As unpatriotic as it sounds: I am not a huge fan of the presidential election cycle. It’s not that I don’t value the power I’m given to choose the leader of the free world, it’s just that I’m not much for the rhetoric, the 15-candidate free-for-all primary debates, or the lazy, only-sometimes-clever Saturday Night Live sketches.

The upside is that it sets the stage for us to examine one of the most important questions in the social and organizational sciences: “What makes a good leader?” Some say the keys are intelligence, ambition, and optimism. Some say the key is a simple, down-home style that says, “Hey, I don’t have just a ton going for me, but I love drinking beer and working on my ranch” (they’re wrong, by the way).

In their paper, “Abstracting Leadership,” Drs. Joyce and Robert Hogan proposed something different; that good leadership is about meeting the basic human needs of one’s followers.

1. Respect your people
It’s the number-one rule of surviving in prison: on your first day inside, pick a fight with the biggest, toughest dude on the yard. The intended result is instant respect, authority, and protection against unwanted romantic advances.

Although a darling metaphor of business writers, office politics are not the same the politics that exist in prisons – or battlefields or second-century China, for that matter. Still, how many times in your career have you watched someone lay into his/her subordinate?

People need respect and acceptance. A high-functioning work group depends on its members feeling confident and unafraid to suggest new ideas. Punishing failure with public humiliation can leave you with a gun-shy workforce and stagnant performance.

2. Less nature, more nurture
In the wild, animals claw their way to the top of the pack. When a new animal takes control of the power structure, it asserts its dominance by marking everything that belongs to it.

When Jack Griffin took control at Time, Inc., he insisted that each of the company’s magazines run a masthead with his name listed first, above the publications’ editors. People crave status and control of resources. By literally marking the pages of his magazines, Griffin robbed his editorial staff of their status and autonomy. Griffin lasted less than six months before simmering resentment boiled over and he was asked to resign.

The point is this: you’re already the boss. Your job is to hire talented, capable employees and provide the resources, guidance, and incentives they need to succeed. When your group performs, share credit. When they fail, take the blame.

3. Be clear, be consistent
As I write this post, there is a squad of riot police working with teargas and batons to subdue a crowd of angry U.S. citizens in Oakland, CA. Their protest is just one of hundreds popping up around the country.

Although their message is disjointed at best (including the always-present “legalize it, dude”), the overwhelming undercurrent behind the 99%ers protests is anger at the lack of transparency in the U.S. government and financial system. Like your momma always said: Honesty is the best policy.

People need structure and predictability in their lives, especially when it comes to work. When they don’t get it, they spend more time worrying, gossiping, or searching for new employment than working. The key to providing stability is clarity and consistency. Make your expectations clear from the outset. Hand out kudos when things go well. When something goes awry, be fair and even. Do the same thing every time. Employees that know what to expect are happier and more productive than those worried about a volatile work situation.

In August I wrote about some interesting findings about how our personality makes us more or less physically attractive to others (read Part I). We learned that being friendly, attention-seeking, and demonstrating a genuine concern in networking with and helping others enhances perceptions of physical attractiveness, while being distant, indifferent, passive-aggressive, and eccentric can be real turn-offs. These results represented trends across people in general, regardless of their gender. To satisfy my insatiable curiosity, I decided to delve further by investigating whether there are personality characteristics that differentially relate to the physical attractiveness of men versus women.

Before getting into specific results for the sexes, I think there are some general results worth mentioning. Overall, I found that personality is far more important for predicting the physical attractiveness of women than for men. Chew on that for a second. Across 28 scales I found five predictors for men and eight for women. More telling is that HPI and HDS account for four and two times more variance (respectively) in predicting physically attractiveness for women than for men. Overall results for MVPI were similar between the sexes. What this means is the bright and dark side of our personalities may have a greater impact on the physical attractiveness of women than they do for men. What I believe this also says is that we men don’t have to worry as much about our behavior in attracting a mate; other factors may be more important (wallet size?).

Now that I have your attention, let us begin with the similarities between the sexes…all one of them! I found only one dimension of personality that provided a similarly strong relationship in predicting physical attractiveness in both sexes; MVPI Affiliation. For both men and women, we find attractive those who demonstrate an intrinsic interest in socializing with, networking with, and getting to know others.

