As a recent alumnus of the job market, I can personally attest to the fact that while there is a shortage of available jobs, there is apparently no shortage of inane interview questions:

Where do you see yourself in five years?

If you were an animal (vegetable, mineral, superhero, whatever), what kind would you be?

What would your last employer say about you?

If you were the size of a pencil and we put you in a blender, how would you escape?

But my least favorite of all time has to be: What is your greatest weakness?

Hunting for my first job, I must have answered that question a dozen times – never honestly. My top three answers, depending on the situation, were:

1. I am so driven to succeed, sometimes I work too hard.
2. I have a habit of doing all the work and giving my boss all the credit.
3. I possess the agility of a spider and the strength of six men, but I struggle to harness it for the purposes of good.

And I’m not alone. A quick Google search yields thousands of blogs, how-to articles and even entire websites devoted to avoiding an honest answer to this dreaded question.

So it was a nice surprise when before I interviewed here at Hogan (I am now two weeks on the job), I was asked to complete the full line of our assessments.

For me as a job candidate, the fact that my then potential employer would know, and have a graphical analysis of, my greatest strengths and potential shortcomings meant two things: there was no need to dodge the question, and they were still taking the time to interview me, so I must not be so far beyond help. What resulted was a fluid, comfortable interview in which, instead of wasting time and energy beating around the bush and trying to conceal my flop sweat, I could relax and express what I thought I could bring to the table.

Granted, I am new to the world of HR, but that seems much more productive than trying to explain that while I possess psychic abilities, they are only good for predicting the first two Lotto numbers.

In the past 10 days, much of the country has been blanketed by snow, courtesy of a blizzard that swept through the Midwest and buried the Hogan offices under nearly 30 inches. Stores closed, events were cancelled, businesses sent everyone home, and most of the area hunkered down and braced for the worst. The local meteorologists provided marathon sessions of analysis and updates, warning everyone not to go outside unless absolutely necessary. In the following days, the city cleanup crews described their efforts to clear the streets, noting that the largest obstacle was the number of abandoned cars on the road. This included cars deserted in the middle of the street, on the side of the road, on highway ramps, and just about everywhere.

This made me think about the judgment exercised by the owners of the autos lining the roads. The majority of these vehicles were smaller cars that had virtually no chance of navigating the streets. I assume that most of the owners simply walked home, as they couldn’t have possibly made it far before getting stuck. Was it that they were skeptical and didn’t trust the weather forecast? Did they believe their driving ability was far superior to others? Did they think the warnings and advice didn’t apply to them? Or did they really just not understand that 15 inches of snow was too much for them?

Whatever the case, the same types of characteristics that drive these decisions will influence decision-making and judgment in the workplace. We’ve all encountered the skeptical co-worker that doesn’t trust others and plays political games, the employee who believes that his or her talents are infinitely superior to those around them, the folks that don’t believe the rules apply to them, and the ones that just don’t seem to have the ability to analyze the situation and make good decisions. Often the results won’t be as immediate and obvious as an abandoned car in the middle of the street, but over time the results will become visible and detrimental.

While we can’t dramatically improve other motorists’ skills on the roads, we can identify and target the types of behaviors that lead to these bad decisions in an organization. Many of these characteristics are rooted in our personalities and cognitive abilities. We can screen these characteristics out of candidate pools, or we can raise awareness of these characteristics with current employees and enhance decision-making styles and abilities.

I am the proud father of three children: a 4-year-old boy, a 4-year-old girl, and a 7-month-old baby girl. As you might assume, the 4-year-olds are twins. I have observed many things that have amazed me with the twins over the past 4 years. One observation was that a multitude of people, from strangers at the shopping mall to professionals with PhDs, would ask me if the boy and girl were identical. I would, of course, politely respond “no.” I wanted to say that not only did these children not result from the splitting of a single zygote, but there is a very fundamental difference between the anatomy of a boy and a girl that prevent them from being identical!

