an explorative study into the personality traits of
TRANSCRIPT
Personality Traits of Internal Auditors
An Explorative Study into the Personality Traits of
Starting and Experienced Internal Auditors
University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam Business School
Erwin A.P. Mol, MSc.
ID number: 6020410
Date: 20 July 2014
Program: Executive Internal Auditing Programme
Supervisor: Dr. M.M. Tophoff
Co-reader: Dr. S. van Hoek-Gerritsen
Thesis
2
Personality traits of internal auditors
An explorative study into the personality traits of starting and experienced auditors
Abstract
Internal auditors are expected to provide reliable information and to act as a trustworthy source.
This study examines whether personality trait theory contributes to our understanding of an
internal auditor meeting these expectations. Our literature study shows that personality traits can
be measured and provides a starting point for certain desirable personality traits for internal
auditors. Our pilot study shows that the personality traits of internal auditors in this study differ
significantly from a large norm group of high educated individuals, especially experienced
internal auditors. We found significant differences between the personality traits of starting and
experienced internal auditors. Chief Audit Executives were asked to rank personality traits on
level of desirability in an internal auditor and we found reason to believe that there are
differences between their expectations and the internal auditors in this study. This study has
important implications for both the internal audit community and personality trait research.
Keywords: Internal audit, Audit, Personality traits, Big five traits, Personality trait measurement
instruments, Experience level, Desirable traits, Chief audit executives, Internal audit
departments
3
A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T
Writing this thesis is an important step in concluding the Executive Internal Auditing
Programme (EIAP), although it certainly is not the end-point in my journey of learning within
the internal audit community. This accomplishment and also all further undertakings would
not have been and will not be possible without the following persons who I gladly
acknowledge.
I want to thank all participants in this study who helped me to provide insights in the
personality traits within our community. A special word of thanks goes to the Chief Audit
Executives who participated in setting a personality profile of internal auditors.
I want to thank my thesis supervisor, Dr. Michael Tophoff. This thesis would not have been
the same without his valuable insights, positive criticism and guidance.
I want to thank my colleagues, fellow EIAP students and EIAP lecturers who proved to be
great sparring partners in sharpening my ideas about the role and raison d'être of internal
audit.
I want to thank KPMG for investing in my development as internal auditor and providing me
the opportunity to study.
Finally and most importantly, I want to thank my wife Elina. Her support, encouragement and
patience cannot be measured.
4
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
Acknowledgement ..................................................................................................................... 3
Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... 4
I. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 5 I.1. Reason for Studying Personality Traits of the Internal Auditor .................................. 5 I.2. Problem Statement and Research Questions ............................................................... 6 I.3. Methodological Approach ........................................................................................... 6 I.4. Reading Guide ............................................................................................................. 7
II. Personality Trait and Internal Audit Literature Review ..................................................... 8 II.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 8 II.2. Personality Traits and Traits Measurement ................................................................. 8 II.3. Personality Traits and Job Effects ............................................................................. 12
II.4. Personality Traits and Auditors ................................................................................. 13 II.5. Personality Traits and Adjacent Professions ............................................................. 17 II.6. Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 17
III. Methods Pilot Study among Internal Auditors ................................................................ 18 III.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 18 III.2. Sample and Procedure ............................................................................................... 18
III.3. Measures .................................................................................................................... 19
IV. Results Pilot Study among Internal Auditors ................................................................... 24 IV.1. Descriptive Statistics ................................................................................................. 24
IV.2. Description of the Norm Group................................................................................. 24 IV.3. Results of All Internal Auditors in this Study ........................................................... 25
IV.4. Results of Starting and Experienced Internal Auditors ............................................. 27 IV.5. Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 31
V. Methods Personality Profile according to CAEs ............................................................. 32 V.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 32 V.2. Sample and Procedure ............................................................................................... 32
V.3. Measures .................................................................................................................... 32
VI. Results Personality Profile according to CAEs ................................................................ 33 VI.1. Personality Profile according to Chief Audit Executives .......................................... 33 VI.2. Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 37
VII. Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 38 VII.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 38
VII.2. Personality Traits of Internal Auditors ...................................................................... 38 VII.3. Personality Profile according to Chief Audit Executives .......................................... 41 VII.4. Practical Implications for the Internal Audit Community ......................................... 42 VII.5. Contribution to Academic Research.......................................................................... 43 VII.6. Limitations................................................................................................................. 44
VII.7. Future Research ......................................................................................................... 45 VII.8. Summary and Conclusion ......................................................................................... 47
References ................................................................................................................................ 48
Appendix I – Letter to Participants .......................................................................................... 53
Appendix II – Measurement Scales ......................................................................................... 55
5
I . I N T R O D U C T I O N
I.1. Reason for Studying Personality Traits of the Internal Auditor
Society at large and organisational members individually are calling auditors to provide
meaningful information. This includes information on factors such as the viability and
stability of the organisation, a judgement on whether board statements (e.g. the annual
accounts) are correct and a statement on whether management is in-control on material risks.
People look at auditors to provide this information because they are traditionally perceived to
be a source to be trusted.
Recent events however affected the public opinion and led people to cast doubt on whether
auditors are indeed a source which can be trusted. This is especially evidenced by the public
debate both in The Netherlands, for example by the research committee installed by Dutch
Parliament to research the role of public accountant during the financial crisis
(CommissieDeWit, 2010), and abroad, for example by the European Union green paper
“Audit Policy: Lessons from the Crisis” leading to new EU regulations (e.g. on audit rotation)
(EC, 2010). Also, media are increasingly critical with regards to both external and internal
auditors. These recent events provide evidence that the auditors had knowledge about certain
compromising facts but choose to either play down or ignore them.
These incidents could perhaps be prevented by assessing the personality traits of internal
auditors. In other words, there might be personality traits that make internal auditors more
prone to undesirable behaviour. Or, to state it positively, there might be certain personality
traits which successful internal auditors have in common and which therefore are desirable in
an internal auditor. Personality traits which characterise an internal auditor who finds control
deficiencies, is not misled easily and who is able to resist opposition within the three party
relationship of auditor, auditee and client. Personality traits are important to study because
they ultimately shape behaviour.
Not much research has yet been performed on the desirable personality traits for internal
auditors. Church, Davis and McCracken (2008) for instance call for research on the
relationship between auditors individual characteristics and the quality of audit reporting.
6
Furthermore, personality traits is a much discussed topic in the internal auditing community
today.
I.2. Problem Statement and Research Questions
The leading question of this thesis is: to what extent can we provide evidence to show that
internal auditors have distinctive personality traits?
The following research questions will be addressed in order to answer this problem statement:
1 What are personality traits and how are they measured psychometrically?
2 Are there certain personality traits that distinguish internal auditors from other highly
educated individuals?
3 Do personality traits differ between starting and experienced internal auditors?
4 Are there indications for desirable personality traits for internal auditors?
I.3. Methodological Approach
This explorative study will consist of a literature study, a pilot study among internal auditors
and a personality profile impression received from Chief Audit Executives and will lead to
several hypotheses for future studies (i.e. an inductive method).
I.3.1. Literature review
Current literature on measuring personality traits and desired traits in adjacent professions
will be studied elaborately to gain understanding of how traits are measured and whether there
are desirable personality traits for internal auditors. This literature study will answer research
questions one and four.
I.3.2. Pilot study among starting and experienced auditors
The personality traits of a group of 113 internal auditors will be assessed and compared to a
large norm group of highly educated individuals. The group will be divided in a group of
starting internal auditors (0 – 2 years of relevant experience) and a group of experienced
internal auditors (> 8 year of relevant experience), which will be compared to both each other
and the norm group. This pilot study will answer research questions two and three.
7
Rolland and De Fruyt’s (2009) Personality for Professionals Inventory (PfPI) questionnaire
will be used to measure 21 personality traits1 and Five-Factor Model (FFM) proxy scores (i.e.
emotional stability, extraversion, openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness) (McCrae &
Costa, 1987).
I.3.3. Personality profile impression from Chief Audit Executives
The understanding of the desired personality traits will be further improved through inquiring
Chief Audit Executives. They will be asked to rank the 21 personality traits mentioned above
on level of desirability. The personality traits of the internal auditors in this study will be
compared to this personality profile. This profile will provide additional insights in relation to
research question four.
I.4. Reading Guide
The remainder of this thesis is structured as follows. Chapter II consists of an elaborate
literature study on personality traits of auditors. Chapters III and V will discuss the
methodology used in the pilot study and personality profile study, respectively. Chapters IV
and VI will state the results of the pilot study and personality profile study, respectively.
Chapter VII will conclude this thesis by discussing the results and implications of this study
for the internal audit community and provides possible hypotheses for future academic
research and internal auditing literature development.
1 Sensitivity, Self-confidence, Susceptibility to stress, Frustration tolerance, Enthusiasm, Sociability, Energy,
Assertiveness, Innovation-oriented & creativity, Intellectual versus action-oriented, Self-reflection, Openness to
change, Competitiveness, Being other-oriented, Trusting others, Willingness to accommodate, Systematic and
organised approach, Self-discipline, Self-control, Motivation to perform, Pro-activeness
8
I I . P E R S O N A L I T Y T R A I T A N D I N T E R N A L A U D I T L I T E R A T U R E R E V I E W
II.1. Introduction
This chapter will provide answers to our research questions “what are personality traits and
how are they measured psychometrically?” and “are there indications for desirable personality
traits for internal auditors?”. We will do so by first assessing what personality traits are and
how they can be measured psychometrically. Second, we will discuss literature on personality
trait effects on work-related outcomes. Third, we will discuss literature on personality traits in
relation to auditors and fourth examine the same in relation to adjacent professions.
II.2. Personality Traits and Traits Measurement
To start, what really is a personality trait? Pervin (1994) defines a personality trait as “a
disposition to behave expressing itself in consistent patterns of functioning across a range of
situations” (Pervin, 1994, p. 108). Adhering to this definition implies that personality traits
can be an important factor in understanding behaviour in various circumstances. A large
longitudinal study examining personality stability in relation to age for both men and women
provides evidence for the view that personality traits become stable for individuals in their
30s and remain stable when they get older (Terracciano, McCrae, & Costa, 2010).
Furthermore, it was found that nature has far more effects on personality compared to nurture.
McCrae et al. (2000) show in their literature study how different research streams come to the
same conclusion that personality traits are hardly influenced by environmental factors. As an
example, evidence from adoption studies shows that the personality of adopted children is not
influenced by its adoptive parents or siblings, showing the lack of family influences effects
(Plomin, Corley, Caspi, Fulker, & DeFries, 1998). Johnson, Vernon and Feiler (2008) provide
an overview of over 50 years of research showing the strong relationship between genetics
and personality. However, external factors should not be excluded in whole as there is
evidence that traits can be altered due to life experiences through the process of neural
plasticity, or in other words, experiences may alter the brain which in turn may alter
personality (C. A. Nelson, 1999).
As the discussion above implies, personality traits can indeed be measured. As an overview,
personality traits can be measured either through self-reports, informant reports (reporting by
9
others) and behavioural assessments through observation, where combining these methods,
i.e. triangulation, lead to the most reliable results (McDonald, 2008). A summary of the
advantages and disadvantages of the various methods is provided in Table 1.
TABLE 1
Advantages and Disadvantages of Methods of Personality Measurementa
Method Advantages Disadvantages
Self-Reports Practical and efficient
Convenient and easy to administer
Inexpensive
Direct insight into unique personal
information
Individual motivation to respond
Can control most response biases
Many readily available psychometrically-
tested inventories
Most commonly used method
Potential issues with credibility of
responses (due to response biases):
o Socially Desirable Responding
o Acquiescent Responding
o Extreme Responding
Assumes that respondents are self-
knowledgeable and do not have distorted
self-perceptions (debates involved with
using)
Issues with non-context-specific language
use of questions
Cultural limitations
Informant
Reports
Can provide objective information about a
target
Potential to be practical, inexpensive and
convenient (e.g. Internet)
Multiple raters and aggregation of data
can lead to reliability of results
Others can provide insights on behaviour,
especially across-situations
No socially desirable response bias
Less efficient and more effort required to
obtain third-party data than to simply ask
the target
Similar response biases to self-reports
(e.g. Acquiescent and Extreme
Responding)
Issues with choosing informants –
possibility for biases based on relationship
or research aims
Others cannot access certain personal
information about target
Difficult to assess situation-specific
Behaviour
Behavioural
Methods
Directly examines behaviour, which is
central to examining personality
Can get situation-specific information
Fewer response biases than with
questionnaires
Two potential settings: lab or field (which
carry different pros and cons)
Least practical and convenient method
Ethical concerns
Involves complex coding schemes
Expensive in time and money
Possible disconnection between
behaviour and specific traits
Multiple
Methods
Same strengths as above
Added advantage of the improvement of
construct validity
Can answer more research questions and
lead to richness of data, especially if part
of a triangulation or ‘mixed methods’
strategy
Same weaknesses as above
Requires more effort, money, resources,
time and training to implement
a McDonald (2008, p. 18)
II.2.1. Psychometric assessment tools
The study of personality traits has been a popular research field for quite some time.
