THE ALPHA SCALE
We developed the Alpha Assessment over the course of three separate testing sessions, involving 1,646 research participants, each of whom responded to over two hundred questions. The questions were designed to tap into ten constructs: strengths and risks for alphas overall, and strengths and risks for each of the four types: Commander, Visionary, Strategist, and Executor. Participants also completed a series of supplemental assessments, including measures of Type A Personality, dominance, need for closure and anxiety [1].
The final version of the questionnaire, based on these cumulative efforts, consists of 120 items and yields standardized scores for each of the ten categories. The supplemental data presented in this Appendix are based on our third and final scale validation sample, which consisted of 1,523 readers of Harvard Business Review.
Table 1 shows the degree to which each assessment subscale related to the others. More specifically, we show the correlation coefficients (Pearson's r's) among the various subscales [2]. As shown in the table, there was a moderately strong positive relationship between the General Strengths and General Risks subscales. That is, the higher people scored on General Strengths, the higher they tended to score on General Risks. This pattern confirmed one of our basic premises: Those who are gifted with alpha assets are likely to also be vulnerable to alpha liabilities.
Table 1 also shows that General Strengths was strongly positively correlated with Commander Strengths, Executor Strengths, Strategist Strengths, and Visionary Strengths. Similarly, General Risks was strongly positively correlated with Commander Risks, Executor Risks, Strategist Risks, and Visionary Risks. Thus, those who show relatively healthy traits overall tend to score highly on the Type Strengths subscales, while those who show relatively unhealthy traits overall are prone to high scores on the Type Risks subscales.
Table 1
Inter-Subscale Correlations
Subscale
|
GS
|
GR
|
CS
|
CR
|
VS
|
VR
|
SS
|
SR
|
ES
|
ER
|
General Strengths
|
1.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General Risks
|
.40
|
1.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commander Strengths
|
.70
|
.07
|
1.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commander Risks
|
.42
|
.75
|
.17
|
1.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Visionary Strengths
|
.50
|
.28
|
.37
|
.19
|
1.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
Visionary Risks
|
.17
|
.58
|
.07
|
.29
|
.49
|
1.0
|
|
|
|
|
Strategist Strengths
|
.70
|
.37
|
.25
|
.36
|
.12
|
.01
|
1.0
|
|
|
|
Strategist Risks
|
.28
|
.76
|
-.04
|
.50
|
.18
|
.32
|
.36
|
1.0
|
|
|
Executor Strengths
|
.67
|
.29
|
.31
|
.37
|
.03
|
-.10
|
.44
|
.16
|
1.0
|
|
Executor Risks
|
.39
|
.73
|
-.01
|
.49
|
.01
|
.24
|
.41
|
.53
|
.44
|
1.0
|
Table 2 shows respondents' mean scores for each of the ten subscales (all measured on scales of 1-5), as well as gender differences across each of the subscales. Males received slightly higher scores than females on both General Alpha Strengths subscale and General Alpha Risks. While these differences were small, they were also highly significant statistically.
Males also received higher scores on each of the four Type (Strengths and Risks combined) subscales. Notably, the gender difference was highly statistically significant for the Commander and Strategist subscales, but not for either the Visionary or Commander subscale. The Strengths and Risks Type subscales told a similar story: Males received higher scores across all of these subscales, but the male-female difference was only statistically significant about half of the time. Specifically, males scored significantly higher than females on Commander Risks and on both Strategist subscales, but the gender difference was non-significant in all other cases.
