What does it take to be a good leader? One reason that’s such a perennial question is because it’s so hard to answer. Many of our opinions about leadership are based on subjective experiences rather than the full breadth of psychological research in the field. We may think we know what qualities we value in those who lead us—and why—but companies and entire countries keep pushing less than stellar leaders into positions of power. How come?

Our habits define us. But how true is this for our digital habits? Are we the same online as offline? In the early days of the internet, it was probably safe to assume that our online behaviours did not reveal much about our real-world personas. This notion was popularised by the “on the internet, nobody knows you’re dog” caption of a famous New Yorker cartoon.

In June, an article in Time magazine delved into the use of assessments in employee selection. It wasn’t the first time the mainstream media has found a story in assessments, and it probably won’t be the last. The article added some interesting thoughts to the ongoing dialogue, providing examples of companies that use assessments and why they believe in the tools and tying the use of assessments to the growing Big Data trend in business. However, it also reiterated much of what’s been said before, including the common lament that assessments are a “black box” and that relying on this kind of data is somehow more fraught with the potential for error than relying on other selection tools, such as in-person interviews.

Faptul ca abordarea clasica nu mai functioneaza in programele de dezvoltare este deja o stire veche. S-au scris articole, s-au facut studii si interviuri nenumarate despre limitarile instruirii in clasa ca unic instrument de dezvoltare a angajatilor, insa, in continuare, bugete substantiale se aloca pe zona de transfer de cunostinte, de abilitati, fara a clarifica daca acestea sunt si cele care au impact direct in performanta.

Our fascination with talent goes back a long way. Homer described the  qualities of  his  heroes with a precision not reached by today’s profiling experts. For instance, Odysseus was brave, clever, quick-witted, and at times too focused on himself. In China, the Han Dynasty introduced an Imperial Examination for evaluating expertise, fit, and moral integrity for government jobs, much like modern assessment centers do today. And for at least 100 years the U.S. and European military pioneered the  use  of  psychological tests to predict the performance of soldiers and generals, as well as their propensity to remain sane during combat. More recently, computer- generated algorithms have been used to match people to the right job in areas as diverse as sports, education, and business.

Fascinatia noastra pentru talent a existat de foarte mult timp in istorie. Homer isi descria eroii cu o precizie greu de atins de catre expertii care scriu astazi profile de personalitate. De exemplu, Odysseus era curajos, destept, ager si uneori prea centrat pe sine. In China, Dinastia Han a introdus un examen imperial de evaluare a expertizei, a compatibilitatii si integritatii morale pentru functiile guvernamentale, examen similar cu centrele de evaluare de astazi. In ultima suta de ani, organizatiile militare din Statele Unite si Europa au facut pionierat in privinta utilizarii testelor psihologice pentru a prezice performanta soldatilor si generalilor, precum si probabilitatea de a-si pastra luciditatea si sanatatea mentala pe parcursul confruntarilor armate. Mai rencent, au fost utilizati algoritmi generati de calculator pentru stabilirea compatibilitatii anumitor oameni pe post in diverse domenii precum sport, educatie, business.

Au trecut mai bine de 40 de ani de cand David McClelland a propus pentru prima data ideea ca cea mai buna abordare pentru a prezice performanta intr-un post viitor este concentrarea asupra competentelor si mai putin asupra inteligentei. Aceasta critica a miscarii IQ se baza pe un fapt bine documentat si anume ca performanta anterioara este cel mai bun predictor al performantei viitoare. Daca vrei sa stii cum va conduce cineva un autobuz, argumenteaza McClelland, aplica-i candidatului un test de sofat, nu-i da un test de inteligenta.

It has been more than 40 years since psychologist David McClelland contended that a person’s past performance, rather than IQ, is a better predictor of future occupational success. This idea prompted HR professionals to focus on creating competency-based job descriptions that helped identify the best candidates. Although McClelland’s insights helped revolutionize the HR industry, they aren’t as relevant in today’s workplace. Here’s why:

Society idolizes the individual – from the star quarterback to the charismatic leaders of the modern business arena. But humanity’s greatest achievements – the Egyptian pyramids and Great Wall of China, the invention of modern medicine, the exploration of the outer reaches of the universe – are the result of collective effort.

High-performing teams can provide an undeniable advantage over the competition. However, most managers will tell you that although it is easy to put together a team with great potential, they rarely perform at their maximum capacity.

Why?

Societatea idolatrizeaza star-urile, de la fotbalisti renumiti la CEOs carismatici ai lumii de afaceri. Insa, realizarile marcante ale umanitatii sunt rezultatul unui efort colectiv.

Echipele cu rezultate bune pot asigura un avantaj de necontestat in fata concurentei. Totusi, cei mai multi manageri va vor spune ca, desi este usor sa alcatuiesti o echipa din oameni valorosi fiecare in parte, aceasta va actiona foarte rar la capacitatea maxima.

De ce?