The current class of college graduates is one of the most educated, technologically advanced, and technically skilled to ever enter the workforce. According to the New York Times, however, 22% are working in jobs that do not require a college degree, and 22.4% aren’t working at all.

Although the economy can be blamed for some of this problem, the widespread and persistent nature of under- and unemployment beg the question: What is keeping this otherwise talented young generation from succeeding in the workforce?

In a recent talk for the Cambridge Assessment Network, Dr. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic discussed the underlying psychology of employability and career success.

Watch the video

For more about employability, read our recently-released whitepaper: “Are You Employable?”

In a recent blog for the Harvard Business Review, Ambiga Dhiraj, Head of Talent Management for Chicago-based Mu Sigma, a decision science and analytics services firm, made an interesting observation about her company’s talent management process:

When it comes to employee development, most companies traditionally follow the 10/80/10 rule: The top 10 percent are promoted, the middle 80 percent are nurtured, and the bottom 10 percent are let go. At my company, we followed this advice at first too. But we found that we were losing too many from the middle 80 percent: people who had great potential were leaving because they weren’t getting promoted quickly enough.

As any HR professional can tell you, Mu Sigma isn’t the only company that faces this struggle – in fact, a survey released last year showed that nearly 40% of employed adults were looking for a new job. That’s bad news for companies. According to Dr. Robert Hogan, when [engagement] is low, absenteeism, turnover, and theft go up, and productivity and customer satisfaction go down.

So how can companies address low engagement? Hogan said engagement is commonly defined in terms of four components: cognitive – the role is consistent with a person’s identity; emotional – the person likes the role; physical – the person will work at the role; and existential – the role provides personal meaning.

Dhiraj said her company changed the basic way it motivated its employees:

[Previously], our managers used promotions as carrots. Now they are challenged to motivate employees in other ways – by giving them interesting projects to work on, public praise for their work, and the right guidance and encouragement.

Fellow HBR blogger Tony Schwartz, president and CEO of The Energy Project, approaches engagement on an even more basic level:

The single highest driver of engagement, according to a worldwide study conducted by Towers Watson, is whether or not workers feel their managers are genuinely interested in their wellbeing. Less than 40 percent of workers felt so engaged.

Feeling genuinely appreciated lifts people up. At the most basic level, it makes us feel safe, which is what frees us to do our best work. It’s also energizing. When our value feels at risk, as it so often does, that worry becomes preoccupying, which drains and diverts our energy from creating value.

A group of young hikers, anxious to explore the treacherous mountain ranges of Alaska, interviewed a number of guides at a remote outpost. “Yep, I’m the best there is,” bragged an older, very weathered looking man; “I know every mountain and valley in Alaska – been hiking them for over 50 years.“

Impressed with his obvious experience, the hikers chose the elderly gentleman to lead their expedition. Days into their journey, the group seemed to be wandering aimlessly, passing by landmarks they’d seen before. Cold, hungry, and very skeptical, the group questioned, “We’ve been hiking 6 days and we’re lost – you said you were the best guide in Alaska.”

“I am,” snapped the old-timer, “but we’re in Canada now!”

Moral of the story: be careful who you follow.

Following last week’s deadly capsize and chaotic evacuation of the ultramodern cruise ship Costa Concordia, maritime experts have been raising questions about the captain’s behavior, crew preparedness and bungled evacuation procedures.

The preliminary indications are that there may have been significant human error on the part of the ship’s master, Francesco Schettino, which resulted in grave consequences, including 15 deaths and as many as 17 missing persons to date.

In an article entitled “The Link between Personality and Human Error: Using Assessments To Hire Safety-Minded Employees,” Greg Ford (HRVoice.Org) observes the strong role of personality and safety:

What’s interesting is that up to 90% of incidents are due to human error, not faulty equipment or other factors. For the past fifty years, social scientists have been researching personality . . . there has been more and more research into how certain personality types are naturally more “safety-oriented” than others.