Table 2 [3]
Means and Standard Deviations for Alpha Strengths and Alpha Risks, by Gender [4]
Factor
|
All Participants
|
Males
|
Females
|
|
N
|
Mean
|
SD
|
N
|
Mean
|
SD
|
N
|
Mean
|
SD
|
Overall Alpha***
|
1523
|
3.24
|
.41
|
983
|
3.28
|
.40
|
539
|
3.17
|
.40
|
Overall Alpha Strengths***
|
1523
|
3.58
|
.43
|
983
|
3.62
|
.42
|
539
|
3.50
|
.43
|
Overall Alpha Risks***
|
1484
|
2.89
|
.53
|
959
|
2.93
|
.53
|
524
|
2.82
|
.53
|
Commander***
|
1484
|
3.30
|
.53
|
959
|
3.34
|
.54
|
524
|
3.23
|
.51
|
Commander Strengths
|
1484
|
3.65
|
.65
|
959
|
3.65
|
.66
|
524
|
3.64
|
.65
|
Commander Risks***
|
1484
|
2.96
|
.73
|
959
|
3.03
|
.73
|
524
|
2.83
|
.71
|
Visionary
|
1308
|
3.43
|
.54
|
848
|
3.44
|
.54
|
459
|
3.41
|
.54
|
Visionary Strengths
|
1308
|
3.59
|
.58
|
848
|
3.59
|
.58
|
459
|
3.57
|
.59
|
Visionary Risks
|
1307
|
3.27
|
.68
|
847
|
3.28
|
.68
|
459
|
3.24
|
.67
|
Strategist***
|
1356
|
2.92
|
.61
|
878
|
2.99
|
.60
|
477
|
2.80
|
.60
|
Strategist Strengths***
|
1330
|
3.37
|
.72
|
861
|
3.46
|
.71
|
468
|
3.21
|
.73
|
Strategist Risks***
|
1356
|
2.49
|
.71
|
878
|
2.55
|
.72
|
477
|
2.40
|
.68
|
Executor
|
1356
|
3.41
|
.53
|
878
|
3.43
|
.54
|
477
|
3.39
|
.52
|
Executor Strengths
|
1356
|
3.67
|
.62
|
878
|
3.67
|
.63
|
477
|
3.66
|
.60
|
Executor Risks+
|
1341
|
3.15
|
.64
|
870
|
3.18
|
.64
|
470
|
3.11
|
.63
|
*** In an independent samples t-test, the gender difference was significant at the p < .001 level.
+ In an independent samples t-test, the gender difference was marginally significant, with p < .10.
Alpha strengths and general alpha risks had a positive correlation; people who scored high in one tended to be high in the other. That being said, the relationship was by no means a perfect one; there were numerous people who scored high in general strengths but not general risks, and numerous people who did the reverse. See table 3.
-
Just 10.8% of the sample scored in the top quartile for both general strengths and general risks, respectively.
-
Roughly the same percentage (10.1%) scored in the bottom quartile for both general strengths and general risks, respectively.
-
On the other hand, very few people (3.4% of the total sample) scored in the top quartile for general strengths but the bottom quartile for general risks.
-
Even fewer (just 2.1% of the total sample) did the reverse - scoring in the bottom quartile for general strengths but the top quartile for general risks.
Table 3 [5]
Distribution of Scores across Alpha Strengths and Alpha Risks
General Alpha Strengths
|
General Alpha Risks
|
Total
|
Low
0 - 25th
|
Moderately Low
26th - 50th
|
Moderately High
51st - 75th
|
High
76th - 100th
|
|
Low
0 - 25th
|
10.1%
|
7.6%
|
4.7%
|
2.1%
|
24.5%
|
Moderately Low
26th - 50th
|
7.3%
|
6.1%
|
6.7%
|
3.8%
|
23.9%
|
Moderately High
51st - 75th
|
4.9%
|
6.3%
|
8.2%
|
8.0%
|
27.4%
|
High
76th - 100th
|
3.4%
|
3.7%
|
6.3%
|
10.8%
|
24.2%
|
Total
|
25.7%
|
23.7%
|
25.9%
|
24.7%
|
100.0%
|
It was also found that the general strengths and general risks categories showed moderately high correlations with the other strength and risk subscales, respectively. The general alpha strength subscale and the four other strength subscales were all positively correlated with one another, as were the general alpha risks and the four other risk subscales. See table 4.
For example, among those scoring in the top 25% for general strengths, 55.2% scored in the top quartile for commander strengths; 57.7% scored in the top quartile for executor strengths; 45.7% scored in the top quartile for visionary strengths; and 57.9% scored in the top quartile for strategist strengths. In other words, most people who scored highly in general strengths also scored highly in at least one of the strength subscales.