However, it took decades of research to come to a consensus on what taxonomy of personality
10
traits should be measured (John & Srivastava, 1999). Nowadays, the best researched model of
personality traits is the five-factor model (Big Five) of personality. Here, persons can be
classified according to five personality traits: distinguishing emotional stability, extraversion,
openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness. These factors can be assessed by statistically
valid and reliable questionnaires such as Costa and McCrae’s (1992) Revised NEO
Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R), McCrae & Costa’s (2004) to 60 items shortened NEO
Five-Factor Inventory (NEO FFI) and Rolland and De Fruyt’s (2009) Personality for
Professionals Inventory (PfPI). Recently, debate has risen whether the big five traits are
uncorrelated traits or whether there are meta-traits which exist above the big five (Alessandri
& Vecchione, 2012). Factor analysis led to two higher-order traits being Stability, with shared
variances of emotional stability, agreeableness and conscientiousness, and Plasticity, with
shared variances of extraversion and openness (McCrae, et al., 2008).
Figure 1 depicts the relationship between the five factors (basic tendencies) and personal
characteristics. In line with our earlier discussion, the five-factor model assumes explicitly
that these basic tendencies are biologically or nature based but leaves room for some external
or nurture effects.
FIGURE 1
A Representation of the Five-Factor Theory Personality Systema
a McCrae & Costa (1999, p. 76)
11
Other psychometric measurement scales measuring personality traits but not leading to the big
five traits include DISC, Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and Enneagram. We will
discuss these one by one.
The DISC assessment is claimed to be based on Marston’s (1928) DISC theory measures four
behavioural types: dominance, inducement, submission and compliance. We found this
assessment unfitting for the purpose of this study as there were no scientific studies performed
to substantiate the claim that this assessment indeed measures Marton’s behavioural types.
The MBTI (Myers, McCaulley, Quenk, & Hammer, 1998) also measures behavioural types
and claims to be based on Jung’s (1923) typological theory on the dichotomies extraversion
versus introversion, sensing versus intuition, thinking versus feeling, judging versus
perception. However, even stronger opposition compared to DISC is found in relevant
research studies on the MBTI. Multiple researchers conclude that there is no scientific basis
for the MBTI assessment (e.g. Hicks, 1984; Schriesheim, Hinkin, & Podsakoff, 1991).
The Enneagram (Riso & Hudson, 1996) assessment measures nine roles an individual can
take, the role of: reformer, helper, achiever, individualist, investigator, loyalist, enthusiast,
challenger, peacemaker. As with the DISC and MBTI, no scientific evidence is found in
academic literature for this test (e.g. Edwards, 1991).
Based on the above discussion led us to the conclusion that only the NEO PI-R, the NEO FFI
and the PfPI would be potential suitable measurement instruments for the current study. The
NEO FFI was unsuitable because it only measures the big five traits and not several
personality trait subsets. We chose to apply the PfPI because it was developed to measure
traits including the big five traits in a work-related context. Multiple studies (e.g. Mlinarić &
Podlesek, 2013; Schmit, Ryan, Stierwalt, & Powell, 1995) showed that measurement scales
with context-related items have a higher predictive value. Furthermore, it measures well
known big five traits which will not only enhance comparability to other studies but also
provide solid scientific grounds to this current study. As discussed above, much research has
been performed on the big five traits and the existence of these five domains is confirmed in
multiple studies. Most importantly, the PfPI has been statistically validated and is proven to
be a reliable measurement with strong correlations to the popular NEO PI-R. Correlations
between the PfPI’s five-factor model scores and the corresponding NEO PI-R domains are
12
high, based on a sample of 348 respondents (Rolland & De Fruyt, 2009), as stipulated in
Table 2.
TABLE 2
Correlations between PfPI and NEO P-IRa
Factor r
Emotional stability .81
Extraversion .85
Openness .82
Agreeableness .88
Conscientiousness .91
a Rolland and De Fruyt (2009)
In sum, personality traits, defined as “a disposition to behave expressing itself in consistent
patterns of functioning across a range of situations” (Pervin, 1994, p. 108), are relevant in
order to understand a person’s normal functioning. Personality traits are relatively stable in
time and are more dependent on a person’s genes rather than on environmental factors. These
personality traits can be validly and reliably psychometrically measured through
questionnaires based on the five-factor model of personality which has been validated for
several decades. The PfPI can be considered most suitable for measuring personality traits in a
work-related context.
II.3. Personality Traits and Job Effects
Much research has been done on the Big Five personality traits and their role in predicting
work-related criteria. For instance, personality is found to be related to job performance (e.g.
Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001), job satisfaction (e.g. Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002),
citizenship behaviour (e.g. Chiaburu, Oh, Berry, Li, & Gardner, 2011; Organ & Ryan, 1995),
deviant work behaviour (e.g. Marcus, Lee, & Ashton, 2007; Salgado, 2002), and leader
effectiveness (e.g. Bono & Judge, 2004). Some researchers, e.g. Morgeson et al. (2007), state
that personality traits cannot be adequately measured through self-reports in the context of an
organisation. More specifically, their criticism pinpoints towards the role of personality tests
in the context of personnel selection. Reasons for their criticism include the ones mentioned
earlier as disadvantages of self-reporting, primarily the potential of socially desirable
responding. Others, like Ones, Dilchert, Viswesvaran and Judge (2007), argue that there could
13
indeed be distortion in the context of getting employed but that these distortions are
neglectable and can be mitigated by triangulation. Also Wille, De Fruyt and De Clercq (2013)
found evidence that the five-factor model is a valid tool to predict work-related outcomes.
In sum, personality traits can predict work-related outcomes. Measurement of these traits in
the work-related context may intensify the measurement disadvantages discussed in the
section II.2. on personality traits and traits measurement. These disadvantages should
therefore be mitigated in studies on personality traits of internal auditors.
II.4. Personality Traits and Auditors
Research on whether there are desirable personality traits for internal auditors is considered to
be especially meaningful given the strong individual auditors effect on the audit quality found
recently by Gul, Donghui and Zhifeng (2013). It must be noted however that research also
demonstrates that the impact of individual characteristics are mitigated by audit-firm or
internal audit department quality-control mechanisms (Jeppesen, 2007) which therefore
tempers the potential effect of internal auditors’ personality traits. However, as Malone &
Roberts (1996) point out, reduced audit quality behaviour such as falsely signing off a
required audit step or accepting a weak client explanation as sufficient evidence increases
when auditors perceive the strength of these quality-control mechanisms or the penalties
regarding transgressing quality controls to be low. And auditors who want to be obedient to a
manager demonstrating reduced audit quality behaviour are more willing to sign-off on a
higher questionable asset account (Lord & Todd DeZoort, 2001). It would therefore make
sense to mitigate the risk of quality-control failure by hiring internal auditors who are less
tempted to demonstrate reduced audit quality behaviour. As a general remark, a survey
conducted among internal auditors and the general population demonstrated that the average
internal auditor is not more or less honest than the general population (Cherrington &
Cherrington, 1993).
II.4.1. Auditor values and virtues
We will begin by discussing literature on the effects of auditor values and virtues as a starting
point in understanding the potential effects of auditors’ personality. We do so, as research has
shown strong significant relationships between values, virtues and personality as measured by
the NEO PI-R discussed earlier (e.g. Cawley III, Martin, & Johnson, 2000).
14
In Libby and Thorne’s (2007) effort to develop a measure for auditor virtue they found four
specific auditors’ virtues which are considered to be most important by public accountants
and accountants in-business: integrity, truthfulness, independence and objectivity. Both
Shafer, Morris and Ketchand (2001) and Wilson, Pinac-Ward and Ward (1998) have assessed
the value preferences of auditors by applying Rokeach’s (1973) value survey. They found
similar results with the top four instrumental value preferences –preferable modes of
behaviour– being honest, responsible, capable and independent, and the lowest ranked
instrumental values being imaginative and obedient. These instrumental value preferences are
in-line with one would initially expect from auditors. The top four terminal value preferences
–goals that a person would like to achieve during his or her lifetime– were in both studies
family security, freedom, self-respect and happiness, and the lowest ranked terminal values
being social recognition and a world of beauty. Shafer et al. (2001) extended the Wilson et al.
(1998) study by assessing whether certain value preferences lead to increased ethical decision
making. They however did not find a relationship between auditor’s value preferences and
ethical decision making potentially due to low standard deviations in value ratings in their
study. Another explanation for the lack of a statistical relationship could be that other
contextual variable override personality traits such as values, which is in line with the internal
audit department quality-control mechanisms limitation which we mentioned earlier. Shafer et
al. (2001) therefore call for additional research to clarify the role and significance of values.
Besides internal audit department quality-control, the moral philosophy of an internal other
could also provide an answer to the role of contextual influencers. Ponemon & Gabhart
(1994) find that high levels of moral reasoning by auditors lead to higher desired behaviour
such as compliance with independence rules and detecting fraudulent statements. Kung and
Huang’s (2013) recent findings suggest that the moral philosophy of auditor affect the attitude
of auditor’s towards their auditee. Using Forsyth’s (1980) two-dimensional view of moral
philosophy, i.e. idealism versus relativism, they found a mediating effect of moral philosophy
towards auditors condemnation of client unethical behaviour. They found that auditors
scoring high idealism were much more inclined to condemn client illegal or dubious
behaviour as opposed to auditors scoring high on relativism. Furthermore, they found that
auditor’s with personal values tending to conservatism were more inclined to be an idealist
while auditor’s with personal values tending to self-enhancement were more inclined to be an
relativist. In conclusion, auditors with conservative personal values were more critical
towards unethical behaviour via the moral philosophy of idealism.
15
II.4.2. Auditor traits
Personality traits and auditors did first appear in literature in 1972. Trump et al. (1972)
described the exemplar auditor as one who is “enterprising, alert, ambitious, value work,
independent, self-reliant, planful, responsible, thorough, resourceful, alert to ethical and moral
issues, industrious, conscientious. practical, deliberate, dependable, moderate, tolerant,
verbally fluent, perceptive, persevering” (Trump, et al., 1972, p. 87). The IIA’s president
Richard Chambers more recently described the top audit executive as one who is a superior
business acumen, has dynamic communication skills, unflinching integrity and ethics, breadth
of experience, excellent grasp of business risks, gift for developing talent and unwavering
courage (Chambers, 2011). A recent IIA study focuses on the core competencies and skills
needed in an internal auditor and highlights communication skills, problem solving skills,
influencing skills and being objective and able to judge (Bailey, 2010). And again also more
towards personality instead of skill, M.W. Nelson (2009) points toward three important
auditor traits: problem solving ability, scepticism and ethics/moral reasoning. The third has
been discussed above, we will now look at how the first two as potential desirable traits that
should be possessed by internal auditors.
Problem solving ability is found to be an important trait for auditors as it helps in identifying
flaws (Bierstaker & Wright, 2001). It is important for an auditor to see interlinkages between
processes and to analyse whether the combination of certain risks within an organisation’s
appetite would lead to risks far beyond the level of risk an organisation is willing to take. Also
scepticism is found to be an important trait. Hurtt (2010) recently developed a scale to
measure auditor scepticism and makes a distinction between the following six characteristics:
suspension of judgment, questioning mind, search for knowledge, interpersonal
understanding, self-confidence, and self-determination. Fullerton and Durtschi (2004) have
applied this scepticism scale among internal auditors and found that internal auditor’s scoring
high on Hurtt’s scepticism scale would be significantly more likely to extend information
search when fraud symptoms present themselves.
Research has also focussed on the level of locus of control in relation to auditors’ behaviour.
For instance Tsui and Gul (1996) have shown that auditors with an internal locus of control,
i.e. auditors believing that they control the events affecting them, are significantly less
susceptible for going along with a client in the case of an auditor-client conflict situation.
Furthermore, Donnelly, Quirin and O'Bryan (2003) demonstrate that auditors with an internal
16
locus of control are more accepting of reduced audit quality behaviour such as gathering
insufficient evidence and altering audit procedures. These results suggest that an internal
locus of control is desirable for internal auditors.
II.4.3. Auditor gender, experience and culture
Gender has been found to be related to personality, with females scoring lower on emotional
stability and higher on extraversion (Rubinstein & Strul, 2007) and higher on agreeableness
and lower on openness (Costa Jr, Terracciano, & McCrae, 2001). Such studies were also
performed on accounting managers which showed higher scores for females on traits such as
self-control, logical and imaginative (Eaton & Giacomino, 2001). Gender has also been
associated with different value sets among accounting students (Akers & Giacomino, 1998).
Auditor experience levels are a common variable in audit research. We found studies
distinguishing auditors based on experience in studies on e.g. behaviour (Tsui & Gul, 1996),
self-perceived abilities (Owhoso & Weickgenannt, 2009) and judgment making (Choo &
Trotman, 1991). This gives reason to believe that level of experience might also relate to
personality traits as will be researched in this study.
Consistent with the earlier discussion on the nurture or nature of trait development, McCrae
(2000) found that culture does not affect personality as it is primarily biologically based. In a
large study on big five personality traits among 55 different countries, Schmitt, Realo,
Voracek and Allik (2008) found similar personality traits and differences between men and
women across cultures. However, they found lower levels of differences between men and
women between developed and developing countries.
In sum, several personality traits have been found desirable for auditors. Some authors
focused on the values and virtues of auditors. Values and virtues such as integrity, honesty,
truthfulness, responsibility, independence, capability and objectivity are the highest ranking
according to several studies. Also the ability for problem solving, scepticism, ethical / moral
reasoning and an internal locus of control have been found to be desirable characteristics of
auditors. We furthermore find that primarily gender and to a much lesser extent culture relate
to the personality of auditors.
