Decision Maker: The Chess Player

Posted by Michael Sanger on Thu, Aug 27, 2015

chess

If you’ve ever been in awe of someone who can put aside short-term gains in order to out-maneuver a strategic opponent in the long run, you’re not alone. As an ambitious, impulsive, hedonist who also enjoys a good big picture debate, it’s hard for me to imagine how my own insatiable interest in maximizing gains could ever possibly get in the way of my ability to succeed. But then I met my match: the intuitive strategist who is more inclined to protect against future risk rather than capitalize on the here-and-now. Checkmate.

Some people make decisions to minimize threats to their future situation. They base their choices on strategic considerations and past experiences, and their mindset is oriented in a way that enables them to think several moves ahead. Ladies and gentlemen, meet your Chess Players. These are the individuals who rely more on intuition to make their judgments, and are prepared to accept short-term losses to win the long-term game. With the understanding that success can take time, Chess Players try to put details into their proper context. They value thinking outside the box, make decisions and move on, and keep track of past decisions to improve future ones.

The skillset of the Chess Player gets utilized most in contexts that feature high degrees of persistent competition, in fast moving industries, and in companies that above all require innovation, tolerance of ambiguity, and strategic acumen in their leaders (think FMCGs with technical foundations or globally expanding companies in consistently volatile markets). But they’ll need to team up with some data-oriented individuals to lend support to their positions, especially if they are looking to gain buy-in for their ideas across an organization.

By including a Chess Player on a multi-year business plan or one that introduces drastic change, a leadership team can gain invaluable insights, especially if that team is overly focused on rewards, data-oriented or tactical.  I for one look forward to teaming up more with the Chess Player I mentioned before, so that I can better balance out my own spontaneity and reward-focus...as World Chess Champion Emanuel Lasker once said: “When you see a good move, look for a better one.”

Is there a Chess Player in your organization? How does he or she fit in with the Promoters, Defense Analysts, and Politicians of the organization? Let us know how that approach works for your team!

#DecisionMakers #Judgment

Topics: judgment, decision making

Employee Development: It’s as easy as 1-2-3

Posted by Darin Nei on Tue, Aug 25, 2015

The two keys to success when it comes to running an effective business are money and people. Organizations tend to recognize that money is important to running a successful business, but often times they fail to focus on the people side of the equation. Unfortunately when companies do consider the people side they often get it wrong. They use informal assessment techniques and often focus on the wrong characteristics when identifying and developing talent. Political and social skills tend to get people noticed, but most jobs require much more than that in order to be a successful performer. In addition, jobs are rapidly changing and what’s required for success at Time 1 may differ from what’s needed at Time 2. As such, it is critical that organizations understand what candidates bring to the table to understand where their development needs lie based on the future job context. The good news is developing employees can be an easy process, so long as you use the proper techniques and assessments to understand people.

valuesjudgmentgraphicThe first step to developing employees is to understand their core values. By starting out with a validated assessment that measures an employee’s values you can understand what motivates their behavior, what type of environments will be a good fit, and the culture the employee will create if they are leading a team or project. A quality values assessment uncovers how a person’s decisions are influenced by his or her values. With a greater understanding of an employee’s values, it’s easier for a coach or manager to link developmental plans back to the core motivators of the employee.

The second step to developing employees is to help them understand how they approach decision-making and how they respond to feedback about their decisions. High potential employees and leaders are responsible for critical decisions facing a business. These decisions must be made in real time with limited information; the reality, however, is the first plan or decision is rarely the best option. Often times, what separates “good” from “great” employees comes down to the quality of the decisions they make and how quickly they can adapt their decisions based on feedback. Once you’ve considered the underlying motivators of an employee, you can start to look at how this influences their decision-making process. A quality decision-making assessment tells you how people prefer to process information (e.g., quantitative vs qualitative), their pre-decision tendencies (e.g., risk averse vs reward seeking), and their post-decision reactions (e.g., accepting feedback vs denying feedback). It is at this stage where you can link decision making back to values to drive strategic self-awareness.

The final step to developing employees is to help them gain a better understanding of their reputations in the workplace. The values we hold and our approach to decision-making help mold our personalities and ultimately shapes our reputations at work. Everyone has two components of their personality: a bright side and a dark side. The bright side of our reputation is on display when we are self-monitoring. This is the side of ourselves that most people see on a day-to-day basis. On the other hand, when we stop self-monitoring (e.g., when under stress) is when the dark side of our reputation emerges. This is when we let our emotions get the best of us, or when we overplay our natural strengths. These dark-side tendencies are often what lead to career derailment. Considering both bright- and dark-side components can help employees uncover blind spots, tap hidden potential, and prevent strengths from turning into areas of weakness.

Focusing on these three steps provides the awareness employees need to develop their careers. Adding rigor into the assessment process and implementing a structured approach to employee development can help organizations harness areas of strength and identify areas of opportunity as it relates to their human capital.

