EV-0013
Dependability and drive are measurably different things
Dudley, N. M., Orvis, K. A., Lebiecki, J. E., & Cortina, J. M. (2006). Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 40–57 · Source
What this entitles us to say
Meta-analytic evidence that the narrow facets of conscientiousness — achievement, order, prudence and dependability — predict performance over and above global conscientiousness, which supports separating fidelity to an agreement (Faithfulness) from drive toward a goal (Discipline) rather than merging them.
What it found
A meta-analysis testing whether narrow facets of conscientiousness predict job performance beyond the broad trait. Four facets were examined — achievement, order, prudence and dependability — and the facets did add incremental prediction over global conscientiousness, with the amount depending on which performance criterion and which occupation was in question.
The finding is contested. A later meta-analysis (Salgado, Moscoso & Anderson, 2013) argues the case against narrow measures. This entry is filed as moderate for that reason.
Why it matters here
This is the empirical half of the naming decision of 26 August. The concern was real: if the trait were called Follow-Through, it would mean "finishes what they start" to any corporate ear — which is Discipline's job, and the two traits would have collapsed into one another in the model and in the research.
Naming the trait Faithfulness separates them along the same seam the research does:
- Faithfulness ≈ dependability — fidelity to an agreement with another party. - Discipline ≈ achievement and order — self-governance toward a goal of your own.
A person can be high on one and low on the other, and the literature says the distinction carries information. That is what a twelve-trait model needs from a twelve-trait model: traits that are not each other.
The limits
This is a personality-measurement literature, not a leadership one — it is about predicting job performance from traits, which is a different activity from developing character, and the framework must not borrow its authority for claims it does not make. The incremental gains over global conscientiousness are real but modest and vary by occupation and criterion, and other researchers argue the narrow facets add little (see Salgado et al., 2013). The mapping of "dependability" onto Faithfulness and "achievement" onto Discipline is ours, not the authors'; the constructs are adjacent, not identical. Verified to abstract level. And nothing here licenses screening a person for a job on this basis — the program's own position is that you interview for skill and set a standard for character.
What we do not say
"Research proves our twelve traits are twelve distinct things." It does not. It supports one distinction, between two of them, by analogy — and other researchers dispute even that. The remaining ten separations are the framework's claim, not this paper's.