An Explorative Study into the Personality Traits of ...

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


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


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


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 ***


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


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


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


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(1â€•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


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).

Date post:	14-Apr-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

An Explorative Study into the Personality Traits of ...

Documents