Western societies tend to attribute success to individuals – Hannibal is often seen as the leader who conquered much of the land surrounding the Mediterranean and it was Steve Jobs who transformed Apple into one of the world’s most valued companies. But these individuals would have failed had they worked alone. Hannibal’s success can be rightly attributed to assembling a highly effective army; Steve Jobs’ success depended on highly talented product developers and software engineers. Hannibal and Jobs not only had a knack for gathering the right cast of characters, they were also very adept at putting the right people in the right positions and getting everyone to work together effectively. More often than not, less talented individuals who work well together often accomplish more than talented individuals who play dysfunctional family feud. Despite the fact that all major human accomplishments have been the result of collective rather than individual efforts, systematic research on groups and teams is a relatively recent phenomenon.

Most of the research on teams from the late 1940s through the early 1980s was focused on the processes and dynamics associated with leaderless groups. Tuckman’s famous forming, storming, norming, and performing stages of group development was one of the more robust findings from this research and can readily be observed anytime groups of volunteers get together. Yet these four stages rarely occur in the world of work, since competitive threats, authority hierarchies, pre-assigned goals and roles, and time and task pressures profoundly affect group dynamics. Research on work teams over the past 30 years has resulted in these six major findings:

1. There are important distinctions between groups and teams. Teams have overarching goals; members do interdependent work and share common fates. Groups are collections of individuals who have individual goals, do independent work, and are rewarded or fail based on their individual efforts.
2. Teams are not always more effective than groups. The relative effectiveness of teams versus groups depends on the nature of work to be accomplished; sometimes teams are the best option and other times groups are a better way to go.
3. Highly effective groups and teams are relatively rare. People work on many groups and teams over the course of their careers, yet most fail to perform at their potential.
4. There is no widely accepted model for building high performing groups and teams. Several models for building teams have been offered but none have been widely adopted.
5. Effective leaders are the exception rather than the rule. Somewhere between 65-75 percent of people in positions of authority are unable to build teams or get results.
6. Leadership matters. It is true that leaders cannot do it alone and may get a disproportionate amount of credit or blame for team outcomes, but who is in charge does matter. Dysfunctional leaders beget dysfunctional teams.

By Gordon Curphy
Curphy Consulting Corporation
Guest blogger and author of The Rocket Model

Many organizations encourage their employees to volunteer outside of work or offer employee volunteer programs. For example, Novartis Pharmaceuticals hosts an annual Community Partnership Day (CPD) for its employees to offer services to local causes in the community while Booz Allen Hamilton encourages employees to volunteer 40 hours for any nonprofit organization through a Volunteer Service Grants (VSG) program. This demonstration of corporate citizenship efforts not only increases employee morale by allowing employees to make a social impact, but it also helps employees gain professional skills and may create a philanthropic reputation for the organization.

Additionally, making a difference in society or having an “impact job” has gained momentum according to Ariel Schwartz. In a survey of college students and current workers, both groups desired a job that provided opportunities to make a social or environmental impact more than a job that resulted in a higher degree of status or wealth. However, college students showed a stronger preference for obtaining a job that “helps make a better world.”

Although providing resources and assistance in community-centered business practices may not be a core motive or interest for all individuals in the workforce, technology innovators are taking notice of this socially conscious trend by creating more effective ways to tap into the service sectors. Rachel Chong’s blog on fastcompany.com, a leading business media site, provides insight into how companies, such as idealist.org, VolunteerMatch.org, and Catchafire.org, are using innovative strategies to support service projects. These companies allow organizations to customize volunteer activities based on factors such as areas of interest, time commitment, and employees’ skills, interpersonal style, and motivations. This modern approach to volunteering provides a tangible way for employees to cultivate their leadership and relational skills while matching them up to a service activity that truly captures their cause interests (otherwise known as skills-based volunteering). In addition, organizations can tailor these programs to ensure that business goals, objectives, and competencies are integrated into their service projects as a basis for talent development.

Furthermore, many employers may use volunteer work experiences as additional criteria in evaluating candidates in the hiring process. Volunteer work demonstrates an employee’s willingness to actively participate in the environment and accrue new experiences and skills. As noted by Chong, more and more professionals “consider volunteer work equally as valuable as paid work experience” so participating in volunteer activities may give job seekers a competitive advantage.

Whether it is a primary motivator for employees or a company’s mission to give back to the community in meaningful way, volunteering can benefit businesses, employees, and the community in numerous ways including building a service-focused image, promoting employee leadership and skill development, and providing a positive impact on society. Now, with the help of online technology, organizations have a more efficient and accessible way to leverage service and cause tools and give back to the community.

