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
 

Last month I chaired a panel at the annual SIOP Conference in Chicago on the topic of norming personality assessments. We had participation from a number of other test publishers, and a couple of audience members that added some real value to the discussion. The topics ranged from things such as factors that influence norms, to the appropriateness of global norms, and the implications of highly specialized norms. Overall I came away with a greater awareness that we’re all dealing with the same issues, and pleasantly surprised that the thoughts in the field seem to be converging, at least to some extent. For those of you with an unquenchable thirst for all things norms, here’s a brief summary of some of the key takeaways.

1. Norms are critical for the interpretation of personality assessments. A reviewer of our SIOP submission suggested this might not be so clear cut. However, the entire panel and the active audience members were in complete agreement that without norms there is no effective way to interpret personality results.

2. There are a lot of factors that influence norms, and decisions about the appropriate level for norming are rarely obvious. Make a norm that’s too specific, and it likely loses interpretive value. Make a norm that’s too encompassing, and it is likely just averaging the true cultural differences to create a norm that isn’t really representative of anyone. The bottom line: selecting the appropriate level for norming is a both an art and a science. Select a level that is conceptually meaningful, representative of the target population, and then put a lot of work towards minimizing differences due to extraneous factors such as language.

3. In reference to benchmarking vs. norming, the panel seemed to agree that the appropriateness of each varies by the level of specificity. Norms are appropriate for macro levels of analysis (e.g., country). As the level of analysis gets more specific, benchmarks become more appropriate. If you’re thinking about making a norm for left-handed, midwestern, senior Account Managers in the pharmaceutical industry named Robert, you should probably reconsider.

4. A fascinating bit of research share by one of the panelists displayed personality characteristics in the US by state using a heat map. Check out Rentfrow, P. J., Gosling, S. D. & Potter, J. (2008). The findings? New Yorkers are as neurotic as you think, the West Coast is pretty high on Openness, and southern hospitality (Agreeableness) in real, though maybe not in Alabama.

5. Another good reference. For factors contributing to the variance in norms (error and otherwise), check out Meyer & Foster (2008). They have a 3-factor model that presents things nicely.

Overall, it was a good session with great contributions from the panelists and audience. We continue to struggle through some of the same issues, and hopefully collaborative efforts like this will help us arrive at a set of best practices and solutions to some the issues that have plagued the field for years.

When discussing the topic of selection assessment with human resources professionals, it can be rather easy to overwhelm a non-technical audience by carrying on about job analysis, criterion validation, correlations, legal defensibility, etc. A former colleague of mine who worked as a sales representative used to say I was getting “I/O-ish” (as in Industrial/Organizational psychology) when I started using such terminology. Keep in mind that I’m the first person to advocate the merits of assessment validation for ensuring effective talent management solutions. However, my colleague made an important point that sometimes, in an effort to provide the details behind the psychometrics of implementing an assessment for candidate selection, we may inadvertently add complexity to the conversation. 

In order to provide a simple structure to explain the process for implementing a selection assessment, I devised what I’ve coined the “which hunt.” That is not a typo. I’m not referring to a witch hunt as in the Salem witch trials of the late 1600s, nor does what I’m proposing resemble the McCarthyism of the 1950s. My concept of a which hunt is a series of discovery questions that an organization must answer to create a solid foundation for a high-quality assessment strategy that will support the identification of high potential candidates during the pre-employment screening process. An effective which hunt will help a company to identify:
• WHICH characteristics should we measure?
• WHICH assessment(s) should we use?
• WHICH cut-score will increase our hit rate for identifying good candidates?

WHICH characteristics should we measure?
You cannot hope to measure the potential for a candidate to be successful until you define which characteristics lead to success in a specific job. The Occupational Information Network (O*NET) is an online resource sponsored by the Department of Labor that reports profiles for over 800 occupations.  O*NET provides 277 data points for each occupation covering abilities, skills, knowledge, work styles, and other characteristics. Clearly, if O*NET is any indication, the process of defining a job profile of required characteristics can be a daunting proposition to an organization looking to implement an assessment program to measure such characteristics.
 
Rather than immediately getting into the details of job analysis or competency modeling, I find that a simple description of “can-do aptitudes” and “will-do attitudes” helps communicate the likely outcomes of this first step in the which hunt process. Can-do aptitudes refer to the mental horsepower of candidates such as cognitive abilities, demonstrated capability for job-specific skills, and mastery of specific areas of job knowledge. Put simply, having these aptitudes indicates that you can do the job, but we all know that not everyone lives up to their potential.

