Few of us are immune to the charms of charisma. Research even suggests that our biology may cause us to prefer individuals who project a confident social presence, strong vision, and high risk tolerance.¹

Therefore, it is unsurprising that charismatic candidates often seem like irresistible additions to the office. While other candidates might begin to blur together amid a monotonous talent acquisition process, charismatic candidates tend to make memorable impressions and seem unusually engaging.

But before becoming too smitten with these charming individuals, employers should do their due diligence. By administering personality assessments before interviews, employers can learn to spot the signs of a charismatic job candidate before they even enter the interview room. Reviewing a candidate’s personality assessment results beforehand will help employers replace their rose-colored glasses with a more realistic view of charisma in job candidates. And here are four reasons why that matters.

Charisma is quantifiable.

Far from the eye of the beholder, charisma is a tangible characteristic that the Hogan Development Survey (HDS), a personality inventory designed specifically for the workplace, can measure. Participants are considered charismatic if they receive elevated scores on the Bold, Colorful, Mischievous, and Imaginative scales. They often demonstrate their charisma to others through their self-confidence, dramatic flair, readiness to test the limits, and visionary thinking. Using assessments can help employers know in advance if they are dealing with a charismatic candidate so that they can be mindful of bias in interviews.

Outside of an assessment setting, it is possible to make educated guesses about who is charismatic and who is not (although guesswork is no replacement for using personality assessments with interviews). For example, most modern U.S. presidents would probably score high on the charisma cluster because star power is a necessary skill for camera-heavy elections.² Some of the earlier presidents — most notably James Madison, who was by most accounts a frail and painfully shy scholar — were less likely to be charismatic.

Imagine if Madison, the sheepish father of the Constitution, had run against a powerhouse opponent such as John F. Kennedy, the coiffed and flirtatious king of Camelot. During a debate, Madison might have stumbled over his words and undersold his achievements while Kennedy might have boasted with eloquence and strived for a connection with the audience. Who do you think would have gotten the job? Organizations that opt to use assessment in interviews can avoid giving an unfair advantage to candidates with charismatic edge to ensure that they are not overlooking equally (or more) effective individuals.

Want to learn more about hiring the right way? Check out our guide to crafting next-level talent identification, interviewing, and selection processes

Charisma is hard work.

People who lack charisma often wonder how others pull it off. The answer? Being well liked can be a full-time job. Emergent, or charismatic, individuals spend a lot of time displaying their likability to others. This dedication to being noticeable often pays off well because organizations tend to promote people who look like they are doing a good job. Effective individuals occupy the other end of the spectrum. These folks are operational. That means they spend most of their time and energy focusing on their day-to-day tasks, rather than their popularity. Although this diligence is good for the overall organization, it often comes at the cost of career advancement. Employers should think about whether the role in question will require strategic, big-picture thinking or more operational behavior.

Of course, the emergent-effective paradigm occurs on a spectrum. At one end are those who are excellent self-promoters, and on the other are those who are extremely humble. Consider Elon Musk, the CEO for Tesla and social media mainstay (for better or for worse), who is so charismatic that he is now crossing over into the entertainment industry. Now compare camera-ready Musk with Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO for Facebook, who has a reputation for being awkward and emotionless (anyone remember his reptilian performance at the congressional hearing?).³ The difference between the two executives probably comes down to the fact that Musk spends a lot of time on image-management, whereas Zuckerberg tends to prefer a more behind-the-scenes role.

Contrary to emergence, effectiveness is harder to see in an interview. Not to mention, charisma or lack thereof is never the only factor predictive of success in any given job role. Using assessments in interviews can help hiring managers pinpoint where exactly a candidate is on the effective-emergent spectrum to ensure they hire the person who is best suited to do the job.

Too much charisma isn’t a good thing.

Although social media and the antics of headline-making billionaires may tell us differently, being exceptionally charismatic is not always a path to success. In their analysis of charisma, Vergauwe, Wille, Hofmans, Kaiser, and De Fruyt found that charisma is associated with overconfidence.⁴ HDS charisma scores significantly predicted self-rated effectiveness (r = .29), but were uncorrelated with coworker-rated effectiveness. Most strikingly, leaders who scored in the 70th percentile on the charisma cluster tended to rate themselves as highly effective, yet coworkers consistently described them as arrogant, reckless, melodramatic, and grandiose.

A fantastic example of extreme charisma in the business world can be found in Adam Neumann.⁵ At first, his audacious, self-assured promotion of WeWork, a “physical social media network,” attracted top talent, drew billions in investments, and led to rapid international expansion. Despite Neumann’s personal magnetism, his approach eventually began to drag down the company. It is well documented that he fostered a toxic work culture of narcissism, harassment, and substance abuse.⁵ In the end, the extreme charisma that fueled his success eventually led to him being ousted by the board, with one of the executives comparing working with him to “babysitting a pyromaniac.”⁶ Using assessments in interviews can help hiring managers ensure they don’t become spellbound by someone with extreme charisma.

Charisma is not all bad.

As in most other areas of life, moderation is key. Individuals with above-average scores on the charisma cluster often excel in their roles and organizations. According to coworkers, a slight elevation on the charisma cluster — neither too little nor too much—predicts the highest levels of rated effectiveness. In fact, Vergauwe, Wille, Hofmans, Kaiser, and De Fruyt found a significant curvilinear relationship between HDS charisma scores and coworker-rated effectiveness.⁴ Moderately charismatic leaders inspire their teams to rally around a vision and work hard; moderately charismatic employees draw in clients and boost visibility for specific projects. Using assessments in interviews can help employers gauge whether a candidate’s charisma cluster scores fall into a sweet spot.

With interviews and personality assessment results at their disposal, employers can easily put a candidate’s charisma into the context of the role and organization in question. Employers should also keep in mind that charisma is one of many personality variables, and context really does matter. Some jobs and organizational cultures require more emergent employees, while others require more effective ones. Most roles require people to strike a balance between these two extremes.

References

1. Gordon, I. (2020, September 22). Is There a Biological Basis for Charismatic Leadership? Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-biology-bonding/202009/is-there-biological-basis-charismatic-leadership

2. Spiegal, A. (2012, October 23). Charming, Cold: Does Presidential Personality Matter? [Radio broadcast]. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2012/10/23/163487916/charming-cold-does-presidential-personality-matter

3. Washington Post. (2018, April 10). 5 Awkward Moments at the Facebook Hearing [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuPABtlr-rM

4. Vergauwe, J., Wille, B., Hofmans, J., Kaiser, R. B., & De Fruyt, F. (2018). The Double-edged Sword of Leader Charisma: Understanding the Curvilinear Relationship Between Charismatic Personality and Leader Effectiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(1), 110-130. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000147

5. Brown, E. (2019, September 18). How Adam Neumann’s Over-the-Top Style Built WeWork. ‘This Is Not the Way Everybody Behaves.’ The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/this-is-not-the-way-everybody-behaves-how-adam-neumanns-over-the-top-style-built-wework-11568823827

6. Duhigg, C. (2020, November 23). How Venture Capitalists Are Deforming Capitalism. The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/11/30/how-venture-capitalists-are-deforming-capitalism

*This post was co-authored by Hogan’s Jennifer Lowe and Jocelyn Hays.

