While participating at the Human Resource People & Strategy conference in New York last month, I attended a session on generational differences in the workplace of the future. The presenter, Jeanne Meister, presented on the unique conditions that the workplace of the near future will create: Specifically, by 2020 there will be five generations working together in the U.S. economy. Due to the anticipated delayed retirement of our aging workforce, by 2020 the US will see Traditionalists, Baby Boomers, Generation X, Generation Y, and Generation Z attempting to peacefully coexist in the same workforce.

As a warm-up exercise, presenter Jeanne Meister asked a real-time poll question to see the generational spread of her audience. The poll question used audience response technology that prompted respondents to answer the question by texting their answers. A bar chart appeared up on the projector with a column for each of the five generations that updated audience responses in real time. We watched as the Generation Y bar spiked rapidly, towering over the rest. Within 15 seconds, Generation X had dwarfed Y on the chart and the Baby Boomers took the rightful lead soon after. Several minutes later, Jeanne was carrying on with her presentation as the Traditionalists bar was still slowly growing on the chart behind her as they figured out how to enter their responses via text.

This was a well-timed example of some of the differences that exist between the generations. The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that Millennials will overtake the majority representation in the workforce by 2015. This statistic seemed to grip the room with intense fear of the hyper-connected, over-entitled twenty-somethings getting ready to take their offices and boardrooms by storm. The well-publicized stereotypes for Millennials include attention-seeking, impatience, and needing constant, immediate feedback.

However Jeanne communicated a message of optimism rather than fear: she emphasized the need to understand each generation more fully to better attract, recruit, and retain multi-generational talent. Not just in terms of actively creating an organizational culture that will be attractive for younger generations, but also in terms of understanding what it will take to keep all five generations engaged and on board in tomorrow’s organizations. Although Millennials are currently in the spotlight, I agree with Jeanne that it will be crucial to fully understand differences between all of the generations in terms of how they think, what they want/value, and what skills gaps exist between them.

Although there is much debate and disagreement on what criteria delineates each generation, the loose definitions below will serve our purposes:

As we consider the impact of the future generational landscape, we often talk in terms of personality descriptors and other character-based labels, such as confident, entitled, and social. Research indicates that while personal values may differ based on age, culture, and other demographics, personality is partially genetic and is an individual-level phenomenon. Attempts to personify an entire generation based on behaviors from a small sampling are problematic for more than one reason. Characterizing generations based on defining events (i.e., the great depression), expectations (i.e., immediacy vs. delayed gratification), and environmental factors (i.e., technology/innovation) makes much more sense. It should not be surprising that the generation that suffered through the depression might have a different outlook than the generation that put the first man on the moon. Nor should it shock us that the generation that is currently being brought up on the Internet and technology consumes information differently than the generation brought up on books and newspapers.

It seems there would be more to learn about how these people can work effectively together, rather than focusing solely on the differences or making sweeping statements about how they are similar or distinct.

I recently listened to a talk given by Greg Barnett, one of Hogan’s veteran consultants and our Director of Product Development, about the importance of defining a strong leadership brand. The concept of an individual leadership brand departs from our conventional understanding of branding from an organizational standpoint. For example, consider the brand that Apple computers has created; the exemplars of innovation, elegant simplicity, and sleek, modern, technology. Now consider the individual leadership brand that Steve Jobs created – in many ways, his personality embodies many of the same qualities of Apple’s brand – Jobs is hailed as an innovative, creative genius who changed the world with his brilliance and innovation. Even his physical image aligned with Apple’s brand – sleek, simple, and timeless with a modern slant.

So, what does a strong leadership brand get you? To cite Barnett, developing a strong leadership brand can earn friends, fans, and followers – and not just the kind you get on Facebook or Twitter. It defines your identity and distinctiveness, communicates what value you bring to the table, and provides focus and direction to guide leadership efforts. It also insulates you from your shortcomings and mistakes.

A strong, consistent brand creates a kind of umbrella, so-to-speak, that defines you as a leader and makes your day-to-day actions (and blunders) less relevant. For example, consider the legacy left behind by Bill Clinton; despite his well-publicized lapses in judgment and abuse of political power, he remains a beloved American president who is remembered for leading our nation through one of the most prosperous decades in U.S. History. Although President Clinton withstood some harsh criticism and mockery, his overall image, strong leadership brand, and arguably his charm, helped cushion these blows and preserve his overall reputation and contributions in the hearts, minds, and history books of the American people. By contrast, Howard Dean’s brand image was not strong enough to save him from his “I have a scream…” speech, which sealed his fate forever as a volatile lunatic unfit for presidential office.