The will-do attitudes are often those characteristics that allow employees to meet their potential and can even lead an employee with less raw ability to actually succeed beyond those seemingly more talented colleagues. These work styles include conscientiousness, interpersonal savvy, stress tolerance, and achievement orientation, among others. Very smart, very talented employees often fall short of their full potential or fail because they do not work hard, do not play well with others (customers and/or teammates), and do not effectively manage pressures at work. 

Taken all together the required can-do and will-do characteristics form the success profile for that specific job.

WHICH assessment should I use?
The next step is to identify an assessment that measures these characteristics in candidates. As we do with most ventures in life, we might begin the search for an assessment provider by using our good friend Google. When you type “candidate selection assessment” into Google, the result includes over 1.5 million hits! Which one should you choose?

My message to human resource professionals is that the best assessment is one that measures the critical components of the success profile you identified in the first step of the which hunt. Your assessment strategy doesn’t have to measure the entire success profile (that’s why we conduct interviews, administer basic qualification questions, collect resumes, etc.), but there should be significant overlap. This may require the implementation of multiple assessments. For example at Hogan, we offer the Hogan Business Reasoning Inventory to measure can-do characteristics, the Hogan Personality Inventory and Hogan Development Survey to measure will-do characteristics, and the Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory to assess “will-fit” characteristics in terms of how a candidate might fit into the organization’s culture.

WHICH cut-score will increase our hit rate for identifying good candidates?
Now for the last leg of the which hunt – interpreting the assessment results. While this task seems easy enough – low scores fail and high scores pass –   the truth is that this can actually be quite challenging for multiple reasons. What do you do with scores in the middle? Is a 40 a good enough score or should I look for 50s and higher? If I have multiple scores for multiple characteristics, how do I know what scores are more important indicators of success? What if the candidate has high scores on some characteristics and low scores on others? It is a delicate process to draw the line in the sand and make appropriate sense of all the good information that assessments provide. 

This part of the which hunt gets a bit complicated despite my best efforts. The bottom line is that we must clearly understand the relationship between assessment scores and job performance. I find it helpful during this part of the conversation to use an analogy for the way a financial institution uses a credit score. If a bank is going to give someone a loan to purchase a house, they don’t just want to get a high level summary of age, income, salary, credit card debt, etc., and shoot from the hip on how to combine all of those data points into an estimation of investment risk for that person. Such an approach would be inconsistent, inaccurate, and not scalable. To make sound lending decisions over time, the bank leverages a proven, weighted equation to combine these data points into an easily interpretable credit score that is backed by research to increase the hit-rate for making profitable lending decisions (the recent housing market collapse aside). Standards have been set to categorize bad credit scores, good credit scores, and great credit scores. This is essentially how a validation study is used when implementing an assessment for candidate selection. We conduct research to give you overall low, moderate, or high evaluations of candidate potential that if used consistently will increase hit rates for selecting successful employees.

The which hunt guidelines break up the concepts of assessment implementation into concepts that are hopefully simple to grasp:  
• Before we can measure anything we must define a benchmark (i.e., success profile).
• We must use that benchmark to guide us to pick the right tool for the job (i.e., assessment).
• We have to know how to read the measurements the tool is giving us and do regular checkups to make sure the measurements are accurate (i.e., cut-scores).

Fun fact – I’m recently engaged.

And so far, wedding planning has been fast and furious. In two short months, I already have a venue, photographer, date, color palate, and budget. What can I say? I scored in the high range on the HPI Prudence Scale; details are kind of my thing.

But when it comes to choosing my bridal party, I’m dragging my feet. What’s holding me back? I’m worried about the drama.

Although it’s what makes pop culture hits like 27 Dresses, Bridesmaids, and Say Yes to the Dress so fun to watch, it’s a nightmare to live through, and I really don’t want any drama with the girls.

As a four-time bridesmaid, I’ve witnessed, and maybe caused, some reality show-worthy episodes. I may or may not have accidentally rolled my eyes, contributed to a power struggle, and/or complained about the dress “I’ll be able to wear again someday.” Guilty as charged.

