Are you being taken in by innovation myths? Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic debunks three falsehoods about being innovative within an organization in a recent Fast Company article.

1. The Personality Cult: While it’s true that some individuals are more innovative than others, it’s the side-kick and/or creative team that turn the vision into a concrete product. The qualities that make an individual innovative are more likely related to certain personality traits like “a hungry mind, openness to new experiences, and problems with authority,” says Chamorro-Premuzic. But we should remember that “innovation is always the product of teams, rather than the heroic effort of isolated individuals,” he continues.

2. The Glorification of Risk: “It is popular opinion that risk and innovation go hand in hand…The fact is that innovation requires a very small dose of risk,” says Chamorro-Premuzic. “Of course,” he continues, “there are risks associated with any innovation--as Jeff Bezos noted, if you know it’s going to work, then it’s not an experiment. But that’s precisely why a cautionary approach to innovation is more likely to pay off.”

3. The Confidence Delusion: “Most people overestimate how creative they really are,” says Chamorro-Premuzic. “This positive self-delusion creates three major problems,” he continues. First, self-deluded individuals are less likely to continually better themselves since they think they’re already creative enough. Second, it is easy to mistake confidence for competence. Third, when the confidence outshines competence, individuals are likely to be seen as entitled and narcissistic by their peers – not a healthy way to inspire creativity.

“Crucially, innovation requires a series of coordinated management efforts and effective leadership. People will always differ in their creative potential, but with the right culture in place every employee will feel compelled to unleash their creative potential,” concludes Chamorro-Premuzic.

Or, more accurately, is your boss killing you? A study by Everest College showed that more than 80% of Americans are stressed about their jobs, and 75% of people said the most stressful aspect of their job is their immediate boss.

Although most people accept bad bosses as an inevitable part of work, the chronic stress they cause costs companies 105 million lost working days and $300 billion annually. Why do bad bosses stress their employees out so badly, what is the human cost of that stress, and what can we do about it?

Find out in our ebook Stress is Killing You.

Well it’s officially summer – purveyor of fun in the sun, snow cones, and vacation. Oh, and the summer workday slump. Have you found yourself perusing more pop news sites, taking more Buzzfeed quizzes, and streaming the World Cup behind your Excel spreadsheets?

Turns out, you’re not the only one. In his Management Today blog, Dr. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic sites some pretty interesting statistics about online leisure activity and work: “A recent survey by the National Bureau of Economic Research asked people a very simple question: 'What are you not doing when you are online?' The most common answer, by far, was 'working' - 35%, compared with 15% for 'watching TV', 12% for 'sleeping', and 4% for 'relaxing and thinking'.”

“If this is true,” he continues, regarding the 35% who would be working, “there are two potential implications. The first is that people are a lot less productive than they could be...The second - alternative - explanation is that most employees are spending more time at work than needed.”

So we get to choose between the possibilities that work suffers – imagine the benefits of a 35% increase in productivity – or leisure time suffers.

“Indeed, if online leisure time does not harm productivity, then why pay people to spend that time at work?” says Chamorro-Premuzic.

Unfortunately, there may be a more serious issue underlying our online leisure habits. “Online leisure time makes work - or at least being at work - less boring. So, ironically, the very activity that serves as a coping mechanism for the underlying boringness of work keeps them at the job for longer than needed,” says Chamorro-Premuzic.

So maybe we should start asking ourselves, is our newly acquired Facebook addiction a result of a summer slump or a bored cry for help?

Recent pop personality quizzes such as those found on BuzzFeed make light of our fascination with personality and the practicality of self-awareness. While these may be fun coffee break activities, they don’t warrant much in terms of scientific feedback and tend to give personality tests a bad rap in a professional setting. When I explain my job to my friends, they’re always amazed that personality is measurable. In a recent Forbes’ article, Dr. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic defends seven “common arguments against the use of personality tests in the workplace.”

People can fake their answers
Well, in the first place, “when tests are adequately designed,” says Chamorro-Premuzic, “it is not easy to guess what different questions assess, or how different answers will be interpreted, making deliberate manipulation quite ineffective…Second, good tests not only allow for a certain degree of dishonesty – they actually encourage it.” We all want to present a favorable image when interviewing or talking about ourselves which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Those that fudge the lines of truth a bit could just be demonstrating their knowledge of social etiquette and behavior. “In short,” says Chamorro-Premuzic, “people may try to fake, but they are generally not smart enough to fool good psychometric tests – and if they are, they should be hired anyway.”

Tests are inaccurate
“Yet 50-years of psychological research show that self-perceptions are inaccurate and inflated, as our unconscious desire to feel good about ourselves – our optimism bias – is much more powerful than our enthusiasm for reality,” counters Chamorro-Premuzic. “In line,” he continues, “the accuracy of scientific personality tests does not depend on the degree to which scores align with test-takers’ self-perceptions, but on the tests’ ability to predict respondents’ actual behavior: what they do, rather than how they think of themselves.”