Topics: values, judgment, dark side, bright side

3 Tips for Combining 360 and Personality Assessment Feedback

Posted by Scott Gregory on Fri, Aug 21, 2015

When introduced and interpreted effectively, both 360 feedback instruments and personality assessments play significant roles in helping participants develop greater strategic self-awareness. Here are three tips on introducing the feedback combination to participants:

1. Participants should understand that each of these sources of feedback is based on a different time horizon. Snapshot perspective: 360 feedback comes from a particular group of people, while a participant is in a particular role, and is provided at a particular point in time. One way to think about this type of feedback is that it’s like a snapshot. The participant is the subject, the moment is frozen in time, and the picture includes a fixed setting and group of people. Motion picture perspective: Personality assessment results, as measured by the Hogan Personality Inventory, the Hogan Development Survey, and the Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory, on the other hand, are more like a motion picture; they provide information about participants’ reputations or characteristics that tend to be stable and predictive of performance across many contexts, many groups of people, and over time.

2. Not all personality assessments are not created equal. Participants often have completed a type-indicator at some point in their careers that measured their identity, not their reputation. Making the distinction between reputation — which is enduring and stable over time — and identity, which may be highly changeable, is a critical one if participants are to take seriously the notion of undertaking development steps based on their personality characteristics. It only makes sense to do so if the personality characteristics being measured are stable, enduring characteristics over time. We would expect little consistency between 360 feedback and personality as measured by highly changeable type-indicator results. Personality measured as one’s reputation, however, often shows sensible relations with 360 data.

3. By its nature, 360 feedback includes various perspectives, and sometimes those perspectives may disagree. Often these differences in perspective are driven by differing opportunities to observe the participant exhibit a particular behavior. For example, direct reports typically will have the most frequent and most accurate observations about a supervisor’s level and style of delegation. The participant’s manager, on the other hand, may have few opportunities to see the supervisor delegating to others, but may have frequent opportunities to observe the outcomes of the team’s work. It is important to let participants know that personality assessment tends to smooth out these differing perspectives by focusing on characteristics that are stable, enduring over time, and that may be descriptive of the individual in general, versus focusing on a particular set of behaviors at a particular point in time, as 360 instruments do.

Interpreting 360 results within the larger and more enduring context of personality strengths and development needs helps participants integrate information from both in order to create a development plan. Such a plan enables the participants to develop strategic self-awareness to apply on-the-job and over the long term.

Topics: feedback, assessment feedback, 360 feedback

Drinks with Hogan: Can I Partner with Hogan?

Posted by Hogan Assessments on Thu, Aug 20, 2015

In the latest Drinks with Hogan, Global Alliances consultants, Krista Pederson and Dustin Hunter, discuss the three levels of partnerships available with Hogan, why they're so important, and how they can help your organization. Check it out.

Topics: distributors, partners

Why is your boss such a narcissist?

Posted by Hogan Assessments on Wed, Aug 19, 2015

Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic is a global authority on psychological profiling, and he joined Paul Henry in studio this morning to explain why narcissists often get the top jobs.

He says there are two kinds of workers: the narcissist who will rise to the top, and the hidden gems who don't brag and just get on with the work – and they're the best people for the job.

Watch a video of the interview.

Topics: narcissism

Can Asian leaders have both authority and humility?

Posted by Hogan Assessments on Tue, Aug 18, 2015

What makes for an engaging leader, and why is the study of leadership so often misguided? These were the questions being asked at an event hosted by Sirota and Hogan Assessment Systems last week, in which these two companies – arguably the pioneers of employee engagement surveys and personality profiling – discussed what is holding back Singaporean and Asian leaders. Can Asian leaders have both humility and authority?

Read the full article from HR in Asia.

Topics: leadership, HR, human resources

Why Are Selection Assessments So Scary?

Posted by Jocelyn Hays on Thu, Aug 13, 2015

Apples

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.

It always surprises me that people searching for jobs, and even some organizations, treat assessments as if they are completely unique from other selection measures. In reality, when comparing selection tools, it’s not an exercise of apples versus oranges, it’s more Honeycrisp versus Red Delicious. Every step of the hiring process, every tool and technique used in the process, is designed to tell the organization something relevant about the candidate. It’s like a first date – you don’t walk into the restaurant with no idea of what’s going to happen. You know from the start that you’re going to be looking for those subtle signs, that certain something, that will tell you if the person on the other side of the table is a good fit for you. Your goal is simple: Determine if a second date is warranted or if it’s more a handshake-at-the-end-of-the-evening situation.