College graduates face a harsh reality regarding their career prospects. According to the New York Times, recent graduates are entering the toughest job market in the last quarter of a century; only 56 percent are employed in jobs that require a college degree, 22 percent are working in jobs that do not require a college degree, and 22.4 percent aren't working at all. 

These circumstances aren't limited to recent graduates. Underemployment among workers with a bachelor's or higher degree rose from 3.9 percent in December 2007 to 8.4 percent in March 2011, an increase larger than any other segment of the economy. 

The widespread and persistent nature of under-and unemployment in a group that is technically skilled and educated suggests that this demographic lacks the skill set necessary to obtain employment. 

Are You Employable? examines what employers really want in their new hires — and finds interpersonal skills come out on top. 

College graduates face a harsh reality regarding their career prospects. According to the New York Times, recent graduates are entering the toughest job market in the last quarter of a century; only 56 percent are employed in jobs that require a college degree, 22 percent are working in jobs that do not require a college degree, and 22.4 percent aren’t working at all.

These circumstances aren’t limited to recent graduates. Underemployment among workers with a bachelor’s or higher degree rose from 3.9 percent in December 2007 to 8.4 percent in March 2011, an increase larger than any other segment of the economy.

The widespread and persistent nature of under-and unemployment in a group that is technically skilled and educated suggests that this demographic lacks the skill set necessary to obtain employment.

Are You Employable? examines what employers really want in their new hires — and finds interpersonal skills come out on top.

Bosses from Hell

Bad bosses make for good comedy, as movies like “The Devil Wears Prada” attest. But for workers and the companies that hire them, subpar superiors are no laughing matter.

According to Dr. Robert Hogan, poor managers – who range from incompetent to tyrannical – do more than make workers’ lives miserable. They also lose money. Research shows that ill-managed companies earn far fewer profits than well-managed ones, says Hogan, who is president of Hogan Assessment Systems, an international distributor of psychological assessments.

Worse, they cost people their health. Sixty-five percent to seventy-five percent of workers say the most stressful aspect of their job is their immediate supervisor, find studies by Hogan and others.

“So these guys aren’t just bad for business --- they’re killing people,” Hogan asserts.

What’s to be done? Psychological researchers need to pinpoint the best leadership qualities and interventions. In the field, practitioners need to use good assessment tools, develop training programs and suggest hiring practices based on these interventions. Many people fall into management jobs based on seniority, hierarchy or technical ability rather than personality and talent. Good leadership must be nurtured, and “bad leaders need to be confronted with their flaws,” Hogan says.

From Monitor on Psychology May 2012

Bosses from Hell

Bad bosses make for good comedy, as movies like “The Devil Wears Prada” attest. But for workers and the companies that hire them, subpar superiors are no laughing matter.

According to Dr. Robert Hogan, poor managers – who range from incompetent to tyrannical – do more than make workers’ lives miserable. They also lose money. Research shows that ill-managed companies earn far fewer profits than well-managed ones, says Hogan, who is president of Hogan Assessment Systems, an international distributor of psychological assessments.

Worse, they cost people their health. Sixty-five percent to seventy-five percent of workers say the most stressful aspect of their job is their immediate supervisor, find studies by Hogan and others.

“So these guys aren’t just bad for business — they’re killing people,” Hogan asserts.

What’s to be done? Psychological researchers need to pinpoint the best leadership qualities and interventions. In the field, practitioners need to use good assessment tools, develop training programs and suggest hiring practices based on these interventions. Many people fall into management jobs based on seniority, hierarchy or technical ability rather than personality and talent. Good leadership must be nurtured, and “bad leaders need to be confronted with their flaws,” Hogan says.

From Monitor on Psychology May 2012

She’s the one with the can-do attitude. The boss needs that proposal by tomorrow? No problem. Have a 3 a.m. conference call? She’ll be there. You need 10,000 copies correlated and stapled? She can do that, too. Sure, she may over commit, but you don’t get ahead by saying “no.”

On the climb up the corporate ladder, the line between strength and weakness isn’t always clear. Although her eagerness to please served the over-committer early in her career, now, she has an overflowing calendar and a reputation as the boss’s pet.

Watch this video to see the over-committer at work, or visit www.howdoyouderail.com to view the entire HDS video series. Follow on Twitter @ImHiDutiful #howdoyouderail

She’s the one with the can-do attitude. The boss needs that proposal by tomorrow? No problem. Have a 3 a.m. conference call? She’ll be there. You need 10,000 copies correlated and stapled? She can do that, too. Sure, she may over commit, but you don’t get ahead by saying “no.”