As previously mentioned, I only found five predictors of mention for the physical attractiveness of males. I found positive correlations for HDS Dutiful and MVPI Affiliation. I found negative correlations for HDS Excitable, HDS Skeptical, and MVPI Science. In plain language, men are considered more attractive when they are the types who are more conforming team players who don’t rock the boat. For some reason, the ingratiating, deferential type is found to be more alluring. We also see that the emotionally volatile, cynical, distrusting scientists are considered less attractive. So apparently the type of guy who doesn’t believe it until he sees it and wants to see the proof in the form of facts is found to be unattractive. Yikes, that one hits close to home. Who knew that logic was a turnoff?

I find a few more things interesting about these results. First, I was a bit surprised that the attractiveness of the strong, alpha male archetype was not well supported by these data. Second, there were no significant effects for HPI, indicating that normal day-to-day behavior does not seem to have a noteworthy effect on the perceived physical attractiveness of males. Lastly, I think it is intriguing to see where the differences between the genders fall on these scales. For four of these five scales (all but MVPI Affiliation), there was a negligible effect for women’s perceived attractiveness. In other words, emotional volatility, cynicism, ingratiating behavior, and a desire for fact-based decision making have almost no effect on whether we find women attractive. I find that first one a bit surprising!

Now let us turn our attention to the fairer sex. I found eight personality predictors of physical attractiveness for females. There were positive correlations with HPI Interpersonal Sensitivity, HDS Mischievous, HDS Colorful, and MVPI Affiliation, while I found negative correlations with HPI Learning Approach, HDS Reserved, HDS Leisurely, and HDS Imaginative. In non-Hoganese, these results mean that we find women attractive when they are warm and friendly, charming (even if a bit manipulative), attention-seeking, and interested in teamwork and social networking. Altogether, this paints the picture of a charismatic type of woman as most attractive. At the same time, we appear to be turned off by the studious, aloof, passive-aggressive, and eccentric types. The first part is intriguing. According to these results, the diligent female students who tend to know more about many different subjects are less attractive to us. I hesitate to say, but this result seems to partially support the attractive bimbo archetype.

There are two more points of interest within these results for females. First, these data do not support other research indicating that masculine, assertive females are less attractive. Second, as before, it is interesting to look at the disparate relationships in some of these predictors for the other gender. HPI Interpersonal Sensitivity, although an important predictor for female attractiveness, had no relationship for males, indicating that friendliness or agreeableness has no bearing on perceptions of physical attractiveness in males. The other contrast of note is with HDS Mischievous. It is positively correlated with attractiveness for females but negatively correlated with attractiveness for males. Hence, we find the charming, manipulative, risk-taking females appealing while their male counterparts are more repelling. That is a result I have yet to understand.

In summary, personality seems to matter more for females than males in predicting physical attractiveness. According to this single study, males need only concern themselves with being a better team player and less of a Doubting Thomas to increase their hotness factor. For women, a little charm will go a long way to being seen as more attractive. Just make sure to keep the random factoids and wild ideas to yourself.

In the third and final installment of this series, I will split the data once more and investigate how the gender of both the target and the rater affect perceptions of physical attractiveness. Sneak preview: male personality does matter more; it just depends on who you are asking.

Take a look at a company logo. What do you see? An image? A story? A brand? A way of living?

A logo is a powerful thing. Today, after hearing about the sad news of Steve Jobs’ passing I took my iPhone, turned it around and just stared at the Apple logo. For the first time, I saw much more than a simple design, an image, or just a brand: I saw an incredible story.

I saw the creation of a visionary leader, decades of hard work, passion, drive, struggles, and victories. In essence, I saw entrepreneurialism for what I always intended it to be: bold, courageous, inspiring, innovative, driven by the desire of making the world a better place, without ever losing sight of the end user – our clients. And I also saw a wonderful reminder of the kind of impact that a single human being is capable of achieving within his or her lifetime.

