1 Running Head: AMBITION On the Value of Aiming High: The Causes and Consequences of Ambition Timothy A. Judge Mendoza College of Business University of Notre Dame John D. Kammeyer-Mueller Warrington College of Business University of Florida In press, Journal of Applied Psychology Ambition 2 Abstract Ambition is a commonly mentioned but poorly understood concept in social science research. The current study sought to contribute to understanding of the concept by developing and testing a model in which ambition is a middle-level trait (Cantor, 1990)—predicted by more distal characteristics but due to its teleological nature, more proximally situated to predict career success. Using a seven-decade longitudinal sample of 717 high ability individuals from the Terman life-cycle study, results indicated that ambition was predicted by individual differences—conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, and general mental ability—and a socioeconomic background variable: parents’ occupational prestige. Ambition, in turn, was positively related to educational attainment, occupation prestige, and income. Ambition had significant total effects with all of the endogenous variables, except mortality. Overall, the results support the thesis that ambition is a middle-level trait—related to but distinct from more distal individual difference variables—that has meaningful effects on career success. Keywords: ambition, personality, career success, income, longevity Ambition 3 On the Value of Aiming High: The Causes and Consequences of Ambition Occasionally, one encounters a concept that is pervasive yet poorly understood. Arguably, such is the case with ambition. One finds myriad references to ambition in literature (“The lower still I fall, only supreme in misery; such joy ambition finds” [Milton, 1667/1831, p. 81]), history (“Where ambition can cover its enterprises, even to the person himself, under the appearance of principle, it is the most incurable and inflexible of passions” [Hume, 1688/1858, p. 198), and theology (“Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit” [Philippians 2:3, New King James Version]). Ambition is discussed by numerous philosophers, with those seeing it as virtuous (Santayana, Kaufmann) apparently outnumbered by those who perceive it as vicious (Aquinas, Locke, Rousseau). On several occasions, President Barack Obama has referenced ambition in his remarks, arguing that ambition to achieve extrinsic success represents “a poverty of ambition…the elevation of appearance over substance, celebrity over character, short-term gain over lasting achievement” (Obama, 2009). As the foregoing references suggest, ambition is often if not generally viewed negatively, though it remains unclear whether it is a virtue or a vice (Pettigrove, 2007). Of course, popular discourse does not always reflect scientific understanding, and apparent dissensus is often clarified by rigorous inquiry. However, in the case of ambition, understanding of the concept remains elusive. A search of the PsycINFO database reveals 119 peer-reviewed articles where ambition appears in the title or as a keyword. In most of these articles, ambition is collectivized (e.g., corporate or national ambition), directed toward non- work ends (e.g., mating or parental ambitions, political ambition), or not measured directly (e.g., ambition is conceptualized broadly, or referenced but not measured). In the vocational behavior literature, a few work studies have related ambition to career advancement (Ashby & Schoon, Ambition 4 2010; Howard & Bray, 1988; Jansen & Vinkenburg, 2006; Metz, 2004). In sociology, research, though not focused on ambition per se (we define ambition shortly), has found that children having high educational aspirations—concrete plans to attend college or obtain a certain degree (Sewell, Haller, & Portes, 1969)—and high occupational aspirations—specific occupations individuals self-identified as their intended career paths (Alexander, Eckland, & Griffin, 1975)— obtained higher status and better paying jobs. Though such concrete and specific educational and occupational aspirations may not be identical to ambition, these studies do suggest that ambition may matter. These research studies notwithstanding, as the foregoing review of the psychology, vocational behavior, and sociology literatures suggests, ambition remains an infrequently studied and fragmentary concept. Needed are clearer definitions and more comprehensive considerations of, first, the causes and, second, the consequences of ambition. First, where it has been considered, psychologists have generally treated ambition as a trait (see Hansson, Hogan, Johnson, & Schroeder, 1983), whereas sociologists have instead considered explicit educational or occupational objectives as a product of parental, social, or socioeconomic environment (see Sewell, Hauser, Springer, & Hauser, 2004). We are aware of no studies that consider both personality and environment sources of ambition. Nor are we aware—beyond those notable few who view ambition as a facet of conscientiousness (Jackson, Paunonen, Fraboni, & Goffin, 1996) or extraversion (Hogan & Holland, 2003)—of any studies that have sought to integrate ambition with the most influential typology in personality psychology, the Five-Factor Model (FFM). Second, on the consequences of ambition, beyond the sociological aspirations literature noted previously, very few studies have linked ambition to career success, and we are aware of none that have linked it to intrinsic and extrinsic career success. Is ambition a predictor of career Ambition 5 success, beyond the known benefits of related, broader traits (Ng, Eby, Sorensen, & Feldman, 2005)? Does ambition, as some of the philosophical discussions of ambition suggest, produce a Pyrrhic victory in that what ambition yields (extrinsic success) provides little fulfillment (intrinsic success)? Accordingly, the purpose of the present study is to test a model that accounts for both the causes and consequences of ambition. The model considers ambition as a “middle level” trait (Cantor, 1990, p. 735) that, in an Allportian sense, focuses on “propriate strivings”—individuals’ overarching desire to aspire toward success and improvement over one’s current condition (Allport, 1955, p. 49). While such “middle level” personality traits are not likely as genetically determined or as stable as more distal traits, neither are they as ephemeral or situational as specific goals, behavioral intentions, or attitudes. In conceptualizing the consequences of ambition, we consider both extrinsic and intrinsic outcomes. In the next section of the paper, we review various definitions of ambition, provide our own definition, and then hypothesize variables that lead to, and result from, ambition. Theoretical Background: Definition and Nature of Ambition Defining Ambition The first task for a study of ambition is to come up with a satisfactory definition of what the construct is and how it relates to other psychological constructs. To this end, Table 1 provides definitions culled from both dictionary and psychological sources. There is a notable consistency in the dictionary definitions. As can be seen, the English language definitions see ambition as a desire to achieve ends, especially ends like success, power, and wealth. Central to these definitions is the aspirational nature of ambition—there is a motivational process at work, Ambition 6 oriented toward the attainment of outcomes. These definitions make it logical to study ambition in the context of career success, and surprising that few such studies have been undertaken. There is also a tradition within psychology research to define ambition in terms of goals or plans for accomplishments, as best seen in Locke’s (1996) goal-setting theory research, where ambition is often mentioned as a source of individual differences in goals (Locke & Latham, 2002; Mento, Locke, & Klein, 1992). However, in many ways the psychological definitions are less consistent than the dictionary definitions, and contain more overlap with already established constructs like conscientiousness (Schwyhart & Smith, 1972). Although the psychological research definitions are more varied than the dictionary definitions, nearly all definitions include habitual setting of goals or goal striving. In an effort to summarize and integrate these definitions, we define ambition as follows: ambition is the persistent and generalized striving for success, attainment, and accomplishment. Ambition involves persistence and generality in that we do not expect that ambition ceases to exist once a certain level of attainment is achieved, nor do we believe that ambition is compartmentalized toward success in only a single sphere. Ambition also generally has been taken to reflect striving for position and wealth, and not to indicate strivings for general well- being and socio-emotional acceptance. In short, ambition is about attaining rather than achieving (though of course there is a certain relationship between the two). Consistent with the dictionary definitions provided in Table 1, aspiration to achieve a certain status or rank is one of the cornerstones of ambition. Location of Ambition within Personality Science The fact that ambition definitions all involve strivings in the context of worldly success suggests that ambition may well be a “middle level” or Level II (McAdams, 1995; McAdams & Ambition 7 Pals, 2006) personality variable. Cantor (1990) describes middle level units of personality as “units that take an individual’s standing on abstract dispositions…and give concrete form to their diverse expressions” (p. 735). Individuals have traits like extraversion or conscientiousness, but the midlevel side of personality is concerned with the things that individuals do with personality in a context. Consistent with a social cognitivist position (see Bandura, 1999; Mischel & Shoda, 1995), Cantor sees middle-level traits as having more direct effects on behavior than more abstract or decontextualized personality traits. In this sense, ambition is a life task (Cantor, Norem, Niedenthal, Langston, & Brower, 1987), characteristic adaptation (McCrae & Costa, 1999), or personal concern (McAdams, 1995) that arises as a result of underlying personality dispositions and perceptions of the world. Mischel and Shoda (1995; 1998) further emphasize the importance of middle-level traits by noting that researchers interested in understanding dispositions need to specifically incorporate mediating variables that intervene between stable individual dispositions and the situational manifestations of these individual differences. Although there is considerable interest in these middle-level units of personality, researchers have noted that there is comparatively little research investigating their relationship with traits (Romero, Villar, Luengo, & Gómez-Fraguela, 2009; Winter, John, Stewart, Klohnen, & Duncan, 1998). Moreover, the social cognitivist position, while influential in personality psychology, is less well-known and less well-researched in organizational behavior. It should be emphasized that these middle-level traits are indeed traits, meaning that they are stable and consistent over time and across situations within a given domain, but they are more contextualized. Major life goals like ambition are based on long timelines, over years and decades (Roberts & Robins, 2000). In the case of ambition, the context is often the world of education (attainment), job prestige (rank), and income (wealth). As mediating constructs Ambition 8 between abstract personality dispositions and attainment, one would expect that