In a recent Harvard Business Review article, Dan Pallotta wrote a noteworthy entry, titled “A Logo Is Not a Brand,” which examines the importance of one’s brand beyond the logo, ads, and celebrity sponsors. As part of his piece, Pallotta refers to the implications customer service can have on a brand, for better or worse: “If the clerk at your checkout counter is admiring her nails and talking on her cell phone, she’s your brand, whether she’s wearing one of the nice new logo caps you bought or not.” 

It’s no surprise that customer-facing roles relate directly to patrons’ experience and subsequent feelings about an organization. Typically, those with mediocre service remain unmentioned, and companies with the best and worst reviews can be sure they’re being talked about. At the top, two companies come to mind that excel at all aspects of the consumer experience: Zappos and Nordstrom. Although these two entities use varying tactics to maintain exceptional customer relations, their philosophies are quite similar:  strong customer satisfaction is key, trusting your employees is essential, and structured company policies are for the birds. 

Zappos
As depicted in a 2005 BusinessWeek article, it is apparent that Zappos recognizes the positive effects that result from creating a culture of customer centricity and taking care of its employees. Customers enjoy free shipping and repeat customers are rewarded for their loyalty by receiving free overnight or second-day delivery.

Zappos achieves outstanding satisfaction ratings by ingraining the concept of customer devotion companywide. Every new hire, from warehouse worker to HR manager, begins his or her employment with customer service training. Even CEO, Tony Hsieh, can be seen in the call center over the holiday surge. Zappos’ extensive employee training initiatives may be pricey, but the direct and indirect benefits justify the costs; customers are happy and the Zappos brand receives positive word-of-mouth endorsements.

Employees enjoy a few perks as well, including 100% company-paid health insurance premiums and free lunch every day.

Nordstrom
You know your customer service has reached a premium level status when CEOs of other large retailers are striving to be like you. Former Wal-Mart Chairman and CEO David D. Glass states, “Outstanding customer service and Nordstrom are synonymous. Their standards of excellence are what we all shoot for.”

The department store’s keys to success are described in the 2005 book “The Nordstrom Way to Customer Service Excellence: A Handbook for Implementing Great Service in Your Organization.” In the book, Nordstrom discusses its view on talent acquisition, which includes hiring personable people that enjoy working with others and fulfilling clients’ needs. Once hired, Nordstrom ensures employees feel valued, trusted, and respected. The company gives employees freedom to use their discretion with any situation to achieve Nordstrom’s primary goal of outstanding customer service. Even Nordstrom’s employee handbook signifies their philosophy. Printed on a notecard, the 75-word policy manual states that there is only one rule: Use best judgment in all situations.

Given the aforementioned cases, it’s clear that customer centricity coupled with employee empowerment can fuel a company’s success for years to come. It all begins with hiring the right people, trusting their abilities to meet your number one goal, and communicating how much you value their impact to your brand, and your bottomline. 
 

Globalization has arrived. The work of individuals, teams, business units, and companies span geographic boundaries, markets, cultures, and languages. Organizations have operations around the globe, and the major economies of the world are tightly interconnected.

As applied practitioners of organizational psychology, it’s important for us to understand the implications for work in these organizations, and in particular how to manage talent needs as the nature of business changes. Tasks and duties in low-complexity jobs are often more tangible and easily defined, may have little differentiation across cultures. For example, basic assembly and manufacturing positions require some degree of conscientiousness and teamwork, and may have little variance in the knowledge, skills, abilities, and personality characteristics (KSAPs) required to successfully perform the job in different cultures. In high-complexity jobs, the specific task and duty requirements may be harder to define, and require a higher degree of judgment and discretion on the part of the employee. In these roles, the cultural context may dictate the specific set of KSAPs that will facilitate performance.

Management and leadership positions are generally considered to be high-complexity jobs. The people that fill these roles are given broad goals and targets to accomplish, and are afforded the discretion to exercise their judgment regarding the best way to meet these goals. Just about the only common characteristic of these jobs is the responsibility of the leader to facilitate the work of others. But how do leaders facilitate the work of others? How do they build and motivate high-performing teams? The answer to this is the most oft-uttered line of any psychologist – “it depends.”

