Meet metaBeratung in Dusseldorf, Zurich and Munich

Posted by Hogan Assessments on Tue, Sep 27, 2016

metalogo.pngmetaBeratung, our Hogan Distributor in Germany, Switzerland and Austria is featuring three interesting client events in October/November. HR Executives from Vossloh (rail technology), Erste Bank Group (banking) and Mondi (packaging & paper) will share useful insights on how the Hogan Assessments add value to their ongoing talent selection and development programs. The first event will be held in Düsseldorf, October 4 starting at 5pm: Christina Karschti, Head of Organizational Management and Training will talk about Vossloh’s leadership team and how they went from topmanager to become a cultural change ambassador. She will share insights of a 14-day offsite teaming event.

Coming up next is Zurich, October 20 where Mag. Natalia Corrales-Diez, Alternative Investment Fund Manager, will show how Erste Bank Group, the oldest credit institution in Austria, is using Hogan Assessments in talent mapping: ‘for best students’ as well as ‘career with kids’ are two innovative investment funds the bank has set-up to financially support these target groups. How the Hogan Assessments help keeping the credit failure rate low? Come and join metaBeratung for this session at Steigenberger Bellerive au Lac, Zurich.

Last but not least, it’s Munich: November 16, Ulrike Rams, Head of Talent Management Europe & International will be showing how Hogan Assessments add value to development centers of their national high potential program. Join her and the metaBeratung team at 5pm at Louis Hotel, Munich.

If you have any further questions with regard to the events or would like to register, please contact

How Private Equity Firms Hire CEOs

Posted by Hogan Assessments on Thu, Sep 22, 2016

equity.jpgFounder and Chairman of Green Peak Partners, J.P. Flaum, recently conducted a research study with Jeffrey Cohn of DHR International to determine how successful private equity firms avoid the extremely costly mistake of a bad CEO selection.  After collecting data from the managing partners of 32 PE firms, the authors concluded that (1) experience is overrated, (2) leadership is about building high performing teams, (3) urgency is as important as empathy, (4) perseverance is a key attribute, and (5) trustworthiness is critical.
The following article first appeared in the June 2016 issue of Harvard Business Review.


Corporate boards often say that succession planning is their top priority, but at publicly traded companies, directors rarely get to turn that planning into action: The average CEO tenure at S&P 500 firms is nearly 10 years. That’s in sharp contrast to the private equity world. PE firms hold investments in dozens of companies, and after making an investment, they nearly always replace the CEO. As a result, although a typical public company director might help hire a CEO a few times in a career, veteran PE executives hire multiple CEOs each year and many dozens over the course of a career, giving them a far greater ability to observe trends and learn from successes and mistakes.

To tap this expertise, Jeffrey Cohn, of the executive search firm DHR International, and J.P Flaum, of the consulting firm Green Peak Partners, surveyed and interviewed the managing partners of 32 private equity firms (including Blackstone, Carlyle, KKR, and Silver Lake) about their CEO search process and how it has changed over time. Among the surprises: Executives said they’ve learned to pay less attention to attributes such as track record and experience, the criteria typically most prized by recruiters, and to give more weight to softer skills. “There’s a big difference in philosophy, economics, and process” between PE firms and public company boards, Cohn says. “The private equity firms have a lot more skin in the game—so they feel the burn if they make a bad selection.”

The researchers drew five conclusions:

Experience is overrated.

When filling a CEO position, there’s comfort in hiring someone with prior CEO and industry experience. But the first criterion can dramatically narrow the pool, and the second can yield candidates who are so familiar with the industry that they’re hidebound or likely just to recycle the strategic playbook from their last job. Similarly, overemphasizing quantifiable success in prior positions can be misleading, because results are often a function of “right place/right time” or organizational or team factors rather than one individual. And even within an industry, different competitive positions can demand very different skills—cost cutting versus product innovation versus business model change, for instance. The researchers write, “Past accomplishment and current challenge is rarely an apples-to-apples comparison.” Many of the interviewees said that over the years, they’ve become more open to “nontraditional” candidates who lack degrees from blue-chip schools and haven’t checked the usual boxes in a career progression. One put it this way: “You need someone who can come into a new situation and pick up the fundamentals quickly. A great athlete…is more important than someone with years of experience in an industry.”

