Understanding and Measuring Creative Thinking in Leaders

186 THE 71F ADVANTAGE.40 on the apparent predicted factor and .30 or less on any of the otherfour factors.As a method for coping with this complexity, Johnson (2000b;2001; cf. Buchanan, Johnson, and Goldberg, 2005) suggests using the30 facet scores instead of the 120 individual items for conducting factoranalysis. In his findings based on a forced five-factor solution usingvarimax rotation and a sample of 20,993 cases gathered from the Internet,Johnson found that the solution converged in 11 iterations. Resultsbased on an attempt to replicate Johnson’s Internet findings arefound in table 8–2. The factor solution converged in 13 iterations andthe five-factor components produced accounted for 54 percent of thevariance (sums of squared loadings). However, while the factor loadingsled in the right direction, they were not as tightly arrayed as those for themini-markers and fell somewhat short of those reported by Johnson aswell. For the openness factor in particular (see the six highlighted factorloadings under the fifth component), the following facets did not loadhighly (over .40) on the predicted factor: emotionality (.34) and liberalism(.398). Furthermore, there were three instances where openness facetsloaded above .30 (absolute value) on one or more of the other fourfactors, with a high loading (.47) for O3–Emotionality on the presumedneuroticism factor (component 3).Table 8–2. IPIP–NEO Factor Analysis: 30 Facet Factor Loadings forFive-factor Solution (N = 174)Component*1 2 3 4 5A1 Trust .381 -.014 -.099 .519 -.036A2 Morality .023 .514 -.158 .444 -.017A3 Altruism .452 .239 .111 .618 .295A4 Cooperative -.172 .299 -.312 .592 .125A5 Modesty -.129 -.023 .031 .661 -.076A6 Sympathy .110 .147 .062 .576 .426C1 Self-efficacy .226 .619 -.122 -.292 .272C2 Orderliness .081 .489 -.015 .079 -.292C3 Dutiful .031 .635 .054 .177 -.120