17
II.5. Personality Traits and Adjacent Professions
Little research on the effects of personality traits in adjacent professions has been performed.
We did however find a relevant meta-analytic study by Barrick et al. (2001). They relate the
big five traits with job performance, measured by supervisory ratings and productivity data, in
the occupational groups of sales staff, managers, professionals, police and skilled or semi-
skilled labour. We choose the “professionals” and “skilled or semi-skilled labour” groups as
reference groups for the internal auditing community. Barrick et al. (2001) found the trait
conscientiousness to be significantly predicting job performance on these groups. In addition,
Hurtz and Donovan (2000) found the trait emotional stability to be significantly predicting job
performance in the “skilled or semi-skilled labour” group.
In sum, we found little theoretical basis from adjacent professions for personality traits that
may be desirable within the internal auditing profession. There are indications however that
the traits of conscientiousness and emotional stability play an important role.
II.6. Conclusion
Personality traits are relevant in order to understand a person’s normal functioning and can
predict work-related outcomes. We found strong evidence that these personality traits can be
validly and reliably psychometrically measured through questionnaires. Although little
research on internal auditor personality traits was performed, our literature study shows
several personality traits and values which have been found desirable. These include integrity,
honesty, truthfulness, ability for problem solving and scepticism. Searching for desirable
personality traits in adjacent professions give reason to believe that conscientiousness and
emotional stability are relevant factors. We found that primarily gender and to a much lesser
extent culture relate to the personality of auditors. Whether experience level is relevant in this
line of audit research as it is in other audit research will be assessed in this study. This
provides answer to our research questions “what are personality traits and how are they
measured psychometrically?” and “are there indications for desirable personality traits for
internal auditors?”.
18
I I I . M E T H O D S P I L O T S T U D Y A M O N G I N T E R N A L A U D I T O R S
III.1. Introduction
This study took place within the context of the internal audit profession in order to assess our
research questions “are there certain personality traits that distinguish internal auditors from
other highly educated individuals” and “do personality traits differ between starting and
experienced internal auditors”.
III.2. Sample and Procedure
Former students of the Executive Internal Audit Programme (EIAP) at the Business School of
the University of Amsterdam and internal auditors within the author’s professional network
were asked to participate in this study. These 414 internal auditors were asked by e-mails
from the author and EIAP programme director to participate, refer to Appendix I. Two
reminders were sent. 28.5%, or 118 internal auditors, participated. After the questionnaires
were collected, we screened the data for missing entries and removed five cases due to a large
number of unanswered questions.
III.2.1. Sample of internal auditors versus norm group
The final pilot study sample consists of 113 respondents. All respondents were Dutch and
their ages ranged from 27 – 76 years (x = 43.2, σ = 10.59). 25% of the respondents were
female, which is a bit lower than the 30% in the full 414 internal auditors sample. Working
experience ranged from 1 – 0 years (x = 18.1 σ = 11.39).
III.2.2. Sample of staring versus experienced internal auditors
We formed two groups of internal auditors in order to assess whether these personality traits
differ between starting and experienced internal auditors, which is common to do in audit
research as we discussed in our literature review. In line with earlier studies (e.g. Choo &
Trotman, 1991; Owhoso & Weickgenannt, 2009; Tsui & Gul, 1996), we classified internal
auditors with less than two years of internal auditing experience as starting auditors and
internal auditors with more than eight years of internal auditing experience as experienced
auditors. Nine internal auditors were excluded from the 113 final pilot study sample as they
19
had between two and eight years of internal auditing experience and therefore were not part of
either the starting or experienced group. This leads to a sample of 104 internal auditors in the
pilot study among starting and experienced auditors.
The starting internal auditors pilot study sample consists of 31 respondents. All respondents
were Dutch and their ages ranged from 27 – 61 years (x = 36.1, σ = 9.66). 35% of the
respondents were female, which is higher than the 30% in the full 414 internal auditors
sample. Working experience ranged from 1 – 37 years (x = 9.5, σ = 8.47).
The experienced internal auditors pilot study sample consists of 73 respondents. All
respondents were Dutch and their ages ranged from 31 – years (x = 46.7, σ = 9.31). 18% of
the respondents were female, which is lower than the 30% in the full 414 internal auditors
sample. Working experience ranged from 8 – 0 years (x = 22.4, σ = 10.61).
III.3. Measures
We used the Personality for Professionals Inventory (PfPI) questionnaire (Rolland & De
Fruyt, 2009) to measure the personality traits within our sample. As shown in section II.2. on
personality traits and traits measurement, this questionnaire was preferable to other surveys
available even though self-reports are prone to social desirability and other biases. In order to
minimise these biases, respondents were assured by complete anonymity and confidentiality.
They were furthermore instructed that there were no wrong or right answers to any of the
statements and that they were expected to answer truthfully. This is in line with
recommendations from other self-report studies (McDonald, 2008). Potential issues with non-
context-specific items were mitigated through the use of a work-related questionnaire.
Multiple studies (e.g. Mlinarić & Podlesek, 2013; Schmit, et al., 1995) showed that
measurement scales with context-related items have a higher predictive value.
The PfPI includes 183 items to measure 21 personality dimensions and five-factor model
proxy scores (i.e. emotional stability, extraversion, openness, agreeableness and
conscientiousness). A summary of the definitions used by De Fruyt and Rolland (2013) for
the 21 personality dimensions and the five-factor traits is provided in the following
paragraphs. Refer to Appendix II for more details.
20
III.3.1. Emotional stability
Emotional stability relates to whether individuals are calm and confident about the outcome of
an event. It was measured as a combination of the subscales sensitivity, self-confidence,
susceptibility to stress and frustration tolerance.
1 Sensitivity relates to the worrisomeness of individuals.
2 Self-confidence relates to the confidence of individuals.
3 Susceptibility to stress relates to the level of stress an individual can bear.
4 Frustration tolerance relates to an individual’s sensitivity towards various forms of
negative judgment and interference.
III.3.2. Extraversion
Extraversion relates to whether individuals move easily among others without standing out or
explicitly stepping into the foreground. It was measured as a combination of the subscales
enthusiasm, sociability, energy and assertiveness.
5 Enthusiasm relates to an individual’s level of cheerfulness.
6 Sociability relates to whether an individual likes being with others.
7 Energy relates to the pace an individual feels comfortable at.
8 Assertiveness relates to the level an individual explicitly steps into the foreground.
III.3.3. Openness
Openness relates to whether individuals are creative and love to think outside the box. It was
measured as a combination of the subscales innovation-oriented & creativity, intellectual
versus action-oriented, self-reflection and openness to change.
9 Innovation-oriented & creativity relates to the level an individual are open to new
approaches.
10 Intellectual versus action-oriented relates to the level an individual prefers to think about
problems or just wants to get a job done.
11 Self-reflection relates to the level an individual searches for feedback on their functioning.
12 Openness to change relates to the level an individual likes variation.
21
III.3.4. Agreeableness
Agreeableness relates to whether individuals easily strike a balance between cooperation and
competition with others. It was measured as a combination of the subscales competitiveness,
being other-oriented, trusting others and willingness to accommodate.
13 Competitiveness relates to the level an individual feels the need to win.
14 Being other-oriented relates to the level an individual wants to understand the opinion of
others.
15 Trusting others relates to the level an individual trust the people they work with.
16 Willingness to accommodate relates to the level an individual wants to avoid
confrontations.
III.3.5. Conscientiousness
Conscientiousness relates to whether individuals usually work very methodically and
systematically and are ambitious and orderly. It was measured as a combination of the
subscales systematic and organised approach, self-discipline and motivation to perform. Self-
control and pro-activeness were excluded in measuring conscientiousness in line with
recommendations of Rolland and De Fruyt (2009).
17 Systematic and organised approach relates to the level an individual is organised.
18 Self-discipline relates to the level an individual is in-control of tasks.
19 Self-control relates to the level an individual is in-control of feelings.
20 Motivation to perform relates to the level an individual wants to excel.
21 Proactiveness relates to the level an individual think ahead to address potential problems.
The PfPI instrument used in this study has been used in previous studies. All measures were
tested for internal consistency by assessing Cronbach’s α (Cronbach, 1951) for respective
scale items. We considered α’s > .80 to be satisfactory, in line with recommendations of
Lance, Butts and Michels (2006) on the interpretation of Nunnally’s (1978) cut-off points.
Scale scores were created for all measures by first averaging the responses of the associated
items and then normalising the scores on a scale from 0 to 10 based on a table provided by the
Pearson Assessment and Information Institute with norm scores for a large set of Dutch
individuals with high education (N = 311). Refer to Table 3 for the mean, standard deviation,
correlation and Cronbach’s α for all measures. All scale items were measured on a five-point
22
Likert-type response scale ranging from “absolutely not characteristic” (1) to “absolutely
characteristic” (5).
Participants’ gender, age and experience level were included as control variables to rule out
potential alternatives for our results. We will provide rationale for the inclusion of these
variables, in line with recommendations from Becker’s (2005) study on the potential
problems resulting from the inclusion of control variables. Gender and age were included as a
control variable since prior research has found both to be related to personality traits
(Rubinstein & Strul, 2007; Soto, John, Gosling, & Potter, 2011) which can potentially
influence the current measurement of traits. Experience was included as a dummy variable as
prior auditing research showed audit tenure effects (e.g. Choo & Trotman, 1991; Owhoso &
Weickgenannt, 2009). Internal auditors with less than two years of internal auditing
experience were marked “0” and internal auditors with more than eight years of internal
auditing experience were marked “1”, all others were excluded.
TABLE 3
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations among Study Variablesa
Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 S E O A C i ii iii
1 Sensitivity 4.00 2.26 (.85)
2 Self-confidence 6.03 2.04 -.63 (.68)
3 Susceptibility to stress 3.88 2.52 .69 -.60 (.84)
4 Frustration tolerance 5.88 2.06 -.71 .52 -.59 (.86)
5 Enthusiasm 4.84 2.37 -.13 .30 -.07 .11 (.78)
6 Sociability 5.40 2.06 -.28 .47 -.22 .33 .61 (.81)
7 Energy 5.71 2.20 -.26 .43 -.37 .10 .38 .29 (.77)
8 Assertiveness 5.42 2.06 -.25 .59 -.30 .22 .42 .50 .47 (.76)
9 Innovation-oriented 5.88 2.09 -.15 .35 -.25 .21 .19 .29 .30 .51 (.70)
10 Intellectual vs. Action 5.80 2.07 -.07 .06 -.11 .07 -.08 -.10 -.13 .17 .39 (.76)
11 Self-reflection 5.47 2.13 -.04 .19 -.16 .06 .21 .13 .21 .34 .28 .30 (.69)
12 Openness to change 6.13 2.27 -.30 .37 -.37 .19 .15 .35 .41 .40 .52 .10 .23 (.73)
13 Competitiveness 4.94 2.22 .07 .27 -.08 -.02 .14 .10 .34 .49 .37 .11 .35 .19 (.80)
14 Being other-oriented 5.65 2.10 -.08 .14 -.07 .05 .35 .18 .10 .05 .01 .02 .11 -.05 -.14 (.69)
15 Trusting others 4.91 2.16 -.29 .37 -.21 .13 .26 .29 .23 .17 .14 .04 -.01 .25 -.17 .35 (.79)
16 Accommodate 4.25 1.93 .26 -.50 .39 -.35 -.22 -.24 -.25 -.54 -.31 -.12 -.37 -.30 -.40 .00 -.01 (.80)
17 Systematic approach 5.93 2.17 -.09 .17 -.08 -.08 .04 -.07 .24 .14 -.12 -.06 .11 -.03 .11 .16 .06 .01 (.77)
18 Self-discipline 6.18 2.29 -.29 .35 -.27 .29 .11 .04 .30 .07 .01 -.08 .06 .06 .00 .20 .22 -.04 .63 (.82)
19 Self-control 6.27 2.40 -.47 .31 -.43 .44 -.13 -.05 .07 .09 -.03 .18 .01 .01 -.08 .19 .21 -.06 .37 .45 (.72)
20 Motivation to perform 5.35 2.06 -.09 .37 -.29 .12 .20 .11 .49 .46 .36 .12 .35 .24 .61 .05 -.09 -.39 .30 .36 .13 (.77)
21 Pro-activeness 5.96 1.96 -.13 .35 -.28 .12 .15 .10 .28 .49 .27 .27 .39 .22 .41 .04 -.06 -.49 .20 .14 .23 .57 (.68)
S Emotional stability 6.20 2.21 -.90 .73 -.85 .84 .13 .34 .30 .35 .25 .13 .11 .36 .01 .08 .26 -.39 .02 .32 .51 .22 .24 (.93)
E Extraversion 5.56 2.15 -.31 .59 -.33 .26 .77 .78 .69 .76 .40 -.08 .26 .43 .30 .21 .30 -.40 .11 .18 .00 .40 .32 .38 (.89)
O Openness 6.20 2.20 -.18 .31 -.30 .18 .16 .23 .26 .50 .75 .66 .59 .68 .37 .02 .11 -.39 -.04 -.01 .08 .37 .39 .29 .35 (.84)
A Agreeableness 4.81 1.96 -.03 -.16 .11 -.10 .03 .02 -.11 -.33 -.23 -.07 -.27 -.12 -.74 .44 .58 .60 .10 .15 .16 -.45 -.42 -.07 -.11 -.27 (.84)
C Conscientiousness 6.06 2.23 -.21 .38 -.26 .13 .13 .05 .42 .28 .09 -.03 .21 .10 .27 .16 .11 -.17 .81 .83 .40 .68 .38 .23 .29 .11 -.05 (.88)
i Gender (dummy) .25 .43 .26 -.26 .19 -.26 .16 -.01 .03 -.13 -.03 -.21 -.04 .09 -.06 .03 -.15 .13 .02 .05 -.25 .02 -.23 -.28 .01 -.03 .04 .01
ii Age 43.19 10.59 -.03 .07 -.09 .08 -.20 -.04 -.06 -.04 .15 .04 -.13 -.17 -.22 .13 .12 -.02 -.08 .04 .12 -.02 -.13 .07 -.11 -.06 .19 .00 -.22
iii Working experience 18.06 11.39 -.12 .17 -.20 .17 -.19 .03 .07 .03 .20 .00 -.11 -.05 -.16 .17 .20 -.08 .00 .14 .21 .07 -.06 .18 -.02 -.01 .18 .12 -.24 .91
iv Experience (dummy) .70 .46 -.21 .36 -.28 .21 .03 .22 .25 .22 .42 .00 .16 .23 .04 .07 .18 -.27 -.02 .15 .09 .18 .05 .28 .23 .25 -.03 .14 -.19 .46 .52 a Internal consistency statistics (Cronbach’s α) are displayed in parentheses on the diagonal. Gender (0 = male, 1 = female). Experience (0 = starting, 1 = experienced; N = 104).
