Or, more accurately, is your boss killing you? A study by Everest College showed that more than 80% of Americans are stressed about their jobs, and 75% of people said the most stressful aspect of their job is their immediate boss.

Although most people accept bad bosses as an inevitable part of work, the chronic stress they cause costs companies 105 million lost working days and $300 billion annually. Why do bad bosses stress their employees out so badly, what is the human cost of that stress, and what can we do about it?

Find out in our ebook Stress is Killing You.

As the World Cup kicks off the summer, it also brings out patriotism across the globe. After all, victory at the international level defines the competitiveness of a national sports team. The same rule applies to organizations. In an increasingly globalized business environment, a company’s capacity for global expansion and its performance in local markets define its competitive advantage.

Speaking of entrance into a foreign country, cultural immersion is always the top concern. As an international professional who has spent five years in the U.S., I learned from personal experience what it takes to overcome the cultural barriers.

Growing up in the most globalized city in China where English was taught at the earliest age across the nation, I did not anticipate much challenge living abroad. After all, if I had been a big fan of McDonald’s growing up, had been up-to-date with American TV shows, songs and movies, and most importantly, had proved my 'language skills' through the toughest language test in my world – TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language), what obstacles should I expect?

With that naïve mindset, my first reality shock occurred right after boarding my first international flight, when I could barely understand the safety instructions in English and realized I would be doomed in case of emergency. The anxiety continued after I landed, when I was starved at the airport because I could hardly make myself understood or understand the cashier at McDonald’s (which is also why I still feel proud now every time I order at McDonald’s). To date, I can still remember my first summer class, where I had problem following any group discussions. What about my impeccable TOEFL score? If only my classmates talked like the recorded conversations in TOEFL tests. Besides language barriers, it turned out that the TV shows, songs, and movies imported into China were tailored to the interests of the local audience, whereas there were tons of American culture icons I was unaware of. Life in the U.S. was nothing like I expected.

Now that I have overcome the initial frustrations and have managed to live a life and start a career abroad, the number one lesson I learned is that when it comes to cultural immersion, it is wiser to learn than unlearn. Coming into a new culture with pre-existing biases always costs additional time and efforts because we need to un-bias the false impressions before getting to know the truth. To me, there are still a lot of things I do not know about American culture. But once I learned not to view my overseas experience through colored lenses, I started to appreciate the novelties and challenges I encountered each and every day.

Likewise, the key to an organization’s sustainable global presence is true cultural awareness through humble learning. Having a history of partnership with global distributors in over 56 countries, Hogan demonstrates true cultural awareness by adopting a learner’s mindset. Not only do we build trusting relationships with local distributors who are familiar with our assessment tools and experienced with the local business environment, but also we invite translators who are fluent in English and the target language, have a psychological background (e.g., experience working with personality characteristics and measurement), and are well acquainted with both American culture and the target culture to translate our assessments and reports based on both literal meanings and cultural adaptations. Most importantly, Hogan develops global and local norms and regularly updates those based on industry standards to ensure accurate interpretation of our assessment results in each cultural context. Through these evidence-based solutions, we are able to learn the cultural nuances and be mindful of those differences when working with international or multi-national clients.

With the emergence of a borderless economic world, organizations face the new challenge of going global or going home. Those that are willing to invest in continuous learning will be better prepared to truly understand the local market and win the global competition.

Well it’s officially summer – purveyor of fun in the sun, snow cones, and vacation. Oh, and the summer workday slump. Have you found yourself perusing more pop news sites, taking more Buzzfeed quizzes, and streaming the World Cup behind your Excel spreadsheets?

Turns out, you’re not the only one. In his Management Today blog, Dr. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic sites some pretty interesting statistics about online leisure activity and work: “A recent survey by the National Bureau of Economic Research asked people a very simple question: 'What are you not doing when you are online?' The most common answer, by far, was 'working' - 35%, compared with 15% for 'watching TV', 12% for 'sleeping', and 4% for 'relaxing and thinking'.”

