Virtually any job involves some level of decision-making; from simple, routine decisions that are easily trained and quickly learned (such as sorting or filing), to complex decisions with huge impact for which there may be no clearly correct answer (such as a major strategic shift at a multi-billion dollar global organization). The key to effective decision-making is exercising good judgment when assessing the situation, evaluating options, and choosing a course of action. This sounds obvious, but judgment is difficult to define and hard to develop. So how do you improve the exercise of good judgment in your organization?

First and foremost, it’s important to recognize that judgment is more than an individual attribute. Organizations can create a climate that promotes good judgment and decision-making. In a poor quality environment, even individuals with great personal judgment can make consistently poor decisions. Here are a few tips to help get things right on both fronts.

Practice Informed Skepticism

Informed Skeptics are critical consumers of information. They seek out data and listen to those close to the issue to build up their understanding of the subject. They question the assumptions underlying the data, and don’t take conventional wisdom for granted. They evaluate and consider information thoroughly in order to arrive at sound conclusions. They are informed by the data, but not beholden to them.

In Hogan terms, these people may score low-to-moderate Adjustment (detecting problems), low-to-moderate Interpersonal Sensitivity (challenging behaviors), and high Learning Approach (informed and analytical). They may also have an elevated HDS Skeptical score, a high MVPI Science score, or both.

In contrast, intuitive decision-makers rush to judgment based on their own experience. They rarely seek out new information, and tend to make decisions themselves without input from others. These people are often confident and charismatic, but may lack substance. On the other end of the spectrum, empiricists rely exclusively on the data, rarely questioning the underlying assumptions. They may fail to recognize when the external environment has changed, rendering previous assumptions invalid.

Identify relevant data points to inform decisions

Big data is a buzzword these days, and deservedly so. The amount of information available and the potential implications for virtually all business functions is enormous. But there are two things to consider in the big data movement. The first is that, although more data than ever are being collected, there are also more irrelevant data than ever. It’s critically important to identify relevant and meaningful data and metrics to help drive good judgment.

The second consideration is what I’ll call 'smart' data. Smart data allow you to link data points from one application or activity to related data points somewhere else, making new connections across functions to uncover new patterns. Smart data help link your recruitment activity to your candidate pool, your selection tools, your training and onboarding programs, your performance management system, your high potential identification program, and your leadership development program. New patterns for the entire employment life cycle can be explored. If the data you have all sit in separate silos and cannot be combined without colossal effort, then you have piles of 'dumb' data, and they can’t deliver the same value.

The generation of relevant, informative data is therefore a structural aspect of an organization. It takes deliberate effort and purposeful design to create databases that link meaningful data to one another. Poor quality information produces a 'garbage in, garbage out' result.

Make data widely available throughout the organization

Organizations often restrict access to information in varying degrees, but good judgment is required at virtually all levels of an organization. To improve the quality of decisions on a widespread level, data have to be available to inform these decisions. Absent that information, the ability to exercise judgment is constrained, and a culture of poor decision-making can develop.

A new trend emerging in startups is the transparent organization. In the most extreme cases, all data – from company financials to individual performance reviews – are freely available to everyone. Is that too much? Almost certainly (see the point about relevant data). But the spirit of providing information to those who need it is on target.

On the other hand, providing too little information leads decision-makers to rely on the information available, which may be outdated, irrelevant, or misleading. Consider the allegory of Plato’s Cave, in which captives grew up immobilized and could only see shadows of objects out of view, and hear sounds of those objects reflected and distorted off of a wall. The captives perceived the shadows and sounds to be reality, unaware of the reality of the objects casting the shadows and making the sounds. In the absence of information, decision-makers will act based on shadows and distorted sounds, all but ensuring that decision-making will suffer.

When it comes to understanding your employees, it boils down to three basic questions:

What do people want? What are the core motives, values, and interests that get them out of bed and into the office every morning?

How will they get what they want? What strengths and weaknesses do they display when they are at their best?

