Spotlight on Professor Dimitri van der Linden

We welcome Professor Dimitri van der Linden as our newly elected President for the 2027–2029 term at ISSID. Professor van der Linden is a full professor in the Department of Work and Organisational Psychology at Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands. His research spans the General Factor of Personality (GFP), individual differences in personality and ability, and the psychology of high-performance states. One of his key research interests is the neuroscience of flow (the peak state of full immersion in a task) as well as other critical psychological states including mental fatigue and burnout. His work bridges theoretical understanding with real-world applications, from enhancing workplace performance to improving resilience in demanding environments.

Research Focus

Your work on the GFP has explored how this broad personality dimension relates to social effectiveness, emotional intelligence, and workplace performance. You have also examined mental fatigue and its implications for productivity, decision-making, and resilience.

How would you describe the significance of the General Factor of Personality in our understanding of social effectiveness?

Well, first let me start by stating that I like to study the GFP because it is an interesting and fun topic. It also seems very relevant to the field of psychology. Since the beginning of systematic research on personality there has been mentioning of a general factor, be it under different names such as w (for will power), the c factor, evaluation, the primordial one, and other names. It is understandable that the first reaction to such a factor may be that it is artifact due to the way personality is measured. And maybe that is the case after all. But the point is that, apparently, it is not so easy to say what the general factor really is. Researchers such as Webb (1920) and Saucier and Goldberg (1984) considered it as a meaningful (substantive) factor. It appears that people who score high on the GFP, on average, actually do better in a wide range of fields such job performance, social relations, and mental health. Thus, so far it does not seem obvious that the GFP would only be bias or artifact.

It is clear that there are widely different opinions on the GFP. Some scholars even argued for a full stop on research on this topic (which, in my opinion, is a weird thing to ask). But that also makes the topic so exciting because there are many things unknown.

Coming back to the original question you asked: In thinking about the nature of the GFP, one hypothesis is that it reflects something akin to social effectiveness or maybe even emotional intelligence. That is, the knowledge what is effective social behaviour in various situations and the ability to act on that. One can imagine that if a person has such a skill, then this would affect the scores on a wide range of traits. For example, an emotionally intelligent person would not be extremely shy, argumentative/conflictual, unreliable, or emotionally unstable. Hence, the Big Five scores of such a person would be enhanced across the board leading to a general factor.

Your work on mental fatigue is especially timely. How can understanding it inform workplace practices or student strategies?

Mental fatigue is another topic I find particularly interesting to study. It was my main topic during and just after my PhD (and before I entered the area of individual differences). The interesting part of fatigue is that it is a rather complex state that involves the interplay between cognitive resources and motivation. It is funny that you mentioned the term ‘cognitive depletion’ because that is one of the main topics of debate in this field. In contrast to common believes, fatigue does not seem to be simply a depletion of resources (like a battery running out of power). Rather, fatigue seems to be a very basic signal that protects humans (and other organisms) from putting too many resources into certain activities.

It is a state where the distinction between ability (resources) and motivation (willingness to put effort into it) seems to become blurry. Resources are still available and can be allocated to a task if the stakes are very high, but overall, the ability to stay engaged in the task becomes very difficult in the face of fatigue.

Understanding the causes and nature of fatigue can serve various practical purposes. For example, in many incidents and accidents in industry, fatigue is assumed to play role. Also, demanding conditions that can lead to acute (i.e., normal) fatigue may lead to more chronic forms of fatigue such as burnout, if they persist. I have to note, though, that the processes involved in chronic fatigue can be quite different from the everyday, acute, fatigue that we study in the lab. The chronic form of fatigue more strongly relates to general psychological issues such as being stressed for long periods of time or engaging in effortful behaviour on activities that you really do not like so much. For example, having a job that does not fit your interests and that requires you to force yourself to do things that are not intrinsically motivating for you.

Vision for ISSID

As ISSID’s new president, what directions or innovations do you hope to steer the society toward?

The first thing to say here is that I believe that the ISSID is already doing quite well. It attracts researchers who all work on individual differences yet have very different views and approaches to that. As such, the ISSID is a society that encompasses a wide diversity of topics and methods. This becomes clear when one visits the ISSID conferences but also in the flagship journal of the society, Personality and Individual Differences (PAID).

Currently, the ISSID organizes activities such as expert meetings and summer schools to bring researchers together and to allow younger scholars to learn from seniors. In addition, the ISSID has close ties with other societies, such as the International Society for Intelligence Research (ISIR) with which we organize symposia together.

Given the current successes of the ISSID, I would say that one of the main tasks of any president of the society is to uphold the high standards and to ensure that the ISSID continues to organize relevant and interesting expert meetings and summer schools and to keep organizing high-quality conferences. But of course, I also see several new opportunities and challenges that I want to address as President.