However, no matter how magnetic, impactful, or authentic the leadership brand, all human beings have a dark side – a kind of shadow that follows you around, lurking in the peripheral, with the potential to emerge in times of stress, pressure, novelty, or boredom. This is what Hogan refers to as leadership derailment, wherein our personality characteristics betray us, degrade our success, and generally send us on a fast train to nowhere. Our shadow is particularly dangerous because it tends to lie beyond the reach of our awareness, but is highly apparent to those around us.

In the wake of Jobs’ premature passing, his strong leadership brand permits his fans and followers to remember him fondly for his brilliant contributions to the world, his insistence on quality, and the legacy he leaves behind him at Apple. Nobody is highlighting his failures, setbacks, or well-known dark side. Well, almost nobody…

In a scathing post-mortem commentary titled What Everyone is Too Polite to Say About Steve Jobs, Gawker’s Ryan Tate points out some elements of Steve Jobs’ shadow. Some have described him as a ruthless tyrant who inspired fear among his ranks with his hostility, unpredictable temperament, humiliation tactics, and harsh censorship practices. Yet, in the aftermath of Jobs’ death, he is still heralded as a prodigy, a strategic genius, and a gifted innovator who changed the technological landscape forever. Only history will be able to tell us which version of Jobs lives in the collective public memory – the genius, or his shadow? Was his brand strong enough to fend off the smudge that his shadow left on an otherwise pristine career?

In listening to Greg’s talk, he posed some powerful questions that are still rattling around persistently in my own head many days later: What defines your leadership brand? What do you stand for? What do people say about you when you’re not around?

People have a difficult time answering these questions honestly because human beings are masters of self-deception. Our clever minds and defensive egos do a phenomenal job of protecting us from the truth, as do the people around us who shield us from the painful reality that we are not perfect. We receive feedback from our peers and loved ones in the form of sugar-coated rubber bullets that contain a shred of truth, but do little to help us become truly self-aware.

It is worth reflecting on the unintended consequences that your shadow can have on your brand reputation and ultimate success. If you get to know your shadow, you arm yourself with the self-awareness needed to manage your dark side, prevent derailment, and create a true leadership brand that is authentic, high-quality, and differentiates you from others.
 

A virtual debate in the business blogosphere has been growing more and more heated over the past several weeks and months.  It appears the debate began with a May 17th New York Times article that quoted Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s illustrious CEO, as saying, “Someone who is exceptional in their role is not just a little better than someone who is pretty good. They are 100 times better.”  Although difficult to follow at first, Zuckerberg’s argument is that a brilliant individual is 100 times more valuable than a mediocre team.  His statement reflects a new strategy in the War on Talent that many have also begun to adopt.  According to the Times article, many of the giants in Silicon Valley are so desperate for fresh talent they have resorted to purchasing entire companies simply to acquire the gifted entrepreneurs, engineers, and programmers that created and comprise them.  This new practice has been dubbed “acqhiring,” and is becoming more common in industries where the competition for talent is fierce and requires more benefits, dazzling incentives, and creative ways to attract the best and brightest.

Zuckerberg’s thoughts are not shared by all, however.  In a rebuttal of sorts, HBR blogger Bill Taylor posted a piece of his mind called Great People Are Overrated on June 20th, in which he questions the practice of placing all of the eggs in a single, metaphorical basket.  Taylor warns his readers about the dangers of putting too much emphasis on “star players” and underestimating the power of an effective team.  In simpler terms, the quarterback cannot win the game alone, but the entire second string playing as a team may have a fighting chance; or at least they would in a heartwarming Hollywood blockbuster.  In our desperation to retain top talent, are those of us in talent management becoming overly focused on star-power and losing sight of what actually drives performance?  Taylor also points out that most talent decisions would not realistically involve a choice between one exceptional person and 100 mediocre people.  However, if forced to make the choice what would you decide?

Adding to the web debate is fellow HBR blogger Jeff Stibel, CEO of Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp.  Stibel responded directly to Taylor on June 27th with his blog, Why a Great Individual Is Better Than a Good Team.  He not only agrees with Zuckerberg, but takes it one step further by saying that a great individual is worth an infinite number of average people.  Why?  Stibel claims that our cognitive functioning breaks down in group settings, and that the value of an individual contributor declines with each additional team member working on a single idea or project.  He likens his argument to the economic law of diminishing returns, or – more simply put – too many cooks in the kitchen will spoil the broth.

