Society generally views spitefulness as a purely negative characteristic – there are hundreds of parables to this effect dating to the beginning of recorded history. However, an article in the New York Times recently described findings from several studies showing the bright side of spitefulness. Here are some highlights:

• Spitefulness tends to come with elevated levels of aggression, psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism.
• Men tend to be more spiteful than women and young people more than old.
• Stressful circumstances – partisan politics and divorce among them – can provoke spiteful outbursts from otherwise temperate people.
• According to anthropologist Frank Marlowe, what looks like spite is often a matter of image-making. “If you get a reputation as someone not to mess with and nobody messes with you going forward, then it was well worth the cost.”

Spitefulness isn’t something Hogan measures directly – although our research department told me spitefulness would possibly correlate with the Hogan Development Survey Skeptical, Bold, Leisurely and Mischievous scales – but the article was an excellent illustration of one of our core concepts; that there is no such thing as a purely negative (or positive) personality characteristic.

There are three popular explanations for the clear under-representation of women in management and entrepreneurship, namely: (1) they are not capable; (2) they are not interested; (3) they are both interested and capable but unable to break the glass-ceiling: an invisible career barrier, based on prejudiced stereotypes, that prevents women from accessing the ranks of power. But what if all of us are missing the bigger picture? We asked Dr. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic.

What do you think is the cause for the under-representation of women in management?

In my view, the main reason for the uneven management sex ratio is our inability to discern between confidence and competence. That is, because people commonly misinterpret displays of confidence as a sign of competence, we are fooled into believing that men are better leaders than women.

Do men actually have an advantage over women when it comes to leadership?

The only advantage that men have over women is the fact that manifestations of hubris — often masked as charisma or charm — are commonly mistaken for leadership potential, and that these occur much more frequently in men than in women.

Why are we drawn to narcissistic individuals for leaders?

Leaderless groups have a natural tendency to elect self-centered, overconfident and narcissistic individuals as leaders. Freud argued that the psychological process of leadership occurs because a group of people — the followers — have replaced their own narcissistic tendencies with those of the leader, such that their love for the leader is a disguised form of self-love, or a substitute for their inability to love themselves.

What do you think about the “lean in” debate pushing women to be more like their male peers?

It strikes me as a little odd that so much of the recent debate over getting women to “lean in” has focused on getting them to adopt more of these dysfunctional leadership traits. Yes, these are the people we often choose as our leaders — but should they be?

What are women doing right when it comes to management and entrepreneurship?

In a comprehensive review of studies, Alice Eagly and colleagues showed that female managers are more likely to elicit respect and pride from their followers, communicate their vision effectively, empower and mentor subordinates, and approach problem-solving in a more flexible and creative way, as well as fairly reward direct reports. In contrast, male managers are statistically less likely to bond or connect with their subordinates, and they are relatively more inept at rewarding them for their actual performance.

Do women have an unseen advantage by being more humble?

Arrogance and overconfidence are inversely related to leadership talent. Whether in sports, politics, or business, the best leaders are usually humble — and whether through nature or nurture, humility is a much more common feature in women than men. For example, women outperform men on emotional intelligence, which is a strong driver of modest behaviors.

So, then, what’s women’s biggest barrier to achieving equal representation in leadership positions?

One of the biggest problems is the lack of career obstacles for incompetent men, and the fact that we tend to equate leadership with the very psychological features that make the average man a more inept leader than the average woman. The result is a pathological system that rewards men for their incompetence while punishing women for their competence, to everybody’s detriment.

What can we do to stop the unnatural selection of male leaders and entrepreneurs?

First, we can debunk the myth of leadership and entrepreneurship as masculine. Psychological research has shown that even when we know stereotypes are inaccurate, they still affect our decisions. Uprooting the stereotype that men are naturally better suited for leadership and entrepreneurship would encourage competent women and discourage incompetent men. Second, we can bet on competence rather than confidence – for investors to bet on actual rather than self-perceived talent.