Personality changes from situation to situation
While your behavior may change depending on the situation, your personality doesn’t. It is your personality that “affects and predicts how you are likely to behave in different situations,” explains Chamorro-Premuzic.

Tests are unfair
It’s true that some people do better than others on personality tests, but, “when those differences in performance are actually related to job potential (e.g., a person’s ability to sell insurance, drive a bus, or manage a winning team), then surely it would be more unfair to hire the weaker candidates,” says Chamorro-Premuzic.

Tests are reductionist and “pigeonhole” people
Actually, people are reductionist and “pigeonhole” people through stereotypes. “Personality tests focus on generic patterns of thought, action and behavior. They are therefore color blind and gender neutral, as well as unrelated to a person’s educational or socioeconomic background,” claims Chamorro-Premuzic.

Tests are intrusive and pick up private abnormalities
“Scientific tests comply with strict ethical standards and national laws for both research and practice,” explains Chamorro-Premuzic, “and their administration requires the test-taker’s consent and involves a transparent exchange with the test-taker (unlike, for example, in the case of big data and social analytics), who is usually provided with some feedback after completing the test.

Success depends on context, so how can you give the same test to everyone?
While every job is somewhat different, “successful employees tend to be more or less similar everywhere,” says Chamorro-Premuzic.

If you want an expanded version of this blog, check out the original post on Forbes.

I don’t know about you, but whenever I have a tough decision to make and no reasoning tools at my disposal, I tend to do one of two things: 1) eeny, meeny, miny, mo; or 2) go with my gut (otherwise known as intuition).

While these two methods have served me well in the past when choosing a chocolate bar over skittles or picking a light blue over a slightly lighter blue shirt to buy, I can’t imagine using a nursery rhyme when it comes to something as important as hiring. And yet, some managers use such arbitrary techniques to find new talent and promote internally.

“Unsurprisingly, most people overestimate their intuitive powers, much like they overestimate their sense of humour, creativity, and sex appeal,” writes Dr. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic in a recent Forbes article. Just because someone flashes a smile during an interview and says all the right things, doesn’t mean they’ll be a good fit for the job. In other words, it’s not enough to rely purely on intuition.

Fortunately, intuition during the selection process can be a skill when it is informed by good data, such as validated personality assessment results. “In line,” continues Chamorro-Premuzic, “purely intuitive managers may face extinction only if they ignore the valuable information provided by data. At the same time, those managers who are capable of data-driven intuition will remain in demand, and increasingly so.”

In conclusion, Chamorro-Premuzic asserts that “modern management calls for leaders who are logical, empirical, and intuitive. They must have both IQ and EQ and question their own judgment by remaining humble and maintaining their ingenuity.” So, go with your gut! But make sure it’s well informed.

Emotional intelligence, or EQ, is the ability to identify and manage your own and others’ emotions. While this is important in any business, it is especially integral in the healthcare industry.

Other than better bedside manner, what does EQ have to do with medical care, you may ask? According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, 40% of patients who unexpectedly returned after an initial primary care visit had been misdiagnosed, and almost 80% of the misdiagnoses were tied to problems in doctor-patient communication.

That’s not okay.

Considering the typical doctor’s office visit involves 15 minutes or less with a physician, it isn’t surprising that communication is a problem. Unfortunately, the U.S. faces a growing shortage of primary care physicians, so 15-minute interactions are likely to remain the norm.

So, how can doctors improve patient communication within such limited interaction? By upping their EQ. A study published in Academic Medicine showed that as doctor’s attention to feelings, empathetic concern, and degree of perspective taking – all factors of EQ – increased, so did the quality of doctor-patient communication.

Needless to say, increased communication can lead to better patient outcomes as well as fewer malpractice lawsuits. A study published in the American Journal of Medicine compared physicians’ patient satisfaction survey scores with unsolicited complaints and risk management episodes. It found that, compared to doctors in the highest third of patient satisfaction, doctors in the middle third had 26% higher rates of malpractice lawsuits, and patients in the lowest third had 110% higher rates. What a difference!

Higher EQ also leads to better handoffs and transitions between shifts and departments as well as better healthcare leaders. Learn more and find out what techniques coaches can employ for more emotionally intelligent (and safer) healthcare workers.

Patient safety is a major concern for the medical industry. A study in the Journal of Patient Safety found between 210,000 and 440,000 patients each year suffer some type of preventable harm that contributes to their death, and a separate study found that nearly one third of medical injuries were due to error, costing patients and hospitals more than $1 billion each year.

Although hospitals and medical systems have put in place increasingly advanced systems to monitor and improve patient safety, these numbers have remained stagnant because these systems largely ignore one of the largest drivers of patient safety: emotional intelligence.