Hogan Research Division (HRD) has been researching predictors of safety-related behaviors for nearly 30 years across a variety of industries. In a seminal whitepaper, they conclude:

Our research shows that individual differences in personality predict both safety related behaviors (as indicated by supervisory ratings) and on-the-job accidents and injuries. This research stands in contrast to previous findings showing little to no relationships between individual personality measures and safety incidents.

Employees with an “at risk” personality can be identified by assessing them on the following six dimensions:

“Everybody has a default personality. Some call it hard-wiring,” says Stephen Race, an assessment specialist with Performance Vector (HRVoice.Org). Race says, “We can teach people to behave in a certain way for short periods of time, but they will always revert back to who they are, especially when faced with unexpected circumstances.”

Captain “Sully” Sullenberger, who famously and safely ditched U.S. Airlines flight 1549 onto the Hudson River after crippling bird strikes, epitomized the expression of a safety conscious personality. Consistently described by all who know him as “cool, calm, and collected,” Sully credits his upbringing, family bonds, and a strong sense of personal integrity. He felt this led to him being hard-wired for safety.

Despite the remarkable fact that there is no training for such emergency landings, Sully described having a strong physiological reaction toward handling this unknown situation. His default personality was calm and focused, rather than panicky and overly reactive to this crucial situation, and as a result, all 155 passengers were able to rejoin their families and feel the embrace of their loved ones yet again.

The analysis of the cruise ship tragedy has just begun, and the role of Captain Schettino’s actions does not look good. He’s admitted that he messed up. Captain Sullenberger, in his book, Highest Duty: My Search for What Really Matters, offers a deeply inspiring message for all of us. Sully says, “We need to try to do the right thing every time, to perform at our best, because we never know what moment in our lives we’ll be judged on.”
 

Remember your last bad shopping experience? If you’re anything like me, even the thought of it makes your blood boil.

For instance: Last weekend, I made a trip to a major music retailer’s local storefront to buy a few odds and ends – some new guitar strings, picks, cords – mundane purchases, really. Yet, somehow, it turned into one of the worst shopping experiences of my life.

Queue the rant:
1. The store was a mess; nothing was organized, shelves were out of stock, there was literally garbage strewn about the floor, etc.
2. When I had a question, no fewer than three separate sales people told me that they were, and I quote, “Uh, not working today, bro.” Bull. First, my question was not a hard one. It would have taken him an equal amount of effort to give me the answer as it did to give me a dead stare through his lady-like bangs. Second, if you aren’t working, what the hell are you doing in the store? Go home. Or at least direct me toward someone who can help. Finally, please don’t call me bro. I’m not a friend or a peer. You, rude employee, should call me sir.
3. When I finally found what I was looking for, paid, and left, it had been an hour since I got there. An hour!

Marshall Fisher, a professor at the Wharton School, wrote about the consequences of such service in a recent blog post, “Retail Rage,” for the Harvard Business Review:

Losing immediate sales when customers can’t accomplish their shopping missions because of the problems listed above is a huge issue for retailers. It makes customers unhappy, so they’re more likely to go to a competitor the next time they need to buy something. And it’s bad for employee morale, leading to a downward spiral of unhappy customers creating demoralized employees, making customers more unhappy still, and the beat goes on.

Fisher postulates that the root of the problem is a fundamental flaw in business logic:

I think the root cause is business-school thinking gone wrong. We teach our students to be rigorous and manage by the numbers. Not a bad idea, except that it leads to over-weighting the measurable and under-weighting what’s hard to measure. In a store, what’s measurable is the payroll checks a retailer writes every week to its stores’ staffs. What’s hard to measure is the impact that stores’ staffs have on revenue.

This opens the door to self-delusion. Retailers can convince themselves that they can cut payroll by 5% in the last three weeks of a quarter to meet their profit promise to Wall Street and it really won’t impact customer service, because there’s probably people in the stores not doing anything anyway.

I agree that maniacal focus on metrics can be disastrous in terms of customer experience. Home Depot’s fall from grace in the mid 2000s is an excellent example of that phenomenon. But Fisher, like many companies, neglects the basic cause of poor customer service: crappy sales reps.