Here at Hogan we’ve initiated some research to explore the leadership characteristics in various cultures around the world. These characteristics reflect a culture’s beliefs about what constitutes leadership. According to Implicit Leadership Theory (Fischbein and Lord, 2004), people develop ideas of what constitutes leadership. Collectively, these beliefs form an individual’s leadership prototype. People then compare others to this leadership prototype, and to the extent that a person matches the leadership prototype, we ascribe leadership qualities to that person. Through this research, we are examining whether there may exist cultural differences in leadership prototypes, and thus in the people that are promoted into leadership positions in organizations. Naturally, this will hold implications for organizations whose operations span cultural boundaries.

Stay tuned for research updates, and look for our findings to be presented at the 2012 SIOP Conference in San Diego.
 

An acquaintance of mine was recently sharing her on boarding experiences for a job she just started. She was hired her based on her experiences with dynamic talent management projects and they assigned her the mission of driving progressive change in the organization’s candidate selection and leadership development programs. An early indication of the obstacles standing in her way became clear when a colleague said, “Before we brainwash you into doing business as usual around here, tell me your ideas.” At least they were self-aware of their problem!

I’ve been hearing about this same phenomenon across other organizations and industries. The organization’s leadership team has steered the company to a significant level of success due to a combination of certain strengths but given recent industry shifts, the future upward trajectory of the company appears limited due to a combination of certain weaknesses or a perceived lack of required capabilities. The leadership team then decides to drive strategic change by hiring a new leader that exhibits these complementary attributes. The next progression of events can be described as being very similar to the medical occurrence of transplant rejection.

Transplant rejection occurs when a transplanted organ is not accepted by the body of the transplant recipient. The immune system of the recipient attacks the transplanted organ because the purposed of the immune system is to distinguish foreign material within the body and attempt to destroy it. This is what seems to happen with some leadership teams. They ask for someone new to join the group to essentially offer a unique, dissenting voice. They must play resident devil’s advocate to stimulate diverse ways of thinking and ideas to enact change. However, these teams display a tendency to reject the new ideas in favor of their tried-and-true approaches. The initial strategy of incorporating a change agent into the mix is replaced by directly or indirectly motivating the new employee to conform. The new leader then typically elects one of two options: assimilation or attrition. In assimilation, the leader adopts the team’s prevailing methods and customs as a means for survival. In attrition, the leader recognizes that making a case for change is a losing battle and leaves the company. In either scenario, change is compromised.

In the medical world, doctors overcome transplant rejection by determining donor-recipient match. In the talent management realm, we must adopt a similar practice of ensuring leader-team match based on two critical components. First, we must ensure proper fit between the individual leader and the current team’s style and organizational culture. Second, we must ensure match between the candidate’s capabilities and the competencies required to drive change and elevate the business beyond current performance levels. Some leaders may be a great fit with the team, but do not bring the necessary behaviors to the table to help the company adapt to industry shifts and evolve. On the other hand, some leaders are potentially effective change agents yet, when hired into the wrong team, they could appear like a bull in a china shop and clash with others. Identifying and selecting leaders with both the mentality and tools to drive change AND attributes to connect with colleagues is a balancing act. We can break this balancing act down into the simple model of starts, stops, and continues.

Continue What Got You There
I’ll start with the “continues.” We must identify leaders who can continue (or at least respect and support) the traditions and strategies that have made the leadership team and organization successful. Some organizations refer to this as their DNA. When teams are self-aware and understand how the flipside (or dark side) of their strengths may actually be holding them back from further success, the immediate reaction is to assume that they need to overcorrect in the opposite direction. Operationally-sound leaders think they need to shed their current methods to become highly creative and innovative. Collaborative, enabling leaders see an opportunity to switch their mentality and adopt an entirely top-down, forceful behavioral style. These are ineffective shifts and likely not humanly possible. It is important to remember to retain and maintain the behaviors that led to success in the first place. Leaders that are hired to drive change must also display these core competencies in order to support a continuation of effective behaviors (or at least allow others who exhibit these skills to contribute to the team).