Evaluating both sides of this argument from a psychologist’s perspective, I propose another point of view.  As with all matters involving human beings, we cannot place too much or too little emphasis on the importance of individual differences in our talent management philosophy.  The dynamics of human interaction, team performance, and individual effectiveness are far too complex to be reduced to sports metaphors or culinary idioms.  It is very easy to cull up images of the brilliant artist, boy genius, or start-up entrepreneur who works best as a “lone wolf,” locked up in an office or studio with nothing more than their ideas and their IQ points.  For these individuals, perhaps it is possible to claim that an individual is better than a team.  These salient examples, however intriguing they are, do not define the global workforce or talent pool that we are currently facing.  Today’s effective organizations need dreamers and doers, leaders and team players, and generally rely on the cooperation and coordination of many. 

Jeff Stibel’s argument is somewhat lost on me for a few reasons.  First, individual differences matter.  For every person who works better alone, there is at least one person who thrives on social interaction, gains energy from working in teams, and feels motivated by opportunities to collaborate.  Behind every brilliant program or idea developed by a software genius is a person or team who knows how to actually market the product, balance the books, manage the necessary resources, etc.  Second, organizational performance cannot be determined by calculating the arithmetic sum of each individual contributor’s brilliance, ability, or creativity.  Rather, organizational performance is determined by the extent to which individuals can effectively perform together as a team.  Finally, taking into account individual differences and team dynamics, success will also depend on the quality of leadership, which ideally provides a compelling vision, adequate resources, and the strategic direction necessary to maximize the talent within an organization.

The debate rages on – see Taylor’s Great People Are Overrated (Part II).  However, it seems that all parties agree that the War on Talent is a reality, and that continued organizational success depends on the ability to attract, retain, and perhaps even “acqhire” top talent.  My opinion diverges from the debate based on a belief that neither the individual nor the team is sufficient to guarantee organizational success.  A much more complex formula governs the outcomes we care about in today’s talent landscape and informs where we decide to funnel our resources.  The final statement in Stibel’s blog is one I absolutely agree with: “One decision is easy: find the best people and empower them to do great things.” 

I recently flipped on the news to find Donald Trump on an episode of CNN’s State of the Union with Candy Crowley discussing the fact that he has risen to a top contender in the polls for the next republican presidential nominee.

Why is Donald Trump considering a presidential bid in the 2012 election? When asked, he replied, “I wish I didn't have to do it. I would prefer not doing it. But I love this country…I will tell you, I am giving it serious, serious thought.”

I was immediately struck by the boldness of this statement – it was his obligation to save America from itself, and the US would simply be lost without his guidance. He would prefer not to be president, but his undying love for the red, white, and blue has driven him to seriously, seriously consider taking office.

Trump is well known for his bravado – he refers to himself as “The Donald” – but these statements take it to a whole new level.

After the interview ended, I did some more research and learned that Trump spoke at an April 16 Tea Party rally in Boca Raton, Florida. There, he elaborated on this boldness, suggesting that his superior business skills qualify him to run one of the most powerful countries in the world: "We need people that win. We don't need people that lose all the time. I've beaten many people and companies, and I've won many wars. I...earned many, many billions of dollars. It's both a scorecard and an acknowledgment of certain abilities.”

In an ABC interview, Trump quipped, "Part of the beauty of me is that I'm very rich…That's a huge advantage. I must tell you, that's a huge advantage over the other candidates.”

When asked about how he measures up to potential opponent Mitt Romney, he replied, "I have a much bigger net worth… I'm a much bigger businessman. I mean my net worth is many, many, many times Mitt Romney's."

In these statements, Trump reveals an intensely competitive nature, a hunger for power and status, and a viewpoint that promotes financial success as a way to keep score. He also demonstrates a belief that emphatically repeating or restating your words is an effective influence tactic. Many, many, many times more effective than his opponents’ techniques.

Hogan enthusiasts and coaches are already mentally plotting Trump’s scores on his hypothetical HDS Challenge Report. I am willing to wager that Trump would score high on the derailment scales of Mischievous, Imaginative, Bold, and Colorful…in ascending order. This is what we at Hogan refer to as the “Charismatic Cluster” of scores commonly found in leadership profiles. The positive behaviors associated with these scales involve seeming daring, visionary, confident, and energetic – characteristics that make a person seem leader-like and influential. Taken to the extreme, these scales take on a negative quality, resulting in a tendency to be impulsive, unpredictable, arrogant, and dramatic – characteristics that are distinctly Trump-like.

