, PhD, mmilad@rhrinternational.com
The link between motives and leadership
effectiveness is well established (Thomas,
Dickson, & Bliese, 2001). Similarly, the
relationship between leader values and
organizational performance has been explored
(Fernandez & Hogan, 2002). However, the
relationship between motives and ineffective
leadership is less established (Inyang, 2013).
This study explored the relationship between
leader values and risk of leadership derailment
within an executive population.
Main Hypothesis
Motives that drive leaders to seek status and
excessively self-display will be associated with a
higher risk of derailment, defined as “high risk”
ratings across two or more derailer behaviors.
Risky motives: Exploring the relationship between leader
values and leadership derailment
Beau River, PsyD; Britta Eriksen, BA; & Michael Milad, PhD
*p < .05
**p < .01
High
Risk
Medium
Risk
Low
Risk
Recognition .35**
Power .31**
Hedonism .18**
Aesthetics .15**
Commercial .14**
Scientific .08
Security .05
Altruism .02
Tradition .01
Affiliation -.09*
Self-
Interested
Self-Other
Interested
Other
Interested,
Data, & Risk-
Minimization
Status
Social
Decisional
Financial
Risk
Level
Motivation &
Correlation
Interest Cluster
& Implications
Correlation of Derailment Risk to Motives
Experience
of Self-
Interested
Motivations
Leadership
Derailment
Results
Those who are highly motivated by Power and
Recognition as measured by the MVPI indicate a
significantly higher risk of derailment as defined
by the HDS (Recognition, r = .35, p < .01; Power,
r = .31, p < .01). Conversely, when one’s
drivers are more “social” (motives of Altruism,
Tradition, or Affiliation), the likelihood of
derailment significantly decreases (Affiliation, r
= -.09, p < .05).