Stop Doing What Is Not Working 
There are two kinds of “stops.” First, we need to evaluate candidates and select leaders with low risk for the counterproductive behavioral styles that are holding back the success of the current team and leading to derailment. For one of my healthcare clients, the focus was on screening out leaders who were overly cautious on high stakes decisions and reacted to pressure by appearing as closed-door managers in a highly collaborative culture. They already had too many of those individuals. However, given that they were trying to hire more ambitious, big picture types, they needed to incorporate a second kind of “stop” in the candidate evaluation process. The goal here was to stop the potential problem of hiring leaders with too much a good thing. For this organization, it meant that targeting confident change agents must be tempered with reducing the likelihood that you will end up with arrogant risk takers who are not willing to partner with others on decisions. In some cases, we must put a figurative ceiling on these behaviors. Be careful what you ask for, you just may get too much of it.

Start Doing What Needs To Be Done
The “continues” and “stops” mitigate the risk of leader rejection from the team. Combined with that approach, selecting for the “starts” is what allows us to stack the deck in favor of not just leader retention, but also successful execution of strategic change. This new leader still needs to bring some unique ingredients to the overall team recipe to take things to the next level. We typically think of change as being linked to creativity, risk taking, the development of new products, etc. Yet the need for change could also be represented by a team that is highly innovative and cutting-edge and requires a new leader to the join the group to provide stability related to finances and operations. The behaviors that the leadership team needs to start demonstrating usually represent a balancing of the current preferences and capabilities of the incumbent leaders. The end result is not a 180 degree shift and likely resembles a more balanced, versatile team composition. 

The start-stop-continue model, with a focus on balance, is a matter of identifying leaders who display the “continue” behaviors, do not exhibit significant risk for “stop” behaviors, and show high potential for the required unique behaviors to enable the team to “start” moving in a new direction without losing their DNA. Keep in mind that selection of the right leaders with the requisite capabilities, fit factors, and low likelihood for derailment is really just the beginning. Ongoing leader and team development is critical to promote long-term success. Back to the transplant analogy, talent management professionals and executive coaches serve in the capacity of doctors who help the patient (i.e., leadership team) through the post transplant recovery process (i.e., ongoing leader and team development) so that the team can gel and overcome challenges.

Last week, I was lucky enough to travel to Paris for a short vacation. I’ve traveled to Paris before, and I’m familiar with what to expect on the 10+ hour flight. With three DVDs, two books, and snacks in tow, I thought I knew what I was getting myself into. Unfortunately, I failed to prepare for one thing… poor customer service at 30,000 feet.

In my experience, the flight attendants on this particular carrier are never particularly high on what we call “service orientation” here at Hogan, but the treatment was so poor that I’m considering a personal boycott against the company. What made it so bad weren’t necessarily the grumbles when I asked her about her day or the condescending tone when she asked if I was able to sit in the exit row, but rather the judgment and questioning of my age when I ordered an adult beverage. That’s right… alcohol. Granted, I will give her this – I look considerably young for my age. I was recently carded for a rated-R movie, but that’s neither here nor there. The usual jest that ensues after people realize I’m really older than 18 was absent. Several passive-aggressive jabs were extended my way, even after producing my passport demonstrating my age. The flight continued along with same theme, and I fully expected Candid Camera to show up upon landing.

I want to give the flight attendant the benefit of the doubt. A delayed flight likely prompted my rude flight attendant’s stress. Her Bold (HDS) and Colorful (HDS) antics likely contribute to her charismatic charm on a day-to-day basis. However, this charm is intensified into derailing or moving-against behavior under stress. Perhaps she is simply more prone to stress and pressure. She surely wasn’t perceptive of the increasing frustration among the passengers with her quality of service.

Perhaps she simply isn’t cut out for the flight attendant role, as one of Hogan’s Industry Case Studies suggests. Findings indicate that more successful Flight Attendants are calm under pressure, perceptive and tactful, rule-abiding, and concerned with building job-related knowledge. If I were a betting woman, my flight attendant missed on several of these behaviors. In my opinion, Hogan scales aside, she was simply too rude to fly.
 