Team-building skills are paramount.

Of the 13 attributes included in the survey, the highest ranked was a candidate’s ability to assemble a high-performing team. That makes sense, because many PE investments involve turnarounds in which the new CEO must completely rebuild the C-suite. And, because PE portfolio companies are typically smaller than publicly traded companies, CEOs spend more time in the trenches working alongside subordinates rather than providing autonomy with loose supervision. To avoid leaders who won’t excel at building teams, PE execs say, they watch out for candidates who use “I” too much when talking about accomplishments or who display so much intellectual horsepower that they come across as arrogant, which can inhibit hiring and developing A-level talent. One executive told the researchers, “We ask questions like ‘How many people followed you from your last job to the next one?’ One CEO we interviewed had pulled 31 [former colleagues] into his portfolio company, and it has been a big part of his success.” (See the Spotlight on Managing Teams, in this issue.)

Urgency outranks empathy.

PE firms operate with strict timetables for when a company should be improved and the investment recouped through sale or IPO. (The typical goal is five years.) This ticking clock means that a portfolio company CEO can expect close oversight and faces heightened expectations about the speed with which cost cuts or revenue growth will take place. The researchers write, “Many CEO wannabes will balk at a PE-driven pace, particularly those who have grown accustomed to plusher, more heavily resourced environments.” While this doesn’t mean that a CEO shouldn’t listen to customers or show concern for employees, it does require moving decisively and without regrets. One PE executive said, “I am not down on empathy, but [often] empathy needs to take a back seat to urgency. Some highly empathetic leaders are not able to make the tough personnel decisions that need to be made.”

Resilience is a must.

Parents understand that building resilience in children is important to character; PE types, too, cite it as an important leadership virtue. They’ve become skeptical about candidates who have skipped seamlessly from success to success. “PE firms want to see that a candidate has faced setbacks, made errors, and run adrift—yet lived to fight another day,” according to the researchers’ report. This attribute is especially important because in turnaround situations, leaders are likely to encounter some negative results. “Business plans never go the way you think they will,” one respondent said. “If the CEO does not adapt, you are going to be in trouble.”

Authenticity, translated as candor, is also key.

Like “resilience,” “authenticity” has become so overused that its meaning can be vague. The researchers drilled down and found that PE executives use it to mean candor and a willingness to deliver bad news quickly and honestly. In a public company, sharing negative information is a delicate process—it’s likely to move the stock price—but in a PE company, real-time sharing takes precedence. One interview subject said, “I need my CEOs to have the confidence to be transparent with their PE sponsor—about their team and anything bad that is happening in the business. I hate when they just try to ‘manage up’ or act out of fear.”

A final difference between private equity and public company CEO hiring: PE execs tend to judge very quickly—usually within nine months—whether a new hire is working out. Compared with public company directors, they are quick to engineer a failing CEO’s exit—and when they think back, they often wish they’d moved even more quickly.


Image by Tom Redfern

Topics: hiring, CEO

Economists Get It: Personality Predicts Performance

Posted by Hogan Assessments on Fri, Sep 16, 2016

Provided by Guest Blogger, Allison Howell

The financial costs of personnel decisions are well documented. For each poor hiring decision, companies can lose, on average, $25,000-$50,000 - even more if you take into account lost productivity, employee morale, and client relationships. Less well understood, however, is the economic impact of personality differences among good hires.

A newly published working paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research sheds some new light on the topic. This research shows significant links between the personality of CEOs and the financial outcomes of their businesses.

The study authors, from Harvard, Stanford and the University of Chicago, used linguistic analysis, a systematic mapping of words and speaking styles, to identify scores for the Big Five personality traits for over 4500 CEOs.

The Big Five is arguably the most widely accepted taxonomy of personality traits among psychologists; it categorizes personality into degrees of agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, and openness to experience. The linguistic analysis used in this particular study has been established as a reliable method of predicting personality.