As hard as I may try to avoid drama, it almost never fails. The bridesmaids’ individual motivators and drivers create a volatile mix. Something happens to one or more of the bridesmaids at some point in the process. Somebody yells, cries, or oversteps her bounds.

We run into the same dynamics in the office. The wrong mix of personalities can result in power struggles, a tense workplace and low morale, which is why screening for similar values and drivers can be so important.

Unfortunately, when it comes to my bridesmaids, at least a little drama may be unavoidable. While personality assessment would certainly help me screen for the differences between my lovely friends, it would also officially make me a Bravo-worthy Bridezilla.

It’s well established that personality differences predict performance in the workplace, but do personality differences matter in the real world? Does it matter that some people are calm and sanguine in the face of negative life events, while others are at the opposite end of the pole? Recent evidence suggests it does. Several recent studies demonstrate personality predicts several life outcomes, including mortality, as well as, or better, than other factors – educational attainment, socio-economic status, and cognitive ability.

That humans vary on dimensions of personality is unsurprising. But the advent of the Big Five taxonomy of traits has enabled investigation into the impact of personality across a wide range of life outcomes.

Obviously we are familiar with the impact of personality at work: personality correlates strongly with work performance. Individuals with high scores on interpersonal sensitivity and adjustment are more likely to be seen as good team members. People who score high on sociability, adjustment, and ambition are more likely to be judged as leader-like.

But an individual’s score on a personality variable significantly influences their chances of experiencing certain life outcomes, too.

Increasing evidence shows that personality is a powerful predictor of health outcomes. A combination of low intelligence and neuroticism, for example, was a more significant predictor of mortality in Vietnam veterans than age, ethnicity, or marital status. Other studies reveal that high prudence scores protect against mortality. The well-organized and well-balanced live longer. And if you are smarter than most, then you may as well start to plan your 100th birthday!

There are several factors to which these outcomes can be attributed. First, personality affects people’s attraction to health promoting or health harming behavior, in other words, we vary in our propensity to engage in riskier types of activities. Second, we vary in our assessment of outcomes – consider the young man who recently jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge on a dare. Finally, personality plays a role in the way we organize our lives. Low adjustment types who are also low prudence are less likely to follow exercise regimes and also engage in activities that self-soothe, like abusing alcohol, for example.

Screening people for personality variables is a powerful tool for understanding someone’s approach to life and relationships. A full understanding of someone’s individual psychology is essential to help them realize their potential through managing, coaching, and counseling.

And for some of us, it’s good to know about your risk factors too.

by Dave Winsborough

Managing Director, Winsborough Limited & Guest Blogger

A person completes a personality assessment. He or she then receives individual feedback on his or her personality profile. If the assessment is worth its salt, the person probably agreed with much of the interpretation and was challenged or surprised by the rest. For the feedback that resonated with him or her, the likely response was, “Yep, I knew that about myself. Now I have a test that validates it.” For the surprising feedback, the likely response was, “Interesting. I didn’t know I was being perceived in that way.” Now what? What does this person do with that information? The way I see it, the person now has an excuse for that behavior or an opportunity to improve it.

Purely for academic purposes, let’s say that I scored low on the Prudence scale from the Hogan Personality Inventory. This means that people tend to perceive me as someone who is flexible and open to change but also someone who is not always detail-oriented and can be impulsive at times. What do I do with that information? One approach would be to use it as an excuse or a crutch. When I overlook a detail and it affects the outcome of a project, I can simply say, “Yep, that’s my low Prudence coming out!” and laugh it off. People will come to expect that Kevin is not a details guy and may expect me to focus on bigger picture issues instead. However, what will also happen is that people may begin to not trust in my ability to deliver a high-quality, well-proofed work product, and I will miss out on opportunities for challenge or advancement. This would ultimately affect my career success.

Continuing with this hypothetical example, a second approach to using this information about my lack of conscientiousness (not to be read as conscience) is as an opportunity. If I am serious about having a successful career, I should use the results of my personality assessment to leverage my strengths and develop my shortcomings. If I am working on a project with a tight timeline and I notice my natural propensity to cut corners or fudge over details starting to rear its head, I can seize the opportunity to take extra care and create the highest quality product I can. By intentionally changing my behaviors to do what may not come naturally and what others would not expect me to, I am effecting change on my reputation, which will ultimately have an effect on my success.