“If this is true,” he continues, regarding the 35% who would be working, “there are two potential implications. The first is that people are a lot less productive than they could be...The second - alternative - explanation is that most employees are spending more time at work than needed.”

So we get to choose between the possibilities that work suffers – imagine the benefits of a 35% increase in productivity – or leisure time suffers.

“Indeed, if online leisure time does not harm productivity, then why pay people to spend that time at work?” says Chamorro-Premuzic.

Unfortunately, there may be a more serious issue underlying our online leisure habits. “Online leisure time makes work - or at least being at work - less boring. So, ironically, the very activity that serves as a coping mechanism for the underlying boringness of work keeps them at the job for longer than needed,” says Chamorro-Premuzic.

So maybe we should start asking ourselves, is our newly acquired Facebook addiction a result of a summer slump or a bored cry for help?

“A great man once said, everything is about sex. Except sex. Sex is about power.” –Frank Underwood, House of Cards, #1.9

In modern socioanalytic theory, we like to focus on how we depart from Freud in our thinking. To Freud, everything was motivated by sex. To us, everything is motivated by status and power. Although we have to agree to disagree with the ghost of Freud on that one, lately I’ve been thinking he was onto something.

We face the constant over-sexualization of women in every aspect of modern life, from the media’s obsession with women’s appearances, to sexism in the workplace, to blatant rape culture. The vortex of attention on women’s appearances, bodies, and sexuality is so consuming and so seductive that even women talk about other women like they’re animals. Can we stop talking about Hillary Clinton’s hair? Seriously. 

The oversexualization of women is rampant, and it’s hard to believe it’s not linked to women’s anemic presence at the executive levels. 

Oh, Freud, late have I loved you.

You were right, Freud, it is all about sex, because sex is a proxy.
An excuse.
A distraction. 
A Trojan horse.

Sex is a proxy for power. If we denigrate women sexually in the workplace, we aim to take away their power. It’s a diversion for the real issue: the crisis of power being in the hands of women. 

Fascinatingly, when we look at women’s leadership derailers against men’s, we see two major trends. Women are much more dutiful, which means they defer to authority more and assert their opinions less. Women are also much less mischievous, the Machiavellian tendency, which means they don’t go pushing their own agendas. Women are conditioned to relinquish power, instead of taking it when deserved. Our constant belittling, sexualizing, and demeaning goes so far as to impact women’s personalities on a mass scale.

So think before you talk about one of your female colleagues, before you criticize someone’s appearance in front of your daughter (or, more importantly, your son), and before you click on an article about celebrity bikini bodies and give Us Weekly some ad revenue.

Do yourself a favor: get educated. You can start here.

Recent pop personality quizzes such as those found on BuzzFeed make light of our fascination with personality and the practicality of self-awareness. While these may be fun coffee break activities, they don’t warrant much in terms of scientific feedback and tend to give personality tests a bad rap in a professional setting. When I explain my job to my friends, they’re always amazed that personality is measurable. In a recent Forbes’ article, Dr. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic defends seven “common arguments against the use of personality tests in the workplace.”

People can fake their answers
Well, in the first place, “when tests are adequately designed,” says Chamorro-Premuzic, “it is not easy to guess what different questions assess, or how different answers will be interpreted, making deliberate manipulation quite ineffective…Second, good tests not only allow for a certain degree of dishonesty – they actually encourage it.” We all want to present a favorable image when interviewing or talking about ourselves which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Those that fudge the lines of truth a bit could just be demonstrating their knowledge of social etiquette and behavior. “In short,” says Chamorro-Premuzic, “people may try to fake, but they are generally not smart enough to fool good psychometric tests – and if they are, they should be hired anyway.”

Tests are inaccurate
“Yet 50-years of psychological research show that self-perceptions are inaccurate and inflated, as our unconscious desire to feel good about ourselves – our optimism bias – is much more powerful than our enthusiasm for reality,” counters Chamorro-Premuzic. “In line,” he continues, “the accuracy of scientific personality tests does not depend on the degree to which scores align with test-takers’ self-perceptions, but on the tests’ ability to predict respondents’ actual behavior: what they do, rather than how they think of themselves.”

