This study focused on the idea that there are predictable differences between those individuals who opt for Scientific rather than the Commerce/Practitioner jobs and consulting assignments. A total of 2278 adults from a variety of occupations completed three validated questionnaires: the first assessed the behavioural tendency of an individual when one is exposed to stress and which could derail one’s business career (HDS: Hogan Development Survey); the second the values and preferences that indicate work motivation (MVPI: The Motives, Values and Preferences Inventory), and the third, seven bright-side personality factors (HPI: Hogan Personality Inventory). The MVPI measured interests in scientific and commercial/enterprising activities. Correlations, regressions and SEM indicated both similarities and differences in the relationship between personality traits and values. Bright-side personality traits accounted for more the variance for those interested in Science while dark-side traits accounted for more variance for those interested in the Commerce. The biggest difference occurred in Inquisitiveness (Curiosity, Openness to Experience) which was much higher for those interested in science. Implications for personnel selection, job-fit and promotion were discussed.
AndersonN. (2005). Relationships between practice and research in personnel selection: Does the left hand know what the right is doing? In A. Evers, N. Anderson, & O. Voskuijl (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of personnel selection (pp. 1–24). Blackwell Publishing.
2.
AndersonN. (2007). The practitioner-researcher divide. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 80, 175–183.
3.
AndersonN.HerriotP.HodgkinsonG. P. (2001). The practitioner-researcher divide in Industrial, Work and Organizational (IWO) psychology: Where are we now, and where do we go from here?Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 391–411.
4.
BarreiroC. A.TreglownL. (2020). What makes an engaged employee? A facet-level approach to trait emotional intelligence as a predictor of employee engagement. Personality and Individual Differences, 159, 109892.
5.
BartelsL.MacanT.GuttingB.LemmingM.McCreaR. (2005). Teaching the practitioner side of the scientist–practitioner model. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 42(3), 60–64.
6.
BartlettD.Francis-SmytheJ. (2016). Bridging the divide in work and organisational psychology: Evidence from practice. European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology, 25, 3–22.
7.
BrennanR. (2004). Should we worry about an “academic-practitioner divide” in marketing?Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 22, 492–500,
8.
ChangK.LeeI.-L.HargreavesT. A. (2008). Scientist versus practitioner—An abridged meta-analysis of the changing role of psychologists. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 21, 267–291. doi:10.1080/09515070802479859
9.
ChartrandJ. (1992). Research and application using Holland’s typology: Reactions from the scientist-practitioner perspective. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 40, 194–200.
10.
Chatman, A., Wong, E., & Joyce, C. (2008). When do people make the place? In D.B. Smith (ed.), The People Make the Place. New York: LEA, pp.63--86.
11.
ChildD.SmithersA. (1973). An attempted validation of the ‘Joyce-Hudson’ scale of convergence–divergence. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 43, 57–61.
12.
ChwaliszK. (2003). Evidence-based practice: A framework for twenty-first-century scientist-practitioner training. The Counseling Psychologist, 31, 497–528. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000003256347
13.
CohenD. (2007). The very separate worlds of academic and practitioner publications in Human Resource Management. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1013–1019.
14.
De FruytF.De ClercqB. J.MillerJ.RollandJ. P.JungS. C.TarisR.Van HielA. (2009). Assessing personality at risk in personnel selection and development. European Journal of Personality, 23, 51–69.
15.
FerrimanK.LubinskiD.BenbowC. P. (2009). Work preferences, life values, and personal views of top math/science graduate students and the profoundly gifted: Developmental changes and gender differences during emerging adulthood and parenthood.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(3), 517–532. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016030
FoxJ.HagedornW. B.SivoS. A. (2016). Clinical decision‐making and intuition: A task analysis of 44 experienced counsellors. Counselling & Psychotherapy Research, 16, 244–255. https://doi.org/10.1002/capr.12084
18.
FurnhamA. (2017). Personality traits, personality disorders and creativity. In G. Feist, R. Reiter-Palmon, & J. Kaufman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity and personality research (pp. 275–293). Cambridge.
19.
FurnhamA. (2018a). Personality and occupational success. In V. Zeigler-Hill & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality and individual differences. pp 537-551. Sage.
20.
FurnhamA. (2018b). The great divide: Academic versus practitioner criteria for psychometric test choice.Journal of Personality Assessment, 100, 498–506.
21.
FurnhamA. (2020). Demographic, personality trait and personality disorder correlates of aesthetic motivation. Imagination, Cognition and Personality.
22.
FurnhamA.CrumpJ. (2013). The sensitive, imaginative, articulate art student and conservative, cool, numerate science student: Individual differences in art and science students. Learning and Individual Differences, 25, 150–155
23.
