She’s the one with the can-do attitude. The boss needs that proposal by tomorrow? No problem. Have a 3 a.m. conference call? She’ll be there. You need 10,000 copies correlated and stapled? She can do that, too. Sure, she may over commit, but you don’t get ahead by saying “no.”

On the climb up the corporate ladder, the line between strength and weakness isn’t always clear. Although her eagerness to please served the over-committer early in her career, now, she has an overflowing calendar and a reputation as the boss’s pet.

Watch this video to see the over-committer at work, or visit www.howdoyouderail.com to view the entire HDS video series. Follow on Twitter @ImHiDutiful #howdoyouderail

Bullying is a topic that has been widely covered in the news recently. Schools are instituting and actively enforcing policies against bullying to prevent physical and psychological distress against those being bullied. Although we most frequently think of bullying in a school context, this sort of hair pulling, name calling, and harassing behavior is not limited to the elementary school playground or the high school locker room.

Bullies are everywhere, in academic settings and the corporate world alike. Why? Because those bullies who made fun of us on the playgrounds eventually grow up and learn to use their influence and intimidation tactics to make their way into the corporate world, and often to the top of the corporate ladder. Eventually, the hair pulling and name calling from childhood manifests itself as corporate bullies using emotion and aggressiveness to get their way and potentially make others feel ignorant as a means to win power over others.

A 2009 Forbes.com article by Nicole Perlroth provides an interesting commentary of the bullies in the C-Suite and in Hollywood. In her article, Nicole discusses two types of bullies: 1) the yelling, screaming, likes to see people squirm bully, and 2) the “I’m doing this for your own good” bully who uses emotion and aggression to both protect and demand performance from others. The interesting thing that both types of bullies have in common, especially in the corporate world, is that they get results. Martha Stewart’s perfectionistic, demanding, and micromanaging style is likely perceived by others as bully-like in nature. However, her ability to push people to their limits and demand perfection also commands loyalty from those who survive the tough work environment. It also allowed her business to continue growing rapidly while she was in prison. The late Steve Jobs is another example of bullying behavior that drove success. His creative, emotional, and at times condescending style created greatness, but at what cost and to whom?

These individuals are great examples of what often gets you to the top, may cause you to fail, or in Hogan terms, derail. Although both Martha Stewart and Steve Jobs were and in Martha’s case continue to be wildly successful, there is a cost. Whether it is in the form of brand image, personal reputation, or the trail of bodies that often follows these individuals whose strong and abrasive interpersonal style may destroy others.

Confidence, aggressiveness, and the ability to set high expectations are critical characteristics in successful leaders; however the way these behaviors are perceived by others is what ultimately distinguishes a great leader from a corporate bully. Awareness of the impact one’s behaviors has on others is the key to success in the corporate world and the elementary school playground alike.

The bottom line: It’s important to recognize the intention and the impact our behavior has on others because name calling and temper tantrums can only get us so far. If we don’t pay attention to and modify these behaviors we may find ourselves a captain without a team – kickball, dodge ball, or executive.

Bullying is a topic that has been widely covered in the news recently. Schools are instituting and actively enforcing policies against bullying to prevent physical and psychological distress against those being bullied. Although we most frequently think of bullying in a school context, this sort of hair pulling, name calling, and harassing behavior is not limited to the elementary school playground or the high school locker room.

Bullies are everywhere, in academic settings and the corporate world alike. Why? Because those bullies who made fun of us on the playgrounds eventually grow up and learn to use their influence and intimidation tactics to make their way into the corporate world, and often to the top of the corporate ladder. Eventually, the hair pulling and name calling from childhood manifests itself as corporate bullies using emotion and aggressiveness to get their way and potentially make others feel ignorant as a means to win power over others.

A 2009 Forbes.com article by Nicole Perlroth provides an interesting commentary of the bullies in the C-Suite and in Hollywood. In her article, Nicole discusses two types of bullies: 1) the yelling, screaming, likes to see people squirm bully, and 2) the “I’m doing this for your own good” bully who uses emotion and aggression to both protect and demand performance from others. The interesting thing that both types of bullies have in common, especially in the corporate world, is that they get results. Martha Stewart’s perfectionistic, demanding, and micromanaging style is likely perceived by others as bully-like in nature. However, her ability to push people to their limits and demand perfection also commands loyalty from those who survive the tough work environment. It also allowed her business to continue growing rapidly while she was in prison. The late Steve Jobs is another example of bullying behavior that drove success. His creative, emotional, and at times condescending style created greatness, but at what cost and to whom?