During a recent conversation about our return to “normal” work — which for Hogan consultants means travel and in-person development and service delivery — a critical question came up. After 15 months of working from home, do my professional pants still fit? Sadly, for at least one of your blog authors, the answer is no. But at least we’re not alone! The I-need-new-work-clothes phenomenon is so common that The Late Show with Stephen Colbert recently featured a very funny (but NSFW) sketch illustrating the problem. And while wardrobe may be a facetious example, it is a clear one to illustrate an emerging (and blessed) truth: We are coming out of our forced, virtual workspaces. And, as we do, we’re discovering a new world of work, where technology and more flexible, remote work environments likely will be at the forefront of enhancing efficiency, team diversity, and employee satisfaction.

Of course, the evolution of where and how we work is not without its challenges. Over the past year, leaders have been asked increasingly to create cohesive teams and productive cultures without the benefit of physical or perhaps even temporal proximity. Expectations for how employees communicate, collaborate, and manage their time have evolved and will continue to do so. Adapting to the changes thus far has been no easy feat. In fact, Hogan recently surveyed nearly 870 individuals across the globe about their work experiences during the pandemic, and 35% reported that collaboration or communication was their top challenge while working remotely.

We are lucky to work in a field dedicated to supporting employee and leader success, development, and engagement at work. Helping individuals at all levels to adapt to the “new normal” will likely be a critical role of talent development and HR professionals for at least the next year, if not longer. Considering individual differences in how leaders motivate and supervise their employees, and differences in how those employees manage their own efforts and their relationships, should be one part of a multifaceted approach to helping individuals throughout organizations thrive at work.

A recent Forbes article listed some behaviors high-performing leaders are now exhibiting: They are prioritizing connecting with their teams — not only to discuss the work, but also to share knowledge, enhance collaboration, and deepen relationships.¹ Additionally, they are ensuring that their team members have work that is motivating and clearly aligned with the organization’s goals and culture. Similarly, Harvard Business Review recently identified some leadership skills that can be gleaned from pandemic parenting experiences, such as relying on peers to provide input into decisions, appropriately prioritizing and focusing on diverse tasks, and relating to others (and yourself) in a more aware, compassionate manner.²

Organizations will need to support leaders as they face these new demands and recognize that some people may be more naturally adaptable to the new world of work. Leaders who build trust easily and are well connected to their teams may be asked to expand those efforts to coach their peers or contribute more broadly to building a strong organizational culture. Leaders who are naturally more introverted and task focused may need to plan to adapt their approach and reprioritize their time without compromising their focus on team goals and success.

As leaders strive to support their direct reports and maintain a positive, functional organizational culture, team members must also adapt to new environments and expectations. The Wall Street Journal recently highlighted employees’ new expectations for flexibility and autonomy, but with those comes a responsibility to set sufficient goals, self-manage effectively, and ensure results are achieved and relationships are maintained. As is the case for leaders, some employees may find it comfortable and relatively easy to work in remote and hybrid environments, manage their time, and proactively communicate with physically distant teammates. Others, however, may need more support and guidance to adapt to whatever the “new normal” is in their specific organizations. Given that a recent Gallup poll found that workers’ stress levels are at an all-time high, it is critical that individuals find ways to succeed at work that fit both their professional and personal realities.

To make things more complicated, we all need to be prepared for the “new normal” to change again as organizations, team leaders, and team members get their footing and determine the best way to operate while maintaining a strong culture and high levels of engagement. Although we cannot define the myriad factors that might shift as the pandemic wanes, it is safe to assume that they will. Leaders and individual contributors will find that their success and satisfaction depend on their ability to remain self-aware and adapt their approaches effectively. Organizations that support and empower their leaders in these endeavors are more likely to solidify their culture and position themselves for long-term success — because when leaders support their teams, team members are more engaged and business unit performance is improved.   

Don’t let your organization’s people be left behind. Join us on Thursday, July 8, for a webinar to learn how everyday personality characteristics can impact reputation virtually, along with corresponding development opportunities to help every employee succeed in remote work. Register here!

References

1. Bendaly, N. (2021, June 10). How to Build Trust in the Hybrid World of Work. https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicolebendaly/2021/06/10/building-trust-in-the-new-world-of-work/?sh=75792ed5475b
2. Siang, S, & Carucci, R. (2021, June 25). What Pandemic Parenting Can Teach Us About Leadership. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2021/06/what-pandemic-parenting-can-teach-us-about-leadership
3. Forman, L. (2021, June 21). Work Flexibility, Popular With Employees, Is Hardly a Holy Grail. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/work-flexibility-popular-with-employees-is-hardly-a-holy-grail-11624300543
4. State of the Global Workplace: 2021 Report. (2021). Gallup. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/349484/state-of-the-global-workplace.aspx

The year 2021 marks Awair’s seventh as a Hogan distributor. During this time, the company has experienced rapid organizational growth and success. After focusing on the Italian market for the first two years, Awair expanded into Spain and France, adding to its already diverse and impressive portfolio of clients and services.

Awair was founded in 2012 by a group of partners, each with 20-plus years of experience in the industry and a clear vision of creating a one-stop shop for personality assessments in the Italian market. Since then, Awair has sold more than 60,000 reports and certified more than 925 individuals. 

Adaptability, strong leadership, and a lot of enthusiasm led Awair to where they are today and will carry them into the future. With all the knowledge and experience the Awair partners and consultants possess, they’ve become a major thought leader in the market, and with their focus on innovation and excellence, they’ve created an exciting virtual platform to support clients in adapting to the future of work.

Distributor Q&A

Italy was hit hard by COVID-19 — how did you manage to adapt quickly to the new circumstances?

What has become clear since the early stages of the pandemic is that a new kind of leadership is needed to navigate the challenges and uncertainties of the current business environment. We realized that if we wanted to continue to help organizations discover and develop leadership talent, particularly at the speed that is necessary today, we needed to radically rethink our assessment processes and development tools. We have developed a new competency frameworkthat reflects the new leadership challenges, particularly concerning critical thinking, humility, and agile execution.

We have created a digital assessment and development platform that supports a more immersive and engaging experience, mirroring the new “phygital” (i.e., physical and digital) way of life. And we have expanded our development portfolio with a series of virtual workshops aligned with the new leadership framework. This pandemic certainly has been challenging, both from a business and human perspective, but it has also granted us an incredible opportunity to pause and think, be creative, rekindle our passion for the work we do, renew our sense of purpose, and strengthen the ties that bind us together at Awair.   

Was there a valuable lesson learned from expanding into Spain and France?

The most important lesson, if there was ever any doubt, is that the key factors in success are people and collaboration. Our intention, from the very start, was not to have separate Italian, French, and Spanish teams, but rather one distributed team of like-minded, engaged individuals, who work together beyond national boundaries. In a team of 23 people, we have seven nationalities, with people living in seven different cities. Working virtually had been a reality for us even before the pandemic. It’s complicated sometimes, but it’s also extremely enriching.

The other lesson we’ve learned is that it takes time to get people onboard, and that we need to invest a lot of time and energy in getting people up to speed with products and services. In this respect, the resources provided by Hogan, the trainings, the daily support from the distributors’ network, and the constant flow of information from the data science team, are invaluable.