All of this being said, the irony is that the choice between Excuse Avenue and Opportunity Road is largely based on personality. People who are naturally open to feedback and change and driven to be successful are those who are more likely to take a right on Opportunity Road, while those who are resistant to feedback and change and not particularly motivated will take a left on Excuse Avenue (which runs parallel to Easy Street). The good news is that the same high-quality personality assessment will identify the likely path the person is to take. From that assessment, we can identify those individuals who may need a bit more help steering toward Opportunity Road if we are serious about investing in their success.

At the end of the day, there is always a choice. We can ultimately decide whether we want to be who we are now with all of our warts, caveats, and excuses, or if we want to be the more successful versions of ourselves with fewer warts and more opportunities…however you define that success.

With approximately 2.3 million Americans working as customer service representatives, it is one of the fastest growing and largest occupations in the U.S.

My brother is one of those customer service representatives. He has worked at a well-known television provider for the past year and a half, and in that time he acquired not only an “employee of the month” award, but several interesting stories to share over dinner.

Like the time a man called in because he was having difficulty with his television service. My brother instructed him to look behind the receiver box to make sure a cable on the left-hand side was connected tightly.

“My left or your left?” the customer asked, “I’m right handed.”

My brother was confused by the question because he was talking to the man on the phone; however, without missing a beat he replied, “Your left.” And with that the man fixed the problem and hung up, satisfied with his service.

Or another time when a woman called in because her remote control kept making a loud beeping noise. My brother explained to her that the remote was not capable of beeping so the noise must be coming from somewhere else.

“It’s definitely coming from the remote!” the woman claimed.

My brother instructed her to remove the remote batteries. Although the beeping continued after she removed the batteries, the woman still insisted the remote was the culprit. Finally, my brother convinced her to put the remote on her front porch to see if the beeping continued in the house. It’s at that time she discovered the noise was coming from her smoke detector.

I think my brother’s success in handling situations like these is due mostly to his personality – the way he relates to customers, remains calm, and acts in a dependable manner. Even when asked ridiculous questions, my brother remains friendly and polite, and leaves customers satisfied with their service. Also, he doesn’t lose his cool. Although he encounters angry customers on a daily basis, he stays calm and collected and doesn’t take it personally. Finally, he’s dependable. He shows up to work on time and works hard while there.

As the demand for customer service representatives grows, so does the need for companies to staff people like my brother who display the personality characteristics related to successful performance.

You may not have realized, but March happens to be a very eventful month. Some noteworthy festivities this month include Mardi Gras (8th), St. Patrick’s Day (17th), Spring Break, Easter (some years), and the vernal equinox or first day of Spring (20th). Some lesser known, albeit random, contenders for March dates are: If Pets Had Thumbs Day (3rd), Multiple Personality Day (5th), Ear Muff Day (13th), Extraterrestrial Abduction Day (20th), and finally a holiday that seems to capture the theme of this blog, National Make up your own Holiday Day (26th).

Today March 15^th, or the Ides of March, denotes the first day of the Roman New Year and first day of spring (also Roman). Historically, the Ides of March is also associated with the stabbing and subsequent overthrow of Julius Caesar in 44 B.C.E. If you remember back to your high school English course, or visit Wikipedia, you may recall that Caesar was stabbed to death in the Roman Senate in a coup d’tat led by Brutus.

It is not a far stretch to correlate this story to a modern corporate organization. While there may not be physical acts of violence in the boardroom, the rules and players remain the same; specifically, Chairman is to Caesar as the C-Suite is to the Senate. Corporate culture in many Fortune 500 companies mirror this ruthless style and are defined by such mentality as “kill or be killed”; therefore, it is no surprise that organizational failure is driven at the top by self-interested leaders.

As a manager, or leader at any level in the business world, it is crucial to understand how specific individuals in your organization will compete in the corporate game. To this end, Hogan assessments can describe an individual’s day-to-day behavior (HPI), stress-induced derailers (HDS), and core motivators (MVPI). This comprehensive profile of an individual’s personality characteristics relate to business potential, organizational effectiveness, and the ultimate ability to predict job performance.

