Relationships among dimension ratings and between dimension ratings and overall judgments were examined for 719 individuals assessed by four assessor teams. High stability was found, and there was no evidence for stable changes in an assessor's or assessor team's pattern of ratings over time. Parallel analysis and factor comparisons provided support for hypothesized individual differences in the complexity and nature of the dimensionality underlying the assessment ratings. Overall decisions were modeled accurately using a subset of the available dimensions. Use of a common set of predictors produced only a small decline in predictive power over the use of the optimal predictors for each assessor and assessor team. Two factors common to virtually all assessors (leadership and organizing-planning/decision making) consistently contained dimensions identified as important by the regression model. Assessor ratings of dimension importance agree with the regression model to the extent that leadership and organizing/decision making were commonly identified as important. The generality of some laboratory findings regarding decisionmaking strategies and information-processing style is illustrated.