The third lesson concerns the importance of marketing and communication in establishing credibility and brand awareness in the market. This is the area where we need to focus now. We have taken some steps in this direction, but there’s still a lot to be done.  

Tell us a little more about the technological innovations you’ve been focusing on.

AVA, the digital platform we have been developing, is a virtual environment for talent assessment and leadership development. Primarily AVA is a holistic assessment environment where all key dimensions of current and future performance — from potential to readiness, from career aspirations to leadership experiences — can be evaluated to spark an honest, meaningful conversation about talent between all parties involved.

Secondarily, AVA is a virtual space where you can build custom development journeys, combining different types of learning experiences like building blocks: individual coaching, virtual workshops and events, curated content, or other resources.

Finally, AVA is a dynamic database that stores and organizes relevant talent information to provide HR professionals and leaders with an objective “big picture” of available talent and support them in executing and fine-tuning their people strategy.

Russell Reynolds Associates and Hogan Assessments today announced a 5-year extension to their global, exclusive partnership designed to increase the success rate of executive appointments and accelerate the development of rising leaders.

For the past five years, RRA and Hogan have worked together to produce a multitude of innovative solutions designed to drive C-suite performance, both at the individual and team levels. Together, they have brought to market leading class offerings on topics surrounding leadership, DE&I, and ESG, and the firms are excited to build on that momentum and innovation moving forward.

“Leaders today face new and unique challenges that require a seemingly ever-changing set of skills for their company’s individual situation,” Russell Reynolds Associates Managing Director of Leadership and Succession Anthony Abbatiello said. “By working closely with Hogan these past five years, Russell Reynolds Associates has leveraged market-leading assessment instruments and innovative tools to better understand the needs of a specific business and the skills its leaders need for long-term growth. RRA’s partnership with Hogan stands as a special relationship that guides the work we do to improve the way the world is led. We are excited at the possibilities of these next five years.”

The continued partnership combines RRA’s depth of expertise in advising senior executives and boards on executive search and succession with Hogan’s market-leading suite of assessment instruments, data assets and scientific acumen.

The co-branded, custom assessments RRA and Hogan have developed have proven to be extremely successful in enabling executive teams and boards to increase the precision of selection decisions and mitigate the risks associated with senior executive appointments. The extension of this partnership is a testament to how effective both firms have executed their vision in predicting C-suite performance.

“This partnership was originally established because the rate of success for global, corporate executives was shockingly low, and we knew that our combined expertise could dramatically improve that,” said now-former Hogan CEO Scott Gregory, Ph.D. “Russell Reynolds Associates is the gold standard in the executive search industry, and Hogan has the most predictive workplace personality assessments in the world. Our exclusive partnership focused on the C-suite has been a great fit for both parties, and we’re thrilled to continue our work with Russell Reynolds Associates.”

It’s old news that low employee engagement predicts negative business results. Way back in 2004, Gallup estimated that employee disengagement and associated behaviors cost the U.S. $1 trillion per year, or 10% of GDP.¹ Since then, many studies have validated the effects of employee engagement on organizational performance. What most of the conversations around these studies miss is that employee engagement is not just an issue of commerce but a moral issue as well. Companies that choose to invest in employee engagement are also choosing to improve the quality of their employees’ lives. When employees like their jobs and have a sense of purpose, they are happier and healthier. They also make teams more effective and better serve their employers.

So, engagement is clearly a win-win, right? What’s not to like about something that benefits everyone? Although you might assume all companies are on board, the truth is that most continue to neglect employee engagement. Yes, engagement did receive a recent bump — probably due to remote work’s impact on work-life balance — but a 2020 Gallup poll still revealed that 51% of workers are not engaged[1] and an additional 13% are actively disengaged (by their own reports).[2] Evidently, organizations need to start taking a more proactive approach to boosting morale than the occasional pizza party. They need to look at the root of engagement: personality.

People power organizations, and personality powers people. You can think of personality as a person’s core wiring and the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that stem from it. Using personality tests for engagement efforts will allow leaders to ensure that their employees — and thus their companies — are around for the long haul. Here are four surefire ways to use the science of personality to grow employee engagement.

1) Tailor development to the individual.

Before you can grow employee engagement, you first need to understand who you are trying to engage. Each person brings a unique constellation of strengths, weaknesses, and values to an organization, so a one-size-fits all engagement solution is unlikely to produce results.

One high-level engagement strategy that can be applied throughout the company is to focus on development. If employees are going to spend half of their waking hours at work, it is natural that they want their jobs to be rewarding. Employers can help satisfy that desire by investing in employees’ futures within the organization, which will make employees feel valued and boost their chances of professional success. Crafting development plans for each employee will encourage them to think about how their current roles are helping them grow professionally and benefiting their career trajectories.

Employers should assess employees to ensure that these trajectories are achievable and realistic. Personality tests yield individualized personality data that can help employees bridge the gap between their day-to-day behaviors and their long-term career ambitions. Personality tends to remain stable over time, and therefore personality test results should be a powerful resource for feedback and coaching throughout an employee’s life.

2) Hire according to values.

Employees whose beliefs conflict with organizational values are bound to leave before an employer’s investment in them pays off. Deeply personal, values define careers by shaping which work environments and cultures people find enjoyable.  Organizations that are challenged to retain the best talent should look at whether they are seeking candidates whose motivations, preferences, and values align with their own. Employee selection processes that prioritize alignment between employee values and organizational values will help create a culture of engagement.

To illustrate the impact of values on organizations, consider the cultural differences between the two biggest competing technology companies in the United States. Apple famously has a reputation of valuing individuality, nonconformity, and innovation. In contrast, Microsoft’s stated values focus on collaboration (i.e., “One Microsoft”), accountability, and making a difference in the world. While the technical competencies for employees would likely be similar for roles at either company, the conditions for engagement would differ substantially. Engaged employees at one company might care strongly about the appearance and quality of their work and surroundings and respond well to managers who value their autonomy and creativity. Engaged employees at the other might respond more strongly to community involvement, performance rewards, and a focus on team achievement. If you took an employee from one company and put them in the same job at the other, that person’s engagement could differ depending on the degree of employee-organization alignment.  

Hence, selection processes should prioritize candidates whose values overlap with those of the organization. These individuals will find it easier to engage in their work, mesh with their teams, and get behind corporate initiatives. Organizations that assess for values alongside personality will have much better chances of promoting employee engagement.

3) Monitor managers.

If there are specific teams that consistently underperform, it is important to look at the performance and test results of the managers who lead them. Personality tests can easily identify managers who corrode employee engagement. Behavioral red flags include, but are not limited to, tendencies to blame mistakes on others, overestimation of one’s competence, lacking team loyalty, ignoring commitments, bending rules, and disregarding others’ concerns. Managers who regularly exemplify these behaviors fall under the “bad bosses” label. Unfortunately, bad bosses tend to be the rule and not the exception ¾ the base rate of bad managers in the corporate world is between 50% and 75%.[3]

Remember when we talked about employee engagement being a moral issue? The quality of life for employees with bad bosses is so poor that eight in 10 workers admit to crying at work, and almost half attribute their tears to bad bosses.[4] In contrast, our data show that employees who describe their bosses as calm, organized, skilled at listening, and business-focused are three times more likely to be engaged.[5]

When organizations hire and promote bad bosses, they alienate and undermine their financial interests by risking employee disengagement. When a bad boss is identified, the situation should be remedied as quickly as possible to protect employee engagement.

