5 Signs It's Time for a New Job

Posted by Hogan Assessments on Sat, Apr 18, 2015

Regardless if you’ve been a in the workforce for decades, or are just a few years into a job, chances are the possibility of a new career has crossed your mind. And you are not alone. LinkedIn reported that 60% of its users are passive job seekers - those not necessarily looking for a new job, but are willing to consider new opportunities. For those on the fence, deciding when to take the plunge often results in an anxiety ridden stalemate between a currently dissatisfying work-life and an uncertain future.

In his latest article for the Harvard Business Review – ranked as their website’s hottest post last week - Hogan CEO Dr. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic discusses why leaving a job is often difficult and gives five critical signs that can help you decide if it’s time for a career change. Ultimately, the right decision is not always clear-cut, and predicting how happy you will be with the outcome is difficult. “The only way to know whether a career move is actually right for you is to make it” says Chamorro-Premuzic.

To read about the 5 signs, check out the original HBR article.

Topics: bad managers

Get Organized

Posted by Hogan Assessments on Thu, Apr 16, 2015


Benjamin Franklin was notorious for being organized. He followed a set daily routine and created a 13-week long plan for self-improvement which he carefully tracked. The man was efficiency personified.

The point is that being organized matters. Every day we are inundated with information and forced to make hundreds of decisions. Many of these daily choices about what to eat, what to wear, etc. are made on autopilot. They might not be the best, but they’ll do. The dilemma we face when autopilot sets in at work is that your brain still tries to take those same shortcuts. And where complicated problems arise and consequences for decisions are long reaching, the results for mental shortcuts can often be less than stellar. So, how do we prioritize efficiently to make the best decisions possible? Here are four helpful suggestions.

  1. 90-10 Rule - “Devote 10% of your time to 90% of the decisions. The more effectively you do this, the more mental resources you can devote to important matters,” says Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic. Efficiently dealing with the little things allows you to save mental resources needed to solve complex work situations.
  1. Make a List - It’s simple and effective. Writing a great to-do list can make the difference between accomplishing important tasks at the beginning of your workday and looking at pile of half-finished paperwork and missed deadlines at 5pm. Be concise, realistic, and strategic with your list, and your productivity will streamline.
  1. Tackle the Big Things First - Figure out what your most difficult, pressing task is, and do it first. Don’t let yourself procrastinate on starting and don’t get sidetracked with easier, less taxing projects until it’s done.
  1. Be Realistic - Don’t set yourself up for failure. As we already know, our brain has only so much bandwidth. Set goals that you can reasonably meet and accomplish with your full attention.

To find out more about making better decisions and prioritizing, check out our ebook, http://info.hoganassessments.com/3-ways-to-seem-smarter 

Topics: judgment

Mythbusters Series: You’re a Good Interviewer

Posted by Rebecca Callahan on Fri, Apr 10, 2015

Ever wonder why you aren’t selecting high performers? Or why new employees fail and leave after such a short time?

You’re likely relying too heavily on interviews in your selection process.

Most interviews are unstructured. You skim the candidate’s CV beforehand, have a set list of suggested questions, and you see where the interview takes you. If you’re not impressed, maybe you cut it a little short. If you’re really dazzled by the candidate, maybe they get a bit of extra time.
While seemingly benign, these practices present a major disservice to both your organization and to potential candidates.
Study after study has shown us that interviews are wrought with bias and ineffective for selecting high performers.
If you want to select a high performer, your odds are better flipping a coin than doing an interview.
Beyond the loss to your organization of choosing the highest performer in the interview pool, you’re making an even bigger sacrifice:
Any organization with a serious diversity initiative must take a closer look at its interview process. An interviewer with the best intentions is still likely to discriminate based on gender, age, weight, race/ethnicity, class, and other non-performance-related criteria. As humans, we suffer from a similarity effect.
We like people who are like us.
We are more likely to choose people who look like us, act like us, and have similar backgrounds to our own.
Amazingly, our narcissism stretches even further than that. When we first meet someone, we make an initial judgment, and a primacy effect takes over. We spend the following four minutes of the interview confirming our initial impressions, and after that point, our decision is set in stone. So, whatever stereotype or prejudice we know from our culture takes effect, and we spend the following four minutes trying to prove ourselves right. After that, game over for the candidate.
Four minutes. FOUR MINUTES. We know we can’t effectively observe a leader’s performance in four minutes, but our subconscious is more concerned with proving itself right than giving the candidate a fair chance.
We also know that diverse workforces are the most profitable, and that when it comes to adverse impact claims, the odds do not favor the employer using unstructured interviews for selection.
All in all, interviews are not reliable for selecting the best people, especially if you want to hire diverse candidates who will truly be the best performers.
Want to know how you CAN select high performers, in a gender-blind, color-blind, bias-free way? Use predictive and well-validated personality assessments.
Want to be a better interviewer, and make better decisions, with less bias? Improve your judgment through self-awareness.