After seven seasons playing the wacky, yet lovable Michael Scott on NBC’s hit series, “The Office,” Steve Carell left the show this spring to focus on his film career. With his crazy antics and hilarious one-liners, Carell’s character enticed more than 7 million viewers to “The Office” every Thursday night. From off-the-wall impersonations to “that’s what she said” jokes, Michael Scott was a staple (no pun intended) of Dunder Mifflin, and his resignation will certainly lead to changes for the fictional company.

Like all managers, Michael’s personal values shaped the culture of the Scranton branch. One of his most fundamental beliefs was that his employees weren’t just staff – they were family, with perhaps the exception of Toby. Michael clarified during one episode that “Toby is in HR. Which, technically, means he works for corporate. So he’s really not a part of our family. Also he’s divorced. So he’s really not a part of his family.”

Because he placed great value on relationships, Michael created an office environment that revolved around social interaction, frequent unscheduled meetings, constant communication, and spontaneous special work teams. For example, Michael held impromptu meetings on hot workplace topics including diversity, sexual harassment, and fire safety. He also assembled the Party Planning Committee to organize office events, such as birthday parties and holiday celebrations.

Another one of Michael’s drivers was the need for recognition. He sought visibility and admiration and cared deeply about having his and others’ accomplishments publically acknowledged. Michael carefully selected job titles such as “Assistant to the Regional Manager” to properly acknowledge his employees for their work roles. Also, Michael hosted “The Dundies,” an annual award show that publically recognized the Scranton staff by bestowing prestigious awards such as Whitest Sneakers, Longest Engagement, and Busiest Beaver.

After his nearly 20 year tenure (9,986,000 minutes to be exact) at Dunder Mifflin, Michael hosted his last Dundies and a new manager will take his place as the leader of the Scranton branch. Although “The Office” season finale left viewers in the dark about who the next regional manager will be, one thing is certain – a new leader will create a new office culture.

Will it be Dwight Schrute with his traditional values of reporting hierarchies, respect for authority, rules, and formality? Or will it be Kelly Kapoor with her attention to appearance and style? Perhaps it will be an external applicant with a completely different set of values and beliefs.

Regardless of the new boss’s identity, the culture of Dunder Mifflin will surely change with Michael Scott’s departure. Despite his quirks, Michael’s unique personality and value set created a one-of-a-kind office that we won’t soon forget. At least, that’s what she said.

Last month, Hogan celebrated its annual Hogan Game Day competition, a team-based version of the popular game show “Minute to Win It” that is a much-anticipated event at our Tulsa office.

In the week leading up to Game Day, and the week that followed, the halls were alive with spirited banter (and sometimes outright trash-talk). Our elite marketing team, which planned the event, kept the list of games close to its vest, and for good reason. There are those competitively spirited individuals at Hogan who would have mastered each challenge before Game Day actually took place! Needless to say, Game Day is a big deal around here. And even though my team took last place, my experience far outweighed earning a trophy.

To kick off the event, each employee was randomly assigned teams and tasked with generating a team name (we were Hogan’s Heathens) and deciding who would participate in each event:

Game 1: Stick To It – Two team members, a thrower and catcher, bounce ping pong balls across a table and catch them with a pair of lint rollers. Three balls per roller, one minute to win it.
Game 2: Hanky Panky – One team member pulls out an entire box of tissues, one at a time, in one minute.
Game 3: Breakfast Scramble – One team member solves a puzzle consisting of the front of a box of cereal cut into perfect squares in less than one minute.
Game 4: Dizzy Mummy – Two team members, a holder and turner, wrap a roll of toilet paper around the turner in under one minute.
Game 5: Triple Pong Plop – One team member bounces ping pong balls on a plate and into a fish bowl.
Game 6: Face the Cookie – One team member places an Oreo on their forehead and, without using his/her hands, moves the cookie into his/her mouth.
RELAY: Five team members push a lemon across a 10-yard section of the parking lot with chopsticks. The first team with all members down and back won.

