I recently listened to a “This American Life” podcast in which the host, Ira Glass, posed fundamental questions about what kids should learn in school and what really matters when it comes to success later in life.

During the show, James Heckman (a Nobel Prize winning economist) argued that qualities other than IQ (i.e., personality characteristics) are equally important in predicting who will be successful in life and who won’t. Heckman became a huge proponent of this viewpoint, bringing together neuroscientists, economists, educators, and psychologists each year to discuss these ideas, after conducting a study that convinced him IQ wasn’t all that mattered.

In this study, Heckman looked at three groups of students:
1. Those who graduated high school
2. Those who dropped out but obtained a GED
3. Those who dropped out and did not obtain a GED.
He followed these people into adulthood for many years to see how successful they were in life. Did they land and hold jobs? How much money did they make? Did they stay out of prison? Did they divorce?

He reasoned that since the GED was equivalent to a high school diploma, those with GEDs should be as smart as high school graduates. If IQ was all that mattered, he predicted the two groups would be equally successful in life. He wasn’t sure how the drop-outs would end up since their intelligence was unknown.

Heckman found that those who had earned their GED performed slightly better than drop-outs, which isn’t too surprising. However, what did surprise Heckman was that those with GEDs didn’t achieve anywhere close to the same success as the high school graduates (in terms of earnings, job performance, college success, etc.).

The study’s findings led Heckman to conclude that cognitive skills, (i.e., IQ) are only one piece of the puzzle. Scores on standardized tests like the GED and ACT that measure IQ can only explain a small fraction of whether or not someone is successful. Other “non-cognitive skills,” like personality characteristics, play a large part in predicting success both personally and professionally.

His conclusion makes sense when you think about it. How resilient or tenacious you are, how you relate to and communicate with others, or how goal-oriented and organized you are should influence how well you do in life. As Dr. Hogan once quoted in the blog, “Character is fate.”

My colleague Kevin Meyer and I recently returned from a visit to India and our distributor there, Sierra Alta Consulting. Sierra Alta launched in 2010, and started working with us as a Hogan distributor in 2011. I can’t begin to say enough great things about their firm and the people working there.

Before my trip, I tried to read as much as possible about Indian business practices, especially when it comes to using personality assessment. From what I read, and what I experienced, India is a nation on the move, and is a key opportunity for HR providers. Here are some key demographics:

• 1.21 billion people
• 75% younger than 35
• 50% younger than 25
• 100 million internet users
• 1 billion mobile users by 2015
• 14,000+ colleges, 389 universities, 1500 research institutes
• Second largest pool of scientists, doctors, and engineers in the world

In short, India has a large, young, and extremely talented and educated professional class that could prove a challenge for HR practitioners.

I was fortunate to experience a number of things on this trip I haven’t before (including pick-pocketing monkeys). Oddly, though, one of the most unexpected learning moments for me was observing how respected and culturally relevant Hogan’s tools were in the local market. The consensus among Sierra Alta users was that Hogan’s assessments capture something specific to India’s culture, despite being considered a Western tool.

Not too long ago I was on a plane heading to another Hogan Road Show. I happened to be sitting next to an HR executive from a Fortune 50 company that is a Hogan client. She was embarking on a long journey to several company locations around the world to audit the use of psychometric assessments in their organization. As I explained in this article, many large organizations are faced with the same challenge of having disjointed and inconsistent assessment use in their ranks. Fostering consistency can yield great benefits for HR practices and talent analytics, therefore, I was happy to hear that her organization was taking these strides. However, what happened next I found troubling.

I told her that her organization is actually a fairly significant Hogan user. She had no idea (concern #1). I then told her that her organization uses Hogan for graduate recruitment and selection. She replied that that was impossible because personality assessment is illegal for use in selection (big concern #2!). In this moment I immediately felt my 78 on the Excitable scale starting to bubble up. I did my best to remain composed and inform her that she had some misinformation. She did not believe me. Here she is, a fairly senior HR executive for a large organization, about to go around the world standardizing assessment use with at least one big misconception guiding some of the decisions she will be making (concern #3).