Topics: assessment, interviewing, personality assessment, mythbusters

Hogan to Present at SIOP

Posted by Hogan Assessments on Wed, Apr 08, 2015


I-O experts from Hogan’s Research and Consulting divisions will showcase advances in personality research during an impressive 21 sessions, symposia, panel discussions, practice forums, and poster sessions at the 30th Annual SIOP Conference in Philadelphia.



10:30am, Room 407-409                                                                                             
The Latest on Emotional Intelligence at Work: Happy 25th Anniversary!            
This session will present the latest research on emotional intelligence (EI) in organizations. Issues concerning definitional and measurement aspects will also be discussed. Topics will include the implications of EI for work-related outcomes, the potential dark side of EI, the novel generation of instruments and future challenges of the field.    
Michael Sanger

10:30am, Room 401-403                                                                                              
Conducting Assessments in the Digital Age                                                          

This session will discuss current issues in using technology to enable assessments, including mobile devices and online assessment centers. Furthermore, we will demonstrate the use of a candidate’s “digital footprint” as a potential assessment approach. We will also discuss the implications of these technologies for practice and future research.                                                       
Jennifer Lowe

12:00pm, Room 407-409                                                                                              
Boundaries Redrawn: Debunking Cultural Clusters with Local Assessment Data

Administering assessments globally raises important practical questions about consistency and fairness in evaluation models. This symposium will present within-region research findings from several global assessment firms including those pertaining to local leadership expectations and response tendencies. Corresponding implications for cultural clusters as they relate to organizational initiatives will be discussed.                                                                
Michael Sanger, Renee Yang

12:00pm, Grand J                                                                                            
Understanding the Work-Family Implications of Relationships with Leaders
Incorporating important theoretical perspectives on leadership, the four papers serve to recognize that the degree to which work-life supports are provided is a function of the quality of the leader-employee relationship. Based on strong methodological designs, the papers investigate interesting mechanisms through which the leader-employee relationship influences the work-family experiences.                                          
Heather Bolen

1:30pm, Franklin 08
Innovative Approaches to Talent Identification: Bridging Science and Practice in the Digital Age
New HR technologies are redefining the talent identification industry. From social media and big data analytics, to text and audiovisual algorithms and gamification, there is now a proliferation of novel assessment tools. This panel discusses the validity, utility, and ethical implications of these innovative approaches.
Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic

1:30pm, Room 401-403                                                                                              
Toward a New Narrative for the Leadership Gender Agenda                              

The media is abuzz about the underrepresentation of women in senior leadership. This session explores how popular notions like the female leadership advantage, confidence gaps, and leaning in, while well intended, may be misguided. Combining data and practice, we go beyond common stereotypes to reframe the problem and offer solutions.                                                  
Jackie VanBroekhoven-Sahm

3:30pm, Franklin 10                                                                                                 
Finding Value in 360-Feedback Rater Disagreements                                    
360-degree feedback has long been used by organizations. However, there is a lack of consensus on how to compile feedback from different sources. The goal of this symposium is to discuss rater disagreements from both theoretical and empirical perspectives, and demonstrate the value of understanding unique inputs from various sources.                                          
Karen Fuhrmeister, Renee Yang

3:30pm, Grand D                                                                                            
Evaluating good decision making starts with making good decisions              
This session will include multiple viewpoints on how best to predict and improve employee decision making. Panelists will discuss existing research on evaluating characteristics that define good judgment, cognitive style and horsepower, and implications for employee selection and development. Experiences with implementing programs featuring corresponding assessments will also be discussed.              
Michael Sanger, Darin Nei                          

3:30pm, Grand K                                                                                            
Individual Differences and the Creative Process: Implications for Talent Identification
Creativity is often critical to organizational success. Previous researchers have often examined relationships between individual differences and creative outcomes, while discarding research indicating creativity is best viewed as a process rather than an outcome. In this symposium, we will illustrate how individual differences can predict individual and team creative processes.
Kimberly Nei, Darin Nei                         


