Who wouldn’t want a higher level of emotional intelligence? Studies have shown that a high emotional quotient (or EQ) boosts career success, entrepreneurial potential, leadership talent, health, relationship satisfaction, humor, and happiness. It is also the best antidote to work stress and it matters in every job — because all jobs involve dealing with people, and people with higher EQ are more rewarding to deal with.

Most coaching interventions try to enhance some aspect of EQ, usually under the name of social, interpersonal, or soft skills training. The underlying reasoning is that, whereas IQ is very hard to change, EQ can increase with deliberate practice and training.

But what is the evidence? For example, if you’ve been told you need to keep your temper under control, show more empathy for others, or be a better listener, what are the odds you can really do it? How do you know if your efforts will pay off, and which interventions will be most effective?

Nearly 3,000 scientific articles have been published on EQ since the concept was first introduced in 1990, and there are five key points to consider.

Continue reading on the HBR Blog Network.

More on EQ
Sample Report
Video | Why EQ?

We got a kick out of this U.S. Navy office safety video from the 1940s.

Although the office environment (and the tone of the safety videos) has changed a bit since then, the underlying point of the video remains relevant – some personalities make an individual more prone to carelessness and, even in the most mundane of environments, that carelessness can cause accidents.

For more information about how people’s personalities influence office safety, check out Hogan SafeSystem.

After analyzing the personality profiles of Homer’s Greek heroes, Achilles and Agamemnon, Rastislav Duriš, an HR consultant, and Matus Porubjak, a philosophy professor, asked the question, “In which occupations, organizations or environments would these heroes prosper today?”

Career counselling for these two ancient heroes starts with their motivation (Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory). Achilles feels fulfilled by helping others, developing them and generally working for a prosperous society. He values material success, profit, ROI, trade and money, as well as traditional social values and virtues, morale, history and principled attitude towards life and work. His motives indicate that Achilles would be satisfied in a well-established organization with a clear mission, values and business purpose. The company should also be commercially oriented, such as a financial institution, and care about the satisfaction of its employees or customers. A good example would be a private bank with a long tradition of customer care and elaborate employee program.

Valuing commerce, finance and material success, Agamemnon, unlike Achilles, feels motivated by social status – the desire to stand out and get recognition – and desires influence and power. Self-sacrifice for others and helping society doesn’t really work for him. He is more likely to feel satisfied in environments that enable him to work on his individual career, achieve an important position, and gain credit as well as high financial remuneration. He would be happiest working in financial and insurance companies or private firms focused on profit and beating the competition.

The two share Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI) scores that are like those of successful entrepreneurs. Achilles and Agamemnon would be successful in launching companies and organizations (though probably not together as per the last blog in this series). Both have traits of leadership, though their disposition could be more suited for crisis management which involves time restrictions and often requires making unpopular decisions. It is important to note that their definitive success or failure would also be shaped by their ability to cope with their potential risky behavior indicated in the Hogan Development Survey (HDS). High scores in these assessments mean a raised flag for entrepreneurs and managers – “Beware! You have certain exceptional characteristics; however, if you don’t learn to handle them and use them constructively, they may contribute to your fall later.” Which, in the case of Achilles and Agamemnon, they did.

Is it possible to know how two people will interact with each other based solely on their personality? In the article “Homer and Big 5,” Rastislav Duriš, an HR consultant, and Matus Porubjak, a philosophy professor, analyzed the personality profiles of the two heroes – Achilles and Agamemnon – from the first song of Homer’s Iliad to find out whether the two Greeks were predisposed for mutual conflict.

The authors considered both characters’ potential for behavioral conflict and value conflict. When looking at Achilles and Agamemnon’s Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI) and Hogan Development Survey (HDS) profiles, Duriš and Porubjak found that both men were very goal-oriented, competitive and ambitious. They were also self-critical, dissatisfied, sensitive to threats, and communicated in a straightforward manner without the tendency to build or maintain relationships with others.