N = 113; bold = p ≤ .01; grey fill = related to factor subscale.
23
24
I V . R E S U L T S P I L O T S T U D Y A M O N G I N T E R N A L A U D I T O R S
IV.1. Descriptive Statistics
Table 3 reports descriptive statistics and correlations among all study variables. As expected,
the subscales correlated strongly and significantly with respective five-factor scales in
expected directions as shown in the light grey cells in Table 3. Self-confidence correlated with
practically all variables, most notably with assertiveness and willingness to accommodate
which are not part of the same big five factor as self-confidence. Other notable correlations
among the study variables outside of their respective factor group (i.e. one of the big five
traits) were assertiveness with willingness to accommodate and competitiveness; motivation
to perform with competitiveness; and pro-activeness with willingness to accommodate.
The demographic control variables showed some interesting correlations which give reason to
believe that female and starting internal auditors score lower on the emotional stability
factors. Experienced internal auditors score higher the personality traits innovation-oriented
and energy. Furthermore, age and working experience were insignificantly correlated to all of
the study variables except with each other and the internal audit experience dummy for
obvious reasons.
IV.2. Description of the Norm Group
The results of the internal auditors personality traits detailed in this chapter are compared to a
large set of Dutch individuals with high education (N = 311). Within this norm group,
personality trait scores are normally distributed among the mean (x = 5.0). All scores between
4 and 6 can be interpreted to be on average with this norm group. Scores below 4 or above 6
can be interpreted as deviant from the norm group, as graphically represented in Figure 2.
25
FIGURE 2
Normal Distribution of Personality Traits Resultsa
Low scores
27,4% of the norm group
Average scores
45.2% of the norm
group
High scores
27,4% of the norm group
a De Fruyt & Rolland (2013)
The norm group consists of Dutch individuals assessed by Pearson Assessment and
Information Institute and is evenly distributed among gender and age groups as is depicted in
Table 4.
TABLE 4
Description of Norm Groupa
Age group Male Female Σ
15-24 15.1% 16.4% 31.5%
25-44 18.0% 19.9% 37.9%
45-65 18.3% 12.2% 30.6%
Σ 51.5% 48.6% 100.0%
a De Fruyt & Rolland (2013)
N = 311.
IV.3. Results of All Internal Auditors in this Study
Table 5 provides scores on the 21 personality traits and the related big five traits of all internal
auditors in this study. We sorted the table on mean score for easy identification of deviant
scores. We compared these means to the described norm group. Please note the large number
of significant differences from the norm group.
26
TABLE 5
Scores of Internal Auditors compared to Norm Group (High
Education) sorted by Mean Score
Mean s.d. Δ
19 Self-control 6.27 2.40 1.27 ***
18 Self-discipline 6.18 2.29 1.18 ***
12 Openness to change 6.13 2.27 1.13 ***
2 Self-confidence 6.03 2.04 1.03 ***
21 Pro-activeness 5.96 1.96 .96 ***
17 Systematic approach 5.93 2.17 .93 ***
9 Innovation-oriented 5.88 2.09 .88 ***
4 Frustration tolerance 5.88 2.06 .88 ***
10 Intellectual vs. action 5.80 2.07 .80 ***
7 Energy 5.71 2.20 .71 **
14 Being other-oriented 5.65 2.10 .65 ***
11 Self-reflection 5.47 2.13 .47 *
8 Assertiveness 5.42 2.06 .42 *
6 Sociability 5.40 2.06 .40 *
20 Motivation to perform 5.35 2.06 .35 *
13 Competitiveness 4.94 2.22 -.06
15 Trusting others 4.91 2.16 -.09
5 Enthusiasm 4.84 2.37 -.16
16 Accommodate 4.25 1.93 -.75 ***
1 Sensitivity 4.00 2.26 -1.00 ***
3 Susceptibility to stress 3.88 2.52 -1.12 ***
S Emotional stability 6.20 2.21 1.20 ***
E Extraversion 5.56 2.15 .56 **
O Openness 6.20 2.20 1.20 ***
A Agreeableness 4.81 1.96 -.19
C Conscientiousness 6.06 2.23 1.06 ***
N = 113; * p ≤ .05, ** p ≤ .01, *** p ≤ .001.
These results show that the full group of internal auditors in this study differ significantly
from this norm group on 18 out of the 21 assessed personality traits, including higher scores
on self-control (Δ = 1.2 , p < .001), self-discipline (Δ = 1.18, p < .001) and openness to
change (Δ = 1.13, p < .001), and lower scores on susceptibility to stress (Δ = -1.12, p < .001),
sensitivity (Δ = -1.00, p < .001) and willingness to accommodate (Δ = -.75, p < .001).
The full group of internal auditors in this study also scored significantly different from the
norm group on 4 out of 5 big five personality factors, most notably on emotional stability (Δ =
1.20, p < .001), openness (Δ = 1.20, p < .001) and conscientiousness (Δ = 1.06, p < .001).
This indicates that internal auditors can be generally regarded as calm and confident, creative,
and as individuals who usually work very methodically and systematically.
27
IV.4. Results of Starting and Experienced Internal Auditors
IV.4.1. Personality traits of starting internal auditors
Table 6 provides scores on the 21 personality traits and the related big five traits of the
starting internal auditors subset in this study. We sorted the table on mean score for easy
identification of deviant scores. We again compared the means to the norm group. Please note
the low number of significant differences from the norm group.
TABLE 6
Scores of Starting Internal Auditors compared to Norm Group
(High Education) sorted by Mean Score
Mean s.d. Δ
17 Systematic approach 6.06 2.26 1.06 *
19 Self-control 5.97 2.75 .97
21 Pro-activeness 5.90 2.31 .90 *
10 Intellectual vs. Action 5.81 2.23 .81
18 Self-discipline 5.71 2.75 .71
14 Being other-oriented 5.55 2.06 .55
12 Openness to change 5.32 2.37 .32
4 Frustration tolerance 5.23 2.28 .23
16 Accommodate 5.06 1.86 .06
2 Self-confidence 5.00 2.08 .00
11 Self-reflection 4.97 2.15 -.03
3 Susceptibility to stress 4.97 2.54 -.03
7 Energy 4.87 2.43 -.13
20 Motivation to perform 4.84 2.13 -.16
5 Enthusiasm 4.81 2.02 -.19
8 Assertiveness 4.81 2.26 -.19
13 Competitiveness 4.77 2.17 -.23
6 Sociability 4.74 1.81 -.26
1 Sensitivity 4.71 2.21 -.29
9 Innovation-oriented 4.55 1.98 -.45
15 Trusting others 4.39 1.93 -.61
S Emotional stability 5.29 2.28 .29
E Extraversion 4.87 2.23 -.13
O Openness 5.32 2.44 .32
A Agreeableness 4.97 1.60 -.03
C Conscientiousness 5.65 2.48 .65
N = 31; * p ≤ .05, ** p ≤ .01, *** p ≤ .001.
These results show that starting auditors in this study hardly differ from the norm group with
significant differences on merely 2 out of 21 personality traits: systematic and organised
approach (Δ = 1.0 , p < .05) and pro-activeness (Δ = .90, p < .05).
28
Our results indicate that starting internal auditors:
Are highly systematic and organised in their approach (x = .1, σ = 2.2 ), which makes
them reliable and predictable for their own environment. It also indicates that they are
usually well prepared and adhere strictly to schedules and deadlines;
Have a high level of self-control (x = .0, σ = 2. 5), which indicate that they can easily
control themselves and their impulses and are able to focus well. It indicates that starting
internal auditors generally think carefully about how they will say something or deal with
something, and consider all available alternatives;
Score high on pro-activeness (x = 5.9, σ = 2.31), which indicates that they think a few
steps ahead and generally stay ahead of problems;
Are a bit reluctant to trust others (x = 4.4, σ = 1.93). The score is not far from the normal
mean of 5.0 but it might indicate that starting internal auditors are somewhat wary of the
people around them and assume that others have a hidden agenda;
Are not particularly innovation oriented (x = 4. , σ = 1.98), which indicates that starting
internal auditors might prefer applying methods they are accustomed to;
Score just below average on sensitivity (x = 4.7, σ = 2.2 ), indicating that they worry or
have negative emotions similar to most individuals.
IV.4.2. Personality traits of experienced internal auditors
Table 7 provides scores on the 21 personality traits and the related big five traits of the
experienced internal auditors subset in this study. We sorted the table on mean score for easy
identification of deviant scores. We again compared the means to the norm group. Please note
the large number of significant differences from the norm group.
29
TABLE 7
Scores of Experienced Internal Auditors compared to Norm Group
(High Education) sorted by Mean Score
Mean s.d. Δ
2 Self-confidence 6.53 1.72 1.53 ***
9 Innovation-oriented 6.45 1.86 1.45 ***
18 Self-discipline 6.45 2.09 1.45 ***
12 Openness to change 6.44 2.06 1.44 ***
19 Self-control 6.42 2.19 1.42 ***
4 Frustration tolerance 6.18 1.95 1.18 ***
21 Pro-activeness 6.10 1.80 1.10 ***
7 Energy 6.10 2.01 1.10 ***
17 Systematic approach 5.96 2.18 .96 ***
14 Being other-oriented 5.85 2.07 .85 ***
10 Intellectual vs. action 5.79 2.00 .79 **
8 Assertiveness 5.75 1.83 .75 ***
6 Sociability 5.73 2.07 .73 **
11 Self-reflection 5.73 2.15 .73 **
20 Motivation to perform 5.66 2.04 .66 **
15 Trusting others 5.22 2.23 .22
5 Enthusiasm 4.97 2.51 -.03
13 Competitiveness 4.96 2.32 -.04
16 Accommodate 3.90 1.95 -1.10 ***
1 Sensitivity 3.67 2.21 -1.33 ***
3 Susceptibility to stress 3.41 2.39 -1.59 ***
S Emotional stability 6.62 2.01 1.62 ***
E Extraversion 5.93 1.97 .93 ***
O Openness 6.53 2.05 1.53 ***
A Agreeableness 4.84 2.11 -.16
C Conscientiousness 6.36 2.14 1.36 ***
N = 3; * p ≤ .05, ** p ≤ .01, *** p ≤ .001.
These results show that experienced internal auditors in this study differ significantly from the
norm group on 18 out of the 21 assessed personality traits, most notably on susceptibility to
stress (Δ = -1.59, p < .001), self-confidence (Δ = 1.53, p < .001) and innovation-oriented (Δ =
1.45, p < .001).
Our results indicate that experienced internal auditors:
Are very confident about themselves (x = .5, σ = 1. 2), indicating that experienced
internal auditors usually trust their own decisions and approach;
Are creative and innovation-oriented (x = .5, σ = 1.8 ), indicating that they are open for
taking new approaches. It is interesting to note that starting internal auditors scored just
below average on this personality trait;
30
Have a high level of self-discipline (x = .5, σ = 2.09), indicating that they are good at
controlling themselves in order to complete tasks on time and persist even when
difficulties arise;
Are not very susceptible to stress (x = 3.4, σ = 2.39), indicating that they usually know
how to deal with stressful work situations and are usually quite good at handling whatever
comes up;
Are not very sensitive to negative emotions (x = 3. , σ = 2.21), indicating that they are
better able to place problems into perspective;
Score low on the willingness to accommodate (x = 3.9, σ = 1.95), indicating that they do
not avoid getting into confrontations but also prefer playing more of a mediating role.
IV.4.3. Results of Different Means between Starting and Experienced Auditors
We then assessed the significance of the mean difference between starting and experienced
auditors to assess whether the personality traits differ related to level of experience. Please
again note the large number of significant differences, as depicted in Table 8.