Recently, I had the opportunity to attend a Conference Board event in New York City which focused heavily on talent management strategy, and many of the sessions were insightful. A presentation by Korn/Ferry covered a hot topic in the talent management circles these days – learning agility. As defined by Korn/Ferry, learning agility is a professional’s ability and willingness to learn from experience, and subsequently apply that learning to perform successfully under new or first-time conditions. Agile learners possess innate tendencies that position them for success in leadership role. Professionals with high learning agility are described as people who…

• Continuously seek new challenges
• Solicit direct feedback
• Self-reflect
• Think critically in first-time situations
• Work well with all kinds of people
• Thrive on change

Korn/Ferry measures learning agility through an assessment, and participants are scored on 5 dimensions: Self-awareness, Mental Agility, People Agility, Change Agility, and Results Agility. Although Hogan does not have a separate assessment to measure Learning Agility and its 5 dimensions, I do think a savvy Hogan interpreter can find intuitive connections between the 5 learning agility dimensions and Hogan’s HPI scales. I’ll save a full mapping Hogan to learning agility for another blog post.

In my opinion, Korn/Ferry’s philosophy is solid and makes intuitive sense, but is slightly flawed. Is there such a thing as the dark side of learning agility? Here at Hogan, we think too much of a good thing can derail one’s career. This can be especially true of agile learners, who constantly seek new knowledge in several areas. Although they take initiative, possess a broad-range of knowledge, and are generally curious people, they might also be described as arrogant or know-it-alls. Perhaps the agile learner is willing to apply only his knowledge or ideas, which can create a reputation of being difficult to work with and stubborn. I believe too much learning agility can derail an agile learner’s career. Have you ever met someone who seems to know everything about everything? Has anyone observed a derailing, agile learner?

We’ve talked about the good aspects of being a narcissist, especially when climbing the corporate ladder, but what about humility? When placed side-by-side, the two qualities bring to mind arch nemeses – hubris, the ever-charming yet self-absorbed compatriot, and humility, the soft-spoken, humble negotiator.

While narcissists’ secret power is their compelling charisma which masks their weaknesses, the humble wield an arguably even greater power – the power of modesty.

People with low self-confidence and ambition constantly evaluate their weaknesses and work tirelessly to improve while individuals with narcissistic tendencies tend to listen to positive feedback and ignore the negative.

Jim Collins, a leading authority on management and author of Good to Great, spent more than 30 years investigating why certain organizations are more successful than others. Collins found that companies led by modest managers consistently outperformed their competitors, and tended to be the dominant players in their sectors. He also found that humble leaders tended to stay at their organizations longer than their arrogant counterparts, and that their companies continue to perform well even after they leave because humble leaders often ensure a succession plan before they depart.

[Spoiler Alert – This will pretty much ruin The LEGO Movie for you if you haven’t seen it]

I love LEGOs, so when two of my kids wanted to see The LEGO Movie I happily took them. In the movie, the wizard Vitruvius protects a superweapon known as the Kragle from the evil Lord Business. When Lord Business steals the Kragle, the wizard prophesizes that the Special will arise and find the Piece of Resistance to destroy the Kragle and Lord Business’s evil plans.

Enter Emmet, an ordinary construction figure who always follows the instructions and builds things by the book. He’s far from special, but when he stumbles upon the Piece of Resistance he is thrust into leadership over a rebel group of creative Master Builders. They tell Emmet of a time when characters from all playsets worked together to build hodgepodge worlds and adventures. Confused and angered by this chaos, Lord Business built walls to separate the worlds. He now intends to use the Kragle to freeze the world in this ordered state.

We eventually learn that the story is playing out in the imagination of a boy playing with prized sets belonging to his father, a micro-managing businessman. The playsets are separated by walls, and signs reading “Hands Off” or “Do Not Touch” warn others not to play. The father chastises his son for combining characters and playsets, starts to use Krazy Glue to permanently set the pieces, but notices his son’s work and asks him about it. The father is shocked to learn that he is the antagonist in his own son’s struggle to play freely. His eyes now opened to his suffocation of his son’s creativity, the father relinquishes control and lets his son lead the way as they play together.

Snuggling with my kids, I was overtaken by the allergens floating around the theater’s air-conditioning, as well as the movie’s message. All too often we micro-manage others instead of allowing them to explore their own way. As an admitted control freak, I struggle with this as a parent. But the more I considered things, the more I thought that The LEGO Movie applies not only to parenting, but also to how business can kill innovation.