4) Set a companywide vision.

To succeed, CEOs must craft a vision that appeals to employees’ values. When a CEO succeeds in communicating an attractive vision, employees are more willing to set aside their personal interests and mobilize to pursue organizational goals.

Eric Yuan, CEO of Zoom and 2020’s businessperson of the year,[6] is a great example of a leader with an attractive vision. Yuan has carefully crafted Zoom’s vision to reflect his altruistic values, often saying that Zoom’s focus is on “delivering happiness.” Zoom’s heartfelt approach — inspired by Yuan’s desire to see his wife’s face while she was away at college — led to it becoming the videoconference tool of choice during the COVID-19 pandemic for both professionals and people seeking human connection. Zoom’s employee ratings on Glassdoor make it clear that employee engagement is high within the organization and that Yuan has succeeded in engaging his employees.⁸ This engagement paid off when employees came together this year to defend Zoom from malicious hackers.

As Zoom’s success shows, employees will happily follow the lead of bosses who make a strong vision that appeals to their values. Without shared aspirations, though, leader-follower relationships and employee engagement will likely trend downwards. Leaders who need to fine-turn their vision should start by crafting a company-wide call-to-action, or only statement.

Let’s Get Engaged

People are the most important components of their organizations. Isn’t it time that organizations truly commit to maximizing their potential? If you’ve been thinking about how to grow employee engagement, closing the gap between employer efforts and individual personality is the key.

References

1. Clifton, D., & Rath, T. (2004, July 8). The Power of Praise and Recognition. Gallup. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/321965/employee-engagement-reverts-back-pre-covid-levels.aspx
2. Abel, A., Levanon, G., Li, A., & Rong, C. (n.d.). Job Satisfaction 2021: Job satisfaction remains high even in the midst of the pandemic and economic chaos. The Conference Board. https://conference-board.org/research/job-satisfaction/job-satisfaction-2021?mkt_tok=MjI1LVdCWi0wMjUAAAF80KUm7sd6Z0BJuD7-ZuCZ9NBtt5iEw_E6n7m1XRunyWhgZ5NAQLVVVogQ2fIQBnSiflNg9lj_HqRRn7pAoVwCetLHNfIVv56878F3KtN2WOo
3. Harter, J. (2020, October 16). U.S. Employee Engagement Reverts Back to Pre-Covid-19 Levels. Gallup. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/321965/employee-engagement-reverts-back-pre-covid-levels.aspx
4. Hogan, R., & Winsborough, D. (n.d.). Bad Managers. Hogan Assessment Systems. https://237jzd2nbeeb3ocdpdcjau97-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Bad_Managers.pdf
5. Picchi, A. (2019, August 15). Crying on the Job? You’re Not Alone, with 8 in 10 Workers Shedding Tears. CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/crying-on-the-job-youre-not-alone-with-8-in-10-workers-shedding-tears/
6. Hogan Assessment Systems. (n.d.). Engagement.  http://www.hoganassessments.com/sites/default/files/Engagment_NL_June_12_R21.pdf
7. Chow, A. (n.d.). Businessperson of the Year. Time. https://time.com/businessperson-of-the-year-2020-eric-yuan/
8. Glassdoor. (2021, May 14). Zoom Video Communications Reviews. https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Zoom-Video-Communications-Reviews-E924644.htm

First impressions are undoubtedly important in the business world. But to what extent do the importance of first impressions extend to the job candidate experience? Should creating a positive candidate experience be a priority? Candidates are supposed to be the ones impressing you, right?

Rather than leave this question to speculation, we sent out a global candidate experience survey. All 2,000 of our survey respondents were job candidates within three months before completing our survey. We asked candidates what a positive candidate experience means to them and if their candidate experience influenced their decision to move forward or pass on prospective positions.

Respondents replied to our survey with some decisive answers about the hiring process. A whopping 75% of respondents take their candidate experience into account when deciding whether or not they will accept a company’s offer. On the other end of the spectrum, only 7% of job seekers said the hiring process does not affect whether or not they view a company positively. Based on this data, we can unequivocally say that first impressions do matter. Candidates clearly take a company’s candidate experience to reflect its overall employee experience and organizational culture.

These findings mean that the risk of losing applicants due to a noncompetitive candidate experience is real. If the best applicants go elsewhere and the quality of the candidate pool drops, even the best selection tools will not be of much use.

If you want a high caliber of candidates in your hiring pool, then you need to carefully manage the first impression your company makes. A candidate experience audit is the perfect opportunity for your company to take charge of its reputation among job candidates and their social networks.

Our survey data show that personality tests should be at the top of your to-do list during this audit. They help with creating a positive candidate experience, which attracts and maintains candidate interest in your company. Here are four reasons why personality tests boost the overall candidate experience.

1) Personality tests give the candidate experience a cutting-edge feel.

The business environment is increasingly vulnerable to new technologies.  When job searching, candidates are well aware of how quickly emerging technologies can transform their professions.  Competitive candidates look for companies that are on the forefront of innovation in their respective industries and that will keep them up to speed professionally. Candidates’ forward-thinking attitudes means that a positive candidate experience increasingly depends on how tech-savvy they perceive a company to be.

A company’s reputation for innovation starts with the hiring process. Our survey data shows that personality tests imbue the hiring process with a modern feel. Nearly 60% of candidates describe personality tests as state-of-the-art and professional, 58% say they are creative, and 53% characterize them as scientific and serious. By extension, candidates who undergo personality testing will also view their candidate experience as state-of-the-art, professional, creative, scientific, and serious.

2) Personality tests will not deter applicants.

Although candidates are impressed by personality tests, some employers may fear that the time they add to the hiring process will deter candidates. Surprisingly, our data show that the candidate experience is not negatively influenced by adding assessment to the hiring process as an additional requirement.

The majority of candidates, nearly 60%, would not stop applying for a job because of an assessment requirement. Not to mention, research indicates that those who decide to drop out during the assessment process are unlikely to be your strongest candidates anyway.¹

Research shows that assessment length is not much of a deterrent either. According to the decreasing risk model, candidates are most likely to quit an assessment right after its start, and then the dropout rate rapidly decreases thereafter.¹ As a consequence, the difference in candidate experience between long and short assessments is likely minimal.

In fact, more than 70% of candidates do not place importance on a quick application process. Our survey data shows that the majority of job seekers are actually more interested in longer assessments. They see lengthier assessments as an opportunity to perform and as an indication that the company is serious about their application.¹  

3) Fairness of personality tests boosts the overall candidate experience.

What do candidates say is most important to them during the hiring process? First and foremost, 73% of candidates said that they most value a fair application process. The next most important thing to candidates (67%) is that the most qualified applicant gets the position.

Integrity appears to be the consistent element of positive candidate experiences; job seekers want the hiring process to be fair and for evaluation methods to provide the best representation of their candidacy. These two factors were ranked well above the process being fun or fast.