Engagement
Jobs demonstrated that power and conformity were not necessary to becoming the number-one company in the world. The almost flat, non-traditional organizational culture that he shaped as a leader was so strong and consistent that it became perceptible in every aspect of the business. I found myself often surprised as to how he would introduce the most incredible and awaited products in front of a world audience wearing a humble pair of jeans and a turtleneck. But it did not end at a board level: go to any Apple store today and you will find an amazing diversity in the workforce, whether this concerns style, age, or backgrounds. You will also see the artefacts that embody Steve’s vision, style, and impeccable standards.

Impossible was a word that did not exist in Jobs’ dictionary – he would simply use his influence, drive and determination to make the impossible, well, possible. Accounts of working with Jobs, narrated by colleagues old and new, describe a tough, nit-picking and often temperamental leader – but also a leader who consistently (and unconditionally) lived and worked by his business values.

In this unconditional culture, some may argue, you were either in or out. But he possessed the ability to build and maintain a high performing team, to drag people into his vision without compromising on the quality of his work.

But how did he achieve that?

He did not act without integrity. Yes, Jobs pursued near-impossible standards – and never attempted to cut corners. But the more he demanded of others, the more he demanded of himself. When projects or products were axed, he shared his reasoning with his colleagues. When saying: “This is the most amazing product we ever made”, he genuinely believed that. Authenticity in leadership is exhilarating, contagious, and can be felt across the organization. Though tough and intimidating at times, he surely led by example.

The Apple story reminded me why I love the Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory. This assessment allows us to identify the key motivational drivers and values of an organization, a leader, or a team, giving us an accurate, timely, and comprehensive picture that helps us (and our clients) work together towards achieving alignment, cohesion, and true engagement.

When employees experience the level of engagement described by those who have worked with Jobs, they happily walk the extra mile and put the extra hour in not because they have to – but because they want to. They will go back to the drawing board when their ideas get axed instead of leaving the organization. When employees work towards a greater, collective purpose individual differences are more easily understood rather than rejected.
To quote a previous Apple employee: “The quest to make the world a better place doesn’t happen by coddling egos or releasing mediocre products. The culture of excellence and attention to detail was rooted at the top.”

So, thank you, Steve, for reminding us that the road to excellence is not an easy one, but one that is so rewarding once we reach our destination. And thank you for reminding us that, while imperfection is a part of leadership, authenticity is much more of a rare find.

Andrea Facchini
Business Psychologist and Guest Blogger

I’m a big movie buff. Since I have young children I rarely get a chance to go the movie theaters anymore to see a film that doesn’t star Woody, Buzz, Lightning McQueen, or a princess of some type. In my 5+ years of fatherhood, Netflix has become a savior in terms of feeding my movie addiction. For me and 20 million other subscribers, seeing that a new movie is available for streaming online or getting that red envelope in the mail is one of life’s simple joys.

The joy of being a Netflix customer was mightily shaken last July when customers received a brisk, impersonal email informing them that the video subscription service pricing would be increased by as much as 60% per month unless subscribers decided to substantially limit the services they were receiving. In essence, customers were abruptly told that they would no longer be able to enjoy both the streaming movies and DVD-by-mail features. They would be required to choose one type of service otherwise incur the price hike to retain both options.

Netflix customers were outraged by this imposed price increase and/or elimination of service options. This outrage was not only communicated via blogs and Facebook posts. Many customers have truly put their money where their mouth is by canceling their subscriptions. The company’s stock price is now 42% lower than it was in July before the price hike announcement. An organization that by all accounts changed the video rental industry and was experiencing a fantastic upward trajectory envied by the business world has taken a serious turn for the worse. How did this happen?

The recent events at Netflix appear to be yet another unfortunate example of leadership derailment. The company’s decision to increase prices and the manner in which they communicated the changes to customers has been perceived by many as a bold and arrogant move. In September, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings issued a statement apologizing to customers. However, it is possible that some may view his apology as too little, too late. Even after the initial customer backlash, Netflix at first confidently defended their decision and even announced in August that they expected to gain 400,000 subscribers by the end of September. Recently, Netflix has projected that it will have actually lost 600,000 customers by the end of September. In other bad news, Starz, a key movie content partner for Netflix, ended its partnership with the organization. The company has decided to rebrand their DVD-by-mail service as a separate company called Qwikster. The effectiveness of this strategy is being questioned by many and could further stoke the flames of the fire started earlier this summer.