What will get in their way? What are their derailers, the characteristics that emerge during stress or pressure to erode relationships and derail their chances of success?

Armed with this powerful information, you can make better hires, identify and develop talented individuals, build better leaders, and impact your bottom line. To find out more, check out our recent eBook, Why Personality?

The Importance of Values to Leadership and Business Performance

The story of a smart, talented individual hired to repair an ailing company, only to fail and cost the company dearly in the process, isn’t unfamiliar. When values of a leader don’t match up with those of the company, leader-subordinate relationships may spiral out of control, taking the whole company down with them.

Download The Culture Clash and discover the impact values have on motivation, culture fit, leadership style, and biases within a work environment.

The Impact of Values on Team Dynamics and Corporate Culture

Ever feel like someone is pushing you to be someone you’re not? You might be a victim of unconscious biases. Because values are an inherent part of our personality, many leaders are unaware of the kinds of values they hold, and how their values affect their subordinates. Through values assessment, leaders become more aware of the facets in their personality that might negatively affect workplace relationships.

Download The Power of Unconscious Biases and learn how the projection of an individual’s values onto others is having an impact on your workplace relationships.

Using Values Assessment to Create a More Engaged, More Productive Workforce

Even the best, most qualified candidate in the world could be detrimental to a company if his or her values aren’t a good fit for the job or company culture. For example, hiring someone that prefers a highly social environment and then isolating them in a single office at the end of the hall will most likely lead to another job search.

Download The Value of Values and discover the importance of values over experience when searching for the perfect hire.

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.

If you couldn’t already tell by overt advertising and buzz around Black Friday deals, it appears the holiday season is upon us. My favorite holiday, Thanksgiving, is this week, and I couldn’t be more excited. The three F’s – food, family, and football – will consume my four-day weekend. I’ll undoubtedly gain five pounds in those few short days, but it’s so worth it.

This is my favorite time of the year for a variety of reasons. However, I enjoy the spirit of the holidays around Thanksgiving the most. The sense of gratitude, being thanked, and having a reason to thank others seems to charge me up. This shouldn’t surprise me. I scored a 100 on the MVPI Altruistic scale. Like others who score high on the Altruistic scale, I’m driven to do right by others through volunteering, and I also tend to motivate others to share my sense of social responsibility. People on the opposite end of the Altruistic scale also tend to give back, just in a different way. Most likely, it’s through monetary donations. I’ve started to notice others around me demonstrate altruistic tendencies more so during the holidays. Whether this is by giving time through volunteering or donating money to a charitable cause, I always enjoy the jump in giving back during the holidays.
 
According to an article in Psychology Today, showing and receiving gratitude “both exemplify the positive in human behavior and provide us with a positive charge that boosts our emotional balance.” The happiness many of us feel after giving back can actually be very rewarding emotionally. In work environments that emphasize altruism, this can be very rewarding professionally as well.

What am I thankful for? Hogan and its community focus. I am able to feed my altruistic tendencies at the workplace, as Hogan offers its employees a variety of ways to give back throughout the year. Obviously, I can’t grow a moustache for Movember, but I’ll donate money to support my male colleagues who are raising awareness with their facial hair art. Our community food bank donation boxes are full. There’s talk of adopting an Angel this Christmas. The opportunities are endless.

For those who are motivated and driven by the chance to give back, working in an environment that provides these opportunities can be very rewarding and motivating emotionally and professionally. My desire to volunteer my time and having a chance to give back to others increases during this wonderful time of the year, and I have many options to participate, volunteer, or give back because of Hogan. So, this is me giving thanks to Hogan for the opportunity to give back. It’s an endless cycle of thanks.

Don’t forget to give thanks this holiday season, even if it has nothing to do with helping others (warning: an emotional boost may result). Happy Thanksgiving! Oh, and go Cowboys!

 

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.

