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

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

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

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

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

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

But how did he achieve that?

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

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

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

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

Andrea Facchini
Business Psychologist and Guest Blogger

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andrea Facchini, MSc.
Business Psychologist and Guest Blogger

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.

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.