Two months after the initial controversy, Reed Hastings’ blog post apology stated that the July announcement “lacked respect and humility” and indicated that he should have personally communicated in more detail the reasons for the changes. He went on to say, “In hindsight, I slid into arrogance based upon past success.” Hastings ends his statement by saying that he and his team will work hard to regain customers’ trust. Interestingly enough, his actions and choice of terminology strongly parallel the leadership derailment research findings of Hogan Assessment Systems.

High potential leaders assessed by Hogan tend to be seen as confident, assertive, ambitious, and visionary. Some of these very characteristics are likely present in the senior leadership team at Netflix and surely contributed significantly to the company’s hugely successful rise. However, during stress or heavy workloads, when leaders aren’t paying attention, or during times of change, this confident style may emerge as counterproductive behaviors viewed by others as arrogant, lacking humility, setting unrealistic expectations, and ignoring negative feedback. In his own words, Hastings acknowledged a very similar behavioral pattern. Furthermore, derailing behaviors related to arrogance often lead to the inability of leaders to be seen as trustworthy and sincere, hence Hastings’ comment that Netflix is now committed to regaining customer trust.

Leaders that allow their natural confidence to descend into arrogance rarely admit when they are wrong, learn from mistakes, or take responsibility when things go wrong. This recent statement by the CEO appears to potentially demonstrate a realization that a mistake was made and a willingness to take ownership of the misstep…however the pricing increase was not rescinded and only the poor communication of the policy change was addressed. Will the apology and Qwikster rebranding strategy be effective in retaining customers and attracting new subscribers? Can Netflix and its leaders get back on track after derailing so drastically? Stay tuned!
 

Working together; it’s such a simple concept, and vital for work teams. However, good teamwork is often lacking in groups. Take a moment to fathom how much could be accomplished in the world if individuals were just better at working together.

But what is it that makes one a good team player? Creativity? Intelligence? Enthusiasm? Many are quick to offer advice regarding what contributes to effective team performance.

Academic research has honed in on a few personality characteristics that have been consistently associated with team performance. Higher levels of conscientiousness (attention to detail and adherence to rules and processes), higher levels of agreeableness (behavior that is friendly, tolerant, and accommodating in social situations), and higher levels of emotional stability (characterized by behavior that is even tempered, resilient, and optimistic) have all been associated with enhanced team performance.

But with approximately 6.94 billion individuals, we typically don’t have the luxury of choosing with whom we interact. When this is the case, we can still benefit greatly by understanding the pros and cons of on different personality dimensions and how those different characteristics work against or complement one another in a team setting.

Someone with high attention to detail may at times get lost in the weeds and adhere rigidly to processes and procedures; however, someone with this tendency might be great to have on the team when you need to make sure that little things get done correctly. As another example, you may have a team member who isn’t very competitive, but this person may work very well as a follower and contributor on a team. Finally, someone on the team may not be highly inquisitive and good at brainstorming ideas, but he or she may be good at focusing on practical solutions and accomplishing the task at hand.

Understanding the strengths and potential risks associated with an individual’s personality can significantly help the rest of the team work better with the individual and work more effectively as a team.

Like puzzle pieces put together to form a beautiful nature scene, organizations rely on everyone coming together to overcome challenges, grow the business, and make healthy profits so the organization will prosper. While we may not be able to assess everyone’s personality and interact only with good team players, much can be gained when we are simply aware of others’ personality and tendencies and learn to leverage this knowledge to enhance team and organizational performance.
 

We heard it all before: leaders behaving one way in public, then very differently behind closed doors.

Right now in the UK, ex Labour Chancellor Alistair Darling is spilling the beans over the leadership style of former Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Seemingly placid, timid and shy on the surface, rumours of an explosive, temperamental and potentially bullying Brown gradually started emerging from Number 10 in the final months of his presidency. These allegations were quickly dismissed by government officials and no further action was taken. Mr Darling is now telling the world about the “hellish” behaviour he experienced and the “brutal regime” he suffered at the hands of Mr Brown. And while, admittedly, we have only heard one side of the story (Brown has yet to comment), Darling painfully refers to this period as “hellish… very personal. It left a scar on me… you just can’t get over it.” Once again, a leader’s personality is on the front cover of all newspapers.