Duriš and Porubjak predicted the possibility of conflict between the warrior and his king. For example, lower to average Prudence in both heroes indicates that they may attempt to use non-standard means in order to achieve goals or break rules. In some situations, Achilles as well as Agamemnon will be short-tempered and hot-headed, which will add an element of unpredictability as well as strong emotional and black-and-white perception to their interactions (e.g. mutual denigration). Achilles will only minimally respect the authority of Agamemnon and will be quite independent. On the other hand, if confronted, Agamemnon may perceive Achilles’ actions as especially negative, hostile, threatening or deceitful. While under stress, he may even attack Achilles by means of non-critical self-confirmation and misinterpretation or fabulation of events.

Duriš and Porubjak also found that the two also had potential towards mutual antipathy due to differing motivations. By analyzing their Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI) profiles, they found that, while Achilles is interested in the prosperity of a wider community and welfare of others in general, Agamemnon is a relationship pragmatist and materialist who is predominantly interested in his own agenda.

While Agamemnon probably won’t get the world’s best boss award, his management of Achilles fails disastrously due to their conflicting personalities and motivations. And to think, all of this might have been avoided had the two been self-aware of their differences and motivational tendencies beforehand.

The original Field Guide to SIOP blog post was a hit so I’ve added a few additional species you may encounter at SIOP this year. Please enjoy this second installment.

1. The Supermarket Sampler – Often confused with The Tourist, this similar species can be found in the exhibitor’s hall which it calls home.  However, The Supermarket Sampler stalks the space in search of edible treats and may make repeated trips through favored booths, attempting to pass off such trips as their first.
2. The Eager Seeker – This adorable and younger form of The Card Dealer eagerly and broadly distributes his/her resume or CV to anyone wearing a SIOP name badge. This species is most typically observed at the placement center, but may also be found in search of opportunities in the exhibitor’s hall. In some cases, The Eager Seeker may have its own business cards printed to mimic the more-experienced Card Dealer.
3. The One-Upper – The easiest way to identify the One-Upper is to tell a story around them. Whatever the story, chances are they can quickly follow it with a similar story of higher achievement. If you published on a topic last year, chances are they will remind you that they published on the same topic in a better journal three years ago.
4. The Stalker – If you’re a SIOP fellow, you’ve probably encountered The Stalker. This species is typically seen waiting after sessions have ended or nervously pacing by the fringes of booths to meet the big names in the field. The Stalker may have an idea to offer, or may just want to meet the face behind the name. If you find yourself cornered by the Stalker, offer them your autograph – they may faint.
5. The “We Should Collaborate” – Like the casual acquaintance who suggests getting together more often after a few drinks, this creature makes plans with colleagues every year to collaborate on research for journal publication or future conferences. This creature is the Publisher’s Clearing House of the SIOP kingdom, so don’t plan on them actually following up on such offers.
6. The Sales Robot – Found in exhibitor’s hall and various parties, receptions, restaurants, and bars, the sales robot is a particularly aggressive creature. This species holds the notion that SIOP is the perfect opportunity to pitch their latest you’ve-got-to-hear-me-out-on-this, don’t-miss-this-opportunity product or service. You can identify them by their trouble with the words “no thanks.”
7. The Spy – To The Spy, SIOP is an opportunity for covert intelligence operations on competitors. This sly creature may obscure his/her professional affiliation in an attempt to gain access to sensitive information they can later use as a competitive advantage against others. The Spy is often observed in the exhibitor’s hall, where they may attempt to find information before and/or after hours.
8. The Substitute – This species can be found in conference poster sessions and symposia, where they typically present research conducted primarily by other more senior professionals. Many members of this species are younger graduate students presenting research on which they collaborated with advisors, but this creature may sometimes endure into professional careers.
9. The Are-You-at-the-Right-Conference? – A rare find at SIOP, but not entirely unknown. With no apparent connection to the I-O community (or perhaps psychology as a whole), this species attends the conference but may appear lost or unfamiliar with their surroundings. This creature is easy to spot due to a lack of familiarity with even basic I-O concepts.