Some would suggest such team-building activities are wasteful, but consider the employee whose only workplace social incentive or team-building event is a break room birthday party or casual Friday. Now consider workers at Apple, Google, Facebook, or other unconventional workplace where a shift in corporate culture – the addition of office game rooms, flex time, office pets, happy hours, or casual dress codes – makes their work lives more enjoyable.

And these initiatives aren’t just to attract quality employees – though applicants are beating the door down to work there – they are examples of low-cost agendas that seriously drive engagement and pride through higher employee satisfaction.

It wouldn’t be appropriate for every business to install a basketball court in its offices, but that doesn’t mean it can’t do something for its people. Creating creature comforts at work not only increases satisfaction, but it also motivates employees to work harder. It’s common to see workers at many of these workplaces voluntarily burning the midnight oil. What motivates your staff?
 

It was only a month ago that President Obama announced the death of America’s biggest villain and proudly proclaimed victory in the name of justice.

For most, the events that unfolded and the success of the mission were symbols of American power. But to those of us who have a passion for leadership, the more subtle story revolved around President Obama and the potential impact this success would have on perceptions of his effectiveness as a leader.

April 24, just days before he announced Bin Laden’s death, Real Clear Politics, a site that averages political polls, showed President Obama’s job approval ratings at just 45%, with 50% disapproving. Experts owed those negative poll numbers to public dissatisfaction with the economy – high gas prices, debt, and signs of inflation. Less than a month later, those perceptions had changed for the better.

The ultimate measure of senior executive selection and succession planning is how well we can identify future high performers. Even with decades of research and industry leading tools, the best we can predict is somewhere around 30% to 40% of leadership potential, and this is better than most of our competitors.

So what’s going on with the other 60% to 70%? The following factors are just some of the complexities of executive performance:

Success often relies on a few key decisions.
The base rate of those critical decisions is low, making them difficult to reliably measure. How many times does a leader have the opportunity to take out Public Enemy No.1 and change his/her foreign policy reputation overnight? If you are Google, is it a good choice to buy You Tube? Skype if you are Microsoft? How much do you invest in your new product, the iPod? It only takes one decision to make or break a reputation, or a company’s value.

Real impact is only visible in the long-term.
It can take years before the value of some executive decisions can be measured. Experts argue decisions made more than 40 years ago to provide covert assistance to Afghan rebels’ fight against the USSR – hailed as a US victory in the Cold War – lead to the creation of modern-day Al-Qaeda. Short-term brilliance can actually have very bad effects, and, likewise, your “dud” of a leader may just have a long-term plan in mind.

Success often means having good timing.
The US economy recently took a plunge unlike anything we could have expected. Sure, there were some leaders who were responsible for the decline (yes, I’m looking at you, Wall Street), and there were policy decisions in Washington that were equally critical (Barney Frank). There were also executives who had no control over the market’s movement. If you would have measured executive performance using a “snapshot” method during that time, you would have seen some ugly metrics: sinking revenue, poor profits, negative stock value, and low employee engagement. Now, as companies rebound, those in power reap the benefits of economic recovery without necessarily doing anything.

Success sometimes comes down to luck.
Social scientists are trained early and often on the importance of statistical significance – identifying relationships that are not due to chance alone. And whatever you call it – luck, chance, or good fortune – there is an element to executive performance which is not entirely within a leader’s control. President Bush took a big hit to his reputation as an effective leader due to his response to Hurricane Katrina, even though so much of what happened – an intense hurricane hitting exactly where it did – was beyond his control.

Politics makes leadership a visible sport, but it is easy to forget some of the lessons it teaches us about measuring executive performance. You may be able to identify who has the right stuff, but judging whether someone will be truly successful is no easy task.

Finally, ask yourself about your own leaders: Do they really make good decisions? Or are they riding the coat tails of someone else’s decisions, reaping the benefits of good timing, and enjoying a little luck?
 

Blogging is another means of communication that reflects a person’s attitudes, ideas, interests, and values. Many of these characteristics gel with a few others to ultimately make up an individual’s personality or as we refer to it here at Hogan – “reputation.”