TABLE 8
Differences between Starting and
Experienced Internal Auditors
Δ
1 Sensitivity -1.04 *
2 Self-confidence 1.53 ***
3 Susceptibility to stress -1.56 **
4 Frustration tolerance .95 *
5 Enthusiasm .17
6 Sociability .98 *
7 Energy 1.22 **
8 Assertiveness .95 *
9 Innovation-oriented 1.90 ***
10 Intellectual vs. Action -.01
11 Self-reflection .76
12 Openness to change 1.12 *
13 Competitiveness .18
14 Being other-oriented .30
15 Trusting others .83
16 Accommodate -1.16 **
17 Systematic approach -.11
18 Self-discipline .74
19 Self-control .46
20 Motivation to perform .82
21 Pro-activeness .19
31
S Emotional stability 1.33 **
E Extraversion 1.06 *
O Openness 1.21 *
A Agreeableness -.13
C Conscientiousness .71
N = 104; * p ≤ .05, ** p ≤ .01, *** p ≤ .001.
These results indicate that the personality traits among starting and experienced internal
auditors differ significantly on 10 out of 21 personality traits, most notably the personality
traits innovation-oriented (Δ = 1.90, p < .001), susceptibility to stress (Δ = -1.56, p < .01) and
self-confidence (Δ = 1.53, p < .001). Starting and experienced internal auditors also differ on
the aggregated big five personality factor scales. These differences are significant for
emotional stability (Δ = 1.33, p < .01), openness (Δ = 1.21, p < .05) and extraversion (Δ =
1.06, p < .05). These findings indicate that more experienced internal auditors are more
creative and open for new approaches, face less stress and have more trust in their own
decisions and approach and have a lot of energy and keep a fast pace.
IV.5. Conclusion
The results show that personality traits of internal auditors in this study indeed differ
significantly from the large norm group of individuals with a high education on 18 out of 21
assessed personality traits. This holds especially for the personality traits of experienced
internal auditors. Personality traits of starting and experienced internal auditors differ
significantly on 10 out of 21 assessed personality traits. Experienced internal auditors score
higher on the big five factors emotional stability, openness and extraversion compared to
starting internal auditors. This provides answer to our research questions “are there certain
personality traits that distinguish internal auditors from other highly educated individuals”
and “do personality traits differ between starting and experienced internal auditors”.
32
V . M E T H O D S P E R S O N A L I T Y P R O F I L E A C C O R D I N G T O C AE S
V.1. Introduction
A number of Chief Audit Executives from internal audit departments of companies within
The Netherlands were asked to participate to establish a desired personality profile of an
internal auditor. This was done in order to contribute to a baseline to facilitate the
interpretation of the pilot study among internal auditors results and to provide additional
answers to our research question “are there indications for desirable personality traits for
internal auditors?”.
V.2. Sample and Procedure
Chief Audit Executives (CAEs) of large Dutch internal audit departments were asked to
participate in this study. 30 CAEs were asked by e-mails from the author to participate, please
refer to Appendix II for this e-mail. Two reminders were sent. 36.7%, or eleven CAEs,
participated. After the questionnaires were collected, we screened the data for missing entries
and did not need to remove any cases.
The personality profile study sample consists of eleven respondents. All respondents were
Dutch and their ages ranged from 41 – 53 years (x = 45.9, σ = 4.90). Zero percent (0%) of the
respondents were female which is substantively lower than the 13% in the full 30 CAEs
sample. Please note that this number of participants will only provide an impression, albeit
relevant, but is too but is too small to make any statistical valid interpretations.
V.3. Measures
The Chief Audit Executives were asked to rank the 21 personality traits detailed in the
previous sections on a ten-point Likert-type response scale. They were provided with a
detailed description per personality traits and explained that these traits are normally
distributed.
33
V I . R E S U L T S P E R S O N A L I T Y P R O F I L E A C C O R D I N G T O C AE S
VI.1. Personality Profile according to Chief Audit Executives
VI.1.1. Personality profile compared to norm group
First, the ranked personality traits were compared to the norm group, as is depicted in Table 9.
Refer to section IV.2. for details on the norm group. We again sorted the table by mean scores
for easy identification of deviant scores. Please again note that the number of participants is
too small to make any statistical valid interpretations. Significance levels of respective delta’s
are therefore excluded in tables in this chapter.
TABLE 9
Desirable Personality Profile According to Chief Audit Executives
compared to Norm Group (High Education) sorted by Mean Score
Mean s.d. Δ
21 Pro-activeness 8.45 .52 3.45
18 Self-discipline 8.36 .67 3.36
2 Self-confidence 8.27 .79 3.27
17 Systematic approach 8.18 .98 3.18
20 Motivation to perform 8.09 1.22 3.09
7 Energy 8.09 .94 3.09
4 Frustration tolerance 8.09 1.04 3.09
19 Self-control 8.09 .70 3.09
6 Sociability 7.82 1.40 2.82
11 Self-reflection 7.64 1.29 2.64
12 Openness to change 7.55 1.29 2.55
8 Assertiveness 7.36 .50 2.36
14 Being other-oriented 7.27 1.19 2.27
9 Innovation-oriented 7.18 1.60 2.18
5 Enthusiasm 6.82 1.33 1.82
15 Trusting others 5.82 1.72 .82
10 Intellectual vs. action 5.82 2.23 .82
13 Competitiveness 5.64 2.06 .64
1 Sensitivity 4.82 2.18 -.18
3 Susceptibility to stress 3.64 2.20 -1.36
16 Accommodate 3.64 1.57 -1.36
S Emotional stability 6.98 1.23 1.98
E Extraversion 7.52 .68 2.52
O Openness 7.05 .81 2.05
A Agreeableness 5.27 .94 .27
C Conscientiousness 8.21 .64 3.21
N = 11.
34
These results indicate that the desirable internal auditor profile according to Chief Audit
Executives (CAEs) can be summarised as follows:
CAEs perceive a low score on susceptibility to stress (x = 3. , σ = 2.20) to be optimal;
Self-discipline (x = 8.4, σ =.67), systematic and organised approach (x = 8.2, σ = .98) and
self-control (x = 8.1, σ = . 0) score high on the ladder of desirable personality traits in an
internal auditor;
CAEs find a high score on the personality trait of being other-oriented (x = 7.3, σ = 1.19)
and sociability (x = 7.8, σ = 1.40) combined with a low score on willingness to
accommodate (x = 3.6, σ = 1.57) important;
CAEs perceive a high level of self-confidence (x = 8.3, σ = . 9) and frustration tolerance
(x = 8.1, σ = 1.04) important in an internal auditor;
Pro-activeness (x = 8.5, σ = .52) is mentioned as the second most desirable personality
trait.
VI.1.2. Personality profile compared to all internal auditors in this study
We then compared the mean scores of desirable personality traits according to CAEs to the
scores of the internal auditors in this study, to assess whether the expectations of the
representatives of the internal audit community align with the current state of this community,
as depicted in Table 10.
35
TABLE 10
Desirable Personality Profile According to Chief Audit Executives
compared to Internal Auditors sorted by Mean Score
Mean s.d. Δ
21 Pro-activeness 8.45 .52 2.50
18 Self-discipline 8.36 .67 2.19
2 Self-confidence 8.27 .79 2.25
17 Systematic approach 8.18 .98 2.25
20 Motivation to perform 8.09 1.22 2.75
7 Energy 8.09 .94 2.38
4 Frustration tolerance 8.09 1.04 2.21
19 Self-control 8.09 .70 1.82
6 Sociability 7.82 1.40 2.42
11 Self-reflection 7.64 1.29 2.17
12 Openness to change 7.55 1.29 1.41
8 Assertiveness 7.36 .50 1.94
14 Being other-oriented 7.27 1.19 1.63
9 Innovation-oriented 7.18 1.60 1.30
5 Enthusiasm 6.82 1.33 1.98
15 Trusting others 5.82 1.72 .91
10 Intellectual vs. Action 5.82 2.23 .02
13 Competitiveness 5.64 2.06 .70
1 Sensitivity 4.82 2.18 .82
3 Susceptibility to stress 3.64 2.20 -.25
16 Accommodate 3.64 1.57 -.61
S Emotional stability 6.98 1.23 .77
E Extraversion 7.52 .68 1.97
O Openness 7.05 .81 .84
A Agreeableness 5.27 .94 .46
C Conscientiousness 8.21 .64 2.15
N = 11.
These results show that the desired personality profile according to CAEs differ from the
actual personality profile of internal auditors in this study with CAEs generally expecting
higher scores. Refer to the results below for a detailed view for both starting and experienced
internal auditors.
36
VI.1.3. Personality profile compared to starting and experienced internal auditors
To assess whether alignment between CAE expectations and the internal audit community
differ between starting and experienced auditors, we compared the means of both groups to
the desired personality traits according to CAEs, as depicted in Table 11.
TABLE 11
Desirable Personality Profile According to Chief Audit Executives compared to
Starting and Experienced Internal Auditors Response sorted by Mean Score
Mean s.d. Δ starting Δ experienced
21 Pro-activeness 8.45 .52 2.55 2.36
18 Self-discipline 8.36 .67 2.65 1.91
2 Self-confidence 8.27 .79 3.27 1.74
17 Systematic approach 8.18 .98 2.12 2.22
20 Motivation to perform 8.09 1.22 3.25 2.43
7 Energy 8.09 .94 3.22 2.00
4 Frustration tolerance 8.09 1.04 2.87 1.91
19 Self-control 8.09 .70 2.12 1.67
6 Sociability 7.82 1.40 3.08 2.09
11 Self-reflection 7.64 1.29 2.67 1.91
12 Openness to change 7.55 1.29 2.22 1.11
8 Assertiveness 7.36 .50 2.56 1.61
14 Being other-oriented 7.27 1.19 1.72 1.42
9 Innovation-oriented 7.18 1.60 2.63 .73
5 Enthusiasm 6.82 1.33 2.01 1.85
15 Trusting others 5.82 1.72 1.43 .60
10 Intellectual vs. action 5.82 2.23 .01 .02
13 Competitiveness 5.64 2.06 .86 .68
1 Sensitivity 4.82 2.18 .11 1.15
3 Susceptibility to stress 3.64 2.20 -1.33 .23
16 Accommodate 3.64 1.57 -1.43 -.27
S Emotional stability 6.98 1.23 1.69 .36
E Extraversion 7.52 .68 2.65 1.59
O Openness 7.05 .81 1.72 .51
A Agreeableness 5.27 .94 .30 .44
C Conscientiousness 8.21 .64 2.57 1.86
N = 11; * p ≤ .05, ** p ≤ .01, *** p ≤ .001.
These results show that the difference between the desired personality profile according to
CAEs and the actual personality profile of internal auditors is strongest for starting internal
auditors, most importantly on self-confidence (Δ = 3.27), motivation to perform (Δ = 3.25)
and energy (Δ = 3.22). The gap is smaller for experienced auditors, with the largest
differences in CAE expectations and practice being on motivation to perform (Δ = 2.43), pro-
37
activeness (Δ = 2.36) and systematic and organised approach (Δ = 2.22). This indicates that
there is a considerable gap between the desired personality traits according to CAEs and the
personality traits of starting and experienced internal auditors.
VI.2. Conclusion
The results indicate that there are differences between the desired personality profile
according to CAEs and the current internal audit population. High scores on pro-activeness
and self-discipline and low scores on willingness to accommodate and susceptibility to stress
are considered desirable according to eleven inquired CAEs. The results indicate that starting
internal auditors differ more from the desired personality profile compared to experienced
internal auditors. This provides additional answer to our research question “are there
indications for desirable personality traits for internal auditors?” besides answers drawn from
the literature review.
38
V I I . D I S C U S S I O N
VII.1. Introduction
The purpose of this study was to explore whether there are desirable personality traits for
internal auditors and whether these personality traits can be measured psychometrically, and
to answer the following research questions:
1 What are personality traits and how are they measured?
2 Are there certain personality traits that distinguish internal auditors from others?
3 Do personality traits differ between starting and experienced internal auditors?
4 Are there indications for desirable personality traits for internal auditors?
The study has important implications for the internal audit community, management practice
and academia as it provides insight in the personality traits of internal auditors today and on
how they differ from other highly educated individuals, among each other based on
experience levels and from Chief Audit Executives (CAEs) expectations. After discussing
these findings we will discuss the following most important practical implications for the
internal audit community:
Assessment of personality traits should become a rooted element in the recruitment of
internal auditors and should affect the staffing decisions of internal audit teams.
Different types of internal auditor may be needed in the higher ranks of an internal audit
department.
Mismatches between expectations of CAEs and the current internal audit community lead
to specific risk for which we propose mitigating actions.
Specific personality traits may prevent reduced audit quality behaviour and therefore lead
to higher quality.
VII.2. Personality Traits of Internal Auditors
Personality traits in the work-related context can be measured psychometrically with the PfPI.
We have seen that the internal auditors in this study generally score high on traits such as self-
control and self-discipline and low on susceptibility to stress and sensitivity. The average
personality profile of the internal auditors can generally be described as individuals who...
can handle stressful situations and are confident about the outcome of events;
39
are in control of their feelings and control themselves in order to complete tasks on time;
move easily among others without standing out or explicitly stepping into the foreground;
usually work methodically and systematically, are creative, like thinking outside the box
and somewhat engage in abstract and conceptual analyses; and
easily strike a balance between cooperation and competition with others.
The standard deviations for the assessed personality traits are relatively large, leading us to
conclude that the internal auditor does not exist. We can however make general observations
on how internal auditors differ from other highly educated individuals, from each other based
on experience and from a desired personality profile according to CAEs as will be discussed.