On the climb up the corporate ladder, the line between strength and weakness isn’t always clear. Although her eagerness to please served the over-committer early in her career, now, she has an overflowing calendar and a reputation as the boss’s pet.

Watch this video to see the over-committer at work, or visit www.howdoyouderail.com to view the entire HDS video series. Follow on Twitter @ImHiDutiful #howdoyouderail

Earlier this month, I had the pleasure of serving jury duty. I’ve never been summoned to serve on a jury. The holding room for potential jurors is in a hot, windowless basement. The thought of sitting in what Tulsans affectionately call The Cellar Club wasn’t exactly my idea of a good time. I thought I’d pass the time catching up on work or finally finishing The Hunger Games. Instead, I found myself playing my new favorite game – Guess the Hogan Scales. People-watching is the best at the airport and courthouses apparently.

My name was called again to officially serve on a civil case after having answered several questions by the judge and lawyers. No, it wasn’t anything like Law & Order. The case itself wasn’t all that enthralling, and I’m still confused how the two parties couldn’t simply settle outside of court after 6 years. While listening to the arguments of both the prosecution and defense lawyers, I noticed that each exhibited similar styles. I couldn’t help but continue my Guess the Hogan Scales game as I watched them engage with witnesses and the judge.

Both lawyers seemed to become somewhat emotional during the trial. No tears were shed, but several sighs, eye rolling, objections, red faces, and a general look of frustration from both were ever present throughout the trial. During my guessing game I speculated these two lawyers likely scored in the lower range on Adjustment, Interpersonal Sensitivity, and Prudence. The lawyers’ emotionality, direct and challenging communication style, and attempts to bend the rules of the court made me a bit curious about how lawyers behave in general. After serving nearly a week of jury duty, I returned to the Hogan office ready to see what existing research I could find around Hogan and lawyers.

As it turns out, Hogan published results from the Hogan Assessment Project of Lawyer Personality in 2009 (Understanding Lawyers: Why We Do the Things We Do). According to the study of 2,000 lawyers that used Hogan’s three core inventories (HPI, HDS, and MVPI), I wasn’t too far off from my predictions. Although lawyers are responsible for different tasks and work in a variety of capacities, there are certain personality traits that are characteristic of lawyers in general.

The study shows the average results are significantly below the midpoint on the HPI Adjustment (44th percentile), which indicates lawyers on average tend to be emotionally expressive and moody, yet open to feedback and more self-aware of these behaviors. Additionally, the lowest average score is on HPI Interpersonal Sensitivity (40th percentile), “indicating that lawyers are task-oriented and tend to speak their minds but may also come across as cold, critical, and argumentative.” Moreover, lawyers exhibit more Excitable and Leisurely behaviors as measured by the HDS, which may explain the eye rolling, red faces, and limited respect for the judge’s rules I observed in the courtroom.

Although my recent and only experience yielded me a sample size of 2, the study I found in the archives seems to match my observations for the most part. It appears that I’m winning my Guess the Hogan scales game. I left jury duty feeling rewarded for my service and enlightened with different perspective of lawyers than I see on my favorite prime-time crime shows.

Ron Ashkenas recently posted an interesting blog on Harvard Business Review positing two common failures of high potential development programs: (1) employers are uncomfortable tapping some employees for development over others, and (2) managers are uncomfortable maintaining the complex coaching dialogue needed to develop these high potential employees. Ashkenas writes:

Taken together, the twin discomforts of differentiation and dialogue hinder high-potential programs, even when senior line and HR executives do a good job of centrally structuring assessments, rotations, and training. This may at least partly explain why so many company-identified high potentials don’t remain with their firms.

Ashkenas places much of the blame on squeamish managers:

… most managers hate to differentiate. They would prefer to treat everyone the same, avoiding the uncomfortable process of sorting people by levels of performance … engaging in … developmental dialogue is foreign to many managers and can cause just as much anxiety as the need to differentiate.

This is where I disagree, at least in part. Yes, managers are uncomfortable ranking their employees. However, this discomfort with differentiation likely exists because, in many cases, being selected for development has more to do with politics than potential. Good personality assessment provides a fair, accurate way to identify employees who have the potential to become strong leaders, which effectively absolves managers of accusations that they play favorites.

Similarly, managers are often uncomfortable mentoring their high potential employees because without the data-driven development framework provided by personality assessment, feedback can be unfocused, and performance critiques taken as a personal attack.

For more information on high potential development, check out our recent whitepaper, “From Potential to Performance,” in which we examine how these and other common talent management problems can be solved by making personality assessment the cornerstone of any high potential selection and development program.