Table 4
Distribution of Scores across Alpha General Strengths and Alpha Type Strengths
Alpha Type Strengths
76th - 100th
|
General Alpha Strengths
|
Low
0 - 25th
|
Moderately Low
26th - 50th
|
Moderately High
51st - 75th
|
High
76th - 100th
|
High Commander Strengths
|
1.1%
|
11.7%
|
32.0%
|
55.2%
|
High Executor Strengths
|
6.5%
|
11.1%
|
24.7%
|
57.7%
|
High Visionary Strengths
|
7.7%
|
19.8%
|
26.8%
|
45.7%
|
High Strategist Strengths
|
1.6%
|
11.9%
|
28.6%
|
57.9%
|
In a similar fashion, among those who scored in the top 25% for general risks, many scored quite highly for one or more of the risks subscales as well. For example, among the top 25% for general risks, roughly two-thirds (65.6%) scored in the top quartile for commander risks; 61.2% scored in the top quartile for executor risks; roughly half (52.6%) scored in the top quartile for visionary risks; and 61.1% scored in the top quartile for strategist risks. See table 5.
Table 5
Distribution of Scores across Alpha General Risks and Alpha Type Risks
Alpha Type Risks
76th - 100th
|
General Alpha Risks
|
Low
0 - 25th
|
Moderately Low
26th - 50th
|
Moderately High
51st - 75th
|
High
76th - 100th
|
High Commander Risks
|
3.4%
|
8.2%
|
20.3%
|
65.6%
|
High Executor Risks
|
2.4%
|
8.8%
|
20.4%
|
61.2%
|
High Visionary Risks
|
6.5%
|
15.2%
|
22.0%
|
52.6%
|
High Strategist Risks
|
2.4%
|
7.8%
|
28.0%
|
61.1%
|
When factor analyses were applied to the data on alpha risks, three distinct themes stood out: hard-driving competitiveness; interpersonal impatience; and difficulty controlling anger. These themes were correlated to general alpha risks. See table 6.
Table 6 [6]
Percentage of Respondents Receiving High Thematic Risk Scores, by General Alpha Risks
Behavioral Themes
|
General Risk Percentile Score
|
Top Quartile
76th-100th
|
Low
0 - 25th
|
Moderately Low
25th - 50th
|
Moderately High
50th - 75th
|
High
76th - 100th
|
High in Anger
(N = 316)
|
3.9%
|
5.4%
|
19.7%
|
56.3%
|
High in Impatience
(N = 300)
|
13.4%
|
15.5%
|
22.3%
|
38.0%
|
High in Competitiveness
(N = 273)
|
7.1%
|
11.6%
|
15.8%
|
35.5%
|
These findings also stood out about the themes of anger, impatience and competitiveness:
-
Older people do better on the controlling anger measure than their younger counterparts. We surmise that maturity leads to better command of one's frustrations.
-
All three themes are slightly (but significantly) correlated with supervisory positions, i.e., those who supervise others tend to be more competitive, angry and impatient than those who do not. It is unclear whether people with those traits are drawn to being supervisors or if becoming a supervisor brings out those tendencies.
-
The three primary risk themes - hard-driving competitiveness, interpersonal impatience and difficulty controlling anger - correlated with the other alpha type risks. See table 7.
-
The impatience theme was strongly associated with strategist risks and somewhat weakly associated with visionary risks. See table 7.
Table 7
Percentage of Respondents Receiving High Thematic Risk Scores among Those Scoring in the Top Quartile for Commander, Visionary, Strategist and Executor Risks
Behavioral Themes
|
Top Quartile Type Risks
|
Top Quartile Themes
|
Top 25% Commander Risks
(N = 360)
|
Top 25% Executor Risks
(N = 305)
|
Top 25% Visionary Risks
(N = 310)
|
Top 25% Strategist Risks
(N = 332)
|
High in Anger
|
51.7%
|
43.3%
|
30.6%
|
38.9%
|
High in Impatience
|
39.6%
|
46.6%
|
26.5%
|
32.5%
|
High in Competitiveness
|
34.2%
|
30.8%
|
27.4%
|
24.7%
|
Men scored significantly higher than women on two of the three themes; namely, expressing anger and impatience. There was, however, no significant difference in competitiveness. These findings correspond with our real-life observations of male and female Alphas.