VII.2.1. Internal auditors differ significantly from others
We were interested to see whether these personality traits of internal auditors differ from
others and choose to compare them to a large group of highly educated Dutch individuals.
Our study quite surprisingly shows that the internal auditors in this study indeed differ
significantly from this norm group on 18 out of the 21 assessed personality traits, including
higher scores on self-control, self-discipline and openness to change, and lower scores on
susceptibility to stress, sensitivity and willingness to accommodate. The internal auditors also
scored significantly different from the norm group on 4 out of 5 big five personality factors,
most notably on emotional stability, openness and conscientiousness. This indicates that
internal auditors can be generally regarded as more calm and confident, more creative, and as
individuals who usually work very methodically and systematically compared to others.
When we look in more detail and compare both the group of starting internal auditors and the
group of experienced internal auditors to the norm group we see a remarkable difference.
Starting auditors hardly differ from the norm group with significant differences on merely 2
out of 21 personality traits: systematic and organised approach and pro-activeness. Please note
that the norm group was evenly distributed among age groups and gender excluding the
possibility of norm group effects such as stronger representation of individuals with less
working experience. The lower number of significant values is partly caused by the lower
number of starting internal auditors taking part of the study compared to experienced internal
auditors. But also when we look at the absolute mean difference scores of starting internal
auditors we observe much lower values compared to experienced internal auditors.
40
Experienced internal auditors differ significantly from the norm group on 18 out of the 21
assessed personality traits, most notably on susceptibility to stress, self-confidence and
innovation-oriented.
These findings show that personality traits of the internal audit community indeed differ from
other high educated individuals, but that these differences are primarily manifested among
experienced auditors. We did not expect to find this many significant differences between
internal auditors and the norm group. Our findings give reason to believe that internal auditors
suitable for the work or at least remaining within the internal auditing profession possess
other personality traits than the general population. This has implications for the recruitment
process as will be discussed in VII.4.
VII.2.2. Internal auditors differ significantly amongst each other based on experience
We were also interested to see whether there are differences in the personality traits of starting
and experienced internal auditors and quite surprisingly found significant differences on 10
out of the 21 assessed personality traits. Starting and experienced internal auditors also differ
on the aggregated big five personality factor scales, as is graphically represented in Figure 3.
FIGURE 3
Big Five Personality Traits of Starting and Experienced Internal Auditors
0 2 4 6 8 10
5 7
Emotional stability
Extraversion
Openness
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Starting internal auditors Experienced internal auditors
Low score High score
41
Please also note how experienced internal auditors score significantly above the mean of the
norm group for 4 out of 5 big five factors (not for agreeableness) whereas the scores of
starting internal auditors are somewhat in line with the norm group.
Our results indicate that more experienced internal auditors are more creative and open for
new approaches, face less stress and have more trust in their own decisions and approach and
have a lot of energy and keep a fast pace. This has implications for the team set-up as will be
discussed in VII.4.
VII.3. Personality Profile according to Chief Audit Executives
The desirable personality profile of the internal auditors according to CAEs can generally be
described as individuals who...
can handle stressful situations and are confident about the outcome of events;
are self-disciplined and work methodically and systematically, as auditors need to ensure
finalisation of working programmes, even under time pressure. Please note the low levels
of standard deviation indicating the high level of agreement among the CAEs;
score high on the personality trait of being other-oriented and sociability combined with a
low score on willingness to accommodate important. This makes sense because internal
auditors need others to retrieve audit evidence and other relevant information from
auditees but at the same time they need to be distant enough to not want to avoid
confrontations when they disagree about audit findings;
have a high level of self-confidence and frustration tolerance, again understandable in the
light of an internal auditor presenting unfavourable findings to an auditee; and
are pro-active, which might be related to the set-up of small audit teams which need
auditors to think a few steps ahead and generally stay ahead of problems.
VII.3.1. Internal auditors differ significantly from the personality profile
We compared these desired traits with the assessed internal auditors in this study. The desired
personality profile according to CAEs differ from both the actual personality profile of
starting and experienced internal auditors with CAEs generally expecting higher scores. This
is strongest related to starting internal auditors, most importantly on self-confidence,
motivation to perform and energy. The gap is smaller for experienced auditors, with the
largest differences in CAE expectations and practice being on motivation to perform, pro-
42
activeness and systematic and organised approach. This means that there is a considerable gap
between the desired personality traits according to CAEs and the personality traits of starting
and experienced internal auditors. The implications will be discussed below.
VII.4. Practical Implications for the Internal Audit Community
Our study has several important implications for the internal audit community. First, it has
implications for the recruitment of internal auditors and the staffing of internal audit teams.
We have seen that personality traits can be measured in a work-related context through the
PfPI. We would for instance expect internal auditors scoring high on the personality traits
being others oriented and sociability in combination with a low willingness to accommodate.
This would imply that an internal auditor is sociable enough to retrieve audit evidence from
auditees and at the same time strong enough to keep standing in discussions about findings.
Furthermore, setting-up mixed internal audit teams based on experience level has additional
advantages besides the known effects of sharing experience. It potentially ensures that mixed
personality traits are present in teams which adds value at the different audit stages.
Second, our study shows significant differences between the personality traits of starting and
experienced internal auditors. Both groups are compared to a norm group of high educated
individuals, and this norm group was tested for a even distribution of age groups and gender.
Furthermore, none of the personality traits correlate significantly to age in this study. This
finding might be related to the different type of internal auditor needed in the higher ranks of
an internal audit department. However, it also gives reason to believe that internal auditors
with certain personality traits tend to remain in the internal auditing profession longer than
others. This also needs to be researched further and we will propose some hypotheses in
section VII.7.
Third, our findings show that there is a mismatch between expectations of CAEs and the
current internal audit community. This holds especially for starting internal auditors. This
group is in general more susceptible to stress and more willing to accommodate than CAEs
would desire. This implicates that giving starting internal auditors a too high workload might
affect the quality of their work. Providing stress prevention or conflict resolution skills
training as proposed by the IIA competencies study (Bailey, 2010) might mitigate this effect.
Furthermore, the higher willingness to accommodate implicates the CAEs and audit managers
43
need to assess the work of starting internal auditors carefully to mitigate the risk of leaving
out unfavourable parts in reports due to auditee pressure. Additional attention might be
needed to observe weakening of findings during the steps from preliminary findings to the
draft report and the subsequent final report. CAEs furthermore expect a much higher level of
motivation to perform than the current personality traits of internal auditors in this study
show. This implicates that internal auditors might be less driven to raise the standard of what
can be achieved intrinsically and need to be motivated to do so.
Fourth, our findings provide some indications of the desirable personality profile of an
internal auditor. As noted before, Chief Audit Executives (CAEs) as representatives of the
internal audit community perceive a self-disciplined, pro-active and stress resistant internal
auditor to be desirable. Our literature study furthermore showed values and virtues such as
integrity, honesty, truthfulness, responsibility, independence, capability and objectivity
among the highest ranking according to several studies. The results of the experienced
internal auditors might also indicate the desirable personality traits, as they somehow were
willing and able to stay within the internal audit community. This indicates that again a stress
resistant, but also a self-confidant and innovation oriented internal auditor is desirable. These
personality traits may also be used as preventers for reduced audit quality (RAQ) behaviour.
RAQ behaviour can be defined as falsely signing off a required audit step or accepting a weak
client explanation as sufficient evidence. For instance, the high levels of systematic and
organised approach and a low levels of willingness to accommodate which we observed in the
internal auditors in this study might prevent such behaviour. More research regarding this
field is necessary and we will propose some hypotheses in section VII.7. on future research.
These findings are useful for the internal audit community, especially when recruiting new
internal auditors for an internal audit department and in setting up audit teams.
VII.5. Contribution to Academic Research
With regards to audit research we have explored a whole new field of studies by assessing the
personality traits of internal auditors. We showed how these traits differ from other high
educated individuals and also differ between starting and experienced internal auditors. This
study provides ground to this research direction within audit research and we will propose
several hypotheses.
44
With regards to personality trait research, our results provide evidence that age is unrelated to
personality traits and that gender only correlates with personality traits related to the big five
factor of emotional stability.
Although several personality traits correlated significantly with traits outside of their related
big five factor, we do indeed observe the strongest correlations among traits within their
related big five factors. Self-control, a trait left out in any of the big five factors by Rolland
and De Fruyt (2009), correlated strongly and significantly with the big five factor emotional
stability (r = .53, p < .001) providing evidence that this trait might relate to this factor instead
of conscientiousness as proposed by these authors earlier.
We assessed inter big five correlation to contribute to the discussion on whether there are
meta-traits which exist above the big five (Alessandri & Vecchione, 2012), for instance the
two higher-order traits of Stability, with shared variances of emotional stability, agreeableness
and conscientiousness, and Plasticity, with shared variances of extraversion and openness
mentioned by McCrae et al. (2008). Emotional stability correlated significantly with
extraversion (r = .38, p < .001) and openness (r = .29, p < .01). Extraversion furthermore
correlated significantly with openness (r = .35, p < .001) and conscientiousness (r = .29, p
<.01). Openness furthermore correlated significantly with agreeableness (r = -.27, p < .01).
Colquitt & Shaw (2005) suggested that theoretically related constructs with correlations > .70
should generally be combined whereas correlations < .50 provide no evidence that combining
might be meaningful. This gives no reason to believe that there are meta-traits above the big
five and the correlations provided question whether the split between stability and plasticity as
proposed by McCrae et al. (2008) provides an answer to the debate.
VII.6. Limitations
This study is not without limitations. First and most obvious is the explorative nature of this
study. As such, many of the finding may not be generalisable to all internal auditors.
Although the sample sizes used in this study are more than sufficient in the course of
exploratory research, future research among a larger set of internal auditors should assess
whether the findings hold for the greater internal audit community. Response rates of both the
internal auditors (28.5%) and CAEs (36.7%) were relatively low which is surprising and
needs further exploration. We expected higher response rates within the internal audit
45
community. This relatively low response rate could be related to the overall length of the
questionnaire.
Second, we measured the personality traits with a single questionnaire. As discussed in
section II.2. on personality traits and traits measurement, personality traits are difficult to
assess with merely one source of identification. With this complex phenomenon, we would
prefer verifying results from multiple perspectives. Future research should therefore use a
multi-method design in order to increase the validity of the results, for instance by combining
questionnaires with interviews. Mitigating to this limitation were the control questions in the
questionnaire used and the fact that the participants had hardly any incentive to provide social
desirable answers. We took several measures to prevent such biases as was outlined in section
III.3.
Third, the explorative research design led to measuring a large set of personality traits with an
extensive 183 items questionnaire with took participants about 40 minutes to complete. This
left little room for measuring other variables to observe whether (combinations of) personality
traits have a causal relationship with for instance reduced audit quality behaviour. Future
research could decide to measure only certain personality traits found relevant in this study
instead of the full 21 personality traits in this study, and run regression analysis on multiple
independent variables. We will propose possible research directions.
Notwithstanding these limitations, this study provides a good starting point for future research
into the personality traits of internal auditors.
VII.7. Future Research
Research on personality traits among internal auditors is still in its early stages and although
this study provided some interesting insight, much is still unknown. As stated before, future
research should measure certain specific personality traits in relation to certain independent
variables. We therefore propose several hypotheses to study.
VII.7.1. Proposed hypotheses
We have seen that research on the personality traits of internal auditors is especially
meaningful given the strong individual auditors effect on the audit quality found recently by
46
Gul, Donghui and Zhifeng (2013). To recall the definition used earlier, reduced audit quality
(RAQ) behaviour can be defined as falsely signing off a required audit step or accepting a
weak client explanation as sufficient evidence for instance under time pressure. We have seen
that the internal auditors in our study score high on the traits systematic and organised
approach and self-discipline and low on susceptibility to stress. We propose that these
personality traits prevent RAQ behaviour under stressful time pressure as these internal
auditors are assumed to complete working programmes systematically and with discipline.
This leads to the following proposed hypotheses:
H1a: The personality trait systematic and organised approach is positively
related to reduced audit quality behaviour.
H1b: The personality trait self-discipline is positively related to reduced
audit quality behaviour.
H1c: The personality trait susceptibility to stress is negatively related to
reduced audit quality behaviour.
Internal auditors might also demonstrate RAQ behaviour such as defined above due to
opposition from auditees or clients during for instance interim report meetings. We have seen
that the internal auditors in our study score high on self-confidence and frustration tolerance
and low on the willingness to accommodate. Furthermore, self-confidence was found to be
significantly negatively correlated to willingness to accommodate and significantly positively
correlated to frustration tolerance, indicating a possible moderating effect. We propose that
these personality traits prevent RAQ behaviour under auditee or client pressure as these
internal auditors are assumed to resist opposition of auditees and clients. This leads to the
following proposed hypothesis:
H2a: The personality trait frustration tolerance is positively related to
reduced audit quality behaviour.
H2b: The personality trait willingness to accommodate is negatively related
to reduced audit quality behaviour.
47
H2c: Both effects in the above hypotheses are moderated by self-confidence
such that the relationships will be stronger for higher levels of self-
confidence than for lower levels of self-confidence.
Our study shows significant differences between the personality traits of starting and
experienced internal auditors. As stated above, there are reasons to believe that internal
auditors with certain personality traits tend to remain in the internal auditing profession longer
than others. Future research should therefore use a longitudinal research design to capture the
possibility that internal auditors scoring high on the big five personality factors of emotional
stability, openness and extraversion are more prone to stay in the internal auditing profession.