Emotional intelligence can improve patient outcomes by:

1. IMPROVING DOCTOR-PATIENT COMMUNICATION
2. IMPROVING HANDOFFS AND TRANSITIONS
3. IMPROVING OFFICE STAFF AND ADMINISTRATORS

Learn how EQ makes such an impact on healthcare employee/patient safety in our complimentary ebook High EQ Can Save Your Life.

“The Jerk Store called, and they’re running out of you.” - George Costanza (1997)

Seinfeld fans will recall George’s ill-fated attempt to deliver the perfect comeback to a smart-ass coworker. Rather than trying to outdo them, the key to dealing with jerks, or any other kind of difficult manager, is to understand them.

“Bosses are just like any other human: unique but predictable,” said Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, vice president of Research and Innovation at Hogan. “The best way to manage your manager is to figure out who they are, what they want, and why they do what they do. Then, adjust your behavior to fit their personality.” For example,

• Is your boss impulsive? Impulsive bosses are driven by feeling rather than reason, so tune into their moods. Share your ideas when they are already feeling excited.
• Is your boss creative? Creative bosses jump from one idea to the next, so avoid any discussion of admin details, bureaucratic processes, and rules. Admire their ideas and show interest in their eccentric suggestions.

Check out more personality types and what you can do to counteract the jerk in your boss in our new eBook So, Your Boss is a Jerk.

There are three popular explanations for the clear under-representation of women in management and entrepreneurship, namely: (1) they are not capable; (2) they are not interested; (3) they are both interested and capable but unable to break the glass-ceiling: an invisible career barrier, based on prejudiced stereotypes, that prevents women from accessing the ranks of power. But what if all of us are missing the bigger picture? We asked Dr. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic.

What do you think is the cause for the under-representation of women in management?

In my view, the main reason for the uneven management sex ratio is our inability to discern between confidence and competence. That is, because people commonly misinterpret displays of confidence as a sign of competence, we are fooled into believing that men are better leaders than women.

Do men actually have an advantage over women when it comes to leadership?

The only advantage that men have over women is the fact that manifestations of hubris — often masked as charisma or charm — are commonly mistaken for leadership potential, and that these occur much more frequently in men than in women.

Why are we drawn to narcissistic individuals for leaders?

Leaderless groups have a natural tendency to elect self-centered, overconfident and narcissistic individuals as leaders. Freud argued that the psychological process of leadership occurs because a group of people — the followers — have replaced their own narcissistic tendencies with those of the leader, such that their love for the leader is a disguised form of self-love, or a substitute for their inability to love themselves.

What do you think about the “lean in” debate pushing women to be more like their male peers?

It strikes me as a little odd that so much of the recent debate over getting women to “lean in” has focused on getting them to adopt more of these dysfunctional leadership traits. Yes, these are the people we often choose as our leaders — but should they be?

What are women doing right when it comes to management and entrepreneurship?

In a comprehensive review of studies, Alice Eagly and colleagues showed that female managers are more likely to elicit respect and pride from their followers, communicate their vision effectively, empower and mentor subordinates, and approach problem-solving in a more flexible and creative way, as well as fairly reward direct reports. In contrast, male managers are statistically less likely to bond or connect with their subordinates, and they are relatively more inept at rewarding them for their actual performance.

Do women have an unseen advantage by being more humble?

Arrogance and overconfidence are inversely related to leadership talent. Whether in sports, politics, or business, the best leaders are usually humble — and whether through nature or nurture, humility is a much more common feature in women than men. For example, women outperform men on emotional intelligence, which is a strong driver of modest behaviors.

So, then, what’s women’s biggest barrier to achieving equal representation in leadership positions?

One of the biggest problems is the lack of career obstacles for incompetent men, and the fact that we tend to equate leadership with the very psychological features that make the average man a more inept leader than the average woman. The result is a pathological system that rewards men for their incompetence while punishing women for their competence, to everybody’s detriment.

What can we do to stop the unnatural selection of male leaders and entrepreneurs?

First, we can debunk the myth of leadership and entrepreneurship as masculine. Psychological research has shown that even when we know stereotypes are inaccurate, they still affect our decisions. Uprooting the stereotype that men are naturally better suited for leadership and entrepreneurship would encourage competent women and discourage incompetent men. Second, we can bet on competence rather than confidence – for investors to bet on actual rather than self-perceived talent.

Ever heard that phrase “fake it until you make it”? In his latest book, Confidence, Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic advises that “when you are competent, fake modesty. When you are not, fake competence. And if you cannot fake competence, then try to fake confidence.” 

While the narcissistic attitude that goes hand in hand with charm and enthusiasm can be a handy asset for promotion, it has its downsides. People with narcissistic tendencies are likely to be impulsive, unrealistic in evaluating their abilities, pigheaded, and entitled, to name a few.

In a recent online trend, humble CEOs are being lauded for their superior leadership styles and healthy organizations. Learn more about the perfect balance of hubris and humility in the workplace.