As an example, a CEO who is high on the agreeableness scale would display speech patterns that include use of adjectives such as appreciative, considerate, gentle, and trustful. The analysis also looked at the number of words spoken, the presence of qualifiers, and other parts of speech—adverbs and conjunctions.

After the language was mapped to the personality traits, the authors examined the associations between personality traits and the CEOs’ investment and financial choices, and then looked at the connection with the overall performance of the CEOs’ firms.

In terms of the investment and financial choices, this study shows that higher levels of openness are associated with higher R&D intensity, a measure of a company’s spending toward activities aimed at expanding the sector and product knowledge. Openness was also negatively correlated with net leverage, a measure of the company’s debt load. In other words, the more open the CEO, the higher the spending on R&D activities and the lower the net leverage of the company.

Higher degrees of conscientiousness, which refers to a leader’s self-discipline, willingness to follow rules, and cautiousness, were associated with lower levels of growth. In addition, companies led by more extraverted CEOs showed lower returns on assets and lower cash flow.

Although this study warrants replication, the biggest take away is that personality does indeed influence performance - in concrete and measurable ways. Moreover, at the CEO and executive level, personality can affect the overall health of a company. In other words, personality predicts performance.

Topics: personality

Trust At First Sight

Posted by Hogan Assessments on Thu, Sep 15, 2016

Trust_THUMB_200_v3-1.jpgWhy empathy, not necessarily transparency, may be the key to making a trustworthy first impression

It’s your first day at your new job—an outside hire brought in to replace the outgoing manager at a mid-sized paper company. You’ve never met your new employees, most of whom have been working there more than a decade. How do you introduce yourself?

If your first instinct is an aggressive handshake and a no-nonsense statement of your intentions, you may want to think about it. According to social psychologist Amy Cuddy of the Harvard Business School, your new employees are subconsciously judging whether or not they can trust you based not on how competent or even transparent you seem, but by how warm and friendly you are.

“When we form a first impression of another person … we’re judging how … trustworthy the person is and trying to answer the question, ‘What are this person’s intentions toward me?’” Cuddy said in an interview with Wired.

This tendency is a legacy of our earliest ancestors.

“Ancient humans evolved as group-dwelling animals as the most effective response to the challenging environments in which our ancestors lived,” said Dave Winsborough, Hogan’s VP of Innovation and director of HoganX. “We thrived because we joined together to find food, bring down wild game, defend against attack from competing tribes, and share the burdens of child rearing.”

“Trust is … a central part of our ability to survive in complex environments,” wrote Dr. Art Markman, a professor of Psychology at the University of Texas. “When we cooperate, we're able to overcome just about any obstacle. That, of course, takes trust, not just in one another, but in the leaders who organize us.”

That need for trust carries through to modern organizations. People depend on their leaders and employers to have their best interests at heart. This view is confirmed by a large meta-analysis of personality and leader performance, published in the Journal of Applied Psychology, by Dr. Jeff Foster, Hogan vice president of science, and Dr. Blaine Gaddis, senior manager of product research. Gaddis and Foster found a strong correlation between the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI) Interpersonal Sensitivity scale and ratings of trustworthiness.

Interpersonal Sensitivity describes people’s tact, perceptiveness, and their ability to form and maintain relationships. In other words, their ability to read the room and empathise with others. So, how can you seem more empathetic when you first meet someone? By making small talk, according to Cuddy.

“I think people make the mistake, especially in business settings, of thinking that everything is negotiation,” she said in Wired. “They think, ‘I better get the floor first so that I can be in charge of what happens.’ The problem with this is that you don’t make the other person feel warmth toward you. Warmth is really about making the other person feel understood. They want to know that you understand them.

“You can also establish trust by collecting information about the other person’s interests—get them to share things about themselves,” she continued. “Just making small talk helps enormously. Research proves that five minutes of chit-chat before a negotiation increases the amount of value that’s created in the negotiation.”

For more information about how to establish trust with your employees, check out our free ebook, 4 Ways to Build Trust.