Think about it. Are your organization’s leaders solely focused on doing things by the book? Do they think that combining things in new ways ruins them? Do they build walls or otherwise separate people? Do they micro-manage? Worst of all, have they said “That’s the way we’ve always done it”?

If you answered “yes” to more than a few of those questions, you may work for Lord Business. But the good news is you can be Emmet. Not everyone is creative, but creativity can come from almost anywhere. So throw out the Krazy Glue, grab some nail polish remover, and unglue your bricks at work.  Break them apart from how they should be and see if you can make something better. Make a mess and don’t be afraid to fail. Toss out the instructions. See if someone on the other side of the wall wants to play. You may be able to create something really innovative if you’re not afraid to put your pieces together in a new way or combine your pieces with someone else’s.

But…when you’re done innovating at work, go home. Put your things down. Resist that urge to pick up your iPad or turn on the TV. If you’ve got young kids, get down on the floor and play with them. Let them lead. If your kids are older or if you don’t have any kids, no worries. LEGOs are awesome for grown-ups, too.

I wouldn’t consider myself a techie, but on occasion I have been known to dabble in the social media space—posting the occasional observational wisdom, a vacation picture every so often, and dare I admit it, a complaint here and there. But this blog entry isn’t about my world wide intertube surfing trends, or any highfalutin comments on the varying notions of privacy. Rather, I would like to take this opportunity to express my secret delight with the outputs of the latest pedantic personality pandemic. Surprisingly I’m not talking about the terrible alliteration of which that last sentence was so incredibly guilty. I am referring to the hokey but lovable evaluations that have become the most recent cross-generational fad.

Let me first say that I commend all those who are not only interested in self improvement but are also motivated to complete an inventory to gain perspective. So in a way, I am excited to see individuals spend time reporting their preferences to determine which Hobbit, Game of Thrones Character, News Anchor, OTC constipation pill or rare bacterial disease best captures their essence. But I think it’s important we lay down a few best practices before this branch of the industry really takes off.

Stay current: I understand if early 90s snap-bracelets or funky hair-trolls are still your thing. But I cannot for the life of me remember the names of the My Little Pony characters. And thus it’s hard for me to comment and relate to your results. (Ok that’s a lie, but I’ll never admit it online). Best to stay current so you can maximize audience appeal.

Do your due diligence: Was the sample against which the instrument constructed a stratified representation of the Muppet population? Should Fraggles have their own local norm? Was the test brought to you by a suspicious combination of letters that form an enigmatic acronym? These are questions that really should be asked before committing to an assessment.

Keep it neutral: I don’t care which political scandal or religious dogma says the most about your interpersonal style. I want to read about fun loving results like which Miley Cyrus phase best represents you. Or which Justin Beiber crime is emblematic of your management approach. However, I shouldn’t have to visualize the likes of brassy over exposed governors or congressional private parts to know how you prefer to be seen.

Not a standalone: When considering what kind of, say, vegetable or cookie you would be, perhaps it’s best to not use such evaluations as a standalone assessment. I recommend pairing them with the appropriate assessment center modules. In this example perhaps an In-Supermarket-Basket exercise would augment the results.

Don’t overdo it: I get it that you want to see yourself from varying angles. But must you take seven of these quizzes a day? Furthermore, I think you lose credibility when you’re equally excited about each one. I know it’s hard to contain yourself when you find out that you would be a poppy seed bagel. But honestly, after reading which waste management vehicle, computer antivirus software and CBS network television character you would relate to most, I’m on the verge of losing interest. Let’s cap it to 16 a week, shall we?

By choosing your social media assessments wisely you can not only ensure more valid results, you can also help me resist the temptation block you from my timeline forever. Thanks for considering these best practices going forward and for doing your part in making the internet, and my timeline a better place.

There are more than 80 million Millennials in the U.S.; about one million more than there are baby boomers. Experts predict that individuals born between 1980 and the early 200s will make up more than 40% of the labor force by 2020. That’s a lot of high-potential Millennials stuck working as individual contributors, and that’s a big problem.

