Business-Focused Inventory of Personality (BIP)

Abstract

The Business-focused Inventory of Personality (BIP) is a specialized personality assessment tool designed specifically for application within workplace contexts. It aims to evaluate normal personality traits, focusing on both temperament and motivational characteristics relevant to professional success and organizational fit. The BIP is utilized in various Human Resources functions, including employee selection, professional development, executive coaching, and career counseling. Applicable to adults aged 20 and above, the BIP is structured around a five-factor model of personality, augmented by additional scales pertinent to organizational performance, though the current supporting research requires further standardization and validation.

Keywords

BIP, Business-focused Inventory of Personality, occupational psychology, personnel selection, personality assessment, work motivation, organizational behavior, five-factor model

Authors

Hossiep, Paschen

[quads id=5]

Purpose

The primary purpose of the BIP is to provide a comprehensive evaluation of an individual’s personality profile as it relates directly to professional behavior and occupational success. Originally developed in Germany under the name “Bochumer Inventar zur berufsbezogenen Persönlichkeitsbeschreibung,” the BIP was created to address the need for a robust, work-specific instrument that aids organizations in making informed decisions across the employee lifecycle.

The scale is instrumental in identifying candidates whose personality traits align with specific job requirements and organizational cultures. Furthermore, it serves as a foundational tool for individual growth initiatives, providing detailed feedback used in coaching and development programs for adults aged 20 and above. Despite being marketed as a leadership assessment tool, reviewers note that substantial empirical evidence supporting this specific claim is lacking.

Construct

The BIP measures work-related personality traits organized across 14 primary scales, which are conceptually grouped into four major domains. This structure is intended to capture the complexity of professional functioning, moving beyond basic temperament assessment to include motivational and social factors critical for organizational effectiveness in workplace contexts.

The four domains include Occupational Orientation (e.g., Achievement Motivation, Leadership Motivation), Occupational Behaviors (e.g., Conscientiousness, Flexibility), Social Competencies (e.g., Team Orientation, Assertiveness), and Psychological Constitution (e.g., Emotional Stability, Self-Confidence). The underlying theoretical structure is closely related to the widely accepted five-factor model of personality, augmented with additional proprietary scales designed to maximize relevance to occupational performance.

Validity

The BIP demonstrates evidence of criterion-related validity through reported correlations between its scales and various self-reported occupational outcomes. These variables include metrics such as salary, hierarchical level attained, perceived career success, and overall job satisfaction. Reviewers, however, note a significant limitation: the BIP manual does not clarify the specific methodologies used to generate these correlations, despite large sample sizes often reaching into the thousands.

The manual provides correlations between self-ratings and observer ratings (obtained from colleagues or friends), which generally conform to anticipated values for convergent validity. Crucially, the manual does not present data correlating these observer ratings directly with self-ratings of outcomes. Furthermore, the BIP manual lacks analyses related to score variations across key demographic factors, such as race, ethnicity, age, and gender, raising concerns about the generalizability and fairness of the instrument.

Reliability

Specific data on the internal consistency of the BIP scales is not comprehensively detailed in the source content. While the technical report mentions alpha coefficients (ranging from 0.71 to 0.83) in the context of comparing the BIP to other instruments (specifically, the Emergenetics Profile), this information is not directly applicable to the BIP’s 14 primary scales.

For a high-quality psychometric test, detailed reporting of internal consistency reliability measures (such as Cronbach’s alpha) specific to each scale is standard practice. The absence of this specific, scale-by-scale reliability data in the reviewed materials suggests that the current state of research supporting the BIP falls short of the rigorous standards expected for modern personality assessment instruments.

Factor Analysis

The BIP development process, spearheaded by Hossiep and Paschen, aimed to create a robust structure capable of evaluating 14 distinct work-related personality traits. The initial process involved identifying personality constructs through pilot research, reviewing existing work psychology literature, and extensive surveying of human resources professionals.

This comprehensive approach resulted in the refinement of an initial 315-item pool to a final set of 264 items across the 14 primary scales. These scales are organized into four domains, reflecting an attempt to capture a broader range of job-relevant factors than typically covered by standard models. The inventory’s conceptual framework is aligned with the general five-factor model, but it is augmented by specialized scales focused on critical occupational dimensions such as Leadership Motivation and Power Motivation.

Instrument

Test Type: Personality assessment tool for organizational/occupational use

Format: Available in both self-report and observer-report formats; administered individually or in group settings, utilizing either online or traditional paper-and-pencil delivery.

Language Available: Initially developed in German (“Bochumer Inventar zur berufsbezogenen Persönlichkeitsbeschreibung”).

Population Group: Working adults in occupational settings

Age Group: Adults aged 20 and above

Population Details: The Self-Report Format consists of 220 items utilizing a 6-point response scale (anchored by “completely true” and “completely untrue”), typically completed in 40 minutes or less. The Observer-Report Format is a condensed 42-item version using a 9-point scale. The observer format is marketed only as a supplementary tool, lacks established norms, and is not recommended as a standalone psychometric measure.

Test Methodology: Scoring provides results for the 14 primary scales and the Impression Management scale. The technical manual explicitly advises against the use of supplementary indices (Sense of Control, Competitiveness, Mobility, Time Orientation) in research analysis or decision-making due to lack of adequate psychometric support.

Keywords

Hossiep, Paschen, selection, coaching, career counseling, psychometric assessment, organizational development, leadership motivation

[quads id=5]

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not specified in source content.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not specified in source content.

Correspondence Address: Not specified in source content.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The BIP was developed initially in Germany. Specific details regarding current licensing fees, commercial permissions, and the exact year of initial publication are managed by the test publisher and are not provided in the source content.

Reference’s

• Connelly, B. S., & Ones, D. S. (2010). An other perspective on personality: Meta-analytic integration of observers’ accuracy and predictive validity. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 1092–1122.
• Connolly, J. J., Kavanagh, E. J., & Viswesvaran, C. (2007). The convergent validity between self- and observer ratings of personality: A meta-analytic review. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15, 110–117.
• Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H. G. (2006). The International Personality Item Pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84–96.
• Grucza, R. A., & Goldberg, L. R. (2007). The comparative validity of 11 modern personality inventories: Predictions of behavioral acts, informant reports, and clinical indicators. Journal of Personality Assessment, 89, 167–187.
• Joseph, D. L., Jin, J., Newman, D. A., & O’Boyle, E. H. (2015). Why does self-reported emotional intelligence predict job performance? A meta-analytic investigation of mixed EI. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 298–342.
• 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, 530–541.
• Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The big five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52, 621–652.
• Munyon, T. P., Summer, J. K., Thompson, K. M., & Ferris, G. R. (2015). Political skill and work outcomes: A theoretical extension, meta-analytic investigation, and agenda for the future. Personnel Psychology, 68, 143–184.
• Prewett, M. S., Tett, R. P., & Christiansen, N. D. (2013). A review and comparison of 12 personality inventories on key psychometric characteristics. In N. D. Christiansen and R. P. Tett (Eds.), Handbook of personality at work (pp. 191–225). New York: Routledge.
• Schyns, B., & Schilling, J. (2013). How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta-analysis of destructive leadership and its outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 24, 138–158.

[quads id=5]

Items of the Business-focused Inventory of Personality (BIP)

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

The source content does not provide the specific wording of the items used in the Business-focused Inventory of Personality (BIP). The self-report format consists of 220 items across 14 primary scales, while the observer-report format utilizes 42 items.