Topics: trust

Rethinking Self-Awareness: Freud versus Socrates

Posted by Robert Hogan on Thu, Sep 01, 2016

Most people who are interested in helping others to improve their careers would agree that individual differences in self-awareness impact career outcomes. This talk builds on that agreement by analyzing three topics: (1) How to define self-awareness? (2) Does self-awareness matter? And (3) How to increase self-awareness?

How to Define Self-Awareness? Sigmund Freud is credited with popularizing the notion that people are unaware of the reasons for their actions. According to Freud, social behavior is driven by unconscious forces—motives and desires that are hidden from conscious awareness. Although people can provide explanations for their behavior, these explanations are rationalizations; people act for reasons they don’t understand, and then invent justifications for why they behave as they do.   Although Freud popularized the concept of the unconscious mind, Karl Marx (and later sociologists) also argued that people grow up in particular cultures and social class environments and internalize their local values, and these values subsequently control their lives in unconscious ways. So for both Freud and Marx, people are largely unaware of the reasons for their actions—and these reasons are outside their control. The existentialist philosopher J.P. Sartre contributed to the discussion of self-awareness in two interesting ways. First, he argued that the nature of reality (that our lives have no inherent meaning) is more than most people can bear, so they slide into self-deception and pretend that what they do in their everyday lives has meaning. Second, he argued that people have a moral obligation to face reality squarely—that is, Sartre argued we have a moral duty to become self-aware, to acknowledge the true meaning of what we do and why we do it. Thus, in contrast with Freud and Marx who see us as victims of our self-deception, Sartre argues that we are personally responsible for becoming self-aware.

Now we come to the point of this particular discussion. In the tradition defined by Freud, Marx, and Sartre, self-awareness concerns discovering the unconscious origins of our everyday behavior—i.e., learning why we behave as we do so that we can behave better. They also all agree that we carry out this process of self-discovery by self-reflection or introspection—we look inward and ruminate on our past actions and the possible reasons for them. The view that people achieve self-awareness through self-analysis and introspection is one of those received truths that everyone believes but that isn’t true.  

To be very clear, I am arguing that self-awareness cannot be attained by introspection, and I say this for three reasons. The first reason has to do with the nature of personality; the second reason has to do with the nature of introspection; and the third reason has to do with what Socrates knew and we have forgotten. Starting with the nature of personality, it is important to distinguish identity from reputation. Identity concerns our hopes, dreams, fears, and aspirations; identity concerns the person that we think we are; identity is personality from the actor’s perspective. On the other hand, reputation concerns how others think about and evaluate us as actors; reputation is personality from the observer’s perspective. Identity concerns the person you think you are; reputation concerns the person we think you are. There is the you that you know and there is the you that we know; I would argue that the you that you know (your identity) is hardly worth knowing—because you made it up. More importantly, 100 years of research on identity has gone nowhere. There is no taxonomy, no measurement base, and no reliable generalizations to report. On the other hand, 20 years of research on reputation has been enormously productive: there is a universally accepted taxonomy (the Five-Factor Model), a measurement base, and a vast body of findings. Finally, peoples’ reports on their identity correlate weakly with observer reports: the you that you know is not the you that we know.

Now consider the act of introspection. Who does introspection? Neurotics, psychologists, and my ex-wife. The disposition to introspection is normally distributed. At one end of the distribution are neurotics and psychologists, at the other end of the distribution are people who are incapable of introspecting. The disposition to introspection is normally distributed and being prone to introspection confers no adaptive advantage.   What do the following people have in common: Voltaire, Ulysses S. Grant, Margaret Thatcher, and Ronald Reagan? On the one hand, they are world historical figures; on the other hand, they were incapable of introspection. What can we conclude from that fact? That career success is independent of the capacity for introspection.

Finally, Socrates and the ancient Greeks famously advised “To know thyself”; they recommended self-knowledge as the key to a healthy life. But what did Socrates mean by self-knowledge? He did not mean self-awareness in the Freudian sense of discovering your inner secrets. The Greeks defined self-knowledge as being aware of your personal performance limits and understanding your strengths and shortcomings. And that kind of self-knowledge comes from experience, not introspection.

