Harvard Business Review blogger, Jack Zenger, recently wrote “we wait too long to train our leaders.” In his post Zenger points out the discrepancy between when individuals first take on leadership roles and when they first receive leadership training. When looking at data from over 17,000 leaders across the globe, the average age an individual became a leader was 30, yet the average age for entering leadership training was 42. Why does this gap exist?

Some critics have pointed the finger at business schools, claiming they focus on developing “hard” business skills while doing little to develop their graduates’ “soft” leadership skills. These critics assert that new managers use their MBA skills marginally or not at all in their first management assignments. As such, MBA program administrators and faculty can no longer assume that graduates will successfully motivate and lead people in the business world without first developing these skills. In fact, companies prefer to recruit graduates who have been exposed to soft skill leadership development while still in school.

The Graduate Management Admissions Council (GMAC) concluded that business schools could enhance their relevancy by devoting more attention to soft skill competencies and recently developed Reflect, an online development tool aimed at addressing this gap. Also, MBA programs have started implementing leadership development courses into their curriculums. Several of U.S. News’s top ranked MBA programs describe their leadership development courses on their websites to attract prospective students. Business schools appear to be working to close the gap by providing their students with leadership training early in their careers.

Interestingly, a similar trend may be happening in the leadership ranks within universities themselves. A recent Wall Street Journal article quoted Lucy Apthorp Leske, co-director of the education and not-for-profit practice at Witt/Kieffer, as saying, “There has been a real shift to the professionalization of higher education administration.” She explained that universities are putting more weight on factors like business sense and creative problem-solving rather than just research prowess for their leaders.

So while Zenger has a point, universities seem to be addressing this gap in more ways than one, working to equip leaders with the skills they need to be successful in the future.

Five words: Online, interactive, competency development report.

These words have never been used in the same sentence to describe any type of personality assessment output, ever. To that end, Hogan is proud to announce the launch of GMAC Reflect. Over the last 2 years Hogan (myself included) has worked alongside the Graduate Management Admission Council (GMAC) to create Reflect, a self-directed customized learning experience for MBA students.

GMAC, as you may know, is the power behind the business school GMAT exam for prospective MBA students. However, Reflect was created in an effort to provide self development programs to their core market. Reflect is also very affordable because we know students will be buying it directly. A Reflect ID/login is valid for 3 years, so you can log back in and see the newest learning resources and text.

Reflect measures graduate students across 10 business competencies that aim to enhance professional interactions, job performance and career prospects. GMAC conducted a wide variety of focus groups and corporate surveys to solidify the key competencies that cover over 80% of existing corporate competency models. Ultimately, the differentiator here is that the assessment and the personal development tool are online and can be used without a facilitator or coach.

Each individual competency offers detailed information based on a person’s score as well as related learning resources that are meant to enhance your skills and behaviors. There are also targeted actionable tips to improve your performance. In true Hogan speak, Reflect also provides a list of 12 behaviors to start, stop, and keep doing based on your scores. Students can then add learning resources, recommended actions, and tips from the report to a customizable work plan. Lastly, Reflect offers a career benchmarking section where an individual can compare their own competency scores against high-performing professionals in 14 business careers. This feature is aimed at the competitive MBA student to fully understand how their own behaviors might be measuring up.

In season 3, episode 15, of the CBS sitcom “How I Met Your Mother,” one of the characters introduces the gang to a workplace phenomenon called the chain of screaming. I’ll let the video clip below do the heavy lifting, but it basically works like this: my boss’s boss screams at my boss, who in turn screams at me, after which I scream at one of my subordinates, and so on.

Although this seems like a clever joke around which to build a 20-minute episode, according to an article published yesterday on Forbes.com, the chain of screaming is real – sort of.

A new study suggests that bullying bosses affect more than just their victim. Researchers polled 233 people from various fields and found that, much like the chain of screaming, victims of a bullying boss often turn into bullies themselves, spreading their discontent through the office like a nasty virus.

Hogan’s own research supports these findings – 75% percent of working adults say the most stressful aspect of their job is their immediate boss.

Fortunately, companies aren’t powerless against the effects of bullying bosses and the disengaged workforces they create. To find out more, check out our free eBook, “Leadership: You’re Doing It Wrong.”

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.

Three days after the Super Bowl XLVII dust has settled, the Twittersphere is still buzzing with predictable comments, including Beyonce’s wardrobe choice, the funniest commercials, and what caused the 30-minute blackout. Not surprisingly, Ravens linebacker Ray Lewis was not excluded from popular trending topics. As many are aware, Lewis ended his NFL career on Sunday with his second Super Bowl win, a bittersweet day for Baltimore Ravens fans. While most of the attention around Lewis after the win on Sunday was positive, historically, Lewis’ reputation with the media has been quite controversial. (A quick Google search will give you all the grizzly details). Despite Lewis’ rocky past and the public’s love/hate relationship with him, his influence and impact on his team are indisputable. As another football great retires, there are a couple of key observations to glean from Lewis’ career as a leader.