8:30am, Grand B                                                                                                
Data Cleansing Time! Insufficient Effort Responding in Concurrent Validation Studies  
Due to motivational difference between incumbents and applicants, insufficient effort responding (IER; i.e., careless or random responding) is a concern in concurrent validation studies. This symposium presents emerging research on IER in concurrent validation data, covering both detection of IER and the potential impact of IER on validity inference.                    
Jeff Foster       

10:30am, Grand E                                                                                                
Beyond the hype: The dark side of employee engagement                              
This symposium includes four integrated presentations on some of the less explored aspects of employee engagement. It features an overview of engagement models, new research evaluating curvilinear effects of leadership styles on engagement, negative effects of engagement on entrepreneurship, and the common reasons for failed interventions to enhance engagement.                                                            
Robert Hogan, Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic

3:30pm, Grand J                                                                                                
Practical and Ethical Guidelines for Dealing with Messy Validation Data
Validation datasets are typically presented in less-than-ideal forms (i.e., messy), posing challenges to I-O professionals tasked with demonstrating the value of selection tools. This panel will discuss considerations for handling messy data, reflecting on their individual past experiences, as well as their approaches to analyzing the same messy dataset.                                            
Dara Pickering

3:30pm, Room 305-306                                                                                         
Synthetic Validity: Further Evidence of its Accuracy and Application
Synthetic validation is a professionally accepted alternative validation method when traditional criterion-related validation is not possible. However, there remains resistance to using these non-traditional validation methods. This symposium provides new research on synthetic validity to show evidence of its accuracy compared to traditional methods and new examples of applications.
Darin Nei

5:00pm, Grand L                                                                                                
Using Scientific Research and Best Practices to Drive Competency-Based Solutions Many companies use competencies for performance management, but surprisingly, few I/O psychologists are involved in developing and managing these systems. With competencies, research is lagging behind business. This panel brings professionals together to explore how we can more effectively use scientific research and best practices to inform competency-based business solutions.                                  
Blaine Gaddis, Stephen Nichols


8:00am, Franklin 08                                                                                                     
Practical Recommendations for Enhancing Leadership Coaching                              

Leadership development coaching is a widely used practice for increasing leader effectiveness within an organization. This symposium provides both research and a practitioner perspective regarding leadership coaching best practices. It presents recommendations from experienced coaches as well as qualitative data documenting suggestions for improving coaching sessions from coaching participants.               
Heather Bolen, Karen Fuhrmeister, Kimberly Nei

11:30am, Franklin Hall                                                                                                     
Job Analytic Comparisons of Managerial and Leadership Competencies Across Industries        
Using archival job analytic data, we examined the overlap in competencies required for effective managers and leaders across industries. Results suggest necessary behaviors are similar across industries and differences are likely present for all levels of employment. Therefore, we should work towards one competency model for managerial and leadership performance.              
Kimberly Nei, Dara Pickering

12:00pm, Room 302-304
Intrapreneurship: Fostering Innovation in Big Organizations
There is an abundant literature on the psychology of entrepreneurship but little research on the antecedents and consequences of intrapreneurship, defined as work-related behaviors that promote change and innovation with large organizations. A diverse and experienced panel will share lessons learned and spark ideas for research and practice.
Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, Jackie Sahm

12:30pm, Franklin Hall                                                                                                     
The Factor Structure of Personality Derailers across Cultures                         

Despite the increasing popularity of dark-side (derailing) personality, there is little consensus over the structure of personality derailer constructs. The Five Factor Model (FFM) as the universal taxonomy of bright-side personality has shown equivalence across cultures. The present study examines the factor structure of personality derailers across cultures.                       
Jeff Foster, Renee Yang

12:30pm, Franklin Hall                                                                                                          
Is Incivility Selective? A Meta-Analytic Test of Selective Incivility Theory
This meta-analysis explores whether people in the protected groups of age, race, and sex experience different levels of incivility. Overall meta-analytic corrected correlations suggest that protected groups are not experiencing incivility at different rates; however, large credibility intervals suggest the presence of moderators. Practical and theoretical implications are discussed.    
Amber Smittick

1:30pm, Franklin Hall
Nonlinear relationships of narrow personality and narrow leadership criterion constructs           
Past research on the personality-performance link show inconsistent findings on the shape (linear vs. non-linear) of such relationships. We approach this research question by examining narrow personality and narrow criterion constructs that are theoretically and empirically related.     
Renee Yang