This leads to the following proposed hypothesis:
H3: Internal auditors scoring high on emotional stability, openness and
extraversion stay in the internal auditing profession longer than
internal auditors scoring low on these personality traits.
VII.8. Summary and Conclusion
Internal auditors are expected to provide reliable information and to act as a trustworthy
source. This study examined whether personality trait theory contributes to our understanding
of an internal auditor meeting these expectations. Our literature study showed that personality
traits can be measured with several instruments, with the PfPI being most reliable and suitable
in a work context. We showed that little research has been done on the personality traits of
internal auditors but found several desirable values: integrity, honesty and truthfulness. Our
pilot study showed that the personality traits of internal auditors in this study differ
significantly from a large norm group of high educated individuals, most notably on self-
control, self-discipline and susceptibility to stress and especially for experienced internal
auditors. We found significant differences between the personality traits of starting and
experienced internal auditors, most notably on innovation-oriented, susceptibility to stress and
self-confidence. We found significant differences between Chief Audit Executive’s
expectations and the internal auditors in this study, most notably on motivation to perform,
energy and systematic and organised approach. This has important implications for both the
internal audit community and personality trait research. This study provides interesting
insights in the personality traits of internal auditors and explicitly points towards opportunities
for future research focusing on preventing reduced audit quality behaviour.
48
R E F E R E N C E S
Akers, M., & Giacomino, D. (1998). An examination of the differences between personal
values and value types of female and male accounting and non-accounting majors.
Issues in Accounting Education.
Alessandri, G., & Vecchione, M. (2012). The higher-order factors of the Big Five as
predictors of job performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(6), 779-784.
Bailey, J. A. (2010). Core competencies for today's internal auditor. Altamonte Spring, FL:
The Institute of Internal Auditors.
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the
beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next?
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 9-30.
Becker, T. E. (2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational
research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research
Methods, 8(3), 274-289.
Bierstaker, J. L., & Wright, S. (2001). A research note concerning practical problem-solving
ability as a predictor of performance in auditing tasks. Behavioral Research in
Accounting, 13(1), 49-62.
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality and transformational and transactional
leadership: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 901.
Cawley III, M. J., Martin, J. E., & Johnson, J. A. (2000). A virtues approach to personality.
Personality and Individual Differences, 28(5), 997-1013.
Chambers, R. F. (2011). Seven traits of top audit executives. CA Magazine, 144(4), 10-10.
Cherrington, D. J., & Cherrington, J. O. (1993). Understanding honesty. Internal Auditor,
50(6), 29-36.
Chiaburu, D. S., Oh, I.-S., Berry, C. M., Li, N., & Gardner, R. G. (2011). The five-factor
model of personality traits and organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1140.
Choo, F., & Trotman, K. T. (1991). The Relationship between Knowledge Structure and
Judgments for Experienced and Inexperienced Auditors. The Accounting Review,
66(3), 464-485.
Church, B. K., Davis, S. M., & McCracken, S. A. (2008). The Auditor's Reporting Model: A
Literature Overview and Research Synthesis. Accounting Horizons, 22(1), 69-90.
Colquitt, J. A., & Shaw, J. (2005). How should organizational justice be measured. In J.
Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 113–152).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
CommissieDeWit (2010). Rapport: Verloren krediet. Retrieved 22 February 2014. from
zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/kst-31980-16.html.
Costa Jr, P., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits
across cultures: robust and surprising findings. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 81(2), 322.
49
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R Professional manual. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika,
16(3), 297-334.
De Fruyt, F., & Rolland, J. P. (2013). PfPI Beschrijving Persoonlijkheid op het Werk (1 ed.).
Amsterdam: Pearson Assessment and Information.
Donnelly, D. P., Quirin, J. J., & O'Bryan, D. (2003). Auditor Acceptance of Dysfunctional
Audit Behavior: An Explanatory Model Using Auditors' Personal Characteristics.
Behavioral Research in Accounting, 15, 87.
Eaton, T. V., & Giacomino, D. E. (2001). An examination of personal values: Differences
between accounting students and managers and differences between genders. Teaching
Business Ethics, 5(2), 213-229.
EC (2010). Audit Policy: Lessons from the Crisis. Retrieved 16 March 2014. from
ec.europa.eu/green-papers/.
Edwards, A. C. (1991). Clipping the wings off the enneagram; a study in people's perceptions
of a ninefold personality typology. Social Behavior & Personality: An International
Journal, 19(1).
Forsyth, D. R. (1980). A taxonomy of ethical ideologies. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 39(1), 175-184.
Fullerton, R., & Durtschi, C. (2004). The effect of professional skepticism on the fraud
detection skills of internal auditors. Unpublished working paper. Utah State University.
Gul, F. A., Donghui, W., & Zhifeng, Y. (2013). Do Individual Auditors Affect Audit Quality?
Evidence from Archival Data. Accounting Review, 88(6), 1993-2023.
Hicks, L. (1984). Conceptual and empirical analysis of some assumptions of an explicitly
technological theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1118-1131.
Hurtt, R. K. (2010). Professional Skepticism: An audit specific model and measurement
scale. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 29(1).
Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: the Big Five
revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 869.
Jeppesen, K. K. (2007). Organizational risk in large audit firms. Managerial Auditing
Journal, 22(6), 590-603.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and
theoretical perspectives Handbook of personality: Theory and research (Vol. 2, pp.
102-138).
Johnson, A. M., Vernon, P. A., & Feiler, A. R. (2008). Behavior genetic studies of
personality: An introduction and review of the results of 50+ years of research. In G. J.
Boyle, G. Matthews & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), Handbook of personality theory and
assessment (Vol. 1). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers.
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.
Jung, C. G. (1923). Psychological types or the psychology of individuation. New York:
Harcourt.
50
Kung, F.-H., & Huang, C. L. (2013). Auditors' moral philosophies and ethical beliefs.
Management Decision, 51(3), 479-500.
Lance, C. E., Butts, M. M., & Michels, L. C. (2006). The sources of four commonly reported
cutoff criteria. Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 202-220.
Libby, T., & Thorne, L. (2007). The development of a measure of auditors' virtue. Journal of
Business Ethics, 71(1), 89-99.
Lord, A. T., & Todd DeZoort, F. (2001). The impact of commitment and moral reasoning on
auditors' responses to social influence pressure. Accounting, Organizations and
Society, 26(3), 215-235.
Malone, C. F., & Roberts, R. W. (1996). Factors Associated with the Incidence of Reduced
Audit Quality Behaviors. Auditing, 15(2), 49-64.
Marcus, B., Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2007). Personality dimensions explaining relationships
between integrity tests and counterproductive behavior: Big Five, or one in addition?
Personnel Psychology, 60(1), 1-34.
Marston, W. M. (1928). Emotions of normal people. New York: Harcourt.
McCrae, R. R. (2000). Trait psychology and the revival of personality and culture studies.
American Behavioral Scientist, 44(1), 10-31.
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.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1999). A Five-Factor Theory of personality. In L. A. Pervin &
O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 139-
153). New York: Guilford Press.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2004). A contemplated revision of the NEO Five-Factor
Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(3), 587-596.
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., Hrebickova, M., Avia, M. D., et al.
(2000). Nature over nurture: temperament, personality, and life span development.
Journal of personality and social psychology, 78(1), 173-186.
McCrae, R. R., Yamagata, S., Jang, K. L., Riemann, R., Ando, J., Ono, Y., et al. (2008).
Substance and artifact in the higher-order factors of the Big Five. Journal of
personality and social psychology, 95(2), 442.
McDonald, J. D. (2008). Measuring Personality Constructs: The Advantages and
Disadvantages of Self-Reports, Informant Reports and Behavioural Assessments.
Enquire, 1(1).
Mlinarić, V., & Podlesek, A. (2013). Item context effects on Big Five personality measures.
Review of Psychology, 20(1-2), 23-28.
Morgeson, F. P., Campion, M. A., Dipboye, R. L., Hollenbeck, J. R., Murphy, K., & Schmitt,
N. (2007). Reconsidering the use of personality tests in personnel selection contexts.
Personnel Psychology, 60(3), 683-729.
Myers, I. B., McCaulley, M. H., Quenk, N., & Hammer, A. (1998). MBTI Handbook: A
Guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (3rd ed.):
Consulting Psychologists Press.
51
Nelson, C. A. (1999). Neural plasticity and human development. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 8(2), 42-45.
Nelson, M. W. (2009). A model and literature review of professional skepticism in auditing.
Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 28(2), 1-34.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ones, D. S., Dilchert, S., Viswesvaran, C., & Judge, T. A. (2007). In support of personality
assessment in organizational settings. Personnel Psychology, 60(4), 995-1027.
Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analitic review of attitudinal and dispositional
predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), 775-
802.
Owhoso, V., & Weickgenannt, A. (2009). Auditors' self-perceived abilities in conducting
domain audits. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 20(1), 3-21.
Pervin, L. A. (1994). A critical analysis of current trait theory. Psychological Inquiry, 5(2),
103-113.
Plomin, R., Corley, R., Caspi, A., Fulker, D. W., & DeFries, J. (1998). Adoption results for
self-reported personality: Evidence for nonadditive genetic effects? Journal of
personality and social psychology, 75(1), 211.
Ponemon, L. A., & Gabhart, D. R. (1994). Ethical reasoning research in the accounting and
auditing professions. In J. R. Rest & D. Narvaez (Eds.), Moral development in the
professions: Psychology and applied ethics (pp. 101-119). Florence, KT: Psychology
Press.
Riso, D. R., & Hudson, R. (1996). Personality types: Using the Enneagram for self-discovery:
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Rokeach, M. J. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: The Free Press.
Rolland, J. P., & De Fruyt, F. (2009). PfPI: Inventaire de personnalité au travail [Personality
for professionals inventory]. France, Paris: Editions du Centre de Psychologie
Appliquée (ECPA).
Rubinstein, G., & Strul, S. (2007). The Five Factor Model (FFM) among four groups of male
and female professionals. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(4), 931-937.
Salgado, J. F. (2002). The Big Five personality dimensions and counterproductive behaviors.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10(1―2), 117-125.
Schmit, M. J., Ryan, A. M., Stierwalt, S. L., & Powell, A. B. (1995). Frame-of-reference
effects on personality scale scores and criterion-related validity. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 80(5), 607.
Schmitt, D. P., Realo, A., Voracek, M., & Allik, J. r. (2008). Why can't a man be more like a
woman? Sex differences in Big Five personality traits across 55 cultures. Journal of
personality and social psychology, 94(1), 168.
Schriesheim, C. A., Hinkin, T. R., & Podsakoff, P. M. (1991). Can ipsative and single-item
measures produce erroneous results in field studies of French and Raven's (1959) five
bases of power? An empirical investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(1),
106.
52
Shafer, W. E., Morris, R. E., & Ketchand, A. A. (2001). Effects of personal values on
auditors' ethical decisions. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 14(3), 254-
277.
Soto, C. J., John, O. P., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2011). Age differences in personality
traits from 10 to 65: Big Five domains and facets in a large cross-sectional sample.
Journal of personality and social psychology, 100(2), 330.
Terracciano, A., McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2010). Intra-individual change in personality
stability and age. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(1), 31-37.
Trump, G. W., Hendrickson, H. S., Berlfein, H. M., Burns, T. J., Campfield, W. L., Davidson,
H. J., et al. (1972). Personality Traits of Accountants. Journal of Accountancy, 133(4),
87-89.
Tsui, J. S. L., & Gul, F. A. (1996). Auditors' behaviour in an audit conflict situation: A
research note on the role of locus of control and ethical reasoning. Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 21(1), 41-51.
Wille, B., De Fruyt, F., & De Clercq, B. (2013). Expanding and Reconceptualizing Aberrant
Personality at Work: Validity of Five-Factor Model Aberrant Personality Tendencies
to Predict Career Outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 66(1), 173-223.
Wilson, T. E., Pinac-Ward, S., & Ward, D. R. (1998). CPA values analysis: towards a better
understanding of the motivations and ethical attitudes of the profession. In L. A.
Ponemon (Ed.), Research on Accounting Ethics (Vol. 4, pp. 201-210). Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
53
A P P E N D I X I – L E T T E R T O P A R T I C I P A N T S
Letter to Participants of Pilot Study among Internal Auditors
Beste EIAP docenten en studenten,
Dit jaar zijn Michael Tophoff en ondergetekende gestart met een onderzoek om een beeld te
krijgen van de (gewenste) persoonlijkheidskenmerken van internal auditors. Dit onderzoek
wordt ondersteund door de Stichting Verenigde Register Operational Auditors (SVRO) en het
Instituut van Internal Auditors (IIA). Zij ondersteunen dit project omdat de
onderzoeksresultaten bijdragen aan de beroepsontwikkeling in brede zin. Ook het Executive
Internal Audit Progamme aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam (UvA) ziet het belang van dit
onderzoek. Daarom zijn in dit kader diverse onderzoeksprojecten gestart bij de UvA waarin
ook afstudeerders participeren.