Does Self-Awareness Matter? Careers evolve during social interaction—everything consequential in careers comes out of or is based on social interactions. Life is one interaction after another, and after each interaction there is an accounting process in which people win or lose a little bit of status and win or lose a little bit of social support. Thus, status and social support are the key outcomes of social interaction. People who are able to accumulate status and social support have good careers; people who are unable to accumulate status and social support have poor careers. People with high status and no social support are at risk for betrayal or worse. People with social support and no status are usually well liked but have no power. Status itself is the result of ambition—i.e., hard work, aspirational values, persistence, and determination. In general I don’t think ambition can be trained. On the other hand, social skill crates social support; self-awareness is a crucial component of social skill; and social skill can, in principle, be trained. Thus self-awareness can be trained.

How to Increase Self-Awareness? The distinction between identity and reputation is crucial for properly understanding self-awareness. Socrates’ insight (and 100 years of research) suggests there is nothing to learn from introspection and self-analysis. But understanding how you are perceived by others (understanding your reputation) is crucial for career success. People hire you, fire you, promote you, trust you, confide in you, loan you money based on how they perceive you. This means that, in an important sense, self-knowledge is other knowledge. We need to know how others perceive us, what we are doing to create those perceptions, and what we should do to make sure our reputation is aligned with our career goals and aspirations. Observer feedback is the key to self-awareness.

Finally, any discussion of feedback should pay attention to the concept of “coachability”. Being receptive to feedback is part of personality and, by definition, there will be individual differences in receptiveness. Some people are willing to listen to feedback, internalize feedback, and try to act in accordance with feedback. Some people, because they are defensive, or arrogant, or unconcerned about improving their performance, totally resist feedback. And most people are somewhere in the middle. I am reminded of a comment by a very experienced executive coach who says the first thing he asks coaching client is to reflect on how much they bullshit themselves about how much they bullshit themselves.

A version of this article was originally published on the International Coach Federation blog.

Topics: feedback, self awareness

Hogan to Speak with Sirota at E-ATP

Posted by Hogan Assessments on Thu, Aug 25, 2016

EATP.pngHogan is pleased to announce that we are speaking at this year’s 2016 Gaining Advantage through Assessment conference hosted by the European Division of the Association of Test Publishers (E-ATP). This year’s conference, to be held 28-30 September at the Penha Longa Resort in Lisbon, Portugal, will focus on assessing and developing lifelong learners.

Don’t miss our presentation, The Dark Side of Engagement - A Better Path to Development presented by Ryan Ross of Hogan and Nick Starritt of Sirota, UK. This session will discuss why disengagement is a worldwide epidemic, why employees are disengaged, and what makes a leader engaging.

The Gaining Advantage through Assessment conference, now in its eighth year, provides a unique learning and networking opportunity for a wide cross-section of professionals working with assessments. To learn more and to register for Gaining Advantage through Assessment, visit the E-ATP website. We hope to see you there.

Topics: conference

Believe Me, Folks

Posted by Hogan Assessments on Tue, Aug 23, 2016

Build_TrustWith both candidates scoring record unfavorable ratings, the next president faces an uphill battle to earn the public’s trust in office.

“Believe me.” For anyone who’s been following the election, this is a familiar phrase. According to an article in the Boston Globe, presidential candidate Donald Trump used that phrase more than 30 times (at a rate 56 times higher than his opponents) during the Republican primary debates, and has continued to lean on it moving into the general election, even managing to pepper it into his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention. Fitting, considering Politifact, a non-profit political fact checking website, rated only 14% of his claims on the campaign trail to be true or mostly true.

Hillary Clinton, for her part, isn’t doing much better. According to a Washington Post-ABC News poll, only 37 percent of people think of her as an honest and trustworthy person. Both candidates are entering the run-up to the general election with double-digit spreads between their favorable and unfavorable ratings. So why do we keep voting for them? Charisma.

“Charisma has long prevailed as one of the most celebrated attributes of leadership,” wrote Hogan CEO Dr. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic. “A global survey evaluating everyday perceptions of leadership across 62 countries identified ‘charismatic’ and ‘inspirational’ as two of the most recurrent attributes linked to leadership."