FurnhamA.HydeG.TrickeyG. (2013). The values of work success. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 485–489.
24.
FurnhamA.HydeG.TrickeyG. (2014). Do your dark side traits fit?Applied Psychology, 63, 589–606.
25.
FurnhamA.PetropoulouK. (2018). Mental health literacy, the personality disorders and job fit. Journal of Mental Health, 28, 249–254.
26.
FurnhamA.TrickeyG.HydeG. (2012). Bright aspects to dark side traits: Dark side traits associated with work success. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 908–913.
27.
GeladeG. A. (2006). But what does it mean in practice?Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 153–160.
28.
GibersonT. R.ResickC. J.DicksonM. W. (2005). Embedding leader characteristics: An examination of homogeneity of personality and values in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1002.
29.
HarmsP. D. (2017) Hogan Development Survey. In V. Zeigler-Hill & T. Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences. pp 518-536. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_36-1
30.
HartleyJ.GreggsM. (1997). Divergent thinking in arts and science students. Studies in Higher Education, 22, 93–97.
31.
Hays-ThomasR. (2006). Challenging the scientist-practitioner model.The Industrial-Organisational Psychologist, 44, 47–53.
32.
HodgkinsonG. P.HerriotP.AndersonN. (2001). Re-aligning stakeholders in management research: Lessons from industrial, work and organizational psychology. British Journal of.Management, 12, 41–48.
HoganR. (2009). Hogan development survey manual. Hogan Assessment Systems.
36.
HoganR.HoganJ.WarrenfeltzR. (2007). The Hogan guide: Interpretation and use of Hogan inventories. Hogan Assessment Systems.
37.
HollandJ. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (3rd ed.). Psychological Assessment Resources.
38.
HooperD.CoughlanJ.MullenM. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. European Journal of Behaviour Research and Management, 6, 53–60.
39.
HornR. A.TroyerJ. A.HallE. J.MellottR. N.CotéL. S.MarquisJ. D. (2007). The scientist-practitioner model: A rose by any other name is still a rose. American Behavioral Scientist, 50, 808–819.
40.
HorneyK. (1950). Neurosis and human growth: The struggle towards self-realization. Norcross.
41.
HoxJ. J.BechgerT. M. (2007). An introduction to structural equation modeling. Family Science Review, 11, 354–373.
42.
HuL. TBentlerP. M. (1998). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 76–97). Sage.
43.
HudsonL. (1966). Contrary imaginations. Methuen.
44.
HyattD.CropanzanoR.FinderL. A.LevyP.RuddyT. M.VandeveerV.WalkerS. (1996). Bridging the gap between academics and practice: Suggestions from the field. Industrial Organizational Psychologist, 35, 29–32.
45.
IddekingeC.PutkaD.CampbellJ. (2011). Reconsidering vocational interests for personal selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 13–133.
46.
JudgeT. A.PiccoloR. F.KosalkaT. (2009). The bright and dark sides of leader traits: A review and theoretical extension of the leader trait paradigm. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 855–875.
47.
KhooH. S.BurchG. S. J. (2008). The ‘dark side’ of leadership personality and transformational leadership: An exploratory study. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 86–97.
48.
KlineR. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling. Guilford Press.
49.
KowalskiC. M.VernonP. A.SchermerJ. A. (2017). Vocational interests and dark personality: Are there dark career choices?Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 43–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.07.029
50.
KrisbourneM. (1968). The creativity imagination of arts and science students. Developmental Medical and Childhood Neurology, 10, 461–464.
51.
Kristof-BrownA. L.ZimmermanR. D.JohnsonE. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00672.x
52.
LathamG. (2019). Perspectives of a practitioner-scientist on organizational psychology/organizatinal behaviour. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behaviour, 6, 1–16.
53.
LeJeuneJ.LuomaJ. (2015). The integrated scientist-practitioner. Professional Psychology, 46, 421–428. https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000049
54.
LilienG. (2011). Bridging the academic-practitioner divide in marketing decision models. Journal of Marketing,75, 196–210.
55.
LilienfeldS.RitschelL.JayS.LynnR.CautinR.LatzmanR. (2013). Why many clinical psychologists are resistant to evidence-based practice: Root causes and constructive remedies. Clinical Psychology Review, 33, 883–900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2012.09.008
56.
LombartC.LouisD. (2012). Consumer satisfaction and loyalty. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 19, 644–652.
57.
LowK.YoonM.RobertsB.RoundsJ (2005). The stability of vocational interests from early adolescence to middle adulthood. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 713–737.
58.
LowmanR. (2012). The scientist-practitioner consulting psychologist. Consulting Psychology, 64, 151–156.