Wij zouden het zeer op prijs stellen als je zou willen bijdragen aan dit onderzoek. Binnenkort
zul je een uitnodiging ontvangen vanuit Pearson Education voor het invullen van een
vragenlijst. Wij werken met deze organisatie samen omdat zij een gerenommeerd instrument
hebben ontwikkeld dat een beeld geeft van de persoonlijkheidskenmerken. De resultaten
worden vergelijken met het profiel van een grote normgroep van Nederlanders. Deze
gegevens zullen geanonimiseerd worden gebruikt voor het onderzoek. Daarnaast zul je een
eigen persoonlijke rapportage ontvangen voor zelfreflectie en je eigen ontwikkeling. Een
voorbeeld rapportage heb ik bijgevoegd aan dit bericht. Uitdrukkelijk wil ik benadrukken dat
de onderzoekers geen inzage krijgen in de individuele rapportages!
Namens de onderzoekers – Michael Tophoff en de afstudeerders Rico Dijkstra, Bert van
Mourik, Erwin Mol en Onno Rommen – wil ik je bij voorbaat hartelijk danken voor de
medewerking.
Met vriendelijke groet,
Dhr. dr J.R.H.J. (Bob) van Kuijck RA RC
Universiteit van Amsterdam
Programme director Executive Internal Audit Programme
54
Letter to Participants of Personality Profile among CAEs
Geachte heer/mevrouw XXX,
In het kader van de afronding van mijn RO-opleiding onderzoek ik op dit moment de
persoonlijkheidskenmerken van internal auditors in Nederland. Doel is om een beeld te
krijgen van de internal auditors, te onderzoeken of het persoonlijkheidsprofiel verschilt t.o.v.
een grote normgroep van hoog opgeleide Nederlanders en vast te stellen of het profiel aansluit
bij wat enerzijds huidige audit literatuur en anderzijds hoofden IAD benoemen als wenselijke
persoonlijkheidskenmerken.
Het onderzoek is al even op weg en ik heb op dit moment voldoende gegevens om tot een
persoonlijkheidsprofiel van de gemiddelde internal auditor te komen. Om dit profiel te duiden
wil ik u vragen in welke mate u 21 verschillende persoonlijkheidskenmerken wenselijk acht in
een internal auditor.
Deelname is mogelijk via:
https://qtrial2014.az1.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=XXX
Gezien uw ruime ervaring in ons vakgebied zou ik het zeer op prijs stellen als u wilt
deelnemen aan dit onderzoek. Invullen van de vragenlijst kost ongeveer 5 minuten.
Uitkomsten worden geanonimiseerd verwerkt en het onderzoek wordt uitgevoerd onder
toezicht van Dr. Michael Tophoff en Dr. Bob van Kuijck (Universiteit van Amsterdam). Ik
breng u natuurlijk graag op de hoogte van de uitkomsten na afronding van het onderzoek.
Ik zou het fijn vinden als u hieraan meedoet. Bij voorbaat hartelijk dank.
Hartelijke groet,
Erwin Mol
55
A P P E N D I X I I – M E A S U R E M E N T S C A L E S
Emotional stability
Emotional stability relates to whether individuals are calm and confident about the outcome of
an event. They can handle stressful situations and keep their footing in a busy work
environment. However, surprises and difficult situations can upset and worry them. It was
measured as a combination of the subscales sensitivity, self-confidence, susceptibility to
stress and frustration tolerance which will be discussed below.
Sensitivity relates to the worrisomeness of individuals. Individuals scoring high on this trait
usually have more negative emotions and feelings (e.g. fright, sadness, fear) and worry more
than others. Individuals scoring low on this trait usually go through life more carefree and are
better able to place problems into perspective. Items include “I rarely worry about problems at
work (R)”.
Self-confidence relates to the confidence of individuals. Individuals scoring high on this trait
are self-confident, trust their own decisions and approach. Individuals scoring low on this trait
usually more often think they are not able to accomplish something. Items include “I like who
I am”.
Susceptibility to stress relates to the level of stress an individual can bear. Individuals scoring
high on this trait are more sensitive to stress. Setbacks can put them off faster and they find it
harder to relax after a busy working day. Individuals scoring low on this trait usually know
how to deal with stressful work situations and are usually quite good at handling whatever
comes up. Items include “I am more sensitive to stress than others”.
Frustration tolerance relates to an individual’s sensitivity towards various forms of negative
judgment and interference. Individuals scoring high on this trait can deal with negative
judgment or criticism easily and feel that those comments should not be taken personally.
Individuals scoring low on this trait are more sensitive than others to various forms of
negative judgment and interference, and they take it personally when others have criticisms or
negative comments about their work. Criticism or frustration can have a paralyzing effect on
56
them or strongly affect them or stir them up emotionally. Items include “Criticism or
frustration can have a paralyzing effect on me (R)”.
Extraversion
Extraversion relates to whether individuals move easily among others without standing out or
explicitly stepping into the foreground. They like to work with others but also find it easy to
work alone. Sometimes they take more of a leadership role, but at other times they are happy
to leave the initiative to others. It was measured as a combination of the subscales enthusiasm,
sociability, energy and assertiveness which will be discussed below.
Enthusiasm relates to an individual’s level of cheerfulness. Individuals scoring high on this
trait are cheerful and enthusiastic, and contribute to the mood and atmosphere in a group
without taking the lead or setting the tone. They sometimes give spontaneous and visible
expression to their enthusiasm. Individuals scoring low on this trait do not see themselves as
contributing to a good mood. They can be portrayed as somewhat boring. Items include “My
enthusiasm has a positive effect on others”.
Sociability relates to whether an individual likes being with others. Individuals scoring high
on this trait like getting to know new people. They need people around them and have vast
social network. Individuals scoring low on this trait are happy on their own and function well
alone. They are not keen on large groups, and it takes a while before they feel comfortable in
a new group. They are rather tentative in making new contacts or meeting strangers. Their
social network is quite stable, rather limited and includes primarily people they have known
for a long time. Items include “I need other people around me”.
Energy relates to the pace an individual feels comfortable at. Individuals scoring high on this
trait have a lot of energy and keep a fast pace in life. They do not like to sit still and enjoy
physical effort. Individuals scoring low on this trait keep a slower pace, enjoy quieter
activities and relaxation and have less urge to put in great physical effort. Items include “I am
energetic and like to keep a high pace”.
Assertiveness relates to the level an individual explicitly steps into the foreground. Individuals
scoring high on this trait take a leadership position in groups spontaneously and want to be
heard. Individuals scoring low on this trait do not like to be on the foreground. They will
57
express their opinion only when asked explicitly and would not intend it to carry a lot of
weight. Items include “I am easily surpassed by others (R)”.
Openness
Openness relates to whether individuals are creative and love to think outside the box. They
like to reflect and readily engage in abstract and conceptual analyses. They have a wide range
of interests and are open to new approaches, ideas, methods and innovation. They frequently
contribute an original perspective. It was measured as a combination of the subscales
innovation-oriented & creativity, intellectual versus action-oriented, self-reflection and
openness to change which will be discussed below.
Innovation-oriented & creativity relates to the level an individual are open to new approaches.
Individuals scoring high on this trait creative and often contribute an original perspective.
They have a rich imagination and like to experiment with new approaches and methods. They
enjoy discovering and exploring new methods. They shun repetitive work, and welcome
variation and innovation. Individuals scoring low on this trait prefer addressing issues for
which they have common solutions. They prefer applying methods they are accustomed to.
Items include “I have little imagination (R)”.
Intellectual versus action-oriented relates to the level an individual prefers to think about
problems or just wants to get a job done. Individuals scoring high on this trait have interest in
more abstract approaches and conceptual analyses. They like abstract and philosophical
discussions and approach problems analytically. Individuals scoring low on this trait are more
practical and hands-on persons and focus less on the how’s and why’s. Items include “I find
philosophical discussions boring and a waste of time (R)”.
Self-reflection relates to the level an individual searches for feedback on their functioning.
Individuals scoring high on this trait regularly consider what impression they make on others
and reflect about themselves and their approach. They are open to suggestions from others
and frequently and specifically ask for feedback. They try to implement these suggestions,
adjust their behaviour and develop themselves further. Individuals scoring low on this trait are
less prone to ask for feedback or adjusting behaviour to develop themselves further. Items
include “When doing something I always think about how to do this differently and more
efficient”.
58
Openness to change relates to the level an individual likes variation. Individuals scoring high
on this trait like variation and change in their (work) environment. They respond flexibly to
innovations and can easily adapt their habits and ways of acting. They follow changes closely;
even entirely new environments (e.g. working abroad) do not scare them off. Individuals
scoring low on this trait prefer the status quo and prefer working in known environments.
Items include “I prefer to apply known methods and techniques as best as possible over
learning new methods and techniques (R)”.
Agreeableness
Agreeableness relates to whether individuals easily strike a balance between cooperation and
competition with others. They try to understand the other’s position but can defend their own
interest when necessary. They take their work environment into account, but they can also go
against the group. It was measured as a combination of the subscales competitiveness, being
other-oriented, trusting others and willingness to accommodate which will be discussed
below.
Competitiveness relates to the level an individual feels the need to win. Individuals scoring
high on this trait tend to competition and compare themselves to (the results of) others. They
would do almost anything to win and are tenacious. Individuals scoring low on this trait tend
more towards cooperation with others than to competing with them. They feel no urge to win
or do better than others. They are not easily challenged or provoked and in conflict situations,
they are not out to prove that they are right. Items include “I do not necessarily need to win
(R)”.
Being other-oriented relates to the level an individual wants to understand the opinion of
others. Individuals scoring high on this trait are highly interested in the people around them,
and they generally try to understand their thoughts and feelings. They share easily with others,
listen to their views, and regularly show their appreciation. They find a good, open and
companionable atmosphere (at work) very important and contribute actively to its creation.
Individuals scoring low on this trait are more egocentric and perceive things from perspective.
Items include “I take time to listen to the thoughts of others”.
Trusting others relates to the level an individual trust the people they work with. Individuals
scoring high on this trait have much faith in others and assume others are reliable and honest.
59
Individuals scoring low on this trait are somewhat wary of the people around them and
assume that others have a hidden agenda or will use them when they get the opportunity. They
are generally on their guard, and it can take a long time before they come to trust someone.
When someone does betray their trust, they see this as proof that, indeed, no one can be
trusted. Items include “I assume others have a hidden agenda (R)”.
Willingness to accommodate relates to the level an individual wants to avoid confrontations.
Individuals scoring high on this trait avoid getting involved in heated discussions or conflicts.
They do not like calling others to order or confronting them. In conflicts, they tend to play
more of a mediating role. Individuals scoring low on this trait will defend themselves and
argue for their point of view. They do not avoid getting into heated discussions or
confrontations. Items include “I do not avoid discussions or conflicts (R)”.
Conscientiousness
Conscientiousness relates to whether individuals usually work very methodically and
systematically and are ambitious and orderly. They set high standards for themselves and
know how to motivate themselves in order to attain their objectives and fulfil their
commitments. They highly value effort and hard work. It was measured as a combination of
the subscales systematic and organised approach, self-discipline and motivation to perform.
Self-control and pro-activeness were excluded in measuring conscientiousness. All subscales
will be discussed below.
Systematic and organised approach relates to the level an individual is organised. Individuals
scoring high on this trait follow their plans meticulously and are well-organised, which makes
them reliable and predictable for their own environment. They are always well prepared as
well as make sure to adhere strictly to schedules and deadlines. There is an effortless and
natural alignment between their agenda and actions. It rarely or never happens that they fail to
have something ready on time or have to do something at the last moment. Individuals scoring
low on this trait are less-organised and methodical and sometimes loose time looking for
documents or other things they need. Items include “I am known for being well-organised”.
Self-discipline relates to the level an individual is in-control of tasks. Individuals scoring high
on this trait are excellent at controlling themselves in order to complete tasks on time or
persisting even when difficulties or obstacles arise along the way. Once committed to a task,
60
they always see it through to a successful end, despite obstacles along the way. They have
strong self-discipline. Individuals scoring low on this trait find it more difficult to work harder
when situations call for extra efforts. They are more prone to procrastination. Items include “I
can motivate myself easily to complete tasks”.
Self-control relates to the level an individual is in-control of feelings. Individuals scoring high
on this trait can easily control themselves and their impulses and are able to focus well. They
come across as composed, even in charged and risky discussions. They generally think
carefully about how they will say something or deal with something, and consider all
available alternatives. Individuals scoring low on this trait are more led by emotions and
feelings. They sometimes do or say things they later regret. Items include “I usually can
compose myself”.
Motivation to perform relates to the level an individual wants to excel. Individuals scoring
high on this trait set the bar high for themselves and strive for perfection. They work hard and
quickly feel guilty when they are doing nothing for a few days. They want to excel and like to
raise the standard of what can be achieved. They enjoy the recognition that goes with
excellent work. Individuals scoring low on this trait are less driven and certainly do not strive
for perfection. They choose targets which can be accomplished easily and usually do not use
their full potential Items include “I enjoy my better accomplishments”.
Proactiveness relates to the level an individual think ahead to address potential problems.
Individuals scoring high on this trait always think a few steps ahead and generally stay ahead
of problems. They are far-sighted and strategic and, when a problem arises, quickly come up
with a solution or, at least, will immediately know what to do. They have an overview of the
whole and act from a long-term perspective. They regularly undertake actions or steps whose
usefulness, significance or impact only become obvious later. Individuals scoring low on this
trait addresses problems when they present themselves. They take a more “wait-and-see” or
short-term approach which regularly leads them to be surprised by problems. Items include “I
prevent problems through proactiveness”.
The above definitions are similar to the definitions provided by De Fruyt and Rolland (2013).