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.

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.

Patient safety is a major concern for the medical industry. A study in the Journal of Patient Safety found between 210,000 and 440,000 patients each year suffer some type of preventable harm that contributes to their death, and a separate study found that nearly one third of medical injuries were due to error, costing patients and hospitals more than $1 billion each year.

Although hospitals and medical systems have put in place increasingly advanced systems to monitor and improve patient safety, these numbers have remained stagnant because these systems largely ignore one of the largest drivers of patient safety: emotional intelligence.

Emotional intelligence can improve patient outcomes by:

1. 1. 1. 1. IMPROVING DOCTOR-PATIENT COMMUNICATION
         2. IMPROVING HANDOFFS AND TRANSITIONS
         3. IMPROVING OFFICE STAFF AND ADMINISTRATORS

Learn how EQ makes such an impact on healthcare employee/patient safety in our complimentary ebook High EQ Can Save Your Life.

Why is everyone so damn busy? It seems that the response to “How are you?” on conference calls or conversations with friends results in my least favorite word – busy. Most of the insanely busy people I know aren’t working multiple jobs or balancing family and work. The full calendar is a result of choice rather than sheer workload. Busyness isn’t a badge of honor anymore… it just makes you look self-important (and self-loathing).

Stop the madness, people. Learn the power of no, find some work/life balance, and, for the love of all things holy, unplug from your email. If you’re not too busy, read “The Busy Trap.” It will make you think twice about using this dreadful word ever again.

In preparation for my upcoming maternity leave, I have been thinking a lot about the benefits of working as a part of a high functioning team. The stress and uncertainty of stepping away from my job and leaving my duties in the hands of others has the potential to bring out my derailers in full force….Hello, Bold and Diligent. However, working in a high-functioning, team-based environment has assuaged my dark side and I am feeling pretty good about shutting down for a bit. So what is so great about my team?

First, we are very aware of each other’s strengths and weaknesses; we are open and honest about our Hogan scores. While this often presents opportunities to joke around with one another when, for instance, someone’s Skeptical or Bold side makes an appearance, it also presents an opportunity to understand where each team member is coming from, where and why they might need some extra support, and what is driving their behavior. Second, we are focused on collaboratively achieving common goals; we succeed or we fail. Working in an environment where collective responsibility is an everyday reality allows this new mom (with a tendency to be a bit of a control freak) to have confidence in, and feel assured, that my team has my back.

For more information about teams, download our complimentary ebook, The Truth About Teams, which breaks from traditional team building models to help leaders balance team members’ personalities, identify shared values, and avoid shared performance risks.

Most of us work for a jerk – seriously, according to a new Gallup poll, 82 percent of U.S. managers are wrong for the job. But what if YOU are the jerk?

Research shows that as many as 75 percent of managers have trouble managing their behavior, which means if you have people working under you, odds are some of them think you’re a jerk. So, what can you do?

• Start with self-awareness. Since most people, especially managers, are generally unaware of how others see them, valid assessment methods such as personality tests or 360-degree feedback provide an objective view of your strengths and weaknesses.
• Compensate with alternative behaviors. Use positive behaviors to rebuild a reputation marked by counterproductive behaviors.
• Support weakness with resources. If you have clear weaknesses, sometimes the most effective development strategy is to compensate by supporting them with additional resources.
• Redesign your job or assignment. Most managers got where they were because they were a valuable individual contributor. If this is the case, sometimes companies may alter your job requirements to remove roles in which you struggle.

“The Jerk Store called, and they’re running out of you.” – George Costanza (1997)

Seinfeld fans will recall George’s ill-fated attempt to deliver the perfect comeback to a smart-ass coworker. Rather than trying to outdo them, the key to dealing with jerks, or any other kind of difficult manager, is to understand them.

“Bosses are just like any other human: unique but predictable,” said Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, vice president of Research and Innovation at Hogan. “The best way to manage your manager is to figure out who they are, what they want, and why they do what they do. Then, adjust your behavior to fit their personality.” For example,

• Is your boss impulsive? Impulsive bosses are driven by feeling rather than reason, so tune into their moods. Share your ideas when they are already feeling excited.
• Is your boss creative? Creative bosses jump from one idea to the next, so avoid any discussion of admin details, bureaucratic processes, and rules. Admire their ideas and show interest in their eccentric suggestions.