Another observation that I noticed very early on was how differently they behaved when they were upset. The children share the same family circus environment and around 50% of the same DNA, however their reactions under stress follow very consistent, yet distinctly unique, patterns. Through my work at Hogan as a consultant, I began to see clear parallels between the derailing behavior of leaders as assessed by the Hogan Development Survey (HDS) and the challenges I was facing at home as a father.

A derailer is a counterproductive tendency that, in normal circumstances, likely manifests as a strength. When we are tired, pressured, bored, or otherwise distracted, these behaviors can become overused strengths or risk factors that inhibit our effectiveness. The HDS measures 11 such risk factors. For example, leaders scoring in the high-risk zone on two of these HDS risk factors, Excitable and Diligent, are likely to struggle with a vicious cycle of behavior when under stress. They tend to be perfectionistic and typically impose high performance standards on their employees causing others to view them as demanding and nitpicky (Diligent). When employees do not meet these lofty expectations, the leader may react with emotional outbursts and become overly disappointed in others performance (Excitable). As a result, leaders might demoralize and disempower staff through moody overreactions and a refusal to delegate, which places additional pressure upon the leader to deliver results, and this increased stress level is likely to further trigger the Diligent/Excitable cycle of behaviors.

Now, I obviously cannot administer the HDS to my 4 year-old son. If I could, I would bet dollars to donuts that he would score in the high risk zone on both Excitable and Diligent. Like any leader, child, or human, my son has many wonderful aspects to his personality. He is very hardworking (loves to help his dad shovel snow, pull weeds) and his positive enthusiasm is contagious in our household. However, he has very specific and rigid expectations for his own and others behavior (Diligent) and he becomes overly upset when things don’t play out to his liking (Excitable) such that his negative emotions also set the tone for the house.

Another interesting combination of HDS factors occurs when a leader scores in the high risk zone on both Mischievous and Colorful. These leaders tend to get noticed and succeed early on through their ability to command the spotlight with outgoing and animated behavior (Colorful) and charm others with their impulsivity and excitement seeking (Mischievous). However, these behaviors can cross the line into the realm of derailment when leaders are too dramatic too often such that they manage by crisis in reaction to stress. Performance can also be inhibited when leaders invite negative attention by testing limits, taking risks, and favoring pleasure over commitments. On a smaller scale, Colorful and Mischievous are very accurate labels for my daughter. On the positive side, she is endlessly entertaining with her family room theatrical productions and already demonstrates a capability to use finesse to win others over. However, her dramatic antics are less entertaining when she reacts to a simple splinter extraction as if it were major surgery without proper anesthetic.

The real fun begins when one person’s derailers collide with the derailers of another individual. In my work life as a consultant, these derailers collide among members of work teams. In my personal life, they collide between my twins. What do you think happens when you pair one child who demands that everyone color inside the lines and gets upset when they don’t with another child who truly relishes coloring outside the lines and pushing other peoples’ buttons? Sometimes it resembles a mixed martial arts pay-per-view event. That being said, the twins also function like a little old married couple where neither individual could function without the other. I can’t wait to see what my 7-month-old eventually adds to this behavioral stew!

The Hogan leadership research tells us that most people will struggle with at least one or two derailers. So I guess that makes my children normal. The research also indicates exactly what I’ve observed in that we develop risk factors early in life while learning to deal with parents, peers, and relatives. This behavior that develops while we are young may become habitual and we may be unaware that we behave in certain ways because it’s simply the way we’ve always acted. These derailers can inhibit both individual and team performance both at work and at home. Strategic self-awareness of these potential risk factors is the critical first step for understanding our behavior and beginning to manage ourselves to get the most out of our strengths.

In his NY Times Health section article on November 29, 2010 entitled “A Fate That Narcissists Will Hate: Being Ignored,” Charles Zanor described practicing psychiatrists’ responses to omitting Narcissistic Personality Disorder as a mental health diagnosis. For professionals who select, develop and supervise decision-makers, the central concerns about powerful, arrogant managers are more immediate than diagnostic nosology. They include:

1. What is the cost to the organization of failure to identify and coach arrogant, self-absorbed managers?

2. At what point does a manger advance from self-confidence to derailing arrogance?

3. Why can’t we detect that potential risk with in-depth interviews, assessment centers, and detailed examinations of past roles?