In August I wrote about some interesting findings about how our personality makes us more or less physically attractive to others (read Part I). We learned that being friendly, attention-seeking, and demonstrating a genuine concern in networking with and helping others enhances perceptions of physical attractiveness, while being distant, indifferent, passive-aggressive, and eccentric can be real turn-offs. These results represented trends across people in general, regardless of their gender. To satisfy my insatiable curiosity, I decided to delve further by investigating whether there are personality characteristics that differentially relate to the physical attractiveness of men versus women.

Before getting into specific results for the sexes, I think there are some general results worth mentioning. Overall, I found that personality is far more important for predicting the physical attractiveness of women than for men. Chew on that for a second. Across 28 scales I found five predictors for men and eight for women. More telling is that HPI and HDS account for four and two times more variance (respectively) in predicting physically attractiveness for women than for men. Overall results for MVPI were similar between the sexes. What this means is the bright and dark side of our personalities may have a greater impact on the physical attractiveness of women than they do for men. What I believe this also says is that we men don’t have to worry as much about our behavior in attracting a mate; other factors may be more important (wallet size?).

Now that I have your attention, let us begin with the similarities between the sexes…all one of them! I found only one dimension of personality that provided a similarly strong relationship in predicting physical attractiveness in both sexes; MVPI Affiliation. For both men and women, we find attractive those who demonstrate an intrinsic interest in socializing with, networking with, and getting to know others.

As previously mentioned, I only found five predictors of mention for the physical attractiveness of males. I found positive correlations for HDS Dutiful and MVPI Affiliation. I found negative correlations for HDS Excitable, HDS Skeptical, and MVPI Science. In plain language, men are considered more attractive when they are the types who are more conforming team players who don’t rock the boat. For some reason, the ingratiating, deferential type is found to be more alluring. We also see that the emotionally volatile, cynical, distrusting scientists are considered less attractive. So apparently the type of guy who doesn’t believe it until he sees it and wants to see the proof in the form of facts is found to be unattractive. Yikes, that one hits close to home. Who knew that logic was a turnoff?

I find a few more things interesting about these results. First, I was a bit surprised that the attractiveness of the strong, alpha male archetype was not well supported by these data. Second, there were no significant effects for HPI, indicating that normal day-to-day behavior does not seem to have a noteworthy effect on the perceived physical attractiveness of males. Lastly, I think it is intriguing to see where the differences between the genders fall on these scales. For four of these five scales (all but MVPI Affiliation), there was a negligible effect for women’s perceived attractiveness. In other words, emotional volatility, cynicism, ingratiating behavior, and a desire for fact-based decision making have almost no effect on whether we find women attractive. I find that first one a bit surprising!

Now let us turn our attention to the fairer sex. I found eight personality predictors of physical attractiveness for females. There were positive correlations with HPI Interpersonal Sensitivity, HDS Mischievous, HDS Colorful, and MVPI Affiliation, while I found negative correlations with HPI Learning Approach, HDS Reserved, HDS Leisurely, and HDS Imaginative. In non-Hoganese, these results mean that we find women attractive when they are warm and friendly, charming (even if a bit manipulative), attention-seeking, and interested in teamwork and social networking. Altogether, this paints the picture of a charismatic type of woman as most attractive. At the same time, we appear to be turned off by the studious, aloof, passive-aggressive, and eccentric types. The first part is intriguing. According to these results, the diligent female students who tend to know more about many different subjects are less attractive to us. I hesitate to say, but this result seems to partially support the attractive bimbo archetype.

There are two more points of interest within these results for females. First, these data do not support other research indicating that masculine, assertive females are less attractive. Second, as before, it is interesting to look at the disparate relationships in some of these predictors for the other gender. HPI Interpersonal Sensitivity, although an important predictor for female attractiveness, had no relationship for males, indicating that friendliness or agreeableness has no bearing on perceptions of physical attractiveness in males. The other contrast of note is with HDS Mischievous. It is positively correlated with attractiveness for females but negatively correlated with attractiveness for males. Hence, we find the charming, manipulative, risk-taking females appealing while their male counterparts are more repelling. That is a result I have yet to understand.