Companies and employees spend quite a bit of time and money on employee development programs. These engagements are designed to make an employee aware of behaviors that impede their performance, future opportunities, and relationships with other employees.  Let’s face it, changing reputation takes a lot of effort. To be successful, an employee must target specific, non-desirable behaviors time and time again until their natural derailing tendencies are curtailed and replaced with new desirable ones. If they are successful, other people’s perceptions of them change and so does their reputation.

However, it only takes a few oversights to erode their progress of change. One such oversight, that can undo all of their hard work, is not managing their online personality. With the pervasiveness of social media, such as LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter, often an employee forgets these sites are an extension of themselves. Like it or not, blogging creates reputation. In many instances, an employee can have more than 1,000 connections, friends or followers on these websites. Trying to keep track of which people are outside the corporate circle, not somehow otherwise connected to co-workers or even future employers, is just not manageable.

When creating your development plan to change negative components of your reputation, don’t forget to consider and include your personality found in social media. It just may make the extra difference in changing your behaviors and ultimately your reputation, getting you that promotion at work, and strengthening your relationships with your co-workers.  
 

It can be hard to remember all the great moments of the Oklahoma City Thunder’s season when sports announcers and writers have been more focused this week on the Thunder’s “collapse” after losing to the Dallas Mavericks in the Western Conference. Although many fans faced disappointment after Games 4 and 5 (especially those of us in Oklahoma), the Thunder’s hard fought third season should not go overlooked. At the forefront of the adolescent Thunder team is Kevin Durant, who sums up the season nicely in a tweet he released last night: “It’s been a fun ride for us. We had 15 guys on this team and a whole city behind us. Everybody was great. We’ll keep working hard.”

Durant’s achievements make him nothing short of a superstar. In his short NBA career since his college stint as a Texas Longhorn, Durant has won such awards as NBA Rookie of the Year, 2-time NBA All-Star, and the youngest scoring leader in NBA history at 21 years of age, among many others. He is undoubtedly one of the most talented players in the league, yet also one of the most humble, genuine, and respectful. As I’ve started paying more attention to Durant’s performance on the court these past few years, what I’ve found most impressive is how he leads his team off the court — by example.

In an article written by Daniel Locke on Durant’s leadership style, Locke states, “The best thing to occur during the ‘Summer of LeBron’ for the Thunder was Kevin Durant signing a five-year contract extension worth about $86 million.” His signing not only ensured that we can watch Durant carry the Thunder for several seasons to come, it also served as a great example of Durant’s character. There were no major press releases, countdowns, or TV specials; just a simple tweet to share his gratitude: @KDthunderup: “Extension for 5 more years wit the #thunder….God Is Great, me and my family came a long way…I love yall man for real, this a blessing!” Durant could’ve taken the route of LeBron and milked it for all it was worth, but that’s not his style. He’s been unafraid to remain true to himself, his upbringing and his values, all qualities that make him an admirable basketball player, individual, and leader.

After the devastating loss to the Mavs this past Monday night, Durant took full responsibility as the team leader. He stated he felt upset for letting his team and city down. We don’t often see this level of ownership from high-level sports figures, not to mention from leaders. Many leaders are not introspective; it’s easier to point a finger and make excuses for the team’s failure, but not for Kevin Durant. He remains committed to his team, the city for which he plays, and most importantly, to himself. His leadership should serve as a strong example for the leaders of the world, whether they lead on the basketball court, on the field, or in the boardroom. His leadership style is one of commitment and respect, while pushing himself and his teammates to perform to the best of their abilities.

By Hogan standards, Durant has proven himself a successful leader—you simply have to take a look at the success of the team he leads. Team success can be measured in a number of ways, and it’s safe to say that the Thunder have seen success, even without winning a NBA title… yet.

Yet again Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi is facing another trial that is, as tradition has it, bursting with serious and scandalous allegations. The nature of these allegations is not really what is interesting about his story (though if you Google Bunga Bunga you will find plenty of details concerning the latest scandal); what is absolutely fascinating about this political figure is his demonstrated ability to not only fight back at his accusers, but to also survive these scandals with remarkable ease. But can he survive this one?