4. Are there benefits to the organization to have supremely confident leaders? In fact, aren’t many business books written about just those individuals?

5. How do we harness the strength of bold and arrogant leaders while preventing them from derailing both themselves and the organization?

The potential costs of hiring arrogant leaders are seldom recognized during recruitment interviews. Arrogant leaders seem confident and forward looking in initial interactions, even when they involve multiple interviewers. Arrogant people often perform well in assessment centers because they seem inspiring and resilient. Their arrogance is often not easily seen in the job history because we do not see the wake that arrogant leaders leave behind them. In addition, their former roles were often sufficiently restricted to keep their arrogance in check. The costs of hiring arrogant leaders is substantial, however, because of their disrespect toward team members, failure to develop their direct reports (often out a concern for creating a rival), inability to assess risk, and their penchant for making rash decisions based on a supreme belief in their own skills.

The Hogan Development Survey (HDS), especially the Bold scale, goes much further in assessing the strengths and risks of arrogant managers than do other selection procedures. When a decision-maker’s Bold scale is very high (above 90), the individual is making two basic assertions. First, the individual is claiming “I achieve better results than do most people I know because I am more talented.” Second, the individual is claiming “Because of my superior talent and results, I am entitled to greater recognition, authority and status.”

Many of the negative impacts, both the organization and to the other team members, usually arrive in the medium and long-term rather than immediately upon assuming the role. For example, anyone who has been awake during the past four years has witnessed the costs to the world’s economy of over-reaching decision-makers who failed to assess looming threats, and often also failed to respond to offers of help until it was too late (e.g., Richard Fuld at Lehman Brothers). In addition, the Whitehall study in the UK has demonstrated that supervisors who are disrespectful and demeaning toward direct reports increased those direct reports’ heart disease and death rates. Clearly, arrogant managers (very high Bold scorers) are often not skilled at engaging competent team members.

In fact, part of the risk of high Bold managers is their selection of direct reports. They tend to surround themselves with subordinates whose posture is “If I hitch my wagon to this star, I can become confident too, and will be part of the new vision. This manager is moving up, and I want to be there, cheering. I don’t want to miss this golden opportunity. I get the impression that this individual has the guts to throw the nay-sayers under the bus, but I’ll be one of the people with a good seat on that bus.”

Though extremely high Bold scorers can achieve a great deal, it is prudent during recruitment to recognize the risks. When the organization decides to take the chance that the individual’s self-confidence seen on Bold is a net plus, constraints need to be put in place on the person’s scope of authority and financial discretion prior to his/her first day on the job. “Waiting until there is a problem”, a popular if misguided management strategy, is not a winning formula for extreme Bold scorers. Caution is especially critical if the individual will be chief executive or other senior manager. In those cases, the Board needs to know in advance of the blessings and potential curses that accompany powerful but arrogant executives.

As Zanor’s article indicated, the psychiatric diagnosticians are jettisoning some of the “type” diagnoses in order to adopt a “dimensional” approach, a strategy that Hogan Assessment Systems values. However, we can select “consistent pattern” plus “dimensional” descriptions of individuals. We can pay attention to candidate’s individual qualities (e.g., arrogance as measured by Bold) as well as recognizable patterns (very high scores on Excitable, Skeptical and Bold, usually predicting an abusive autocrat). The HDS, especially when combined with the HPI and the MVPI, can give us a rich picture of an individual that cannot be seen with interviews, assessment centers or job history.

June 4th, 2010 marked the passing of basketball coaching legend John Wooden. As many people are aware, Wooden was known as the “Wizard of Westwood” for his unmatched success as coach of the UCLA men’s basketball team, leading them to a record 88 consecutive victories and 10 national championships among other accomplishments. What is less widely publicized is the strategy that Wooden designed and deployed in order to recruit, assess, select, develop, and mentor his players into successful individuals on and off the court. This aspect of the coach’s legend interestingly establishes him as not only an innovator in the sport of basketball, but also a pioneer in the realm of talent management.

The Hogan Personality Inventory was introduced in 1980.