Armed with the full Field Guide to SIOP, we hope you enjoy the SIOP Conference this year. See you in Houston!

Ever wonder how your personality assessment results compare to well-known figures in history? What about ancient Greek heroes? In their article “Homer and Big 5,” Rastislav Duriš, an HR consultant, and Matus Porubjak, a philosophy professor, explore the socio-psychological aspects of Homer’s famous war epic, the Iliad, by putting the head-butting heroes, Achilles and Agamemnon, to the Hogan test.

Hellenic thinkers and orators, like Homer, dealt with subjects of the human condition and broached many topics which subsequently manifested as modern-day psychology. Ancient Greece is the cradle of one of the earliest personality typologies – Hippocrates’ division of people into sanguine, choleric, melancholic and phlegmatic types. Although personality research has advanced since then, it is illuminating (not to mention fun) to retrospectively apply it to ancient Greek history. By applying current psychological models of personality to a close reading of the first song of the Iliad, uriš and Porubjak were able to make assumptions based on content analysis about the Greek heroes’ inner motivators and derailers.

When analyzed using the Hogan Development Survey (HDS) scales, Achilles, the Achaean warrior who flew off the handle and dragged his Trojan opponent’s lifeless body around for days after his best friend was killed in battle, is (not surprisingly) high on the Excitable scale. His moodiness and irritability are coupled with a low Adjustment score on the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI) to make one pretty emotionally volatile and unpredictable Greek guy. High scores in Ambition (HPI) and Tradition also explain his competitive nature and intense loyalty to his friend’s memory.

Agamemnon, the Achaean king who stole the Trojan king’s daughter only to give her back and then steal Achilles’ girlfriend, has scores similar to those of Achilles. Add in low Prudence (HPI) and high Bold (HDS) scores and you’ve got a stubborn king who thinks he’s the bee’s knees. His values? Power and Recognition. All this coupled with high Skeptical and Mischievous scores (HDS) creates the potential for a power hungry, mistrusting ruler who would quickly kick his army to the curb and flee the scene as soon as the going got tough – which he almost did (a couple of times).

It’s April again, which means three things – taxes are due, my March madness bracket is hanging by a thread, and SIOP season is here! Every year, I look forward to SIOP for the opportunity to present recent Hogan research, the chance to attend sessions and learn about other advances in the I-O community, and the informal reunions with friends and colleagues. More than anything, however, I look forward to people watching at SIOP. There are certain types of people you can find in the exhibitor’s hall or attending sessions, but to date no attempt has been made to catalog these species. So, with tongue firmly planted in cheek, we provide the first ever field guide to people watching at SIOP.