Candidates’ focus on fairness explains why they prefer personality tests to other hiring methods. The predictive power of personality testing ensures that the hiring process is equitable and objective. Well-validated personality tests accurately predict how well someone is likely to perform on the job with no meaningful score differences across protected groups.In contrast, what elements of the hiring process create a negative candidate experience? Slow responsiveness to applications leads to a negative experience for 26% of candidates. Another 26% of candidates said they have a negative perception of companies that do not handle offers and rejections with sensitivity.

It is clear that, in addition to treating applicants fairly, creating a positive candidate experience also means treating applicants with respect.

4) Creating a positive candidate experience is not all about fun and games.

A trend in talent acquisition is to use game-based assessments, which measure candidate attributes through gamified problem-solving. Traditional assessments, on the other hand, feature a standard questionnaire to measure personality, behaviors, or cognitive abilities.

At first, games may seem like an easy solution for creating a positive candidate experience. Games are less tedious than traditional assessments and thus should be enjoyable for job seekers. But there is a problem with this line of reasoning. Our survey data show that 69% of candidates do not place importance on the application process being fun. As we know, candidates prefer fairness in the hiring process and nearly two-thirds of respondents think traditional assessments are fairer than game-based assessments.

Similarly, 60% of candidates believe that traditional assessments represent their qualities as a candidate better than game-based assessments. More than half actually prefer a traditional assessment style to games.            

Altogether, these results indicate that candidates are not concerned with being entertained during the application process. In fact, they overwhelmingly prefer assessments that relate to the job at hand, provide instant feedback, and allow them to accurately represent themselves as candidates.

Conclusion

The goal of the candidate experience is to leave all candidates with a positive view of the company, regardless of the hiring decision. Companies that are already using personality tests for selection can rest assured that they are doing the right thing and that candidates consider it to be mutually beneficial. Meanwhile, companies that have not yet delved into using personality tests for hiring purposes should reserve a spot for it in their next candidate experience audit. These tests are meant to ensure that those selected from the hiring pool reflect what is best for the company.

Want to learn more about crafting a positive candidate experience? Check out our complete candidate experience survey insights!

Reference

¹Hardy, J. H. III, Gibson, C., Sloan, M., & Carr, A. (2017). Are applicants more likely to quit longer assessments? Examining the effect of assessment length on applicant attrition behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(7), 1148–1158. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000213

Reading the business news makes it obvious that CEOs have a huge impact on organizational success. When corporations succeed, their CEOs are usually credited for company performance.¹ When corporations fail, sometimes in colossal fashion, their CEOs are blamed and unceremoniously removed. At Hogan, we are no strangers to this conversation, frequently emphasizing the critical role of leadership in organizational success and failure. But just how important is it for organizations to get the right person in charge? What is the value of an effective CEO?

Several management scholars have investigated this question with a variety of data sets and methods. Here, we review the major papers on this topic and draw conclusions based on their findings. To start, we know that CEO personality characteristics often drive business successes and failures. Leader personality characteristics predict both who emerges as a leader and who is effective at leading.² Bright-side CEO characteristics (e.g., interpersonal sensitivity) influence management team cohesion and can have a positive effect on overall firm performance.³ Conversely, dark-side characteristics (e.g., narcissism) negatively influence leader decision-making, which can lead to organizational failure.⁴ Finally, CEO bright- and dark-side personality traits predict ethical misconduct, fraud, and sexual misconduct that often put the organization at risk with long-term implications to the company’s reputation.⁵

But is there a measurable impact when it comes to the company’s bottom line? In the 1980s, researchers found that CEOs could influence changes to a company’s stock price, controlling for company size.⁶ In the early 2000s, researchers started reporting the effect of CEOs on profitability and return on assets (ROA), with estimates ranging from 15% of the total variance in profitability to 29% of the variance in ROA.^7,8 Shifting to a different metric, researchers are now focusing on firm value (using Tobin’s Q) and estimate that CEOs are responsible for at least 25% of a company’s market value, after controlling for industry effects.⁸ As the management field continues to refine its methodologies and factor in context, these performance estimates may, in fact, be higher (38% of ROA variance explained) than what has been reported to date.⁹ Of course, the amount of managerial discretion also plays a role in that CEOs can only affect their company’s performance when given enough latitude to steer the ship around obstacles and chart new strategic direction.¹⁰

Fortunately, we are in a great position to help companies navigate this uncertainty. Even with a conservative estimate of 10% to 20%, this is a significant impact CEOs have on their company’s financial returns. Selecting the right leader can leap a company forward — and choosing poorly will set the organization back several steps.

Hogan has decades’ worth of research and thousands of archival studies showing how our personality tests deliver ROI in making the right hiring and development decisions for your company. Holding on to your talented employees, developing them, and finding a great CEO is the cornerstone of best practices that lead to long-term company success.⁷ We built a C-suite personality benchmark tied to company financial performance that is unmatched in the industry. We are leveraging this data into new research articles that link CEO personality to firm performance. Our findings confirm how critical it is to have a CEO with the right set of personality characteristics. In fact, CEO agreeableness, or the ability to build quality relationships across all levels of the organization, helps with team cohesion, engagement, and eventual company financial growth.

Look for these findings and more in the coming months as we continue to help companies find leaders who add value and improve their financial results:

Blake, A., Petrenko, O., Aime, F., Waldron, T., Lemming, M. R., & Sherman, R. (2021). Keeping nice in check: The dynamic between CEO agreeableness and firm performance. Manuscript submitted to Administrative Science Quarterly.

*This post was authored by Hogan’s Matthew R. Lemming and Ryne A. Sherman.

References

1. Hanson, M. T., Ibarra, H., & Peyer, U. (2010). The Best-Performing CEOs in the World. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2010/01/the-best-performing-ceos-in-the-world
2. Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and Leadership: A Qualitative and Quantitative Review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765–780. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.765
3. Peterson, R. S., Smith, D. B., Martorana, P. V., & Owens, P. D. (2003). The Impact of Chief Executive Officer Personality on Top Management Team Dynamics: One Mechanism by Which Leadership Affects Organizational Performance. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 795–808. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.795
4. Chatterjee, A., & Hambrick, D. C. (2007). It’s All About Me: Narcissistic Chief Executive Officers and Their Effects on Company Strategy and Performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(3), 351–386. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.52.3.351
5. Van Scotter, J. R., & Roglio, K. D. (2020). CEO Bright and Dark Personality: Effects on Ethical Misconduct. Journal of Business Ethics, 164,451–475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-4061-5
6. Weiner, N., & Mahoney, T. A. (2017). A Model of Corporate Performance as a Function of Environmental, Organizational, and Leadership Influences. Academy of Management Journal, 24(3). https://doi.org/10.5465/255568
7. Nohria, N., Joyce, W., & Roberson, B. (2003). What Really Works. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2003/07/what-really-works
8. Mackey, A. (2008). The Effects of CEOs on Firm Performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29(12), 1357–1367. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.708
9. Hambrick, D. C., & Quigley, T. J. (2013). Toward More Accurate Contextualization of the CEO Effect on Firm Performance. Strategic Management Journal, 35(4), 473–491. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2108
10. Crossland, C., & Hambrick, D. C. (2010). Differences in Managerial Discretion Across Countries: How Nation-level Institutions Affect the Degree to Which CEOs Matter. Strategic Management Journal, 32(8), 797–819. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.913

Imagine the final minute of a national championship match. The fate of the game relies on the final scoring opportunity. The top player receives the ball, and the coach is counting on this player to take the winning shot. Instead, the player passes the ball to a teammate, who shoots and misses. The team loses.