This particular retailer, for instance, is running an ad series touting its staff of musical equipment “experts.” But, as my colleague and fellow blogger Kristen Switzer points out in her post, “Happy Customers, Happy Employees, Happy Brand,” not all experts have personalities cut out for customer-facing positions, so a staff of experts translates, more often than not, into a nightmare of an in-store experience.

Instead of looking for employees that are an expert in any particular subject matter, perhaps more retailers would find success following the Nordstrom method of hiring Switzer describes in her blog. Nordstrom hires personable people that value working with others and fulfilling clients’ needs. Once hired, Nordstrom ensures employees feel valued, trusted, and respected.

When people ask me what I do for a living, and I tell them that I am a business psychologist, it is not unusual for me to hear “Gosh, we could really do with a psychologist at work.” Colourful stories concerning people, events and relationships usually follow, almost always describing how someone (a colleague, a boss, a team even) is responsible for making working life impossible.

Since I love talking about work and relationships, I usually start asking questions regarding the issue at hand in order to understand what was communicated before, during and after difficult interactions and ineffective exchanges with others.

What often surprises me is not what is generally exchanged between the parties involved, but rather how much of this exchange is assumed and not communicated. The guy from finance assumes that we have read an important email because it was sent as urgent, a client assumes that we will meet that deadline because we have not said “no,” a colleague assumes that a remark made by a team member at the meeting was intended as hurtful, and a boss assumes that you must be happy with your current salary because you have not asked for a pay rise in years. Considering these examples, the consequences of assumptions at work are often disastrous. People don’t show up at meetings when expected, feelings are bruised, relationships damaged and projects not completed on time; when this happens, disappointment rules everywhere.

The dictionary defines assumption as “a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.” I consider them as safety nets designed to shut down alarm bells that are triggered by uncertain and ambiguous circumstances. Very often, an assumption is just a guess in disguise.

Since assumptions are so risky, why do we rely on them so much?

First, not many people like to have their beliefs and views challenged. When we attempt to validate our assumptions, we are also exposing ourselves to some degree of vulnerability and the fact that our truth could be in fact a gross misinterpretation. It is easier to stick with what makes sense in our mind, rather than having our truth destroyed and feeling that invisible dent in our self-esteem.

Second, we all have deeply ingrained mental modes built inside ourselves, unique and systematic ways of interpreting the world around us that condense our thinking, feeling and perceiving into an overall subjective experience. We tend to believe that the world we experience is as it is, simply because we see it that way. Since our mental models are shaped by filters such as biology, language, culture, experiences, and of course personality, it is easy to see that there may be as many mental models as there are faces. To refer to a famous quote, it really does seem that “we don’t see things as they are; we see them as we are.”

Assumption is also relevant to motivational drivers, i.e. the factors that drive and sustain the behaviour of people at work. We often assume that what motivates us will inevitably motivate others, and perhaps the most common assumption is that everyone is motivated by money. However, employees’ values and motivational drivers are often invisible and hard to detect – people just don’t go to work telling you what motivates them or disclosing what they value the most. It is therefore often assumed that simply because we work for the same organization, then we must clearly share the same values.

So, in a world filled with a great deal of ambiguity and characterised by individual experiences and interpretations, how can we try to gain a more comprehensive understanding of others and ourselves?

My advice is simple – instead of assuming, just ask; don’t be afraid to communicate, enquire and validate further. Be also prepared to (actively) listen to what others have to say.

True, this will expose you, challenge your “truths” and won’t be a solution to all problems, but you may be surprised as to what you can learn from others.

Andrea Facchini, MSc.
Business Psychologist and Guest Blogger

Why is it that we give to others around the holiday season? Do we instinctively feel an innate desire (at the same time every year) to do something nice for them? Are we succumbing to marketing forces and great sales during the season of giving? Do we fear what would happen if we did not give gifts each December? (Tongue-in-cheek, this may be the case for some individuals.) Like a good scientist (Santa, I hope you are listening), I need to see what stories the data tell.