Table 8
Alpha Risk Themes and Gender
Risk Factor
|
Statistical Tests
|
All Participants
|
Male
|
Female
|
Anger***
|
Mean
|
2.98
|
3.04
|
2.86
|
|
Ni
|
1484
|
959
|
524
|
|
Std. Deviation
|
0.55
|
0.54
|
0.55
|
Competitiveness
|
Mean
|
3.49
|
3.51
|
3.46
|
|
Ni
|
1523
|
983
|
539
|
|
Std. Deviation
|
0.49
|
0.48
|
0.51
|
Impatience***
|
Mean
|
3.66
|
3.70
|
3.59
|
|
Ni
|
1356
|
878
|
477
|
|
Std. Deviation
|
0.57
|
0.57
|
0.57
|
Table 9 shows the correlation coefficients (Pearson's r's) between the various risk themes (anger, impatience, and competitiveness) and the type risks subscales. The three risk themes were, in general, highly associated with each of the type risks subscales. In almost every case, the correlations were highly significant. We found especially strong relationships between the anger subscale on the one hand and general risks, commander risks and strategist risks on the other - patterns that held true for men and women alike. On the other hand, the clear absence of relationship between impatience and visionary risks was also notable. Thus, while Table 9 clearly shows that the risk themes were strongly associated with each of the type risks subscales, some of these associations were more powerful than others.
Table 9
Correlations between Theme Scores and Type Risk Scores, for Male and Female Respondents
Themes & Types
|
All Participants
|
Male Only
|
Female Only
|
Overall Alpha Risk
|
|
Anger
|
.63***
|
.62***
|
.63***
|
Impatience
|
.43***
|
.43***
|
.42***
|
Competitiveness
|
.37***
|
.38***
|
.34***
|
Commander Risk
|
|
Anger
|
.55***
|
.54***
|
.54***
|
Impatience
|
.37***
|
.38***
|
.33***
|
Competitiveness
|
.34***
|
.35***
|
.31***
|
Visionary Risk
|
|
Anger
|
.23***
|
.24***
|
.23***
|
Impatience
|
.05*
|
.08*
|
-.01
|
Competitiveness
|
.20***
|
.18***
|
.23***
|
Strategist Risk
|
|
Anger
|
.51***
|
.46***
|
.59***
|
Impatience
|
.27***
|
.25***
|
.30***
|
Competitiveness
|
.24***
|
.21***
|
.29***
|
Executor Risk
|
|
Anger
|
.42***
|
.42***
|
.41***
|
Impatience
|
.42***
|
.42***
|
.42***
|
Competitiveness
|
.28***
|
.29***
|
.26***
|
*** Correlation is significant at the p < .001 level.
* Correlation is significant at the p < .05 level.
[1] Specifically, we used: (a) the Framingham Type A Scale (Haynes, Feinleib & Kannel, 1980); (b) the Dominance and Anxiety subscales of the 16PF (Cattell, 1995; Cattell, Eber & Tatsuoka, 1970); and (c) Kruglanski, Webster & Klem's (1993) measure of need for cognitive closure.
[2] Note that positive correlation coefficients indicate positive relationships (as x increases, y increases), with a coefficient of .40, for example, indicating a stronger relationship than a coefficient of .30. Negative coefficients, on the other hand, indicate negative relationships (as x increases, y decreases), with a coefficient of -.40 being reflective of a stronger (negative) relationship than a coefficient of -.30. Correlation coefficients that are close to zero - whether positive or negative - are indicative of a lack of relationship between subscales.
[3] Sample sizes vary across subscale due to the fact that several study participants failed to complete any or all of the items within a given subscale (e.g., due to dropping out of the study mid-survey). The sample size ranged from 1308 to 1523 based on number of full scales completed; for males, from 847 to 983; and for females, from 459 to 539. Throughout the analyses reported in this appendix, participants' subscale scores were only considered when they had completed all of the items within a given subscale.
[4] Because one person did not indicate gender, the N for the "Males" and "Females" columns, respectively, do not sum to the N for the "Males & Female" columns.
[5] Table 3 displays the top quartiles of different themes. Each top quartile is slightly different in size, because (a) different numbers of people completed the category subscales (e.g., some people dropped out before completing the entire assessment), and (b) the particular distribution of scores within a category caused some of the quartile groups to be slightly larger than others.
[6] Table 6 displays the top quartiles of different Types with high risks. Each top quartile is slightly different in size, because (a) different numbers of people completed the category subscales (e.g., some people dropped out before completing the entire assessment), and (b) the particular distribution of scores within a category caused some of the quartile groups to be slightly larger than others.
|