The occurrence on the plane is not entirely unique. I encounter this misconception from time to time while on road shows and presenting at conferences. The blanket assertion that using personality assessment in selection is illegal is patently false. As with any practice used during employee selection, it comes down to a question of validity in determining legality (see the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Practices for more information). The simplest way of explaining the validity of assessments is a) does the assessment measure what it is supposed to measure and b) does the assessment predict job performance? This is something that Hogan has in spades.

For any client validation research project, we thoroughly document our tools’ ability to measure what they’re supposed to and predict important work outcomes. That is why Hogan has never been successfully challenged in the court system. The same cannot be said of all personality assessments; there is tremendous variability in the validity, reliability, and technical documentation of other assessments. However, for those who, like Hogan, take the science of personality seriously, they have experienced similar success in the court system.

So when it comes to personality assessment in employee selection, validity reigns in establishing legality. (Yes, I know that it also matters that the use of personality assessment cannot result in adverse impact too, but I’m trying to keep it simple for this blog. Also, personality assessment tends to yield almost no adverse impact relative to cognitive ability assessments.) To keep yourself out of hot water, demand technical documentation from your vendor/consultant that demonstrates the tools’ ability to measure what it is supposed to and predict something meaningful on the job. Be careful what you ask for, though. If you are not using a sound psychometric tool, you may not like what you find out. I’m sorry, but if you are using the very scientific personality test of “Which Sex and the City character are you most like?” I’m not sure the judge will let you off so easily.

To wrap up my story-in-the-sky, I didn’t fully convince her that it is okay to use personality assessment in selection. Maybe it was her unknown Skeptical or Bold score – I’m not sure. We had to agree to disagree so that we could spend the next eight or so hours sitting next to each other without the elephant stealing our legroom.

Results are the what of teamwork, whereas the seven components of the Rocket Model© are the how of teamwork. The relationship between Results and the components of the Rocket Model© is not perfect—some teams do well when they shouldn’t and vice versa. For example, a team may be dysfunctional but have great products or face weak competitors. Such teams, however, will fail when faced with strong competition. Other teams may lose even though they do everything right. Still others may achieve poor Results due to a single, underperforming component of the Rocket Model© (e.g. a team killer, the lack of resources, or poor accountability may prevent a team from winning). We believe that teams need to have at least moderate scores on all seven components of the Rocket Model© if they are to compete successfully.

Effective and ineffective leaders differ in their ability to obtain superior Results. Most organizations are staffed with managers who don’t achieve Results; poor leaders are the biggest obstacles to team or group performance. A critical but often overlooked role of a leader is to teach the team how to win. Athletic team coaches and heads of military combat units tend to do this well – they evaluate the competition and devise strategies and tactics to defeat them. They define team member roles and responsibilities, make members practice, provide feedback and coaching, upgrade talent, and hold members accountable for performance.

Leaders can use three mechanisms to teach their teams how to win. First, set clear metrics and goals that are benchmarked against the competition. These goals might include market share, survey results, analysts’ recommendations, and customer complaints. Given the amount of data available to modern organizations, it is usually easy to find benchmarking information that teams can use to set winning goals.

Second, review team performance regularly. Periodic team scorecard reviews will help members understand where they are succeeding and where they are falling short. These reviews should include discussions about how to improve performance; leaders can also use this time to provide feedback and coaching on proposed solutions.

Third, teach members how to win by creating action plans. These action plans need to state the steps members must take to implement solutions, steps that eventually become roadmaps for winning. The best leaders capitalize on all three techniques to drive team performance.

Results are the what of teamwork, whereas the seven components of the Rocket Model© are the how of teamwork. The relationship between Results and the components of the Rocket Model© is not perfect—some teams do well when they shouldn’t and vice versa. For example, a team may be dysfunctional but have great products or face weak competitors. Such teams, however, will fail when faced with strong competition. Other teams may lose even though they do everything right. Still others may achieve poor Results due to a single, underperforming component of the Rocket Model© (e.g. a team killer, the lack of resources, or poor accountability may prevent a team from winning). We believe that teams need to have at least moderate scores on all seven components of the Rocket Model© if they are to compete successfully.