It is not hard to see why Brown’s personality captured the attention of the media. Reports of Brown’s behaviour away from the public eye appeared like two inexplicable sides of the same coin – and the difficulty in the reconciliation of the two once again highlighted our inner challenges with ambiguity and conflicts.

This is not surprising; human beings do not like to consider themselves conflicted and it is known that most of us find inconsistencies in behaviour unsettling. In the history of personality research, these conflicts were once considered discrepancies and thus wrongly attributed to assessment and measurement errors. Today, consultants specialising in the assessment of the bright and dark side of personality are aware that conflicting behaviours can be exhibited in different circumstances or even days (e.g. emotionally composed and mature one day, volatile and abusive the next). In fact, we often encounter these conflicts when interpreting psychometric reports and delivering feedback to organisational leaders. Addressing intrapersonal conflicts is a complex task that requires careful analysis, introspection and a desire to change.

Years of research conducted by the Centre for Creative Leadership and Hogan Assessment Systems, as well as an increasing number of publications (see Dotlich and Cairo’s Why CEOs Fail), demonstrate that leadership derailment can be attributed to recurrent, measurable and most importantly, manageable themes (or derailing tendencies).

Darling’s testimony is a stark reminder that these derailers do not only represent barriers to leadership effectiveness and well-being at work, but also constitute significant barriers to individual, team and organisational performance (in this instance coming in the way of something as important as tackling the country’s financial crisis). These destructive tendencies affect the ability of leaders to gain trust from subordinates and form coalitions at work, which in turn negatively affect a range of executive functions, such as decision-making, the objective analysis of crucial facts and figures, and the ability to build and maintain a high performing team.

Brown’s example of leadership style characterised by an excessive focus on managing relationships publicly with external customers and stakeholders, while ignoring the quality of the interactions with internal ones: colleagues, peers and subordinates. Leaders adopting this style have a tendency to release their frustration upon team members, disregarding the consequences of their behaviour, either because they think that the behaviour is acceptable (it’s between us) or simply because they can get away with it (no one will know).

We never fully know what goes on behind the closed doors of an organisation. But leaders who keep smiling in public, only to behave carelessly towards their team members, have an opportunity to learn a valuable lesson from this story.

After all, reputations are powerful and enduring things; they can be buried, but they never fully go away.

Andrea Facchini, MSc.
Business Psychologist and Guest Blogger

My colleagues and I recently attended a local breakfast meeting with Tulsa’s Lead Change Group. We focus on leadership virtually every day at Hogan, but stepping away from our desks and engaging in a community discussion about leadership proved to be both interesting and insightful. Plus, the bagels and coffee helped get the early morning off to a great start.

The Lead Change Group meets every other month, and usually involves a panel discussion about a specific topic. This particular meeting focused on defining moments in leadership. Four local leaders discussed defining moments that changed how they lead.

Two of the panelists’ stories involved a personal decision to leave an organization to focus on family. The remaining panelists described similar situations – a decision to stay or leave an organization going through considerable change during a tumultuous economic time. One panelist decided that if half of his entire department was going to be reorganized, he would voluntarily join them as he believed the departmental cuts were unnecessary and unfairly treated the staff. Conversely, the last panelist faced the same defining moment but decided to stay. Although he had the opportunity to focus on his own projects and commitments to the community, he felt that his commitment to lead others and standing by his staff was more important. He stayed to lead those who relied on him.

Each of the panelists’ defining decisions emphasized the importance of people. Through their defining moments, the panelists learned that building and maintaining relationships rather than emphasizing the bottom line proved to not only be more rewarding, but also a valuable lesson that reshaped their leadership style.

Interestingly, this meeting occurred the same week Steve Jobs had an important defining moment. According to an article at The Daily Beast, Jobs wrote a letter to Apple’s board and explained, “I have always said if there ever came a day when I could no longer meet my duties and expectations as Apple’s CEO, I would be the first to let you know. Unfortunately, that day has come.”

Jobs decision to step down indefinitely most likely included many compounding factors, not just his health. One could argue that Jobs is putting both Apple and its people ahead of his desire to be in charge. His admirable decision to allow Tim Cook to take over CEO role begs important questions. Do successful leaders choose people over their companies’ success? Is it the other way around, company over people? Is it possible to keep both in mind and successfully lead?
 