Personality changes from situation to situation
While your behavior may change depending on the situation, your personality doesn’t. It is your personality that “affects and predicts how you are likely to behave in different situations,” explains Chamorro-Premuzic.

Tests are unfair
It’s true that some people do better than others on personality tests, but, “when those differences in performance are actually related to job potential (e.g., a person’s ability to sell insurance, drive a bus, or manage a winning team), then surely it would be more unfair to hire the weaker candidates,” says Chamorro-Premuzic.

Tests are reductionist and “pigeonhole” people
Actually, people are reductionist and “pigeonhole” people through stereotypes. “Personality tests focus on generic patterns of thought, action and behavior. They are therefore color blind and gender neutral, as well as unrelated to a person’s educational or socioeconomic background,” claims Chamorro-Premuzic.

Tests are intrusive and pick up private abnormalities
“Scientific tests comply with strict ethical standards and national laws for both research and practice,” explains Chamorro-Premuzic, “and their administration requires the test-taker’s consent and involves a transparent exchange with the test-taker (unlike, for example, in the case of big data and social analytics), who is usually provided with some feedback after completing the test.

Success depends on context, so how can you give the same test to everyone?
While every job is somewhat different, “successful employees tend to be more or less similar everywhere,” says Chamorro-Premuzic.

If you want an expanded version of this blog, check out the original post on Forbes.

I don’t know about you, but whenever I have a tough decision to make and no reasoning tools at my disposal, I tend to do one of two things: 1) eeny, meeny, miny, mo; or 2) go with my gut (otherwise known as intuition).

While these two methods have served me well in the past when choosing a chocolate bar over skittles or picking a light blue over a slightly lighter blue shirt to buy, I can’t imagine using a nursery rhyme when it comes to something as important as hiring. And yet, some managers use such arbitrary techniques to find new talent and promote internally.

“Unsurprisingly, most people overestimate their intuitive powers, much like they overestimate their sense of humour, creativity, and sex appeal,” writes Dr. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic in a recent Forbes article. Just because someone flashes a smile during an interview and says all the right things, doesn’t mean they’ll be a good fit for the job. In other words, it’s not enough to rely purely on intuition.

Fortunately, intuition during the selection process can be a skill when it is informed by good data, such as validated personality assessment results. “In line,” continues Chamorro-Premuzic, “purely intuitive managers may face extinction only if they ignore the valuable information provided by data. At the same time, those managers who are capable of data-driven intuition will remain in demand, and increasingly so.”

In conclusion, Chamorro-Premuzic asserts that “modern management calls for leaders who are logical, empirical, and intuitive. They must have both IQ and EQ and question their own judgment by remaining humble and maintaining their ingenuity.” So, go with your gut! But make sure it’s well informed.

This workshop provides a comprehensive tutorial on three Hogan inventories – Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI); Hogan Development Survey (HDS); and Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI). Participants attending both days and successfully completing the workshop will be certified to use the Hogan inventories.

The workshop includes all materials, continental breakfasts, lunches, and snacks. Hogan has contracted with the Hyatt Regency Denver Tech Center for a group rate of $153 per night. When booking your accommodations, ask for Hogan’s corporate rate. Please book your room quickly, as it expires July 14, 2014 or when the block is filled.

This program has been approved for 13 (General) recertification credit hours toward PHR, SPHR, ad GPHR recertification through the HR Certification Institute. This program has also been approved by the International Coach Federation for 13 Continuing Education units.

Every group I speak to about identity vs. reputation, it seems, contains at least some people who are outraged by the notion that, at Hogan, we focus on reputation while ignoring identity. I think I have heard cries of “Witch!”  “Scofflaw!”  “Heretic!”  “Hotdog!”  from the back of some conference rooms (OK, I might have heard that last one at a baseball game) when I have stated that we focus on making predictions on the basis of one’s reputation, and that we really don’t care so much about trying to make predictions (about job performance, potential, etc.) from one’s identity. Given the outrage that statement produces from some people, I thought it might be useful to clarify 3 points here for those clinging to the notion that identity is the most important—or only—thing to study about the individual if you want to make predictions about the workplace.