Scenarios like this are common in the world of sports. What causes the star player to pass instead of shoot? It’s likely personality, a little-considered factor impacting the performance of athletes, teams, and coaches. Determining the cause of a decision such as the one made by this star player requires the consideration of individual differences and how they impact team dynamics and overall performance.

The Hogan Assessment Systems suite of personality assessments enables coaches and athletes to strategically identify developmental opportunities beyond physical training. The Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI) offers insights to how everyday personality characteristics impact performance, the Hogan Development Survey (HDS) provides a look at extreme personality displays with the potential to hinder performance, and the Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI) describes performance drivers.

Personality, Self-awareness, and Development

The use of personality tests to identify and drive talent development initiatives is prevalent across industries. In the sports and recreation industry, personality tests are gaining momentum. In turn, consultants versed in Hogan’s assessments are successfully advancing individual and team performance.

Understanding the personalities of athletes and coaches provides insight for people to overcome tendencies for undesirable behavior that can hinder individual and team performance. Personality tests can help athletes and coaches gain self-awareness to adjust their behavior and improve performance. Hogan’s core assessments provide unique insights that establish a baseline for these developmental opportunities.

Hogan researchers collaborated with Srdjan Vukcevic, CEO and executive coach of Blue Coach, to explore personality in a sports context. Vukcevic and his team apply personality-based initiatives for athlete and coach development. Conducted in collaboration with the Montenegrin Olympic Committee, their research on sports performance and observations of team success (or lack thereof) shows clear evidence of the influential role of personality in individual performance and social team interactions.

Personality of Athletes

Blue Coach works with national and professional teams in European countries with smaller populations. The size of these populations limits the number of players available to build high-functioning teams. According to famed Montenegrin water polo coach Petar Porobic, “When you don’t have a large pool of players, you need to work with them.” In other words, small player pools require strategic methods to develop available athletes. This created an opportunity for Blue Coach to promote growth based on self-awareness of personality characteristics that are important for, or detrimental to, athletic success. Vukcevic emphasizes that the personality of players does not change, but identifying characteristics relevant to success in a specific sport or position can help drive personnel initiatives.

Each player brings a unique personality to the team, and certain personality profiles can be more successful in one position over another. For example, Blue Coach consultants recognized the best handball wings on a premier women’s handball team scored high on the HDS Excitable scale.¹ “These girls are on fire,” Vukcevic explains, referencing a song by singer Alicia Keys. “They are quick and in an instant can steal the ball, take off, and score.” This intensity results from high HDS Excitable scores and improves performance in the position. In contrast, these same tendencies would be detrimental to a more central member of the team. “These high scores would be dangerous for the main player; she needs to have a clear head.”

Blue Coach and its team of consultants also link personality to practice behavior and game performance. They found, in general, the best athletes tend to score higher on the HPI Prudence and HDS Diligent² scales, making them more likely to be self-motivated and focused during practice. Athletes who score lower on these scales tend to require constant reminders to practice and complete drills, especially when the coach is not present to keep them accountable.

Although some characteristics can improve performance, others can cause athletes to become less effective. For example, Blue Coach suspects lower scores on MVPI Power³ represent a lack of competitiveness (e.g., a player avoiding the game-winning shot when they are the most capable). Similarly, higher HPI Sociability⁴ and MVPI Hedonism⁵ can “destroy the potential” of an individual team member. Athletes with higher scores on these scales are less likely to respond to feedback and are more likely to engage in behaviors that negatively impact performance, such as going out for drinks the night before an important match. To highlight this interpretation, Vladan Gojkovic, the national water polo coach for Montenegro, describes a situation he witnessed during his work with a team: “The team was traveling for a very important game, and the players asked if they could go to a soccer match the night before that was more than 200 kilometers away. This is the type of behavior that impacts their performance as a team.”

Often, Vukcevic recommends interpreting HPI scales at the subscale level. He finds that focusing on portions of the HPI Ambition scale,⁶ such as Competitive, provides critical insight to an athlete’s competitive nature. In contrast, the No Social Anxiety subscale is less relevant because it focuses on an individual’s social self-confidence. This subscale may be important for identifying an athlete who excels during postgame interviews, but it is less important when focusing on game performance. He further highlights an atypical relationship between the Accomplishment subscale and performance outcomes: “Lower [HPI] Ambition scores (especially lower Accomplishment [subscale] scores) may translate to a view of low achievement and that you [the athlete or coach] can always achieve more, always more.” He believes that great athletes and successful coaches never accept that they have achieved ultimate success and therefore are always working to get better. As Dragan Adzic, a two-time consecutive World Handball Coach of the Year declares, “Respect what you have already achieved, and do your best to achieve even more.”

Personality of Coaches

A team responds to the personnel decisions made by their coach. Blue Coach consultants work with sports coaches to develop effective inter- and intrapersonal strategies. Similar to the leadership development initiatives used in business environments, Blue Coach helps coaches become more aware of how others perceive them. With this information, coaches see a clear path to develop both personally and professionally. Dragan Adzic describes his experience working one-on-one with Vukcevic: “With him, I have learned the real and scientific value of incorporating personality in my coaching. … Knowing all of my derailers and information I’ve got from [the] results has changed my perception of myself and of how other people see me. Since that time, I have been working on myself with the help of [the] Hogan assessments and I think that people with whom I work and live have noticed progress. I can surely control myself better and know myself better after the assessment.”

Blue Coach continues to work with Dragan to address potential inhibitors in his coaching ability. Although his team was successful, Dragan feels the HDS helped him identify specific development opportunities that were not easily pinpointed. He shares: “I had a strong tendency for burning my stress inside — the inner churn. My calmness was there but always with the cost. That cost was my inner battle and highly reserved [HDS Reserved⁷] behavior under stress. Because of that I usually responded to situations that required communication with silence. I knew that I need[ed] to communicate, but because of my personality, I have been postponing these conversations with players until we all come into an emotionally boiling situation. I saw that as my weakness and worked on it regularly by scheduling conversations with players from week to week.”

Through behavioral observations and one-on-one consulting, Blue Coach provides guidance around the Hogan assessments and gains insight to what makes an effective coach. Consultants find that an effective coach is not a people pleaser. Instead, the best coaches are those who score high on HPI Prudence and HDS Diligent.⁸ These coaches tend to micromanage (which can be frustrating for some), but their level of preparation makes them successful. These coaches are the individuals who “get on the bus after a win and immediately start analyzing the next opponent.” What separates Dragan Adzic, Vladan Gojkovic, and Petar Porobic from the rest is their attention to detail and degree of focus. This is what can distinguish a good coach from a great coach.