Although it sounds like the hook in a romantic comedy, recent findings indicate that your inner beauty (or lack thereof) might be affecting your outer beauty.

Let me back up. A few months ago I was analyzing data from a large community sample and I stumbled upon some interesting information. Specifically, I found peer ratings of physical attractiveness on a sample of people who completed the Hogan personality and values assessments. Considering that I am (a) distractible and (b) a nerd, I decided to investigate further.

It’s important to note that these were not ratings of likeability, friendliness, etc. Peers rated the extent to which the target person was “good-looking,” “unattractive,” “physically attractive,” and “not good-looking.” So the question became: does one’s personality affect their perceived physical attractiveness? The answer, to an extent, is yes.

There were significant effects on seven of twenty-eight scales across the Hogan Personality Inventory, Hogan Development Survey, and Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory. I found positive correlations between ratings of physical attractiveness and scores on HPI Interpersonal Sensitivity, HDS Colorful, MVPI Affiliation, and MVPI Altruistic. Additionally, I found negative correlations between physical attractiveness and HDS Reserved, HDS Leisurely, and HDS Imaginative.

What does this mean in non-Hoganese? First, we are physically attracted to people who are nice, friendly, approachable, and considerate. No big surprise there; mean people are ugly (or is it that ugly people are mean because they are ugly?). Second, we are attracted to people who have a flair for the dramatic, drawing a lot of attention to themselves, and being the center of attention, even to a fault. These big personalities draw our eyes to them and we seem to find them attractive for that, even if they are acting in this way for self-serving reasons. Next, we find people who value networking, teamwork, collaboration, and social interaction physically attractive. This may indicate that we are attracted to people who have the inclination or desire to engage and get to know us. Finally, the altruists of our society are found to be attractive. These individuals are motivated by a concern for the welfare of others. The attraction is likely borne out of the perception that the person is taking a genuine interest and concern for our needs and well-being; perhaps a more generous lover?

Now let us turn our attention to our turn-offs. First, we are not fans of the cold, stoic, aloof types. These individuals appear indifferent to the feelings or concerns of others, so this finding is in alignment with the aforementioned factors of heightened attraction. Next, we find passive-aggressive behavior to be particularly unattractive. Although these individuals may appear friendly and cooperative on the surface, we seem to see through fa?ade and recognize that they are likely to act on their own agenda, which makes them less desirable. Finally, our eccentric visionaries are apparently persona non grata. Overall, results indicate that creativity is not related to attractiveness, but here we have an indication that extreme (and unconventional) creativity is actually a mild repellant.

These results come from a single (but large) community sample. Therefore, these are not necessarily universal truths. Nonetheless, the trends are clearly there and of mention. Also, the peers providing these ratings knew the target people, so there is no guarantee that these results would generalize to how attractive a stranger at a bar will find you. That being said, it is logical that personality affects physical attractiveness only at the point that someone gets to know us at least a little bit.

In summary, these results indicate that personality does have an impact on physical attractiveness. If you want to be perceived as attractive, stop acting like an inconsiderate jerk. Even if you have the face of Adonis (or Persephone), curt, brash, or uncaring behavior will likely downgrade your hotness factor.
 
The next installment on this topic dives into gender differences, explaining what it takes for men and women (separately) to be perceived as physically attractive. Sneak preview: there are clear differences and the results do not confirm what we may commonly assume…

Faced with the threat of a double-dip recession, many U.S. companies, rather than re-expanding their diminished workforces, are expecting more from their employees for less pay. These circumstances put a strain on worker satisfaction; a survey by First Command Financial Services Inc. found that 24% of respondents were unhappy with their job and 39% were actively looking for a new employment. Talent Management magazine quoted Scott Spiker, First Command CEO, as saying, “This rising discontent in the middle-class workforce is clearly being fueled by the continuing economic turmoil.”

Reduced bonuses and extended work weeks are sure to diminish morale. So what can organizations do to motivate and retain their talent given today’s economic constraints? A look back into the field of psychology may provide the answer.