As soon as a candidate comes into contact with a potential employer, the organization is assessing the individual. Perhaps it’s an evaluation of qualification for the job based on the education and work history listed on a resume, an evaluation of interpersonal skills based on performance in an interview, an evaluation of strengths based on what references say about the candidate, or an evaluation of potential fit for the job based on a validated personality assessment. With each activity, the organization is building a comprehensive picture of the candidate as a future employee – to determine where the person will shine, how he/she will fit with the team and the culture, and the kind of training and development that will be needed. The goal of every organization’s hiring process is to get to know a group of strangers and select which one has the greatest potential for future success; ultimately every selection measure used provides insight into what one person brings to the table that his/her competition doesn’t.

When used correctly for employee selection, validated psychological assessments are no more mysterious or risky than any other selection measure from resume reviews to in-person interviews. With that in mind, my advice to candidates is: try to represent yourself well throughout the selection process. Ensure your resume reflects your most relevant and unique qualifications; arrive at interviews well-prepared and ready to answer questions about your previous experience (successes and failures); and complete standardized assessments by following the instructions given. My advice to organizations: leverage assessments as one piece of data in the hiring process that can help you (1) get to know more about individual candidates, (2) better differentiate multiple candidates from one another, and (3) ultimately inform a sound hiring decision.

Topics: employee selection, assessment, personality assessment, job candidate

Drinks with Hogan: Using Three Assessments Together

Posted by Hogan Assessments on Tue, Aug 11, 2015

Global Alliances consultant Rebecca Callahan discusses the benefits of using Hogan's suite of personality assessments together in our latest installment of Drinks with Hogan. Check it out.

Topics: HPI, MVPI, Hogan Personality Inventory, Hogan Development Survey, assessments, HDS, personality, Drinks with Hogan, Motives Values Preferences Inventory

Hogan to Discuss Leadership Development in Dublin

Posted by Hogan Assessments on Thu, Aug 06, 2015

Hogan’s Ryan Ross and Blaine Gaddis along with Cicek Svensson of Comms Multilingual will discuss the challenges of global leadership development and why “One Size Doesn’t Have to Fit All” at the E-ATP Conference in Dublin, Ireland on September 23.

As European companies like HSBC, Maersk, and IKEA continue to expand globally, they all are faced with similar challenges when developing talent globally – how to address local languages, customs, norms, and values when dealing with individualized development programs.

Common practice suggests a one-size-fits-all approach, but a more customized method that addresses the individual’s local needs, customs, and beliefs while maintaining a consistent global standard may be more beneficial for both the individual and the organization.

Ross, Gaddis, and Svensson will use two case studies to illustrate how using equivalent assessments and program goals in local languages can standardize data for the organization, allowing a comparison of talent, while preserving the ability to customize the overall participant experience. The team will also discuss how customized feedback, development planning, and learning events can enrich the program to meet the organizational and participant goals well beyond a traditional ‘canned’ program.

To learn more about the event, visit www.eatpconference.eu.com.            

Topics: leadership, conference, E-ATP

Judgment Report Predicts Job-Related Decision Making and Performance

Posted by Michael Sanger on Tue, Aug 04, 2015

Hogan recently collaborated with an international diversified mining and materials company to identify personal characteristics associated with work-related decision-making in Operation and Maintenance jobs. The goal of this research was to show the Hogan Judgment Report (based on cognitive and non-cognitive factors related to making decisions and receiving feedback) would predict safe job performance and good decision-making in the mining and materials industry.

This criterion-related validation process consisted of a number of steps. The research study began when incumbent Operations and Maintenance employees, ranging from Managers and Superintendents to Operators and Tradespeople, completed all sections of the Hogan Judgment Assessment. Next, supervisors rated each of these employees with an online Performance Rating Form (PRF), providing outcome ratings in regards to overall job performance, job-related decision-making, and cognitive ability. Supervisors also had the opportunity to provide open-ended comments about each employee’s relative strengths and challenges related to his/her decision-making at work.

Four scales from the Hogan Judgment Assessment, which evaluates decision-making tendencies, showed consistent and statistically significant relationships with multiple supervisor performance ratings. Individuals scoring as Strategic in their approach to decisions, Cool-Headed or Genuine in their reactions to negative feedback, and generally Receptive to Feedback about previously unsuccessful decisions tended to receive higher performance ratings than individuals scoring as Tactical in their approach to decisions, Defensive or Superficial in their reactions to negative feedback, and generally Resistant to Feedback.

Furthermore, those who had a higher overall Receptiveness to Feedback score tended to be rated by their supervisors as:

  • Overall, this employee makes good decisions at work (.33*)
  • Engages in feedback to solve problems (.30*)
  • Makes good decisions under ambiguous circumstances (.31*)
  • Makes good decisions under stressful circumstances (.43**)

* Correlation is significant at .05 level; ** Correlation is significant at .01 level.

These findings are really exciting. The next phase is to expand the sample and continue this criteria-referenced research at the Executive levels. We look forward to coming to you soon with even more impressive results!

Topics: judgment

Subscribe to our Blog

Connect