1:30 PM, Grand G                                                                                                            
Blazing the Job Trail: How to IGNITE Your Career    
Twelve early career and seasoned professionals will share their experiences and knowledge of the job market. Each presenter will address a phase of the job search process, ranging from applications and resumes to expectations of new hires. Following the 12 IGNITE speakers, the format shifts to an interactive panel discussion.
Amber Smittick

3:30pm, Franklin 10                                                                                                          
The healthcare challenge: Implementing talent initiatives in a data-driven industry

Demonstrating the value of I/O-related initiatives in an industry reliant on objective metrics can be difficult. In addition, skilled labor shortages and high turnover have impacted the ability to hire qualified individuals who provide quality care. We will discuss important considerations and unique challenges specific to the health care industry.                                
Dara Pickering, Audrey Wallace



Topics: I/O Psychology, SIOP, conference

Hogan in the Media

Posted by Blake Loepp on Wed, Apr 01, 2015

There’s been a flurry of activity at Hogan in recent months. Headlining the list is the recent announcement of Dr. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic assuming the role of partner and CEO.

Via the Tulsa World: “I am truly honored to assume the role as CEO at Hogan,” Chamorro-Premuzic said. “For over 30 years, Hogan has pioneered the development of scientific tools for predicting and improving employee performance, particularly in leaders. My goal is to build on this extraordinary work.”

Tomas has also been active as a contributor to numerous high-profile media outlets.

In a recent piece for Fast Company on the dark side of charismatic leaders, Tomas writes: “There’s actually little evidence that charisma helps leaders be more effective. On the contrary, charisma often has the reverse effect because it helps leaders deceive and manipulate their followers by masking their own incompetence.” 

In another article for the Harvard Business Review, Tomas breaks down how to teach people to be more creative.

“Given that most people are not as creative as they think, it is important that any attempts to coach creativity begin by providing individuals with feedback, especially when they are narcissistic, since narcissism inflates people’s estimates of their own competence to an unrealistic level.”

Also, Hogan COO Aaron Tracy was recently featured in a Tulsa World "5 Questions" piece focusing on what drives Hogan’s 1,000 percent increase in sales.

“Beyond our core product offering far outpacing the competition, we attribute the growth trajectory of the past 28 years to four key factors: technology, industry acceptance, talent and globalization.”

In addition, Hogan Global Alliances consultant Michael Sanger weighed in as an expert on a three-part series for Central Desktop on how deal with Corner Cutters, Yes-Men, and those who are Super Territorial.

“To throw something out there that’s half-baked and walk away requires a combination of risk-taking and arrogance,” says Michael Sanger, consultant with Hogan Assessment Systems. “Getting through to somebody like that can be an uphill battle, because they don’t recognize evidence that anything has gone wrong.”

Stay tuned for more exciting news from your friends at Hogan Assessments!

Topics: personality

Let Failure Be Your Guide

Posted by Karina Buvaylik on Tue, Mar 31, 2015


We’ve all been there. At the cross roads of an important decision, we made a choice and failed. Sometimes those decisions can cost you a good night’s sleep. Sometimes they can cost you billions-think back to 20th Century Fox giving George Lucas total merchandising rights to the Star Wars movies for just $20,000. Mistakes will happen, but the way you handle them determines how your intelligence is perceived by others.

So, with that in mind, here are a few ideas for handling mistakes with finesse and utilizing them to make better judgments in the future.

  1. Keep Your Cool - “It’s not always possible to right the wrong, but it’s almost always possible to make things worse,” says Dr. Robert Hogan. When bad news comes your way, take a second to breathe before responding. Being proactive instead of reactive allows you to reflect on what went wrong and the part you played that decision.
  2. Accept Responsibility - Hearing that you’re wrong isn’t easy. Often, our natural response is to deflect, deny, and assume that everyone else is wrong. But refusing to accept the negative feedback comes at the cost of personal and professional growth. Instead, take the time to address your mistakes and put that insight into better judgment in the future.
  3. Engage With Feedback - People who accept negative feedback tend to avoid making the same mistakes again. However, multiple studies have shown that most of us avoid asking for advice because we fear appearing incompetent. Ironically, the results of those studies show that the exact opposite happens. People tend to see you as more competent when you seek out their input.

Failure is rarely an enjoyable experience, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be a beneficial one. Take the time to appreciate your mistakes and let them guide you to better decisions in the future.