Effective and ineffective leaders differ in their ability to obtain superior Results. Most organizations are staffed with managers who don’t achieve Results; poor leaders are the biggest obstacles to team or group performance. A critical but often overlooked role of a leader is to teach the team how to win. Athletic team coaches and heads of military combat units tend to do this well – they evaluate the competition and devise strategies and tactics to defeat them. They define team member roles and responsibilities, make members practice, provide feedback and coaching, upgrade talent, and hold members accountable for performance.

Leaders can use three mechanisms to teach their teams how to win. First, set clear metrics and goals that are benchmarked against the competition. These goals might include market share, survey results, analysts’ recommendations, and customer complaints. Given the amount of data available to modern organizations, it is usually easy to find benchmarking information that teams can use to set winning goals.

Second, review team performance regularly. Periodic team scorecard reviews will help members understand where they are succeeding and where they are falling short. These reviews should include discussions about how to improve performance; leaders can also use this time to provide feedback and coaching on proposed solutions.

Third, teach members how to win by creating action plans. These action plans need to state the steps members must take to implement solutions, steps that eventually become roadmaps for winning. The best leaders capitalize on all three techniques to drive team performance.

“What is your greatest weakness?”

A Google search using that common interview question yields more than 2 million articles, most of which outline ways to artfully dodge the answer. The most common trick is to list a weakness in the form of an exaggerated strength. However, the line between strength and weakness isn’t always clear. The personality characteristics that help launch promising careers can turn into crippling derailers down the line. But they don’t have to.

Download How Your Greatest Strength Can Become Your Greatest Weakness and learn how to identify and mitigate potentially destructive behaviors.

This past weekend, I made an impromptu trip to Kansas City to be with my grandmother in the hospital after a heart attack. Thankfully, the doctors are confident that the damage can be treated quickly and she may be able to return home soon.

During the time I spent with grandmother before returning back to Tulsa, we got to know the nurses and nursing assistants quite well and I couldn’t help but pay close attention to their every move. This is my grandmother, after all, and given the circumstances, my high Skeptical tendencies were out in full force. While we were very pleased with the majority of the staff, there were two nursing assistants that left a more lasting impression.

First, there was nursing assistant A, let’s call her Nancy. During her 12-hour shift, Nancy performed all tasks very well (i.e., administering medication, assisting the patient with bathing, assessing the patient’s vitals and documenting them with the nurse). However, the positive impression Nancy left with us was not due to her technical skills alone. Nancy was upbeat, attentive, friendly, and understanding. She checked in on my grandmother frequently, brought her extra ice cream after room service was closed, and cracked jokes to lighten the mood. Without a doubt, Nancy made the hospital stay easier on my grandmother (and us).

Then, there was nursing assistant B, let’s call her Anita. Anita was from the hospital’s radiology department and transported my grandmother from her room to the lab for testing. Although Anita performed her primary task, she caused us all to be concerned with her interest and capabilities for doing so. As an example, Anita first approached my grandmother’s bed, asking her “Are you going down for X-rays now? I think that’s where you’re going”, while grabbing a piece of paper from her pocket to check the order. She failed to make any attempt to make my grandmother comfortable as she moved from her hospital bed to the gurney and when the R.N. asked Anita if there was an oxygen tank attached to the gurney, Anita glanced at the bed from several feet away and responded “Yeah, it looks like there is a tank.” It was apparent that Anita lacked the confidence, interpersonal skills, and motivators necessary for the role.

This is another example of the importance of personality fit within a role. My colleagues Ryan Daly and Cheryl Dunlap shared stories of a rewarding and disappointing experience with organizations and our observations all share one common, albeit basic, theme: employing the right or wrong people for the job will leave a lasting impression on your customers.

Here's Bill Gates on leadership.

Here’s Bill Gates on leadership.