To be fair, The Donald isn’t the only one who exhibits these characteristics. In fact, these descriptors may apply to many of the politicians and celebrities that stand out in history. The characteristics that make them impactful and memorable are often the same ones that make them destructive and infamous.
 

Apple CEO and co-founder Steve Jobs recently announced that he will take yet another medical leave of absence with an unspecified return date. His announcement was followed by much discussion and debate about when and whether he will return. This news re-awakened the debate among worried stockholders and industry analysts who are sweating out the question of whether or not the Sultan of Silicon Valley can be replaced. As reported by the LA Times, Apple’s shares fell 6.45% immediately after markets opened the day following Jobs’ announcement. Consequently, stockholders are putting the pressure on the board to publicize a succession plan. Why the sudden iPanic? Many believe that Jobs’ vision and innovation is integral to the success and brand image of Apple, and that he simply cannot be replaced. Admittedly, Jobs’ uncanny ability to predict, or even create, market demand for consumer technology products has catapulted Apple to undeniable success over the years. So the question remains – can Jobs be replaced?

Jobs’ announcement got me thinking about the problems inherent to succession management, and some recent industry research that has shed some light on the issue. In a December 2010 research report published by Towers Watson, a survey of over 700 global companies indicated that the top two workforce challenges facing businesses today are (1) loss of talent in key positions and (2) lack of succession planning/management. An online survey from the American Management Association of over 1,000 senior managers and executives revealed that only 14% of respondents reported being “well-prepared” for a sudden loss of the organization’s key leaders. In addition, 61% reported being “somewhat prepared”, while one in five admitted to being completely “unprepared.”

After reflecting on the realities of this issue, the public clamoring for Apple to release a succession plan seemed misguided in a few ways. First, what the stockholders seem to actually want in reality is a successor to be named, which is far from establishing a true succession plan. Identifying a successor or even a pool of successors is only a fraction of the battle. What is more important is the need to develop the talent by exposing them to relevant experiences, training activities, or other developmental opportunities. For example, Jobs designated Apple COO Tim Cook to step up to the plate during his first medical leave of absence. Jobs remained involved in major strategic decisions, while Cook oversaw daily operations. Business seemed to go smoothly during Cook’s time in charge. This certainly qualifies as relevant experience, and the truth may be that Jobs and his team are indeed grooming several high-potentials internally at Apple in preparation for Jobs’ eventual retirement. However, a quote from Cook published in Forbes magazine reads, "Come on, replace Steve? No. He's irreplaceable."

Second, succession planning is a long-term, organization-wide initiative. It takes time, considerable planning, and an overall talent management strategy to function properly. For example, the downstream effects of each staffing event must be considered – for every promotion or transition, a well-developed talent pool should be prepared at each subsequent level. If it turns out that Cook is the apple of Job’s eye, a successor must also be prepped and ready to take over Cook’s responsibilities to ensure a smooth transition.

Third, succession planning requires defining what constitutes exceptional performance within each key leadership level, and then finding the talent that will fit the bill. For example, Jobs is celebrated for his creativity, relentless attention to detail, and keen eye for aesthetic appeal. Hogan might measure these characteristics using the Inquisitive, Prudence, and Aesthetic scales. He is also known for his charisma, mischievous business strategies, and ability to convey effective and persuasive messages. Jobs and Cook both share a passion for the Apple brand and a tendency to make extremely bold statements on record. By contrast, Cook is not known as a compelling public speaker, is not seen as a visionary, and does not wear the signature black turtleneck. He is the unflappable operations specialist with a logical mind and an engineering background, and does not spend much time on the creative side of the house. Jobs is an intense, creative mastermind whose vision and aesthetic focus guides all aspects of the product design process. The conundrum of succession planning is that plucking an operations master from his perch and placing him in the chief executive chair often means you lose a great COO and gain a mediocre CEO. Would naming Cook as the successor simply be a case of going after low-hanging fruit? Is comparing Jobs to Cook as useful as comparing apples to oranges?

But seriously folks, all pomological puns aside, the succession planning issue is a relevant one, and personality plays a key role in the ability to effectively fill the holes in the talent pipeline. Cook obviously has talent and a strong track record. However, having the right mix of skills, experiences, and innate personality characteristics provide the necessary foundations for making an effective succession decision. However ambiguous the succession planning issue, one thing is certain: whoever eventually becomes Jobs’ successor will undoubtedly have big New Balance 992’s to fill.