“It is fine to celebrate success, but it is more important to heed the lessons of failure.” - Bill Gates

To find out more about improving your judgments and making better decisions, check out our eBook, 3 Ways to Seem Smarter.

Topics: judgment

Mythbusters Series: Brainstorming is Productive

Posted by Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic on Fri, Mar 27, 2015

To grow and innovate, organizations have to come up with creative ideas. At the employee level, creativity results from a combination of expertise, motivation, and thinking skills. At the team level, it results from the synergy between team members, which allows the group to produce something greater than the sum of its parts.

The most widely used method to spark group creativity is brainstorming, a technique first introduced by Alex Osborn, a real life “Mad Man,” in the 1950s. Brainstorming is based on four rules: (a) generate as many ideas as possible; (b) prioritize unusual or original ideas; (c) combine and refine the ideas generated; and (d) abstain from criticism during the exercise. The process, which should be informal and unstructured, is based on two old psychological premises. First, that the mere presence of others can have motivating effects on an individual’s performance. Second, that quantity (eventually) leads to quality.

Osborn famously claimed that brainstorming should enhance creative performance by almost 50% versus individuals working on their own. Yet after six decades of independent scientific research, there is very little evidence for the idea that brainstorming produces more or better ideas than the same number of individuals would produce working independently. In fact, a great deal of evidence indicates that brainstorming actually harms creative performance, resulting in a collective performance loss that is the very opposite of synergy.

A meta-analytic review of over 800 teams indicated that individuals are more likely to generate a higher number of original ideas when they don’t interact with others. Brainstorming is particularly likely to harm productivity in large teams, when teams are closely supervised, and when performance is oral rather than written. Another problem is that teams tend to give up when they notice that their efforts aren’t producing very much.

But why doesn’t brainstorming work? There are four explanations:

  • Social loafing: There’s a tendency – also known as free riding – for people to make less of an effort when they are working in teams than alone. As with the bystander effect, we feel less propelled to do something when we know other people might do it.
  • Social anxiety: People worry about other team members’ views of their ideas. This is also referred to as evaluation apprehension. Similarly, when team members perceive that others have more expertise, their performance declines. This is especially problematic for introverted and less confident individuals.
  • Regression to the mean: This is the process of downward adjustment whereby the most talented group members end up matching the performance of their less talented counterparts. This effect is well known in sports – if you practice with someone less competent than you, your competence level declines and you sink to the mediocrity of your opponent.
  • Production blocking: No matter how large the group, individuals can only express a single idea at one time if they want other group members to hear them. Studies have found that the number of suggestions plateaus with more than six or seven group members, and that the number of ideas per person declines as group size increases.

Given brainstorming’s flaws, why is the practice so widely adopted?

There are two main reasons. First, with the increased specialization of labor, organizations see that expertise is distributed among their employees. If problem-solving benefits from different types of knowledge, assembling the right combination of people should, in theory, increase the amount of expertise in the room and result in better solutions being proposed. However, in practice, this approach would require careful selection of individuals and painstaking coordination of their efforts. Second, even though groups don’t generate more or better ideas, brainstorming is arguably more democratic than the alternatives, so it can enhance buy-in and subsequent implementation of the ideas generated, regardless of the quality of those ideas.

Ultimately, brainstorming continues to be used because it feels intuitively right to do so. As such, it is one more placebo in the talent management cabinet, believed to work in spite of the clear absence of evidence. So go ahead, schedule that brainstorming meeting. Just don’t expect it to accomplish much, other than making your team feel good.

This post originally published by the Harvard Business Review on March 25, 2015. View article.

Topics: mythbusters, brainstorming

How to Avoid Setting Off Your Boss

Posted by Hogan Assessments on Thu, Mar 26, 2015


Most of us have had a bad boss, whether a micromanager who constantly looked over your shoulder or a walking landmine whose attitudes would change on a dime. Unfortunately, career success depends as much, if not more, on your ability to get along with your boss as it does on actual talent or job performance. But what if you could use your bosses’ terrible qualities to your advantage?

“Managers are just like any other human: unique but predictable; complex, until you realize what makes them tick,” said Hogan CEO Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic. “The best way to get along with your bosses is to profile them. Figure out who they are, what they want, and why they behave the way they do. Then, adjust your behavior to fit with their style.”

Hogan’s new dark side website, www.hogandarkside.com, gives users the ability to select their bosses’ dark side characteristics and see how to modify their behavior to avoid setting them off. Check it out at www.hogandarkside.com.