The first reason Hogan focuses on reputation is that it is well-understood and easy to study. After all, at Hogan, we like to save time at the end of the day for happy hour, so why not use time efficiently by focusing on phenomena that are scientifically observable, well-researched, and well-understood, rather than spending time on issues like identity, for which there is no measurement base and no consistent measurement taxonomy despite about 100 years of discussion and research. When the Big 5 emerged 60 years or so ago, the study of personality changed; modern views of the structure personality start with the Big 5, or the structure of personality from the observer’s point of view, rather than starting from one’s identity. Using identity as a starting point for studying personality in the workplace at this point in history would be akin to the modern medicine using the medieval diagnostic technique of discerning imbalances in the 4 bodily humours. 

Second, let us assume for a moment that you don’t believe in science as a method for problem solving, so our focus on using science is disturbing to you. It’s important to note that science is not a belief system, so you might as well state that you do not believe in dominos or concrete. Science is a method for problem solving, whether you believe it or not. Moreover, the fact that you believe that you are dashingly handsome, ravishingly beautiful, and the smartest guy or gal in the room (aka, your identity) hasn’t exactly resulted in members of the opposite sex beating down your door, now has it? So perhaps belief shouldn’t be the standard by which you make judgments about science. Science is not a belief system, and the science used in personality psychology is the same as the science used to send a person to the moon; both use the same scientific methodology and the same standards of verifiability, neither of which is subject to belief.

Third, even if we assume for a moment that your disbelief in science nullifies all of the research that leads us to focus on reputation vs. identity, there is a practical matter that you would be wise not to overlook, and it is perhaps the clearest reason why one would want to focus on personality defined as reputation. Please answer true or false to the following questions:

1. Someone other than me decided whether I would be hired into my current role.
2. Someone other than me decides how my performance will be evaluated.
3. Someone other than me decides who will agree to date and/or marry me.
4. Someone other than me decides whether I will get a promotion.

Scoring and interpretation (count each “True” answer as 1 point)       

• If you scored 4 Points, you now understand why reputation is superordinate for study in the workplace and identity is not; all consequential decisions in life involving other people are based on who they think you are, not who you think you are.
• If you scored <4 points – you may be self-employed and lonely, independently wealthy and lonely, or schizophrenic and lonely.
• As a practical matter, other people make and act on decisions about you all day every day—and those are based on your reputation, not on your identity. Given the importance of reputation, don’t you want to understand something about it?

Emotional intelligence, or EQ, is the ability to identify and manage your own and others’ emotions. While this is important in any business, it is especially integral in the healthcare industry.

Other than better bedside manner, what does EQ have to do with medical care, you may ask? According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, 40% of patients who unexpectedly returned after an initial primary care visit had been misdiagnosed, and almost 80% of the misdiagnoses were tied to problems in doctor-patient communication.

That’s not okay.

Considering the typical doctor’s office visit involves 15 minutes or less with a physician, it isn’t surprising that communication is a problem. Unfortunately, the U.S. faces a growing shortage of primary care physicians, so 15-minute interactions are likely to remain the norm.

So, how can doctors improve patient communication within such limited interaction? By upping their EQ. A study published in Academic Medicine showed that as doctor’s attention to feelings, empathetic concern, and degree of perspective taking – all factors of EQ – increased, so did the quality of doctor-patient communication.

Needless to say, increased communication can lead to better patient outcomes as well as fewer malpractice lawsuits. A study published in the American Journal of Medicine compared physicians’ patient satisfaction survey scores with unsolicited complaints and risk management episodes. It found that, compared to doctors in the highest third of patient satisfaction, doctors in the middle third had 26% higher rates of malpractice lawsuits, and patients in the lowest third had 110% higher rates. What a difference!

Higher EQ also leads to better handoffs and transitions between shifts and departments as well as better healthcare leaders. Learn more and find out what techniques coaches can employ for more emotionally intelligent (and safer) healthcare workers.