Analyzing a large community dataset, I found that the personality characteristic with the greatest relationship to those self-described as “giving” is the Hogan personality scale Interpersonal Sensitivity. This scale measures the degree to which a person is socially sensitive, perceptive, tactful, and skilled at maintaining relationships. This doesn’t necessarily answer whether we are sensitive and perceptive and thus react by giving gifts, or whether we give gifts to proactively build and maintain relationships. Nonetheless, this does suggest that, overall, those who are more socially sensitive and skilled at building and maintaining relationships are also self-described as giving.

Giving was also positively associated with good health practices and, when asked “How would you rate your health now?” giving individuals rated their health status more favorably than non-giving individuals. Finally, this study found that self-described “giving” individuals more positively endorsed the item “I am happy with my life.” Could it be that people in better mental and physical health are more likely to give? Perhaps. Conversely, giving to others may actually be what helps us to feel good. Either way, these results suggest that giving is associated with good health, and similar research corroborates a positive relationship between social relationships and health (e.g., House, Landis, & Umberson, 1988).

There are a couple key take-aways from these findings. Some people may be more pre-disposed to give during the holiday season based on their personality. However, if you don’t score high on the Interpersonal Sensitivity scale, don’t worry. Although not all individuals have innate tendencies driving them to give to others, overall those who are self-described as giving individuals are more likely to rate their current health status favorably and to be happy with their life.

So do we really give entirely for the benefit of others? Or do we attain some benefits ourselves through giving, such as positive emotions that motivate us to continue giving? Whatever the cause, the outcome of giving is likely to be positive for both the giver and recipient. So go ahead, and give a little.

If you couldn’t already tell by overt advertising and buzz around Black Friday deals, it appears the holiday season is upon us. My favorite holiday, Thanksgiving, is this week, and I couldn’t be more excited. The three F’s – food, family, and football – will consume my four-day weekend. I’ll undoubtedly gain five pounds in those few short days, but it’s so worth it.

This is my favorite time of the year for a variety of reasons. However, I enjoy the spirit of the holidays around Thanksgiving the most. The sense of gratitude, being thanked, and having a reason to thank others seems to charge me up. This shouldn’t surprise me. I scored a 100 on the MVPI Altruistic scale. Like others who score high on the Altruistic scale, I’m driven to do right by others through volunteering, and I also tend to motivate others to share my sense of social responsibility. People on the opposite end of the Altruistic scale also tend to give back, just in a different way. Most likely, it’s through monetary donations. I’ve started to notice others around me demonstrate altruistic tendencies more so during the holidays. Whether this is by giving time through volunteering or donating money to a charitable cause, I always enjoy the jump in giving back during the holidays.
 
According to an article in Psychology Today, showing and receiving gratitude “both exemplify the positive in human behavior and provide us with a positive charge that boosts our emotional balance.” The happiness many of us feel after giving back can actually be very rewarding emotionally. In work environments that emphasize altruism, this can be very rewarding professionally as well.

What am I thankful for? Hogan and its community focus. I am able to feed my altruistic tendencies at the workplace, as Hogan offers its employees a variety of ways to give back throughout the year. Obviously, I can’t grow a moustache for Movember, but I’ll donate money to support my male colleagues who are raising awareness with their facial hair art. Our community food bank donation boxes are full. There’s talk of adopting an Angel this Christmas. The opportunities are endless.

For those who are motivated and driven by the chance to give back, working in an environment that provides these opportunities can be very rewarding and motivating emotionally and professionally. My desire to volunteer my time and having a chance to give back to others increases during this wonderful time of the year, and I have many options to participate, volunteer, or give back because of Hogan. So, this is me giving thanks to Hogan for the opportunity to give back. It’s an endless cycle of thanks.

Don’t forget to give thanks this holiday season, even if it has nothing to do with helping others (warning: an emotional boost may result). Happy Thanksgiving! Oh, and go Cowboys!

