Developed in partnership by Denison Consulting and Hogan, the Denison Leadership Potential Report (DLPR) is a new product that provides a statistically valid prediction of leadership potential. This is accomplished by aligning an individual’s inherent leader attributes—as measured by Hogan assessment tools—to the twelve leadership competencies defined by the Denison Leadershhip Development Model.

The DLPR is generated from responses to the Hogan Personality Inventory, the Hogan Development Survey, and the Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory and depicts an individual’s potential to exhibit each of the twelve Denison leadership competencies based on his/her personality and values. Competencies are scored as either excellent, high, moderate or low potential and are grouped into the four traits of the Denison Model.

Read more and view a sample report

Mornings aren’t my favorite thing, and the morning these events transpired was particularly early and particularly hot, which meant that I was in a particularly crappy mood.

So, on the way to work, I stopped by my neighborhood Starbucks for a venti iced mood elevator with no sweetener and no room for cream. When I went to reach for my wallet, however, all I found was an empty back pocket. Damn.

Just as I was about to admit total defeat, turn my car around and crawl back into bed, the dear, sweet barista behind the counter smiled, handed me my drink, and said, “It’s on us.”

I walked out smiling.

Altruism, as measured by the Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory, is defined as a desire to serve others, improve society, help the less fortunate, and make the world a better place to live. Does that describe every dreadlock-sporting hippy you met in college? Probably. But it also describes a customer service superstar.

Consider this: that barista could have let me cancel my order and walk out the door. It wouldn’t have stopped me from going back to Starbucks in the future. Instead, she recognized that I was having a bad day, made a kind gesture, and now I’m here telling you about it.

Are you getting ready to head home for Thanksgiving and wondering how successful your reunion at the local bar with friends will be? You’re in luck! Just in time, I have returned to provide the third and final installment of this series on the physical attractiveness of your personality. To bring you up to speed, you can read Part I and Part II. Part I revealed that people, in general, are perceived to be physically attractive when they are seen as friendly, attention-seeking, and altruistic networkers. In Part II we learned that the story changes a bit when we are judging the attractiveness of men and women separately.

Specifically, women are found more attractive when they are charismatic, attention-seeking team players, while attractive men are unassuming team players. In this installment, we will be examining the pattern of results when separating the genders of both the target and the rater. Because of the complexity of these 2x2 analyses, I will start by providing a table that displays all of the significant predictors of physical attractiveness by target and rater, in descending order of predictive power. This should be particularly useful for those of you who speak Hoganese. You can also check out the Physically Attractive Profiles based on relationships between Hogan scores and ratings of physical attractiveness.

Once again, there is an overall finding worth note. Far and away, personality has a much stronger relationship with physical attractiveness when we are evaluating the same sex than when judging the opposite sex. There were twenty significant predictors (scales) related to physical attractiveness in same-sex pairings (males rating males and females rating females), but only six for opposite-sex pairings. As we get further into the specific gender pairings, it will become more apparent that the conclusions I have drawn in the past two parts of this series were being primarily driven by this stronger role of personality in same-sex pairings. If it is true that personality predicts attractiveness less in opposite-sex pairings and if we presume that the majority of this sample is heterosexual, as is found in the general population, these results may indicate that we tend to largely separate looks from personality when evaluating potential mates. When evaluating the attractiveness of peers, personality plays a much greater role. Does this mean that we can be more objective about the physical attractiveness of potential mates than of gender peers? It would be interesting to see if this pattern is replicated within an exclusively homosexual population – is it a gender or “love” effect?

Now let’s get into what makes men appear more attractive. There was only one characteristic that men and women agreed upon when it came to evaluating men; they both don’t care for the cynical, mistrusting types (a negative correlation for HDS Skeptical). Trust is apparently an important characteristic in determining the attractiveness of men, which makes particular sense for a woman who will find it unattractive when a man constantly doubts her intentions and actions. But how do we reconcile that people tend to find females more attractive when they are more mischievous in nature (as revealed in Part 2)? So we are more attracted to somewhat manipulative women who will keep us guessing, but then they don’t like it when we are skeptical of their ways? This is one interpretation but it could also be that the more unattractive parts of Skeptical turning both men and women off are the tendencies to be critical and argumentative, and it is clear to see the reasons for that. What is also interesting is that Skeptical has almost no relationship with attractiveness in women, regardless of who is evaluating them. We are tolerant of criticism, cynicism, and mistrust in women, but it is a major turn-off in men.

In addition to Skeptical, women are also not particularly fond of men who are emotionally volatile (Excitable) and party-boys (Hedonism). Taken together, these findings dispute the belief that women are attracted to the “bad boy” type. If that exists, it is likely a minority. It is also peculiar to note that none of the HPI scales was a significant predictor of male attractiveness through women’s eyes. This indicates that a man’s normal day-to-day behavior does not really interact with perceptions of a man’s good looks. I am having difficulty getting my head around this, but does this finding contradict the common convention that women’s interest in men is greatly affected by their personalities, wherein an objectively attractive female can love an unattractive man as long as he has a “good” personality? Or is it that the female is still attracted to and interested in the man, perhaps as a mate, even if she is not physically attracted to him?