In addition, Vukcevic provides player insights that help coaches understand the individual differences that drive their behavior. He says: “Hogan gives the coach information on how to see the underlying aspects of performance for individual players that he [the coach] couldn’t see. Although he was aware of them for a long time, the core assessments allowed him to see these outcomes in Hogan language.” Through a deeper understanding of the personalities of the players, Vukcevic helps coaches take these insights and derive actionable development strategies for players.

Team Dynamics

At the team level, Blue Coach works extensively to curb negative outcomes driven by poor interpersonal relations. Negative feedback is common and accepted in the world of sports. It is exhibited through constructive coaching and general communication between players during practices and games. However, when this spills outside of the sport, it can have consequences that impact team performance. Vukcevic describes a specific example where interpersonal issues affected team performance: “Game performance is perfect. The issue is the interpersonal interactions between the players. Physical performance feedback is already there and accepted. However, there are small clans within the team that are usually against each other. Sometimes this produces a little bit of conflict and competitiveness, and instead of being positive, it hits at a personal level.”

This type of behavior is what impacts the “flow” of the team. Flow is a concept developed by famous psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi that describes a process of optimal performance, where players are 100% in the moment and playing at a high level. Vukcevic believes that interpersonal conflicts can disrupt this flow and impact the performance of the team. Specifically, he interprets scores on Hogan scales such as HPI Interpersonal Sensitivity, HDS Reserved, and HDS Leisurely⁹ to help coaches strategically address conflict. He states that “When passive-aggressive behavior turns into ‘I’m not giving you the ball in the game,’ then the team is going to have problems.” This has led to coaching initiatives that promote regular meetings with players and cohesive team development.

Conclusion

Hogan’s suite of assessments promotes self-awareness for the development of managers, leaders, and employees in traditional work spaces. Similar initiatives are gaining traction in alternative areas, including the sports and recreation industry. Collaborations with consulting groups, such as Blue Coach, show how personality relates to competitiveness, achievement orientation, focus, and team relations in a sports context. These findings suggest that consultants interested in sports may find opportunities to work with sports teams, helping members become aware of their personalities and understand how personality impacts overall performance.

Notes

1. Players who score higher on HDS Excitable tend be described as intense and energetic; HDS Excitable with Handball Game Performance (r = .18).
2. Players who score higher on HPI Prudence and HDS Diligent tend to be described as attentive, dependable, and perfectionistic; HPI Prudence (r = .30) and HDS Diligent (r = .43) with Training Performance.
3. Players who score higher on MVPI Power tend to be competitive and achievement oriented; MVPI Power with Overall Performance (r = .26).
4. Players with higher scores on HPI Sociability tend to be socially proactive and distractible but may also be team oriented; HPI Sociability with Off-Field Public Behavior (r = -.13).
5. Players with higher scores on MVPI Hedonism tend to make their own rules and want to have a good time; MVPI Hedonism and Overall Performance (r = -.18).
6. Players who score higher on Ambition tend to be competitive, energetic, and will take initiative; HPI Ambition and Overall Performance (r = .21).
7. Coaches with higher HDS Reserved scores tend to be unapproachable and uncommunicative under pressure.
8. Coaches with higher HPI Prudence and HDS Diligent scores tend to be process focused, organized, and rigid about details and rules.
9. Teams with lower HPI Interpersonal Sensitivity, higher HDS Reserved, and/or higher HDS Leisurely scores will tend to have stressed relationships among members of the team; HPI Interpersonal Sensitivity (r = .18), HDS Reserved (r = -.16), and HDS Leisurely (r = -.18) with Overall Performance.

Specializing in assessment and development of individuals, teams, and organizations, A&D Resources is an authorized distributor of Hogan’s personality assessment solutions in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. A&D Resources also provides consulting services at an executive level to global enterprises.

Recently, A&D Resources announced a merger with Summit Consulting, one of Denmark’s leading business psychology consulting firms. Specializing in organizational and leadership development, Summit Consulting describes itself as “the most business-driven psychologists and the most empathetic management consultants.”

“With this merger, we have created one of the largest business psychology firms in Denmark and Europe, strongly focused on developing leaders and organizations by means of leader assessment and organizational and leadership development,” said Karsten Søderberg, who was previously managing director at Summit Consulting and is now group CEO.

In addition to Søderberg having taken on the role of CEO, Lone Aggernæs Thornberg has become managing director at Summit Consulting, and Charlotte Søderberg has joined A&D Resources as managing director.

A&D Resources and Summit Consulting have had a close working relationship for many years since Summit Consulting uses Hogan’s personality assessments for a large proportion of its consultancy services for personal and team development programs, as well as for larger-scale development programs for companies in Denmark and abroad. The merger of the two companies will give A&D’s clients, partners, and resellers access to an even broader range of the industry’s best and most experienced business psychology consultants in the fields of organizational and leadership development.

“This merger marks the transition from a close, long-term collaboration between A&D Resources and Summit Consulting to a consolidated global business psychology consultancy, with the industry’s best consultants and specialists in Hogan assessments and organizational and leadership development gathered in a single organization,” said Joan Jakobsen, founder of A&D Resources.

Both companies will retain their names and addresses, and all employees will remain in their current positions, keeping their current clients. This means that the consultants or contacts clients have had up to now will continue to advise and serve them in the same professional manner as always.

“We are excited to work with the combined Summit and A&D Resources teams,” said now-former Hogan CEO Scott Gregory. “The merger is a combination of two highly respected and complementary firms with a resulting global reach. We all share strong values about client service, science-based assessments, leadership development, and business growth. We welcome the combined firm into the Hogan family and look forward to many more years of productive partnership.”

In celebration of this merger, we at Hogan want to pay tribute to Joan Jakobsen and Flemming Honore, who worked tirelessly over the past 19 years to create the A&D Resources we know today. Joan, alongside her team, has created a powerhouse in the Nordic and Benelux regions, and this merger will propel them further into a bright future. For Joan and Flemming, their future plans include a nice glass of wine in the south of France and research collaborations.

Of course, we must also credit the A&D team, a group of individuals with high regard for quality services, customer service, and scientific rigor, for their extra efforts during this merger. Scott Gregory speaks for everyone at Hogan when he says, “We have always been proud to have the team at A&D as the face of Hogan in the markets they serve. They have been and continue to be respected experts in all things Hogan and have become trusted advisors to their many clients. It is our pleasure to continue our relationship with A&D’s world-class team.”

Companies express their guiding principles most clearly during the employee selection process. For instance, employers that value the old adage of “not judging a book by its cover” tend to adopt equitable employee selection procedures. While the specifics of employee selection processes vary, using a universal employability framework will ensure that your organization takes a grounded approach to judging candidates, whether for entry-level or C-suite positions.¹ The three universal competencies that orient an employee selection process are people skills, learning skills, and work ethic. Pursuing candidates with these competencies will strengthen any organization and guard against hiring employees with poor problem-solving, self-management, and interpersonal skills.

People Skills: Can This Person Get Along with Others?

People are social creatures, which means hiring managers should consider a fundamentally human question during employee selection: will this candidate be rewarding to work and spend time with? Although this question is simple, it is often overlooked. Employers are often enticed by bright candidates. But when these people are incapable of getting along with others, or at least unwilling, they tend to erode organizational morale.  