Hogan Assessment Systems was founded in 1987.

Hogan has local distributors in more than 30 countries.

Personality assessment services have been provided to more than 1,500 companies worldwide.

Performance data are available for more than 400 jobs.

Over a million applicants have completed the Hogan Personality Inventory.

Over 50,000 personality assessments are processed every month.

Over half of the Fortune 500 companies have used Hogan instruments.

Online assessments are available 24/7.

Reports are available in more than 40 languages.

Local norms available in over 20 countries.

Across the three assessments, Hogan has created 26 new translations since the beginning of 2009.

Hogan administered over 100,000 assessments in foreign languages in 2010.

Last Saturday I enjoyed a few hours of tailgating with old college friends. The next morning I got up and went to church. I enjoyed letting loose like John Blutarsky on Saturday, and on Sunday I ratcheted things back in the general direction of Ned Flanders. One might ask which is the real me – the “Animal House” version or the “God’s house” version? The answer, of course, is both. Like any functioning adult, I adjust my behavior to accommodate my surroundings. This is nothing special or unique about me – none of us act exactly the same at church as we would at a tailgate party. The same applies at work, where our behavior varies around supervisors versus peers or subordinates.

This is common sense, but has caused problems in the world of performance appraisal, especially multi-source (or 360) ratings. Historically, professionals assumed that each person has one true performance level, and dismissed differences across raters as error. Only in the last two years have researchers concluded that (shockingly) a person’s performance varies across contexts, and various parties think differently about effective job performance. Specifically, supervisors focus on technical performance, whereas peers and subordinates focus on interpersonal and leadership performance, respectively. Research now confirms what basic logic tells us – our performance varies across different groups at work, and those groups expect different behavior from us.

These insights hold major implications for personality assessment and employee development initiatives, especially leadership development. Historically, these efforts provide employees with feedback about maximizing performance in light of personality, but have done so by considering how the person looks on average across all groups. However, by considering rating differences across groups, we can tailor this information to inform employees about specific changes they can make to maximize their performance as viewed by supervisors, peers, subordinates, or other groups. This line of thinking represents a more dynamic, flexible, and multi-faceted view on personality and performance, and falls more in line with the common sense notion that we may each act like John Blutarsky in one instance and Ned Flanders in another.

I’ve had a lot of jobs. In my short 11-year tenure of being a working adult, I’ve held positions in two advertising agencies, two marketing departments and a radio station. Through all of them, one thing remained the same. My boss always affected the way I felt about my job.

My first job was as the lowest man on the totem pole in a tyrannically-run advertising agency. It was low pay, zero respect and very long hours. Both newbies and veterans scattered like cockroaches when the owner was around. And the creative director was a raging…well, she had ridiculous expectations of her minions. I left after a year and a half, as most people do at that agency.

My next job was in the marketing department of my family-owned manufacturing company. While working for family may sound like a cush gig, I knew absolutely nothing about flexographic printing and desperately wanted to impress them. They were very busy with little time to teach me the ropes so I floundered along for three years.

After being in manufacturing, I wanted to get back in to advertising so I accepted a position with a small agency. I had good friends and the environment was fun but my boss never had one good thing to say about anyone and made snide comments not only behind your back, but also to your face. These comments were always ‘in jest,’ of course, but everyone knew he meant them. I’ve always held the belief that you have to give respect in order to get respect. Evidently, he didn’t feel the same. Towards the end of my four years there, I despised going to work.

My job as promotions director at the radio station was another new work experience for me. My supervisors there were fun but had erratic tempers. After having stress-induced hives for eight days, it was a blessing in disguise to be laid off along with 1800 other people.

The marketing department at Hogan has been the best experience by far. (And I’m not just sucking up when I say that.) It’s a laid-back, creative, fun environment that I enjoy every day. I’ve also learned a lot about myself including why all of those previous jobs were not right for me and why most of my old supervisors were not good leaders. It has been a developmental milestone to realize my recurring problem of less-than-savory supervisors was not actually my fault and I was actually a successful employee. So if you’re in the same boat, it’s most likely not your fault either. Bad managers are running rampant.