Personality has the strongest relationship with physical attractiveness for men rating other men. As seen in the table above, there were seven positive and six negative correlations. The strongest predictor was Aesthetics, indicating that men find the creative, artistic types most attractive. Summarizing across so many dimensions can be difficult, but it would appear that men find other men attractive when they are creative and caring team players with big personalities that command attention but aren’t in it just for themselves. Men appear to take umbrage with other men who are quietly arrogant, more guarded, less transparent, micromanaging, and overly concerned with financial matters. It paints a picture of someone who is critical and judgmental of others but not forthcoming with their own ideas and intentions. Sounds like a great boss, doesn’t it?

Let us now move our attention to the ladies. There was no overlap in significant predictors of attractiveness of females by male and female raters; men and women do not seem to agree in what makes a hot personality. From men, there were three scales related to the physical attractiveness of women; positive correlations with MVPI Altruistic and HPI Sociability and Ambition. The strongest predictor (Altruistic) indicates that men are most attracted to women who display nurturing, perhaps maternal, instincts. This should come as little surprise as men are wired, from an evolutionary psychology perspective, to seek out mates who have a greater potential to care for their offspring. Even though men are looking for the nurturing type, they are not as attracted to the docile midwife. Instead, men have made it clear that they are looking for stronger interpersonal impact in women; they are attracted to assertiveness and gregariousness. What I find interesting is that men find these two qualities of Ambition and Sociability to be equally predictive of attractiveness in either sex, but women ascribe almost no importance to these two qualities in their appraisals of attractiveness. Why might that be? What is also surprising to me is that none of the HDS scales was a significant driver of attractiveness for men evaluating women. Can this really mean that men are indifferent to these “dark side” characteristics in potential mates? Perhaps we, as men, just assume some of that stuff will be there and must be willing to accept it or else there would be no women to choose from. I will await the backlash from that last comment.

Women see beauty in other women who are friendly, caring, and collaborative types with a flair for the dramatic. They are turned off by passive-aggressive, indifferent, book-smart worrywarts. If we view physical attractiveness in this vein as friend potential, it is easy to see how the prior would make their lives easier and a bit more fun, while the latter might be a recipe for the “high-maintenance friend” who is not approachable or forthcoming.

So what have we learned along this three-part journey? In summary, personality does appear to have an effect on perceptions of physical attractiveness. The extent to which it does is a matter of whom you are asking about whom. Largely, personality affects attractiveness more for members of our same gender than it does for members of opposite genders. That being said, I still have some dating advice that can be inferred from these analyses. Guys, if you want to appear more attractive to the ladies, ditch the bad boy attitude, don’t be so critical, and control the temper. Ladies, if you want to attract a man, play up your nurturing ways but look to be a peer, not the introverted, subservient type. And, for goodness’ sake, comb your hair.

Last week, I was lucky enough to travel to Paris for a short vacation. I’ve traveled to Paris before, and I’m familiar with what to expect on the 10+ hour flight. With three DVDs, two books, and snacks in tow, I thought I knew what I was getting myself into. Unfortunately, I failed to prepare for one thing… poor customer service at 30,000 feet.

In my experience, the flight attendants on this particular carrier are never particularly high on what we call “service orientation” here at Hogan, but the treatment was so poor that I’m considering a personal boycott against the company. What made it so bad weren’t necessarily the grumbles when I asked her about her day or the condescending tone when she asked if I was able to sit in the exit row, but rather the judgment and questioning of my age when I ordered an adult beverage. That’s right… alcohol. Granted, I will give her this – I look considerably young for my age. I was recently carded for a rated-R movie, but that’s neither here nor there. The usual jest that ensues after people realize I’m really older than 18 was absent. Several passive-aggressive jabs were extended my way, even after producing my passport demonstrating my age. The flight continued along with same theme, and I fully expected Candid Camera to show up upon landing.

I want to give the flight attendant the benefit of the doubt. A delayed flight likely prompted my rude flight attendant’s stress. Her Bold (HDS) and Colorful (HDS) antics likely contribute to her charismatic charm on a day-to-day basis. However, this charm is intensified into derailing or moving-against behavior under stress. Perhaps she is simply more prone to stress and pressure. She surely wasn’t perceptive of the increasing frustration among the passengers with her quality of service.

Perhaps she simply isn’t cut out for the flight attendant role, as one of Hogan’s Industry Case Studies suggests. Findings indicate that more successful Flight Attendants are calm under pressure, perceptive and tactful, rule-abiding, and concerned with building job-related knowledge. If I were a betting woman, my flight attendant missed on several of these behaviors. In my opinion, Hogan scales aside, she was simply too rude to fly.
 

Whether they make your skin crawl or tickle your fancy, the use of cliches has spread like wildfire over the years. These phrases, defined by their overuse, have flooded our everyday lives, making it difficult to get through a full day without hearing or speaking several. Critics discourage their use, especially in writing, as their presence indicates a lack of imagination. Further, many of these expressions are so overused and unnecessary they can be categorized as pure fluff. There are few positive views on these hackneyed phrases; however, I tend to enjoy them (in moderation).

First, their origins fascinate me. As reported by Life Magazine, the expression "hair of the dog that bit you," a common idea for curing a hangover, is derived from the medieval belief that if bitten by a rabid dog, pressing the hair of that dog to the wound could cure the infection. The term "falling on the sword," meaning to offer resignation or accept the consequences of fault, can be found in the Bible in reference to King Saul falling on his sword to commit suicide while in battle with the Philistines. Second, and more importantly, I am impressed by their ability to deliver our thoughts in a concise, succinct manner that would be difficult to verbalize otherwise. In this sense, cliches create a common language which is beneficial as they carry so much information in only a handful of words.