The performance of his team

The qualities of an effective leader have long been debated and are still not well-defined. Dr. Hogan will tell you that the best determinant for measuring a leader’s success is by the performance of his/her team. Applying this principle to Ray Lewis, his success as a leader is clear. In a recent Yahoo! Sports article, former teammate Tony Pashos was quoted as saying “…you know what happens when Ray Lewis is in the locker room, and on the field? Guess what, you just maximized your entire salary cap, because everyone around him is playing at the highest level he can play. When I hear about the great ones like [Boston Celtics legend] Bill Russell, they say that he made everyone around him better. That’s Ray.”

His impact beyond raw talent

As many sports writers attest, Lewis did not earn his champion status based solely on his athletic talent. Although he has many accolades of which to be proud, including being selected in 13 Pro Bowls, receiving the NFL Defensive Player of the Year award twice, and two Super Bowl rings, his legacy will be known for much more. Sports writer Michael Silver states: “Because he ascended to the top of his profession on the strength of intangibles — work ethic, attention to detail, relentless passion, indefatigable drive — Lewis’ locker-room cred is tremendous. I exist in a world in which players routinely take private jabs at one another, especially those whose outsized personalities cause them to become public caricatures. Yet I’ve never covered an athlete more revered by teammates and opponents than Lewis, who habitually exceeds the lofty expectations of the newcomers that enter the Baltimore locker room.”

Although there may be other determining factors that lead one to such legacy status, these aspirations should be weighted heavily when considering how to make the greatest leadership impact. By focusing on such objectives, current leaders may realize some of the same notoriety upon retirement, just like the football legend himself.

Talk of personal branding on social platforms is rampant. Rarely, however is there mention of how a personal brand can affect engagement at work.

Employee engagement refers to the rational and emotional commitment one has to various aspects associated with the organization where he or she works. An employee’s commitment level translates into discretionary effort and intent to stay, which both affect organizational performance. Additionally, employee engagement is associated with job commitment, lack of burnout and well being. As Dr. Robert Hogan attests, “when employees are engaged, they like their jobs, they work hard at their jobs, they take initiative, and they show loyalty.”

When you brand yourself effectively within a company culture, co-workers and supervisors will have a clearer and more concise understanding of what it takes for you to be successful. Accurately projecting who you are to others will give them the necessary information to help you along the way. Even if they’re well-intentioned, peers and supervisors cannot contribute to your engagement or success if they do not have a clear picture of your personality traits and motives.

How can one take control of one’s personal brand and intentionally portray it favorably every day? It all starts with self-knowledge, which is a basic necessity to building your personal brand. Managing your reputation within an organization can only arise from strategic self-awareness.

Here are 3 ways to accurately define and project your personal brand at work.

Define it Simply

Identify what your three core brand attributes are. You should be able to fit them on a Post-it. Start by collecting feedback on how co-workers describe you, your strengths, your development opportunities and some of your top drivers.

Convey it Clearly

Project yourself in a concise manner. Mixed messages will confuse others. Focus on sending out a clear message of how you like to get things done, what makes you get those things done and why you do the things you do in a compact way.

Project it Confidently

Establish yourself as an expert in a relevant field. Once you show competence, you can more easily create a confident presence and build credibility. Become a good source of knowledge for others in a specific area and take control of disseminating that information. By sharing your expertise others will become more aware of what engages you.

If you are not feeling engaged at work, consider what image you are projecting to others.  Sharply defining your personal brand could be a step in the right direction.

In the month of October, Hurricane Sandy dealt a devastating blow to the East Coast. Major flooding, power outages, structural damage to business and homes, and fatalities are the only remnants of the ruinous storm.

With some states still reeling from the effects of the hurricane, it is impossible to turn on the television, open the newspaper, or search social media sites without witnessing the aftermath. During this traumatic event, many prominent public figures have stepped up to provide resources, assistance, and support to those affected by the hurricane. For example, Barack Obama cancelled his campaign in Ohio to assess the storm damage of New Jersey, and Lady Gaga donated $1 million to the American Red Cross to support storm relief efforts. Although individuals’ benevolence, selflessness, and service-orientation is vital to picking up the pieces of Hurricane Sandy, it raises an important question: why does this inspiring and energizing leadership appear more frequently in times of a crisis?

As Ron Ashkenas’ article notes, leaders typically modify their day-to-day behaviors during a sustained crisis. As a result, they tend to appear more willing to collaborate and communicate across boundaries, accelerate the decision making process, eliminate standard procedures and restrictions, and volunteer their time to hands-on service activities in order to help alleviate or resolve the crisis. These behaviors, however, slowly dissipate as the crisis begins to stabilize, immediate problems are solved, and the sense of urgency diminishes.