1. The Tourist – Frequently seen in its natural habitat of the exhibitor’s hall, this creature wanders the booths with the sole purpose of gathering souvenirs from as many vendors as possible. This species is often noted for having a SIOP conference bag or other tote stuffed with its various finds.
2. The Loiterer – These curious squatters can be found in the exhibitor’s hall looking for available seating inside vendors’ booths. Confusing these seats for common hotel meeting areas, The Loiterer takes up indefinite residence without even attempting to engage vendors in conversation.  They may catch up on emails, chat with colleagues, interview job candidates, or even nap, but make no mistake about it – these uninvited guests are hanging out until they’re good and ready to leave.
3. The Party Crasher – This nocturnal species is seen from the late afternoons through the very late nights. Lacking proper invitations to popular parties and receptions, they attempt to gain access by identifying invited guests they know, entering with groups of invited guests, or finding unguarded entries.
4. The Rager – Although long removed from graduate school, The Rager attempts to relive glory days and party like it’s 1999. They may not actually attend conference sessions to learn, but can frequently be seen starting after lunch. Although The Rager and The Party Crasher are easy to confuse, telltale markers of Ragers are bloodshot eyes, complaints of headaches or lack of memory, and wearing the previous day’s clothes.
5. The Bro – These younger males often confuse SIOP with spring break and are relatively unconcerned with learning and developing their professional network. Known for their overly casual appearance, tight shirts, flip-flops, and indoor use of sunglasses, this creature wants everyone at SIOP to know just how cool they really are.
6. The Party Girl – The female counterpart to The Bro is The Party Girl.  Scientists suspect that this species may also confuse SIOP for spring break as evidenced by a manner of appearance more typically seen in bars or dance clubs than professional conferences. Because of their striking appearance, The Party Girl is frequently surrounded by many Bros.
7. The Card Dealer – This creature just had 500 business cards printed, and between Thursday and Sunday will hand ALL of them out. They give out cards to former colleagues, eager students, presenters, waiters, bartenders, the maid, and drop them in containers for every drawing and contest they see.
8. The Lifelong Learner – This species is known for an overly serious approach. They attend all advanced workshops and CE courses, and their program may be torn and tattered from overuse.
9. The Contrarian – This curious creature attends many sessions at SIOP, but with the sole purpose of arguing against the topics discussed. This species mourns the loss of debate sessions at the conference, and may attempt to revive them informally by frequently arguing against ideas and those offering them.
10. The Human Acronym – This species is observed across herds of academics and practitioners. They may be known as Professor Dr. John/Jane Doe, Ph.D., or may hand you a business card that reads John/Jane Doe, M.S., MBA, PHR, ABD, BA. The Human Acronym frequently lists all their achievements since high school in an attempt to wow fellow SIOP attendees.

We hope this Field Guide helps you prepare for the conference jungle and all the creatures you may encounter there. The Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychology is a phenomenal organization and Hogan is proud to sponsor the conference each year. We’re looking forward to seeing you in Houston!

Effective communication lies at the heart of every successful organization. During an age characterized by hyper-connectivity, you would think that communication in the workplace would be clearer than ever. The truth is, the very concept of simple, effective communication is a dying art increasingly compromised by shallow buzzwords and one dimensional corporate speak.

Have you ever walked out of a meeting and asked yourself, “What exactly did we just spend 45 minutes discussing?”  If you answered “yes,”, you’re definitely not alone. Long winded diatribes, vague descriptions, and the inability to communicate a desired message effectively happens all too often within the workplace.

To put things into perspective, have you had an opportunity to “shift a paradigm” or “look for synergies” to “advance the cause” lately? Or have you successfully “peeled back the onion” or “circled the wagons” to “integrate value added processes” for a new client?  I can’t say that I’ve participated in any of these metaphorical tasks or if I even fully comprehend what they mean. However, I can assure you that upon hearing these euphemisms, I’ve engaged in the following familiar action items: “zoning out,” “falling asleep at the wheel,” or “taking a mental vacation.”

The problem of talking without saying anything of substance has become rampant in recent years. Forbes recently published an article satirizing some of the most over-used and despised buzzwords prevalent in our everyday corporate lives.  In the spirit of March Madness, they were creative enough to put the terms in an easy to follow bracket format with witty, comical definitions. Here are a few more of my favorites referenced in a similar article published by hr-heaven:

Humor aside, managers are constantly looking for more effective ways to connect with their workforce.  At the end of the day, it’s not just the most qualified or intelligent managers that set themselves apart, but also those managers who are able to articulate their message in a concise and actionable fashion that see results. With that in mind, the next time you sit across from a client or have an opportunity to take the lead on a project, set clear expectations and be transparent…unless you want to muddy the waters with a bunch of incoherent babble. 