November 1 was the official kick off to the month of Movember. For those unaware of the meaning behind this portmanteau, simply substitute the popular abbreviation for moustache “Mo”, with the first two letters of November. Some of you may already be familiar with Movember’s distant November facial hair movement “No-Shave November.” However, there are several distinct differences worth noting which make Movember (aka: Novembeard) a much worthier contender of your attention. On a facial hair spectrum, Movember is exclusively reserved for the moustache. But, ultimately, what lies behind the scenes of Movember are truly altruistic efforts through charity for cancer research and men’s health awareness.

Movember was started in Australia in 1999 as means to raise funds for local animal shelters. This original unshaven union, “Whiskers for Whiskers,” started what has now transformed into a multi-million-dollar fundraising event designed to increase awareness of men’s prostate cancer, depression, and testicular cancer.

Like any effective management strategy, it’s worth noting the ground rules that constitute fair play in this season of ‘staches, or month of the Mo’s:
1.    Once registered, each bro must begin the month with a clean-shaven face.
2.    For the entire month of Movember each bro must grow and groom a moustache.
3.    There is to be no joining of the mo to the sideburns (that is considered a beard)
4.    There is to be no joining of the handlebars to your chin (that is considered a goatee)
5.    Each bro must conduct himself like a true country gentleman.

The FAQ on the website clarifies that shaving a beard to provide a ready-made moustache is cheating and not in the spirit of Movember. A small growth of hair under the bottom lip (aka a tickler) is permitted as long as it is not connected to any other region.

As if you didn’t need yet another reason to hair up, the official end of Movember is always marked by a celebration for Mo Bros and Mo Sistas at a local party or the national ‘Stache Bash held this year in Chicago (the most moustache-friendly city in the US).

Although Movember is a light-hearted movement, the amount of money raised globally through Movember donations is approximately $175 million, which makes it the largest funder of prostate cancer research in the world. This is a vital statistic considering that 1 in 6 men will get prostate cancer and 1 in 36 will die from the disease (American Cancer Society). Please JOIN  or DONATE to our Hogan (aka: MOgan) team in our quest to raise money for cancer research and men’s health awareness!

Goal setting; sound decision making; problem solving; networking, embracing diversity…these factors have more in common than their presence across worldwide competency models. The preceding competencies are some of the many skills acquired by a girl scout. As many may be aware, Girl Scouts of America is dedicated to the development and empowerment of girls through experiences, friendships, and learning opportunities. Although I’m fairly familiar with the organization — I was a brownie myself and my Aunt recently retired from her position as CEO of the Girl Scouts of Eastern Oklahoma — after further research, I was impressed to learn about the organization’s continual improvement efforts. Since its inception almost 100 years ago, the organization has progressed in conjunction with the issues facing young girls and with the evolution of women in business and leadership.

Last week, Fast Company released an article about the addition of an innovation component as part of the Girl Scouts’ curriculum. Young girls will be introduced to fields like web design and product development, and will work to obtain such honors as the “inventor” and “social innovation” badges. In today’s business environment, innovation is a key component of successful leadership. By providing these skills, the Girl Scouts are working to build strong female leaders for the future.

Beyond innovation, the Girl Scouts are offering programs focused on financial management, including “good credit,” “money manager,” and “budgeting” badges.

The new badges are among 136 unveiled in the Girl Scouts’ first program redesign in 25 years, the result of a years-long process in which scouts themselves laid out a list of skills they would like to learn. If it’s any indication how much things have changed, nearly 100 years ago, girl scouts were working toward “telegrapher” and “matron housekeeper” badges.

There’s something to be said about the balance maintained by the Girl Scouts. It’s essential for the organization to maintain the fun and flare that’s always been associated with being a Girl Scout, but also to remain forward-thinking and relevant. After reading about the organization’s program redesign, I was pleased to learn that such a balance is being achieved. Young girls will continue to enjoy Girl Scout traditions such as cookie sales, camping, and field trips, yet through these new programs, will become stronger students, community contributors, and eventually, leaders.