Tech guru Steve Jobs is a great example of someone who, despite being admired for his intelligence and creativity, was emotionally taxing to work with.² His inability to get along with others was apparent from the start of his career. During his stint at Atari, his employers assigned him to the solitary night shift so he would stop upsetting his coworkers. Atari cofounder Nolan Bushnell later said that Jobs “was very often the smartest guy in the room, and he would let people know that.”³ Jobs was suspicious, argumentative, entitled, impulsive, prone to setting impossible standards, and emotionally volatile. He did not value people skills, which curbed his ability to get along with people throughout the ranks. Workers at Pixar and Apple both admitted that working with Jobs required inhabiting an almost egoless state because they were subject to constant abuse and expected to be extremely deferential. Although his genius made him successful, his harsh behavior prevented him from becoming CEO at Apple and eventually resulted in his ousting from the company.

Organizations may clamor to have a genius in their ranks, but focusing on candidates with strong people skills is more beneficial. The majority of today’s leaders are people leaders managing employees with team-based jobs.⁴ When folks who occupy these leadership positions lack the necessary people skills, productivity can plummet. For the sake of those already working within the organization, employers should ensure their employee selection processes place people skills at the heart of the search.

Learning Skills: Can This Person Do the Job?

The accelerated development of new technologies means professionals must pursue education to improve at their jobs and adapt to the business world’s ever-shifting terrain. Hiring managers should look for candidates who display, in addition to occupational expertise, a high degree of inquisitiveness and a propensity for learning. Even at the C-suite level, learning skills should not be taken for granted. As Steven Berglas, PhD, points out in The Perils of Accentuating the Positive, “super smart and capable people” often “fail to use their abilities to continually adapt and instead resist new information when it is obvious that the old way is working against them.”⁵

Berglas illustrates this refusal to adapt with the story of Sewell Avery, the CEO and chairperson of the department store retailer Montgomery Ward & Co. Prior to his time at the helm of Montgomery Ward, Avery was CEO of the United States Gypsum Company. Having come of age in the depressed 1890s, Avery applied the economic attitudes of his youth to his business by running his company frugally and keeping it debt-free. This approach paid off when the Great Depression arrived. Many of Avery’s competitors were forced to close their doors, but the United States Gypsum Company continued to grow. J.P. Morgan was so impressed with Avery’s leadership that he asked him to take charge of the ailing Montgomery Ward & Co. department store. Avery remained steadfast to his frugal formula throughout the post-World War II economic boom. His approach was so inflexible that, despite warnings from his subordinates, he refused to follow consumers and open stores in the suburbs. His reasoning was that another Great Depression would arrive soon, but it never did. Consequently, Montgomery Ward & Co. fell behind its competitors and never caught up. If Avery had stayed curious and kept learning about the changing market, Montgomery Ward might still be around today.

Regardless of a job’s context, learning skills and openness to new experiences are valuable competencies. Employee selection procedures should focus on candidates who are willing to resist clinging to tried-and-true methods and instead flex their learning abilities. The recent changes wrought by COVID-19 have served as a reminder of the importance of approaching new business environments, organizational and team structures, and social situations with a healthy dose of curiosity and openness.

Work Ethic: Can This Person Be Motivated to Do the Job?

Socially skilled, bright, and adaptable candidates can still fail to fulfill their promise if they are not motivated to work hard. Motivation is formed by personal values that impact career outcomes. If a candidate does not buy into the vision for their role or the company, their work ethic is bound to lag in the long run. Therefore, hiring managers should look for an overlap between candidate and organizational values. A fictitious but helpful example of what happens when employees aren’t motivated can be found in the character Stanley Hudson in the American version of the TV series, The Office.

Although stone-faced Stanley has a history of hitting high sales numbers with Dunder Mifflin Paper Company, he no longer musters the energy to do anything beyond his immediate job description. Stanley’s recurring catch lines are “no” and “do not care.” He refuses to coach younger employees such as Ryan, always leaves the office at 5 p.m. sharp, takes naps during the workday, and does crossword puzzles during meetings. The show makes the reason for his disengagement clear: Stanley does not buy into the vision that his boss Michael presents to his employees. In season 2, Stanley vents his frustration to Michael:

What is wrong with you? Do you have any sense at all? Do you have any idea how to run an office? Every day you do something stupider than you did the day before. And I think, “There’s no possible way he can top that.” But what you do you do? You find a way, damn it, to top it. You are a professional idiot!

The clash between Stanley and Michael becomes a running storyline in the show. Stanley’s disengagement eventually climaxes in season 5, when he has a heart attack due to stress from working in an environment he does not enjoy. Stanley returns to the office with a stress monitor that goes off whenever Michael approaches him. Although fictional, Stanley’s disengagement and resulting health issues are based in reality. According to a Gallup poll, 71% of Americans do not like their jobs and therefore do not work hard or show loyalty to their employers.⁶ Moreover, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health shows that people who work for employers with whom they don’t agree are at higher risk for cardiovascular disease and other health issues.⁷      

Alignment with organizational values will almost certainly affect employee engagement with work, as well as health. In turn, job engagement and health affect whether employees work hard in their roles. Educational psychologist Lee Cronbach summed it up best when he said, “If for each environment there is a best organism, for each organism there is a best environment.”⁸

Success in Employee Selection: A Matter of Good Data and Perspective

While reviewing candidates and what they each have to offer, it is helpful to use these three competencies as a big-picture barometer of hiring success. Understanding where each candidate stands in terms of these criteria helps employers make the best hiring decisions possible, plus anticipate areas that might require special attention or training.

References

1. Larcher, A. (2019, August 16). Hogan Assessments Launches a New Product to Help Organisations Recruit the Right Candidates. Swiss Entrepreneurs Magazine.https://swissentrepreneursmagazine.com/index.php/2019/08/16/hogan-assessments-launches-a-new-product-to-help-organisations-recruit-the-right-candidates/
2. Fernandez, J. (2018). The Entrepreneurial Personality: Meet Steve Jobs. Hogan Press.
3. Cassidy, M. (2016, August 12). Cassidy on Nolan Bushnell: ‘Steve Was Difficult,’ Says Man Who First Hired Steve Jobs. Mercury News. https://www.mercurynews.com/2013/03/28/cassidy-on-nolan-bushnell-steve-was-difficult-says-man-who-first-hired-steve-jobs/
4. Heerwagen, J., Kelly, K., & Kampschroer, K. (2016, October 5). The Changing Nature of Organizations, Work, and Workplace. Whole Building Design Guide. https://www.wbdg.org/resources/changing-nature-organizations-work-and-workplace
5. Kaiser, R. (2009). The Perils of Accentuating the Positive. Hogan Press.
6. Blacksmith, N., & Harter, J. (2011, October 28). Majority of American Workers Not Engaged in Their Jobs. Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/150383/majority-american-workers-not-engaged-jobs.aspx
7. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (1999). Stress… At Work (Publication Number 99-101). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/99-101/default.html#Job%20Stress%20and%20Health
8. Cronbach, L. (1957). The Two Disciplines of Scientific Psychology. Classics in the History of Psychology, York University. https://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Cronbach/Disciplines/#:~:text=If%20for%20each%20environment%20there,he%20can%20most%20easily%20adapt.