Indeed, despite previous trials and allegations (which have included accusations of corruption, abuse of power and potential links with the Mafia), Berlusconi remains Italy’s second-longest-serving prime minister after Mussolini. He thought he was almost untouchable and well supported by the nation, until recently, as it is estimated that the latest scandal has prompted one million Italians to march in more than 200 cities worldwide to protest against the damage that the prime minister is perpetrating to the country’s reputation. The Premier has also lost the support of a number of key political allies and his popularity is finally in decline, with ratings falling to their lowest level since he came to power (33%).

There were, of course, some high points of his leadership (the effective handling of L’Aquila earthquake crisis, as well as saving troubled state airline Alitalia from bankruptcy), but these achievements will be inevitably lost amidst an ocean of scandals, political gaffes and accusations.

Could we have ever predicted that this story would end this way? The answer is yes, absolutely. In fact, there are three important leadership lessons to be learned as we watch the final acts of the Berlusconi saga.

Firstly, his story is one of classic (almost textbook-like) leadership derailment, a topic that is dear to Hogan consultants and subject matter experts in leadership and management. If we follow the insightful taxonomy provided by the Hogan Development Survey, which lists 11 leadership derailers, we can easily identify the behaviours that most typify Berlusconi’s leadership style, allowing us to speculate about his derailing tendencies.

He is often charming and amusing when speaking publicly, using humour and fun (often at the expense of others) as a shield to deflect criticism during interviews. He has also demonstrated a strong tendency to test the limits (we only need to consider the ever growing number of political gaffes to make that observation) and ignore rules (even by making his own), behaviours that are typical of the Mischievous leadership derailer.

Mr Berlusconi is also known to constantly crave public and national attention, behaving in an excessively attention-seeking and self-centred manner (particularly when surrounded by his international peers, or even when in the presence of Her Majesty the Queen), behaviours that are typical of the Colorful leadership derailer.

He has also frequently vowed revenge and punishment for his prosecutors, alleging that all trials and accusations directed at him were part of a conspiracy orchestrated by left-wing politicians (behaviours that are commonly associated with the Skeptical leadership derailer).

Secondly, like most leadership derailment scenarios, this is the story of a leader who is unwilling to give up his power, a leader who has become completely uninterested in his followers and unconcerned about their best interests, and whose only goal is to preserve his political status. It is not uncommon for derailing leaders to overstay their welcome.

Thirdly, this story provides further evidence that demonstrates how “dark side” personality characteristics can indeed support individual career advancement (i.e. “getting ahead”), but at the expense of others (often followers and peers). This is a classic leadership mistake as, by forgetting that we still need to “get along” once we have reached the top, these leaders ultimately end up alienating and disengaging their followers, losing the support required to prevent leadership failure.

Regardless of the outcome of this latest trial, the events leading to it and the damage to Berlusconi’s reputation were easily predictable; it was all too much like a disaster waiting to happen. Yet, no one but Berlusconi himself could have prevented it; unfortunately, he lacked the strategic self-awareness required to identify derailing tendencies and modify his behaviour accordingly. Just like many other leaders who have derailed before him, Berlusconi is facing the consequences of letting his “dark side” run loose.

The fundamental lesson to be learned is that leaders who fail to manage their “dark side” (and their respective reputations) will inevitably, and I repeat inevitably, derail, leaving a trail of embarrassment and destruction behind them.

Let’s not forget, however, the role that context plays in these circumstances. Being an extremely powerful and rich person can exacerbate these destructive tendencies, as leadership positions come with plenty of discretional behaviour and lack of honest and objective feedback from peers and subordinates. As Lord Acton once said: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

It is perhaps Gianfranco Fini, Berlusconi’s ex-ally, who encapsulates this story brilliantly by stating that the Premier consistently “confuses leadership with absolute monarchy.”

So, now that you have read this story, I will ask you a question. Before you hire your next CEO or promote your next leader, wouldn't you want to know the risks associated with their personality? Considering the final acts of the Berlusconi show, I certainly would.

by Andrea Facchini
Business Pyschologist & Guest Blogger