Check out more personality types and what you can do to counteract the jerk in your boss in our new eBook So, Your Boss is a Jerk.

The conversation around women in leadership is not new, yet we find the topic continues to be at the forefront of leadership discussions. Dr. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic recently did a blog post regarding The Under-Representation of Women in Leadership which highlighted organizations inability to distinguish competence from confidence. I tend to agree with Dr. Chamorro-Premuzic around the debate for women to “lean in” and adopt the dysfunctional characteristics we find to be prevalent in our male leaders. This concept only perpetuates the issue of choosing arrogance over humility in our leadership; right or wrong.

Hogan has defined leadership as the ability to build and maintain a high-performing team that beats the competition. To build a high-performing team, the leader must be someone the team is willing to follow. This allows us to assess performance with respect to the overall team performance. Taking this view on leadership and the recently released paper The Case for Investing in Women by the Anita Borg Institute (ABI), we find there are some key advantages to women in leadership roles.

According to The Case for Investing in Women, having a priority on hiring women manifests higher organizational and financial performance. In particular, the following outcomes have been noted (see article for full details):

• Fortune 500 companies with at least three women directors saw:
  • Return on invested capital increased by at least 66%
  • Return on sales increase by at least 42%
  • Average return on equity increase by at least 53%

These and other data points in the report provide compelling information concerning the advantages of women in leadership. Interestingly, as of 2010, women held 47 percent of the total U.S. labors force (United States Department of Labor), however, when it comes to women in CEO positions the numbers are dismal. Women represent 4.6% of the Fortune 500 CEO positions (Catalyst 2014).

If the research strongly suggests the need for women in leadership positions, then where are they? Lately, we have received questions around the lack of upward movement of women into executive levels. Organizations with a targeted approach and programs created to provide development opportunities for women to move into Executive ranks are finding their efforts moving slowly. Leadership programs, along with mentorships, job previews, and peer support groups to guide and educate women have been established within many companies and, yet, organizations find themselves with little movement among their female population. Organizations are starting to ask themselves, why?

To tackle this topic, my colleagues, Morgan Meister and Jennifer Lowe will explore how we got to this point, what organizations are doing right and wrong, and how to invest in future women leaders.

Nope, I’m not talking about brewing a pot of coffee and plotting out the future of your organization in the wee hours of the morning. When “Late Show” host David Letterman announced he was retiring after more than 32 years on the air, network executives moved quickly to announce his replacement, reportedly spurred by concerns over meetings with advertisers next month.

In the post-Conan era of late-night host selection, I imagine CBS executives put more than a few days of thought into who would fill Letterman’s shoes. However, the network’s choice, Comedy Central’s Stephen Colbert, brings up a familiar problem in succession planning: whether it is better to promote from within or introduce a fresh face.

The arguments for Colbert are pretty clear: His show, “The Colbert Report”, which airs at 11:30 p.m., could bring with him tremendous viewership in key 18-49 demographics, which CBS badly needs to compete with NBC’s new late-night juggernaut, Jimmy Fallon. And, the argument has been made that in order to ultimately beat “The Tonight Show”,  CBS will have to completely overhaul its late-night format. Finally, Craig Ferguson, Letterman’s one-time protégé, has consistently low ratings in the 12:30 a.m. testing ground (CBS is reportedly replacing Ferguson with E! talk show host Chelsea Handler).

On the other hand, as one writer put it, the Colbert with which people are familiar is the ‘Colbert’ in quotation marks – a faux-conservative talk show host. Trying to transition his send-up of Bill O’Reilly to an hour-long network show would be disastrous, but abandoning it all together could mean alienating a significant portion of his current audience.

Although we can’t claim expertise in late-night host selection, in the corporate world, outside hires face tremendous challenges, and studies show that more than half fail, many within the first 18 months on the job.

For more on succession planning, check out our free ebook, From Potential to Performance.