“Indeed, most people struggle to name a famous leader who does not exude charisma, and after decades of mass-media penetration in worlds as diverse as sports, politics, and business, we seem to have habituated to the idea that leaders are worthless without it.”

It would be hard to argue that Trump or Clinton would have gotten very far without their charismatic personalities. When we talk about charisma, what we’re really referring to the sum of four dark-side personality characteristics measured by the Hogan Development Survey (HDS):

Mischievous: Seeming charming, spontaneous, comfortable taking risks, and circumventing rules to advance their personal agendas.

Colorful: Engaging, outgoing, and skilled at taking credit for group achievements to help them stand out from their peers and get noticed.

Bold: Fearless and self-assured, skilled at overstating their strengths and downplaying their shortcomings, and ruthlessly ambitious.

Imaginative: Creative, often to the point of eccentricity, which can help an individual seem bold and innovative.

Put together, these four characteristics can help people, including political candidates, stand out from their peers and competitors and seem like natural leaders. The problem is, these characteristics also erode the trust of the people around you. And where getting to the top is all about seeming like a leader, staying at the top is all about achieving results via an engaged and effective team.

For politicians, this means an agreeable congress and an engaged public putting pressure on their representatives to vote on way or another. Even as their respective national parties rally around them for the general election, there has been plenty of news in recent days surrounding both candidate’s inability to unify support, and that difficulty is unlikely to magically subside on January 20, 2017.

To find out each candidate could turn their unfavorables around without losing the characteristics that have helped them succeed this far, download our complimentary ebook,4 Ways to Build Trust.

Topics: trust

Hogan X and Know Your Crew Form Partnership to Revolutionize Team Building

Posted by Hogan Assessments on Thu, Aug 11, 2016

We’re excited to announce that Hogan X has formed a strategic partnership with NYC-based Know Your Crew, a tech company using analytics and psychology to optimize and strengthen team relationships. The new partnership aims to advance and revolutionize team building.

As technology continues to evolve and reshape industries across the globe, team building has remained largely unaffected by these technological advances. This prompted the development of Know Your Crew, a platform that integrates team building seamlessly into the workday and measures team dynamics. In combining Know Your Crew’s platform with Hogan’s decades of research and team analytics, both organizations can maximize their strengths to improve the global workforce.

“With so many changes in the workplace and the growing importance of collaboration and remote working, it became clear to us that new tools were necessary to enhance team performance,” says Alison Bloom-Feshbach, Know Your Crew co-founder and CEO. “Current development tools tend to focus on the individual, but the majority of work is the product of a coordinated team.”

Dave Winsborough, who is the head of Hogan X, views this as an opportunity to improve global leadership.

“While we recognize the importance of individual effort, we have long advocated that the hallmark of good leadership is building and sustaining a winning team,” says Winsborough. “The innovative, scalable team-building platform Know Your Crew has built allows leaders to measure their team’s performance while also making it fun.”

With new product offerings expected later this year, the focus of both organizations is centered on the future of team building and leadership performance.

“The world of work is changing rapidly to deal with the faster pace of innovation and increasing globalization,” says Winsborough. “Nearly all worthwhile achievements in human history were the result of a team, which is why smart firms in today’s society are increasingly turning to teams to get business done.”

Topics: teams, teambuilding, teamwork, hogan X

Applying Data-Based Leadership Evaluation Models in ASEAN

Posted by Michael Sanger on Fri, Jul 15, 2016

The following write-up will appear as part of a larger whitepaper to be published by Singapore Management University. For more information, please contact me at

Without effective leaders in place, teams will fail to outperform the competition. When organizational strategies and tactics enter the international stage, cross cultural implications take the spotlight. Examples include international mergers and acquisitions (M&A); State Owned Enterprises (SOE) and Government Linked Corporations (GLC) looking to compete globally; assessment for expatriate and relocation assignments; cross-border contract negotiations; and development of regional managers with cross-country purview. Each of these opportunities brings forth debate around the benefits and drawbacks of a singular versus adaptable leadership assessment model.