So the next time you are curious when an employee stumbles in the office late on March 9^th or 18^th, you can look to their Hogan assessment results to determine, with a high degree of certainty, whether or not they celebrated excessively (i.e. Hedonism, Mischievous, Tradition, Sociability). Unfortunately, for characters like Julius Caesar, there is no specific scale that captures propensity to overthrow as would have proven beneficial 2,054 years ago today. However, there are numerous scales that indicate if and how a person will make it to the top and that information can be just as invaluable.

In today’s business arena there are so many variables that play into running a successful organization. First, you must have a product or service. It must be useful, provide value (at a cost people are willing to pay), and be scalable to meet the demands of the market. Next, you need to understand the consumers, cultural nuances, and business trends. Lastly, and most importantly, you must be able to execute a proper strategy. However, a company can achieve all of those success factors, but still ultimately fail. Why? Because it’s not only about the product or service, how well it’s positioned, its value, and the amazing business plan behind it. It’s about its ability to touch its toes – in other words exercise and demonstrate flexibility.

Companies are like people. They exhibit behavioral characteristics. Those characteristics are often the sum total of the senior leadership team. These are the people who execute the visions and strategy of the company through their decision-making style and interactions with employees. These leaders often communicate the business strategy like it was some sort of MBA playbook for scoring corporate touchdowns. So much time and energy went into creating these plans, they feel compelled to run the script and ignore input from their middle management teams, general employee base, and most importantly, customers.

Many of us are fans of American football or are at least familiar with it. We know NFL coaches have a playbook. They clutch it in-hand as if it was a top secret document. Coaches are like senior leaders executing a business strategy. However, many leaders could learn from NFL coaches, because they exercise flexibility. They permit the quarterback to change plays based on the conditions of the game. Business is dynamic just like football. There is no perfect strategy and it’s always changing, but the winning team knows how and when to be flexible to score the most points. They have their ears and eyes open, read the field, listen to input and change it up as needed without compromising their ultimate goal – to win.

If the overall personality profile of your leadership team is overly concerned with details and process, airs on the side of caution, and routinely exhibits a high degree of confidence in their decisions, it’s worth stopping to take a “flexibility check” to see if it can touch its toes – assess, develop, and win!

Whether they make your skin crawl or tickle your fancy, the use of cliches has spread like wildfire over the years. These phrases, defined by their overuse, have flooded our everyday lives, making it difficult to get through a full day without hearing or speaking several. Critics discourage their use, especially in writing, as their presence indicates a lack of imagination. Further, many of these expressions are so overused and unnecessary they can be categorized as pure fluff. There are few positive views on these hackneyed phrases; however, I tend to enjoy them (in moderation).

First, their origins fascinate me. As reported by Life Magazine, the expression “hair of the dog that bit you,” a common idea for curing a hangover, is derived from the medieval belief that if bitten by a rabid dog, pressing the hair of that dog to the wound could cure the infection. The term “falling on the sword,” meaning to offer resignation or accept the consequences of fault, can be found in the Bible in reference to King Saul falling on his sword to commit suicide while in battle with the Philistines. Second, and more importantly, I am impressed by their ability to deliver our thoughts in a concise, succinct manner that would be difficult to verbalize otherwise. In this sense, cliches create a common language which is beneficial as they carry so much information in only a handful of words.

Recently I’ve noticed the function cliches provide when describing Hogan assessment scales, especially to Hogan novices. For those unfamiliar to the assessments, when first introduced to the scale names, the terms can seem somewhat foreign. As such, it is important to describe the scales in a manner in which recipients can relate instantly. So whether describing an executive’s tendency under stress to “push the envelope” (HDS Mischievous), or an individual contributor’s conflict-avoidance as “beating around the bush” (HPI Interpersonal Sensitivity), these expressions provide an immediate connection between the assessment results and their respective behaviors. Of course, traditional descriptors of the assessment scales are crucial and cannot be replaced, but they can be enhanced by a real-life example, story, or cliche which provide a deeper understanding of such behavioral characteristics.

Even more interesting than the origins of common cliches, is the ability of the Hogan assessment terminology to create a common language for measuring and improving performance within an organization. As a company familiarizes itself with the assessment scales and respective interpretive information, employees become comfortable replacing descriptors such as “curious,” “visionary,” and “strategic-minded” or even cliched terms like “thinking outside the box” with Hogan scales (e.g., high Inquisitive). The scales create a common language for the organization and as a result, provide a powerful benefit similar to that of the clever cliche–the ability to deliver a wealth of information in a concise, instantly understandable message.