Globalization and the expansion of organizations across international borders have created opportunities and challenges for current and future leaders. As a consultant, psychologist, and coach, I am excited to see more organizations around the world investing in psychometric and multi-rater feedback data for leadership development.

Having reputational data available can be tremendously helpful to leaders for understanding and narrowing down key areas to focus on for development. Many multi-rater assessments allow leaders to compare themselves to other leaders around the world using global benchmark scores (for example, the Hogan 360°, powered by PBC, does this). Having the ability to use benchmarks to understand how leaders differentiate themselves is great, considering how globally connected we are. But given how diverse we are from country to country and culture to culture, are we missing any critical nuances that need to be considered when supporting our leaders and managers in their development?

Do You Really Know Your People?

Understanding the ins and outs of personality psychology could be the key to unlocking success up and down your organization.

By Robert Hogan, Ph.D., and Ryne A. Sherman

People are the deadliest invasive species in the history of Earth. They have the potential to kill every living thing, and in some cases have already done so. RIP passenger pigeons, western black rhinos, and great auks.

Given the frightful potential of people, then, it might be useful to know something about them. Personality psychology is the “go-to” discipline for understanding people.

But what does it tell us about human nature? Well, the answer depends on who you ask.

Este ambiţios, carismatic, perfecţionist, arogant şi absorbit de propria persoană – acestea ar fi trăsăturile „întunecate” ale personalităţii liderilor români, care au preluat, poate chiar prea bine, o tipologie occidentală de leadership, cea a liderului carismatic- narcisist. Studiile recente arată însă că organizaţiile care vor să aibă performanţă trebuie să renunţe la categoria de lideri carismatici şi să aducă la conducere lideri caracterizaţi de modestie, spune Robert Hogan, unul dintre cei mai influenţi psihologi americani.

„A venit vremea să spu­­nem adio pe­rioa­dei de leader­ship caris­matic. Caris­ma şi narcisis­mul unui lider distrug motivaţia angajaţilor, iar acest lucru se reflectă negativ în rezultatele financiare ale companiilor. În schimb, studiile arată că liderii modeşti, care se ocupă de dezvoltarea echipelor şi care au o atitudine prin care arată că depun eforturi în fiecare zi pentru a-şi merita jobul sunt cei care au cele mai bune rezultate şi cei mai motivaţi angajaţi“, a spus Robert Hogan, 82 de ani, un influent psiholog american, cunoscut pentru că a creat instrumente de evaluare a personalităţii angajaţilor folosite de companii pentru a recruta şi a promova angajaţii potriviţi. El a fost prezent la Bucureşti, în cadrul unui eveniment organizat firma de consultanţă în resurse umane Hart Consulting, care a adus pe piaţa locală instrumentele Hogan Assesments.

Brash bigwigs used to get the glory, but then they started cratering companies.
Now the next great leaders look a whole lot more selfless.

By Robert Hogan, Ph.D., Ryne Sherman, Ph.D., and Scott Gregory, Ph.D.

The research is now crystal clear: Three psychological concepts—charisma, narcissism, and humility—impact leadership. Each is strongly correlated to leadership effectiveness and organization success.

So which concept should you choose? Before you pick, let’s dig into each.

Any company that uses reaction time tests to make personnel decisions is fooling itself. These game-like measures simply don’t measure much at all.

You might see this article as an attack on your business practice. Maybe you’ll even find it an affront to your livelihood. I don’t mean to offend, just to tell the truth.

A few years ago, on the promise of revolutionizing the employment screening industry, two companies began using laboratory tasks borrowed from the field of cognitive psychology to accomplish two things: assess individual differences in personality and use the results to help companies make personnel decisions. It’s a tribute to their sales and marketing departments that these organizations are still in business.

This article concerns three issues: First, it describes the reaction time-based cognitive psychological measures these companies use. Second, it shows how the businesses market their products in misleading ways. And finally, it explains why reaction time measures of personality can’t predict the kinds of outcomes employers care about, like job performance, turnover, and workplace safety.

Externally recruited CEOs are almost seven times more likely to be dismissed within a short tenure than those who are promoted from within the organization. No matter how much a board learns about an outside candidate, executive stakeholders simply have a better understanding of an internal contender’s strengths and weaknesses, especially as they relate to the current business landscape and strategic objectives. In 2014, 78 percent of S&P 500 CEOs were sourced internally; most companies are paying attention to building a sustainable leadership pipeline that readies executives and potential executives to advance. But when succession plans are enacted, those high potential managers entering the executive ranks typically face a set of challenges uniquely appropriate for a coach to tackle.

Conventional wisdom suggests that the most charismatic leaders are also the best leaders. Charismatic leaders have, for instance, the ability to inspire others toward higher levels of performance and to instill deep levels of commitment, trust, and satisfaction. As a result, they are generally perceived by their subordinates to be more effective, compared with less charismatic leaders.

But Hogan Assessments’ research shows that while having at least a moderate level of charisma is important, having too much may hinder a leader’s effectiveness. We conducted three studies, involving 800 business leaders globally and around 7,500 of their superiors, peers, and subordinates. Leaders occupied different managerial levels, ranging from supervisors to general managers.

Desi viitorul va presupune o multitudine de schimbari de paradigme aduse de tehnologie, globalizare si transformarea continutului multor job-uri, totusi exista o constanta care credem ca nu se va dilua niciodata si anume aspectele fundamentale ale leadership-ului.

In business, conteaza trei lucruri: resursele, banii si oamenii. Prin definitie, companiile inteleg cum sa abordeze aspectul financiar, insa tind sa fie mai putin sofisticate in ceea ce priveste oamenii, iar multi manageri inteleg ca revitalizarea unui business sub-performant depinde in mare masura de acestia.

Exista numeroase dovezi stiintifice care sugereaza ca firmele ar putea imbunatati evaluarea liderilor. Un studiu recent, efectuat de Alix Partners, ne arata ca pentru 4 din 5 CEOs care au fost inlocuiti, decizia a venit mult prea tarziu, limitand astfel dezvoltarea firmei pentru o perioada mai mare de timp.

Cum s-a schimbat mediul de business in ultimii 20 de ani?

In mediul de business de acum 20 de ani, sistemul era indeajuns de permisiv pentru a ascunde sau tolera greselile de leadership comise. Criza economica mondiala, precum si schimbarile masive in tehnologie si cele din cadrul pietei fortei de muncaau aruncat sub lumina reflectoarelor aceste decizii neinspirate ale leadership-ului si au redus nivelul de permisivitate. Astfel, presiunea de a fi responsabili si temperati in decizii este mult mai mare pentru managerii din ziua de astazi.

Strategia companiilor de a atinge performanta organizationala s-a schimbat. Riscurile sunt gestionate intr-un mod mult mai masurat decat inainte iar investitiile mari sunt mai Una dintre cele mai mari schimbari a fost legata de felul in care este vazuta performanta angajatului ca factor contributor la performanta organizationala. In prezent, managerii sunt mult mai atenti la legatura dintre performanta angajatului si cea a firmei.