Topics: Hogan Development Survey, HDS, derailment, derailers

Mythbusters Series: The Great Chain of Being

Posted by Derek Lusk on Tue, Mar 24, 2015

hogan-mythbustersJudgment and decision-making are highly consequential in human affairs, and many of us tend to be influenced by experts and those with power. Here’s a scary thought mentioned by Ian Ayers in his book Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-by-Numbers Is the New Way to Be Smart: Germ theory was proposed in the mid-16th Century but not universally accepted until the end of the 19th Century because doctors, and those in power within the medical community, were unable to come to grips with data supporting that doctors were causing patient deaths when they didn’t wash their hands. In fact, the individual proposing this hypothesis was fired and eventually suffered a nervous breakdown. Although melodramatic, this example illustrates the fallibleness of the long philosophized great chain of being concept detailing a rigid hierarchy of superiority and inferiority. Turns out, those at the top of the social strata aren’t stronger, faster, funnier, or superhuman. In fact, they’re just like all of us: biased, influenced by personality, and wrong most of the time.

Three experiments conducted by Adam Galinsky and colleagues found the powerful to be more committed to their own perspective and less empathetic towards others. So, why do many of us – notably the highly dutiful and conforming – place excess trust in authority? Well, at the broadest level human behavior should be explained using an evolutionary psychology framework. Strong group level selection pressures, such as warfare, may have created the need for leadership to serve as an adaptive resource with the function of solving group-related problems and influencing self-interested individuals to act on behalf of the group (e.g., coordination, conflict resolution, motivation, direction). Considering the importance of leadership for survival, we’ve developed psychological mechanisms to identify leadership worth following. We look for integrity, expertise, good judgment, and vision; however, the façade of expertise and higher social standing may cloud our evaluations of effective leadership—especially when combined with the appearance of nobility and charisma.

Everyone is wrong the majority of the time due to pre- and post-decision biases—regardless of expertise or social position. But, it’s not all bad news. Good judgment isn’t about getting everything right the first time around. It’s more about having strategic self-awareness around personality-driven, counter-productive biases and tendencies, and instead of telling yourself what you want to hear, being open to recalibration after you’re wrong. A little self-awareness and openness to feedback allow us to consider more data, learn from mistakes, and avoid blaming others for our own shortcomings.  

In short, we all make mistakes. Contrary to popular belief, those in power likely make more mistakes because they remain steadfast in their judgments regardless of how good they are. But, under the right circumstances we follow them through disastrous consequences. Moving forward, let’s accept that we’re all wrong most of the time and work hard to learn from our mistakes and not play the blame game.  

Topics: judgment, mythbusters

Keeping Up Appearances

Posted by Hogan Assessments on Thu, Mar 19, 2015


How many people know the real you? Last year, we asked 668 people to rank, on a scale of 1-10, how well their friends, spouse, coworkers, boss and others knew them. They answered as follows:

8.96 – Spouse or significant other
7.95 – Friends
7.55 – Mother
7.09 – Father
6.88 – Therapist
6.16 – Colleagues
5.62 – Boss

Although it intuitively makes sense, why is it that your friends and family would know you better than your boss or coworkers? After all, a UK poll of 2,500 people showed respondents spent an average of 44 waking hours with their colleagues, compared to only 34 waking hours with their partners, not to mention their friends and families. The only logical assumption, then, is that we’re not always our genuine selves.

Managing the impressions we make on others is an important skill. We pay attention to our hygiene and appearance, we show up to work on time, and we do our best not to offend our coworkers. And research shows that individuals who scored high on a measure of self-monitoring were more likely to get promoted and have a successful career than their less tactful counterparts.

Problem is, self-presentation and self-regulation are emotionally taxing, and since the average person spends 99,117 hours at work over his or her lifetime, odds are at some point you’ll let your guard down. And when you do, you may find the impressions you make are less than flattering.

“When you’re being yourself, when you stop self-monitoring, is when we see what we call dark-side personality characteristics emerge,” said Dr. Jeff Foster, Hogan’s VP of Science. “Even though they only tend to show up in times of stress, pressure, or boredom, they can be extremely damaging to your reputation.”

To find out more about how your dark side can impact your reputation and career, check out our complimentary ebook, “11 Ways to Wreck your Career”.

Topics: Hogan Development Survey, HDS, derailment, HDS subscales

Subscribe to our Blog