One challenge is to keep the ISSID an open society. In the current cultural and political atmosphere it is tempting to become very cautious in order to not step on anyone’s toes. However, in order for science to advance it is essential to maintain an open debate and to, at least, consider very different points of views and approaches. This also implies that debates sometimes may become heated and touch on questions regarding the borders of open inquiry and free speech. Yet, to prevent the range of ‘allowable’ research to become narrower with each year, we have to keep on discussing, even the difficult topics. There are several ways in which ISSID could play a role in this. First, by taking a clear public stance affirming its commitment to the principles of open inquiry and academic freedom, which are essential for innovation and for creating an environment where researchers feel safe to explore new ideas. Second, it could facilitate such an environment by organizing specialized meetings particularly dedicated to discussing these values.

Another goal I want to aim at is to enhance the benefits of being a member of the society. It is great that ISSID members can meet at the biannual conferences and the small group meetings. But it would be nice if there were additional benefits and that members have the idea that the ISSID provides ample opportunities and support. One way to do this is by compiling a list of active researchers within the society who are open to mentoring, supporting, or collaborating. Based on shared research interests, members can then directly reach out to these individuals to explore potential partnerships. In general, more communication and information exchange between the ISSID and its members would be valuable and increase engagement. For example, it would be useful if the ISSID regularly post the vacancies that are available at different universities and in which one can apply for positions related to individual differences research.  

A third point is that, although the ISSID already is quite international (hence its name ;0) ) there are still areas that are not so well represented. We currently have a project running that is aimed at increasing the engagement of ID scholars from South America with the ISSID. But there are more areas that could be stronger involved. Accordingly, I want to explore the possibility of having ISSID constituents across the globe.

Interdisciplinary Reach

What excites you most about the research you do on individual differences with fields like burnout, organisational behaviour, or emotional intelligence?

What I like best about research is that one can really dive into a topic and try to do one’s best to fully understand it. In doing so, I always believed that when one does not have to stop at the boundaries of one’s own discipline but can extend beyond that in order to address specific questions. For example, for years, burnout was mainly studied in light of clinical or applied psychology disciplines. One of the key indicators that came back in almost every handbook on burnout is that people who suffer from this syndrome also often report cognitive problems such as bad memory and inability to focus. This was known for decades, but it seemed as no one took the opportunity to ever directly test these statements with objective cognitive tasks. So, in 2005 we were among the first to conduct such tests in the laboratory and started to include knowledge and methods from cognitive psychology into this field.

In general, I always like it to combine insights from different fields in order to tackle a specific problem or question. Another example is that in the field of emotional intelligence, several people suggested that the concept may not be useful as its effects diminish after controlling, for instance, for the Big Five. The notion that EI may exert an influence on a wide array of behaviors, and basically functions as an overarching concept, deals with this. It implies that aspects of EI are partly manifest in specific dimensions such as the Big Five. Therefore, it is not so surprising that EI artificially lose some of its validity when controlling for the Big Five, because EI already was present in the personality measures. In this perspective it would be similar to saying that the g factor of intelligence loses its predictive validity after controlling for its subtests (e.g., numerical ability, verbal ability). Many researchers would say that doing this would not make sense. Perhaps the same applies when testing the effects of EI while controlling for the Big Five.

Closing Thoughts

Starting out an academic career comes with challenges and opportunities. From navigating the pressures of publishing and securing funding to building collaborations and establishing a research identity. These early years can shape the trajectory of an entire career, making the guidance of experienced researchers invaluable. With that in mind, we asked Professor van der Linden to share his advice for those aspiring to build a successful and fulfilling path in academia.

What advice would you give to an early career researcher who wants to progress an academic career?

There are several paths to an academic career, but I can give you the topics that I considered important when I started. Probably the first one is working on topics that you are really interested in. As a starting academic you do not always have the option to choose your own topic entirely. For example, when starting as a PhD student one often enters a project with a specific topic. But almost always there are possibilities to ‘tweak’ things in such a way that it fits even more with your own interest. I have the idea that it is really difficult to provide innovative contributions to a field when you are not really into the topic.

A second thing is to be reasonably independent. Of course it is very good to take feedback and to learn from senior scholars, but you also have to rely on your own interest and ideas. For example, when I was a PhD student, I came up with an idea for a second paper. My supervisors where not impressed and at some point actually advised not to follow that path. I did so anyway (in a friendly way that is, not causing conflict, which actually may be another piece of advice) and that currently is my most highly cited paper.

Finally, good old hard work and persistence can do quite a lot. Writing papers always requires much time and self-regulation. One has to force oneself to keep on writing as it is never that easy (for me at least). Regarding persistence, some people may even say it is the most important aspect of an academic career. The potential share of rejections and things that may go wrong is tremendous, but as long as one keeps on going, despite this, it will eventually bring successes.

Professor van der Linden’s reflections highlight both the discipline and the passion that underpin a rewarding academic journey. As the ISSID community welcomes him as its new President (2027-29), his leadership promises to foster collaboration, support emerging scholars, and champion research that bridges theory and practice. We look forward to seeing how his vision will shape the society’s work in the years ahead.