Specifically, the cultural variance within Asia introduces especially complex challenges when deriving a data-based model for effective management. Implicit leadership theory posits that people define leadership through their understanding of those already in power. Research shows that a location’s unique cultural, macroeconomic, and political circumstances can influence which characteristics tend to be rewarded by way of talent promotion. That is not to say there are not certain non-negotiable needs for leaders to address.

To be clear, there are universal characteristics indicative of effective leadership. No matter where in the world leaders are assessed, subordinates demand integrity, competence, a record of good judgment, and the ability to craft and articulate a vision. However, when leadership emergence is studied with sound personality metrics, aspects such as appropriate ways of demonstrating one’s motivational drive, preferred communication style, and tolerated derailing behaviors tend to vary by location.

It comes as no surprise we find commonalities as well as key differences in leadership expectations across the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Emotional stability, inclination to proactively communicate, and openness to new experiences tend to see the same levels of saliency in managerial ranks across the world.

However, when we examine levels of agency and conscientiousness (each relating to drive and achievement) as well as agreeableness (indicative of communication style), we find tremendous differences, not only around the globe but also across Asia and within ASEAN. Northeast Asian countries (mainland China, Japan, and South Korea) tend to reward leaders who seek consensus on decisions before moving forward, and drive others through a keen process orientation. Although business negotiation cycles can take longer as a result, once all stakeholders are on board a deal needs to close fast or there is risk of jeopardizing the agreement. Leaders from this part of Asia tend to be prudent and are more focused on potential threats than rewards. They also tend to be comfortable engaging in debate as well as confronting poor performance timely.

In ASEAN markets like Singapore and Malaysia (as well as in places such as India and Hong Kong), leaders who self-initiate and demonstrate flexibility on how to achieve a goal tend to ascend. Characterized by more individualistic leanings, the managerial ranks in these locations are constituted by opportunistic leaders who tend to be ambitious risk takers. Checking in frequently with team members is necessary to compensate for their tendency to change course according to an evolving business landscape; they may overlook the need to ensure others are continuously aligned, and are keeping up with shifting plans. Leaders from these parts of Asia are also inclined to maintain harmony when disagreements arise. Therefore, confrontational debate can feel awkward, and they may try to avoid circumstances that feature conflict, even if it’s constructive. Still, other countries in ASEAN (e.g. Thailand and Indonesia) tend to value organizational leaders who resemble northeast Asia when demonstrating motivational drive; but whose agreeable communication style is more similar to that of their southeast Asian neighbors. With such diverse and nuanced behavioral expectations for local managers, multinational corporations (MNCs) headquartered in Australia, US, or the EU have difficulty deploying a singular framework for leadership evaluation.

Organizations agree that communication effectiveness and motivational drive is a must-have for managers in every business unit location. However, the characteristics that support these perceptions vary. Based on our research into these factors and, given the overwhelming reference to ASEAN's diversity from the CEOs in this study, we recommend local leadership benchmarks and other emergence data (e.g. personality data) be considered before finalizing an international talent management strategy. These data can alert those assembling or mapping corresponding evaluation models to where adverse impact could be expected. Qualitative, theoretical, and empirical data will help to understand where and how such models should be altered, so as to ensure fair and accurate assessment across ASEAN. In order to participate in ASEAN's economic growth story, an organization needs to have a stakeholder model of leadership that can work in concert with this great diversity.

Tomas Visits Colombia Distributor Thuoper

Posted by Hogan Assessments on Thu, Jul 07, 2016

Hogan’s CEO, Dr. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, visited Colombia in June to present a new perspective about leadership in the workplace. He referred to different leadership styles and how they influence business performance of organizations successfully worldwide. 4-1.jpg

Hogan distributor Thuoper Colombia hosted six conferences in Bogota and Medellin where Dr. Chamorro shared interesting insight with more than three hundred leaders from different companies. Dr. Chamorro stated how personality impacts leadership styles. Participants presented experiences and related case studies as well. In addition, they talked about how personal values impact the leadership style. Finally, Dr. Chamorro talked about toxic elements that prevent, or make it harder, to implement an effective leadership. 6_.jpg


Topics: distributors

Subscribe to our Blog