major life goals like ambition should be consistent over time. Evidence from longitudinal studies does indeed show high rank-order stability in life goals over extended time periods (Roberts, O’Donnell, & Robins, 2004). In addition to defining and describing what ambition is, it should be clarified what ambition is not. None of the definitional material provided up to this point suggests that ambition is only directed toward specific or singular goals. Rather, ambition is a habitual level of striving for or desiring accomplishment in life situations associated with success. In this way, ambition can be differentiated from aspirations, which have specific targets (e.g., an aspiration to get a college degree or enter a particular vocation). The distinction between aspirations or goals and ambition is in terms of “traitedness” and “concreteness.” As for the latter, Allport (1947) noted: Ambitious individuals “may have a consistent direction of striving, but their goals are either transient or else undefinable” (p. 187). Ambition also is distinct from conscientiousness in general and achievement motivation in particular. As befitting a middle-level trait, ambition is not as broad as conscientiousness (and thus does not include dependability, dutifulness, orderliness, or other facets of conscientiousness), but even if it were, the achievement striving aspect of conscientiousness, or achievement motivation, is not necessarily the same as ambition. A person who is high in achievement motivation desires—according to McClelland (1961), subconsciously—to be intrinsically skilled and competent at tasks in which she or he engages, whereas a person who is ambitious is more desirous of the rewards this competence produces. Whereas a person high on achievement motivation would value the achievement of doing well on the job regardless of whether it was recognized with a promotion or pay raise, a highly ambitious person would be Ambition 9 particularly interested in ensuring that his or her efforts were tied to tangible outcomes of success like promotions or pay raises. The definition of achievement motive provided by McClelland in his various writings emphasizes that achievement motivation is based on “success in competition with some standard of excellence” (McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell, 1953; p. 110). These authors go on to specify that goal-directed effort can arise for reasons other than personal achievement, and that if the aspiration is explicitly in pursuit of another goal like having fame, rank, or power, they do not consider the aspiration to be an example of the achievement motive. Ambition, on the other hand, is marked by the desire for attainments independent of the degree to which obtaining these outcomes is based on superior performance. While we believe that those who are ambitious often have a strong achievement motive, the goals which are sought based on these two drives are quite different, with achievement focused more on how well one does at a task and ambition focused more on the outcomes or extrinsic goals of task performance. There are also measurement issues that differentiate the need for achievement from ambition. The need for achievement has traditionally been measured by way of projective tests, particularly the thematic apperception test (TAT) (McClelland et al., 1953). Spangler (1992) has shown that questionnaire-based achievement motivation measures are empirically distinct from TAT scores, and that TAT measures are better predictors of outcomes that would be expected to result from the achievement motive. In contrast, questionnaire measures are better predictors of behaviors related to social incentives, which include rewards or status that are not inherent in the task itself—in other words, the very types of rewards that individuals who are high in ambition are likely to seek but that those who are high in achievement motivation as measured by the TAT Ambition 10 are less likely to seek. Thus, while one would not expect that ambition and need for achievement are wholly unrelated, neither would one believe that they are redundant concepts. Ambition can also be contrasted with another of the needs identified by McClelland: the need for power (McClelland, 1975). Unlike ambition, a need for power is manifested by a need to feel in control of the self or of others. While ambitions to obtain status in the world of education and career may well lead to increased control, they are not exclusively motivated by this need for power. Some of the outlets for the power motive, such as reading fiction about powerful others or purchasing prestigious possessions (that the successful tend to have), seem quite distinct from the types of activities that would be markers of ambition. Like need for achievement, the need for power is also not considered amenable to direct self- or observer- reports. Rather, it is best measured on the basis of subconscious projections manifested on the TAT. So, like achievement motivation, the power motive is related to, but distinct from, ambition. Hypothesized Model and Hypotheses The basic logic of our model is contained in the ribbon on top of Figure 1. We begin with distal individual characteristics, including personality, ability, and family socioeconomic background. Ambition, as a midlevel trait, arises based on these characteristics and manifests itself in human capital investments and work attainments. These work attainments, in turn, are related to more distal outcomes like life satisfaction and mortality. Antecedents of Ambition The first antecedent of ambition we consider is the personality trait of conscientiousness. Although Hogan (1986) conceptualizes conscientiousness as prudence, researchers also have seen conscientiousness as being reflected in higher levels of organization and direction of