According to Ashkenas, there are two main reasons we witness extraordinary leadership during unordinary conditions. First, a crisis accelerates a leader’s ability to act decisively because there is not much time to evaluate, plan, or brainstorm. As such, a leader must be disposed to take action or effectuate a solution. Second, a crisis forces a leader to think creatively and quickly, while circumventing standard procedures and policies. In this case, fast, bold, and sometimes risky actions override predictable and safe ideas.

Demonstrating this type of passion, influence, and action-orientation may be beneficial for leaders in the corporate world, even when a crisis is not present. Subordinates and colleagues are typically drawn to these inspiring and energetic behaviors. You can identify what may motivate or influence leaders to respond to a crisis and how they may manage or approach a crisis and accompanying stress simply by looking at their Hogan assessment results. From this information, you can see a glimpse into how your leaders are likely to act during the good, bad, and ugly times organizations can face.

Many business owners and managers have likely found themselves in a predicament similar to the one Eric Sinoway describes in a recent blog for the Harvard Business Review.

One of his firm’s top performers was having a detrimental impact on the company culture. Should he and his partner continue to support and reward the employee based on his results, or should they cut him loose? How do you weigh the results a person gets vs. how he or she gets them?

Culture is a crucial factor in business success. There are dozens of stories of how a company’s culture either positively or negatively impacted its business.

Sinoway goes so far as to quote a Harvard Business School professor who claimed, “maintaining an effective culture is so important that it, in fact, trumps even strategy.”

Sinoway proposes there are four types of employees in terms of culture:

• Stars – Employees who perform well and align with organizational values
• High Potentials – Employees whose performance could improve, but who align with organizational values
• Zombies – Employees who neither perform well or align with organizational values, and
• Vampires – Employees who perform well but fail to align with organizational values.

Vampires, Sinoway said, can prove the most destructive, since most companies are reluctant to fire top performers. In this particular employee’s case, Sinoway knew he had to let him go.

For more about how values impact organizational culture and how culture can affect performance, check out our three part series, The Power of Unconscious Biases, The Value of Values, and The Culture Clash.

Within the past year or so, the topic of authentic leadership keeps surfacing around the Hogan office, with our clients, and at a few conferences. The repeated references to and different explanations of this buzzword in the leadership development world caused me to pause for a minute. What exactly is authentic leadership, and how can you achieve it? Or, better yet, what can stand your way?

To answer these questions, I started with the authentic leadership guru, Bill George. Mr. George has penned two books on the topic: Authentic Leadership and its successor True North. In his blog post “Authentic Leadership Revisited” he defines authentic leadership as “being genuine, real, and true to who you are.” Another blog post  states that, “to become authentic, each of us has to develop our own leadership style, consistent with our personality and character.”

I think the concept of achieving authentic leadership boils down to strategic self-awareness. Knowing your strengths and challenges, being willing to point out the chinks in your armor, and demonstrating a certain element of humility can all lead to becoming a more authentic leader. Of course, this is more easily said than done. However, Hogan’s personality assessments, development-focused reports, and feedback process can certainly help start the strategic self-awareness conversation.

Additionally, the bigger question here remains. Are there certain personality characteristics that can stand in your way of being seen as authentic? The moving against cluster (Bold, Colorful, Mischievous, and Imaginative) on the Hogan Development Survey can affect your perceived ability to be authentic. It’s important to keep in mind that HDS behaviors often arise under stress, pressure, boredom, or complacency. These are not every day behaviors, but can still impact your perceived authenticity or leadership brand. For example, high scores on this cluster suggest that leaders with these derailing behaviors may not express humility (Colorful) and be unwilling to admit mistakes (Bold). The graph below highlights the impact these derailers can have on authentic leadership.

So, how do you derail? Given these implications for authentic leadership, it’s worth looking into. 

By now, most people have heard about Greg Smith, the former Goldman Sachs vice president who resigned in a searing article on the New York Time’s op-ed page. The former investment banker has been making news again this week following the release of a book detailing his experiences at the storied firm.

In his op-ed article, Smith leveled intense charges against the firm’s corporate culture, calling it toxic and destructive, and said that the firm promoted morally bankrupt people.

Although there is a fair amount of question regarding his allegations, Smith’s article and subsequent interviews bring up an interesting topic – the effect of leaders’ values on corporate culture. From Apple to Zappos, there are hundreds of examples of the positive effect a CEO can have on his or her company’s culture. Unfortunately, there are just as many about what happens when that effect takes a dark turn.

For more about how leaders’ values can affect company culture, check out Eric Sinoway’s recent blog on the Harvard Business Review, or take a look at our whitepapers The Power of Unconscious Biases and The Culture Clash.