In summary, personality seems to matter more for females than males in predicting physical attractiveness. According to this single study, males need only concern themselves with being a better team player and less of a Doubting Thomas to increase their hotness factor. For women, a little charm will go a long way to being seen as more attractive. Just make sure to keep the random factoids and wild ideas to yourself.

In the third and final installment of this series, I will split the data once more and investigate how the gender of both the target and the rater affect perceptions of physical attractiveness. Sneak preview: male personality does matter more; it just depends on who you are asking.

Although it sounds like the hook in a romantic comedy, recent findings indicate that your inner beauty (or lack thereof) might be affecting your outer beauty.

Let me back up. A few months ago I was analyzing data from a large community sample and I stumbled upon some interesting information. Specifically, I found peer ratings of physical attractiveness on a sample of people who completed the Hogan personality and values assessments. Considering that I am (a) distractible and (b) a nerd, I decided to investigate further.

It’s important to note that these were not ratings of likeability, friendliness, etc. Peers rated the extent to which the target person was “good-looking,” “unattractive,” “physically attractive,” and “not good-looking.” So the question became: does one’s personality affect their perceived physical attractiveness? The answer, to an extent, is yes.

There were significant effects on seven of twenty-eight scales across the Hogan Personality Inventory, Hogan Development Survey, and Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory. I found positive correlations between ratings of physical attractiveness and scores on HPI Interpersonal Sensitivity, HDS Colorful, MVPI Affiliation, and MVPI Altruistic. Additionally, I found negative correlations between physical attractiveness and HDS Reserved, HDS Leisurely, and HDS Imaginative.

What does this mean in non-Hoganese? First, we are physically attracted to people who are nice, friendly, approachable, and considerate. No big surprise there; mean people are ugly (or is it that ugly people are mean because they are ugly?). Second, we are attracted to people who have a flair for the dramatic, drawing a lot of attention to themselves, and being the center of attention, even to a fault. These big personalities draw our eyes to them and we seem to find them attractive for that, even if they are acting in this way for self-serving reasons. Next, we find people who value networking, teamwork, collaboration, and social interaction physically attractive. This may indicate that we are attracted to people who have the inclination or desire to engage and get to know us. Finally, the altruists of our society are found to be attractive. These individuals are motivated by a concern for the welfare of others. The attraction is likely borne out of the perception that the person is taking a genuine interest and concern for our needs and well-being; perhaps a more generous lover?

Now let us turn our attention to our turn-offs. First, we are not fans of the cold, stoic, aloof types. These individuals appear indifferent to the feelings or concerns of others, so this finding is in alignment with the aforementioned factors of heightened attraction. Next, we find passive-aggressive behavior to be particularly unattractive. Although these individuals may appear friendly and cooperative on the surface, we seem to see through fa?ade and recognize that they are likely to act on their own agenda, which makes them less desirable. Finally, our eccentric visionaries are apparently persona non grata. Overall, results indicate that creativity is not related to attractiveness, but here we have an indication that extreme (and unconventional) creativity is actually a mild repellant.

These results come from a single (but large) community sample. Therefore, these are not necessarily universal truths. Nonetheless, the trends are clearly there and of mention. Also, the peers providing these ratings knew the target people, so there is no guarantee that these results would generalize to how attractive a stranger at a bar will find you. That being said, it is logical that personality affects physical attractiveness only at the point that someone gets to know us at least a little bit.

In summary, these results indicate that personality does have an impact on physical attractiveness. If you want to be perceived as attractive, stop acting like an inconsiderate jerk. Even if you have the face of Adonis (or Persephone), curt, brash, or uncaring behavior will likely downgrade your hotness factor.
 
The next installment on this topic dives into gender differences, explaining what it takes for men and women (separately) to be perceived as physically attractive. Sneak preview: there are clear differences and the results do not confirm what we may commonly assume…