Frederick Herzberg, a well-known psychologist and business management guru, was one of the first to propose theories of workplace motivation in the 1960s. He asserted that “the only way to motivate employees is to give them interesting jobs.”

Although Herzberg’s theory is quite absolute, the concept is worth entertaining. Job enrichment, a less expensive and arguably more effective way of intrinsically motivating workers compared to traditional methods (e.g., bonuses, promotions), involves:

• Providing employees with challenging and interesting work so they can use and develop a wide range of skills
• Empowering employees to make decisions about their work
• Allowing employees to work on projects from start to finish
• Delivering accurate, timely, and constructive feedback to let workers know how they’re doing
• Letting employees know how their work relates to the organization’s overall strategy

Herzberg and other psychologists found that when organizations enriched jobs, employees became motivated, satisfied, and engaged by their work and were less likely to leave. For example, a leading technology company wanted to boost their sales team’s morale and retention rate. Instead of increasing pay, they assigned each sales representative a geographic area so that he/she could develop long-term relationships with clients. Also, they gave the sales reps the authority to offer discounts and set their own work hours. These initiatives led to happier employees and a 19% increase in sales.

Although financial compensation is important, it isn’t the only thing that matters when it comes to satisfaction in the workplace. A recent Talent Management magazine article reported that a PDI Ninth House survey found that only 10% of surveyed leaders cited compensation and advancement opportunities as essential motivators within their jobs. Instead, leaders claimed that key motivators included having stimulating and challenging work and an organizational mission they can support. These results echo Herzberg’s job enrichment theory.

Although traditional motivators can lead to contentment and short-lived happiness, job enrichment can lead to engagement, pride, and growth. Given today’s turbulent environment, organizations can use these lessons from the past to motivate and retain top talent.

Dozens of mergers and acquisitions (M&A) occur on a daily basis in the business world. A vast majority of these deals are strategic plays designed to reduce costs, increase competitive advantage or simply buy out the closest competition. Many M&As go relatively unnoticed by the public unless an interest piece is published showcasing a $ billion headline paired with a well-known company. Unless you track these events, or their impact on everything from your cell phone bill to your investment portfolio, they can be easy to miss.

 Here is an abbreviated list of the largest global M&A’s from Q1 of 2011:
1. AIG: $59 billion
Acquirer: Preferred Shareholders

2. TMobile USA: $39 billion
Acquirer: AT&T

3. Progress Engery Inc.: $26 billion
Acquirer: Duke Energy Corp.

4. Fiat SpA-Auto Business: $18.5 billion
Acquirer: Shareholders

5. ProLogics: $15.2 billion
Acquirer: AMB Property Corp

In the last few months, M&A’s have also been a recent topic of conversation with multiple individuals from a consulting standpoint. Unfortunately, these have been negative experiences from the ‘acquired,’ citing example after example of poorly-managed and poorly-implemented transitions.

Regardless of the financial purpose behind M&A activity, there are still corporate citizens (aka: people) that are dramatically affected by such deals. It is only natural that employees may feel alienated in their role or fear losing their senior position to an individual with marginal experience in their area of expertise. Said differently, an acquired employee is likely to view this situation as something closely aligned with a hostile takeover rather than a merging of shared I.P. and capital in which a new more competitive company can emerge. Senior executives must then lead this transition rather than manage reactions or mitigate attrition.

Deanna Hartley, in an article from Talent Management magazine, proposes that leaders must clearly communicate the intentions behind M&A activity, expectations of value-added processes, and potential risks and opportunities to all staff members. Hartley goes on to say that a key process in communication with M&A is ensuring your message matches what employees hear or interpret. She suggests numerous top-down meetings, roundtable discussions, and exposure to leadership from both sides of the deal. Ultimately, clarity and security should be a target in the minds of upper management while stabilizing the merging of two distinct companies. As long as new business relationships form with frequent, open dialogue, there should be reduced chance for productivity to suffer.

It would not be a surprise to say that there is little emphasis on aligning corporate culture in the boardroom during M&A negotiations. Be that as it may, companies should still involve employees to gather opinions or ideas on the transition as soon as a deal is reached. Early intervention, in the form of open communication, is crucial to quiet the fears of employees on both sides of the table.