In the past few weeks, I’ve noticed a focus around corporate culture in many of my typical news sources – Fast Company, Fortune, Talent Management Magazine, and Harvard Business Review’s Blog. I’m sure the recent changes in Yahoo’s and Best Buy’s corporate work-from-home policies sparked the heated debates around corporate culture. Many of the discussions center around the impact these culture changes may have on the employees’ engagement, satisfaction, and overall commitment to the company. As covered in the New York Times, Yahoo explained the workplace policy change was made in an effort to boost employee morale. I’m not here to discuss whether this type of culture change was right or wrong, as I believe an argument for both is easily found in the media already.

However, it does have me thinking about how corporate culture affects employee engagement in general. A Gallup poll showed that more than 71% of Americans aren’t engaged in their jobs. We at Hogan believe this is more often a result of failed leadership or a bad boss, which Ryan Ross explains in an article by Adrienne Hedger and Dr. Robert Hogan discusses in “Why Engagement Matters.” I would argue that employee engagement is connected to organizational culture as well.

Perhaps the high rate of employee disengagement is a result of shifting views of how work environments should be structured. Companies are attempting to mitigate low employee engagement by creating a unique environment. We’re seeing examples of how top performing companies, especially those on the Fortune’s “Best Places To Work” list, create a culture where employees want to be at work. Casual dress codes, free food, on-site gyms, ping-pong tables, pet-friendly policies, and many other non-traditional benefits are found in these types of cultures. Not surprisingly, Google is ranked as the #1 Best Place to Work by Forbes.

Of course, not all companies can provide what Google does in terms of free benefits. Fortunately, people want to work at places like Google for reasons besides the free food and rooms full of Legos. Fast Company’s recent article highlights how Google deliberately designs workplace satisfaction, not just around incredible perks, but also by creating a corporate culture that provides freedom, mutual respect, and transparency for all employees. According to the article, Google empowers its employees to have a say in topics ranging from how the company is run to the new design of its company-provided bicycles. This underlying philosophy of empowerment and transparency is the most attractive aspect of corporate culture, and the easiest to emulate.

As more companies begin to make the shift to a flat organizational structure, I bet employee engagement rates will also increase. Only time will tell.

The year I was born, personal computers didn’t exist and Apple wasn’t a household name. In fact, the World Wide Web hadn’t been invented. Google wasn’t a verb, noun or adjective. My first on-the-job experience with a desktop computer was in DOS and printed on green bar.

The year my daughter was born, Twitter opened its site. iTunes sold it billionth download just days before her birth. Just after her first birthday, Apple introduced the iPhone.  

Now, two out of every three people on the planet have a mobile phone subscription. There are more people with mobile phones than running water or toothbrushes. One in 10 people on the planet have a Facebook account and revolutions in the Middle East are gaining momentum through social media.

The difference between what I knew as a kid and what my daughter knows is mind-boggling at best. She is growing up with a pill for everything, food-like substances, ‘reality’ TV, and laws to try to prevent people from texting/Facebooking/Googling while driving. Her generation has a rapidly growing desire for the best, newest and fastest. For her and her peers, it’s a race to gain information, but maybe not always knowledge.

Discussing the differences between parents and our kids with a friend, he might have hit the nail on the head when he stated “the future of voting in America will be via text messages and on a platform similar to ‘American Idol.’”  Although I find this thought completely humiliating for the human race, he probably isn’t that far off.

We will soon have five generations in the workforce, and the landscape is in a constant flux. Not only will individuals need to be agile and open to new ideas and processes, but organizations are being forced to look at the definition of work. The tools we use to do our jobs are going to change, but more importantly the application will need to be more fluid. Organizations will need to adapt to a growing market of customers and employees who are overly-connected through technology, and push to getting what they want, when they want it.

As you prepare for your next strategy meeting, a discussion with your child might prove useful to begin the process of moving in the new direction. If we take a look at the habits of our children and how they communicate amongst their peers and adults, we could gain a glimpse of the future in workplace communication. Additionally, she is learning in a technology-based atmosphere and is required to pass a reading test not only through a paperback book, but also on a computer. This makes me wonder what else has changed in twenty-five years.