A quote by Dr. Hogan really brought it all home and has stuck with me. He says, “People don’t quit their job, they quit their boss.”

I think he’s right.

Last week, Steven Slater, the former JetBlue flight attendant acted out the fantasy of a large contingent of employees who have had enough of on-the-job stresses. After a heated exchange with a passenger (an exchange that is now more in doubt than previously reported), he grabbed the PA and let out a few choice words, grabbed his stuff (including a few beers), and stormed off of the plane via the emergency exit slide announcing that he quit. Fortunately, the plane was on the tarmac and near the gate. Nobody was injured.

In the aftermath of this instant-classic example of how to quit one’s job, Mr. Slater has garnered the adulation of many, as evidenced by the numerous Facebook fan pages with thousands of friends and any number of blogs on the internet. Many have romanticized his actions, making him out to be a man who stood up for himself, didn’t take abuse from anyone, or had just had enough and decided it was time to move on.

However, the reality of the situation is quite a bit different. Within days, Mr. Slater had retained a lawyer, and was asking for his position with JetBlue back, saying he loved his job, the airline, and he wanted to return to work. His lawyer offered a number of explanations for his behavior, including the stress of the job, an injury sustained in the course of the flight, and a confrontation with an unruly passenger (which is, at this time, unsubstantiated by any of the passengers).

Mr. Slater’s behavior is actually a perfect example of derailing behavior. He lost his cool under stress, made an emotionally charged decision (the Excitable derailer), and executed his decision in a dramatic and attention-seeking manner (the Colorful derailer). Despite all the adoration lavished upon him in the aftermath, Mr. Slater quickly regretted his decision and is now contemplating a lawsuit to retain the position he so sensationally abandoned. A working-class hero sticking it to the man, or a case of derailment played out in dramatic fashion? The preponderance of evidence at this time points to the latter.

Jarrett Shalhoop
Senior Consultant
Hogan Assessment Systems

The worst oil spill in US history began when BP’s drilling rig, Deepwater Horizon, exploded on April 20, 2010 in the Gulf of Mexico, killing 11 crewmen and releasing as much as 65,000 barrels of oil per day into the sea. This disaster was the logical consequence of the worst safety record of any oil company operating in North America. As examples, consider the following:

? In 2005, an explosion in BP’s Texas City refinery killed 15 people and injured 180 more; a post-accident review indicated that safety procedures were either not followed or had not been established. BP was fined $21 million for the accident.

? In 2007, a corroded BP pipeline burst, releasing 200,000 gallons of crude oil into Prudhoe Bay, Alaska; this created an environmental hazard and required massive clean-up efforts. Investigators concluded that BP was aware of the pipeline corrosion but failed to take any corrective action. The spill cost BP vast sums of money in lost production during repairs, criminal fines, and state compensation.

? Since 2005, BP has admitted to breaking US environmental and safety laws, has paid $373 million in fines, and has been cited 760 times.

The financial benefits associated with creating a safe working environment are as obvious as is the moral obligation to do so. How do organizations create safe working environments? If the problem is placed in the proper conceptual context, the answer becomes quite clear. The three components that must come together to create a culture of workplace safety are: (a) worker personality; (b) a culture of worker engagement; and (c) organizational leadership.

Based on these three vital components of workplace safety, Hogan has developed a system of reliable and valid measures of individual differences in safety orientation.

The first step in creating a safe working environment involves hiring and training people who are disposed to work safely.

The second step concerns creating “engagement,” a concept at the intersection of employees and their organizations. Safety orientation is a trait; engagement is a state that is characterized by an employee’s feeling that the policy is consistent with that person’s own values, tendency to be energized by the policy, and sense that the policy makes overall sense in the workplace.

The third and most important step in creating a safety culture depends on the leadership of an organization. The principal factor driving accidents at work is the degree to which the leadership team emphasizes safety. This essential step in creating a safe working environment involves leadership teams building a culture of engagement with safety as a key element. If leadership teams fail to facilitate engagement, no amount of safety training will matter, nor will the safety orientations of individual workers.