59.
MacCallumR. C.BrowneM. W.SugawaraH. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130–149.
60.
MartelliP. F.HayirliT. C. (2018). Three perspectives on evidence-based management: Rank, fit, variety.Management Decision, 56(10), 2085–2100.
61.
MartinW. E.GavinM.BakerE.BridgmonK. (2007). Analysis of the effects of gender and doctoral program emphasis on scientist and practitioner interests. American Behavioral Scientist, 50(6), 820–829.
62.
NyeC. D.WilleB.AmoryJ.De FruytF. (2020). Are work activities related to interest change over time? A 22-year longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000360
PfefferJ.SuttonR. I. (2006). Management half-truths and nonsense: How to practice evidence-based management. California Management Review, 48(3), 77–100.
65.
RosseelY. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling and more. Version 0.5–12 (BETA). Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36.
66.
RoweP. M. (2018). Work experience, the scientist-practitioner model, and cooperative education. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 59(2), 144–150.
67.
RuppD. E.BealD. (2007). Checking in with the scientist-practitioner model: How are we doing?The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 45, 35–40
68.
RynesS. L.ColbertA. E.BrownK. C. (2002). HR professionals’ beliefs about effective human resource practices: Correspondence between research and practice. Human Resource Management, 41, 149–174.
69.
RynesS. L.GilukT. L.BrownK. C. (2007). The very separate worlds of academic and practitioner publications in human resource management: Implications for evidence-based management. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 987–1008.
70.
RynesS. L.McNattD. B.BretzR. D. (1999). Academic research inside organizations: Inputs, processes and outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 52, 869–898.
71.
ScheibeK. P.NilakantaS.RagsdaleC. T.YounieB. (2019). An evidence-based management framework for business analytics. Journal of Business Analytics, 2(1), 47–62.
72.
SnowC. (1959). The two cultures. Cambridge University Press.
73.
SonnertG. (2009). Parents who influence their children to become scientists: Effects of gender and parental education.Social Study of Science, 39(6), 927–941.
74.
StollG.EinarsdóttirS.Chelsea SongQ.OndishP.SunJ.‐T.RoundsJ. (2020). The roles of personality traits and vocational interests in explaining what people want out of life. Journal of Research in Personality, 86, 103939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2020.103939
75.
StollG.TrautweinU. (2017). Vocational interests as personality traits: Characteristics, development, and significance in educational and organizational environments. In J. Specht (Ed.), Personality development across the lifespan (pp. 401–417). Elsevier.
76.
SuR.NyeC. D. (2017). Interests and person-environment fit: A new perspective on workforce readiness and success. In J. Burrus, K. D. Mattern, B. Naemi, & R. D. Roberts (Eds.), Building better students: Preparation for the workforce. pp. 76-95 Oxford University Press.
77.
SuR.StollG.RoundsJ. (2018). The nature of interests: Toward a unifying theory of Trait-State Interest Dynamics. In C. D. Nye & J. Rounds (Eds.), Vocational interests: Rethinking their role in understanding workplace behavior and practice. SIOP Organizational Frontiers Series. pp. 177-206 Routledge.
78.
TayL.SuR.RoundsJ. (2011). People-things and data-ideas: Bipolar dimensions?Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58(3), 424–440. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023488
79.
ThomasJ. L.DicksonM. W.BlieseP. D. (2001). Values predicting leader performance in the US army reserve officer training corps assessment center: Evidence for a personality-mediated model. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 181–196.
80.
ThompsonJ.GarmanA.HorowitzM.BarrM. (2005). The Chicago School I-O program: Application of the Vail model to graduate I-O education. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 42(4), 106–111.
81.
TreglownL.PalaiouK.ZarolaA.FurnhamA. (2016). The dark side of resilience and burnout: A moderation-mediation model. PLoS One, 11(6), e0156279.
82.
TreglownL.ZivkovK.ZarolaA.FurnhamA. (2018). Intention to quit and the role of dark personality and perceived organizational support: A moderation and mediation model.PLoS One, 13(3), e0195155.
83.
van DamK. (2015). Workplace goal orientation. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 31, 62–68.
84.
van der TogtT.RasmussenT. (2017) Toward evidence-based HR. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 4, 127–132. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-02-2017-0013
85.
Van IddekingeC. H.RothP. L.PutkaD. J.LanivichS. E. (2011). Are you interested? A meta-analysis of relations between vocational interests and employee performance and turnover.Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1167–1194. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024343
86.
ZacharP.LeongF. T. L. (2010). A problem of personality: Scientist and practitioner differences in psychology. Journal of Personality, 60(3), 665–667.