Although it temporarily alleviates the skills gap HR managers expected, Boomers’ lagging retirement is creating a new kind of skills gap: a gap in soft skills.

Fortunately, soft skills can be learned, it just takes a more innovative approach.  Check out these 5 keys for developing your Millennial employees and keeping them engaged in a multi-generational workforce.

We combined Hogan’s experience developing executives at more than half of the Fortune 500 with research on Millennial learning styles to come up with five keys for developing your millennial employees.

1.     Start with science: Tools like valid personality assessments and 360-degree feedback from not just a supervisor, but a peer and subordinate level can give participants a realistic view of their strengths and hidden blind spots. Without a basis in objective, scientific assessment, any type of development program will experience very limited success.

2.     Allow for self-gudiance: Millennials are digital natives. Forget about in-person courses and workshops. Instead, development tools should provide mobile, anytime access to a broad, but targeted library of resources that participants can work into an action plan.

To continue reading the next three steps and learn about the new skills gap HR managers are facing, check out our ebook, The Kids (Millennials) are All Right.

With content ranging from 17 Maya Angelou Quotes That Will Inspire You To Be A Better Person to quizzes like Which Sandwich Are You?, BuzzFeed continues to gain followers and disrupt work flow.

“We love lists: they produce a fake sense of logic and rationality, as if they presented a formulaic argument or tautology,” writes Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic in his latest Guardian article on the appealing aspects of BuzzFeed. How does this media sharing phenomenon continue to be the envy of marketers and media outlets everywhere? Check out Chamorro-Premuzic’s reasoning on 18 human traits that explain why readers can’t get enough of BuzzFeed.

In an article on Forbes.com, HR analyst Josh Bersin extolled the benefits of talent analytics using a case study from a large financial services company:

“One of our clients… operates under the belief system that employees with good grades who come from highly ranked colleges will make good performers,” Bersin wrote. “So their recruitment, selection, and promotion process is based on these academic drivers.”

The firm conducted a statistical analysis of sales productivity and turnover, correlating performance and retention over the first two years against several demographic factors. They found that, of the six factors that corresponded with success, what did not matter was where candidates went to school, what grades they received, or the quality of their references. Within six months of implementing a new screening process, the firm increased revenues by $4 million.

However, for every one company that effectively harnesses their data, there are dozens that get it wrong by:

1. Overestimating performance as a predictor of potential. Research shows that only 30 percent of current high performers have management potential, and that most employees (more than 90 percent) would have trouble at the next organizational level.

2. Using subjective data. Too many companies dirty up their data sets with things like supervisor performance appraisals. Unfortunately, typical performance appraisals are a function of how much supervisors like their employees so, “high performers” are often those who successfully navigate office politics, not necessarily those who perform better.

3. Relying on incomplete data. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, recently wrote in The Guardian that “most organizations lack reliable systems for measuring employees’ performance … The result is … the equivalent of investing a great deal of money in weather forecasts without subsequently paying attention to the actual weather.”

4. Paying attention to irrelevant data. I recently read a Harvard Business Review article in which the author was describing the challenge of filling new positions for which data does not exist: “This poses different challenges, such as identifying patterns of your most successful hires, like the schools they come from, where they live…” Just because some of your best employees happen to be from the same school or town doesn’t have anything to do with whether they will be good programmers.

5. Believing that data eliminates uncertainty. On his ragan.com blog post, Jonathan Lewis wrote: “You can use data to reduce uncertainty, but don’t count on the data to eliminate it. The belief that uncertainty can ever be eliminated leads to unrealistic expectations, company paralysis, letdown, and frustration… We live in a complex and imperfect world, so no matter how big or little the data in our grasp, we will always have to make decisions with a certain level of uncertainty.”

Adding Context

Don’t get us wrong, we love data – Hogan’s research database has millions of data points, which we use to create, test and hone our assessments. The key to analyzing your company’s big data is to start with a valid, scientifically developed, objective tool like 360-degree feedback or personality assessment. These measures provide a picture of employees’ strengths, weaknesses, values, and work preferences. Using that information as a starting point, you can add in sales and performance data, demographics, and myriad other information to form a complete picture of how your organization, and your people, operates.