These individuals are great examples of what often gets you to the top, may cause you to fail, or in Hogan terms, derail. Although both Martha Stewart and Steve Jobs were and in Martha’s case continue to be wildly successful, there is a cost. Whether it is in the form of brand image, personal reputation, or the trail of bodies that often follows these individuals whose strong and abrasive interpersonal style may destroy others.

Confidence, aggressiveness, and the ability to set high expectations are critical characteristics in successful leaders; however the way these behaviors are perceived by others is what ultimately distinguishes a great leader from a corporate bully. Awareness of the impact one’s behaviors has on others is the key to success in the corporate world and the elementary school playground alike.

The bottom line: It’s important to recognize the intention and the impact our behavior has on others because name calling and temper tantrums can only get us so far. If we don’t pay attention to and modify these behaviors we may find ourselves a captain without a team – kickball, dodge ball, or executive.

Leadership is one of the most important topics in the social, behavioral, and organizational sciences. When good leadership prevails, organizations and people prosper. Bad leadership is almost always accompanied by inevitable bankruptcies, corporate corruption, and business disasters. Yet, according to Dr. Robert Hogan, the keys to effective leadership are still largely misunderstood. In the following interview, Hogan, answers several common questions regarding effective leadership.

What is leadership?
Leadership is not being in charge; many people who are in charge of teams and organizations are either lucky or are good politicians and have no talent for leadership. Leadership should be defined as the ability to build and maintain a high-performing team that bests the competition. In turn, leadership should be evaluated in relation to the performance of the team.

What influences good leadership?
Being able to evaluate the talents of the team members to be sure the right people are on the team, the wrong people are off the team, and the right people are in the right positions. Good leadership also involves developing a good strategy for the team, so that it can outperform the competition.

How can we measure corporate leadership?
The best way to measure leadership in corporations is in terms of the performance of the team or unit of which the leader is in charge. The second best way to measure leadership is to ask the members of the team to evaluate the performance of their leader. Subordinates’ evaluations of leaders are a good proxy or substitute for measures of overall team performance.

How can we identify and grow corporate leaders?
The wrong way to identify leaders is to ask the senior people which junior leaders they like. The typical high potential program is more about politics than talent. The quickest, most cost effective and most objective way to identify and grow leaders is by using a systematic assessment process. Well-validated assessments can be used to identify leadership potential and to give the potential leaders feedback regarding their strengths and developmental needs.

Are men better leaders than women?
Men are not better leaders than women. There are as many incompetent male leaders as there are incompetent female leaders. When women are good, they are just as good as men; when they are bad, they are just as bad as men.

Is there any shift in managing younger leaders? Are their values different from their bosses?
Good values are good for business; bad values are bad for business. Some older people have good values, some have bad values. Some younger people have good values, some have bad values. Working hard and wanting to do a good job is important for young people and older people. Everyone, young and old, needs to understand customer service. Integrity is as important for younger people as it is for older people. Being a good colleague and good team player is as important for younger workers as it is for older workers. The strange haircuts, tattoos, and clothing styles that young people prefer are irrelevant to job performance.

What is leadership failure?
If a leader gets fired, that is failure. If the team performs poorly, that is failure. If the team members hate their leader and refuse to work for him/her, that is failure. If the team has high rates of absenteeism, turnover, and accidents, and low levels of productivity and morale, and poor ratings for customer service, that is failure.

What causes leadership failure?
Leadership failure results from a leader being unable to build and maintain a high performing team. This is usually because the leader: (a) is untrustworthy; (b) makes bad decisions; (c) lacks competence in and knowledge of the business; (d) has no vision for the team. Leaders who lie, steal, cheat, play favorites, bully their subordinates, and are unable to control their emotions are usually seen as untrustworthy, the most important factor contributing to leadership failure.

Can leadership failure be prevented?
The best way to prevent leadership failure is to promote people into leadership positions who have some talent for leadership in the first place. The best way to evaluate leadership potential is to ask people who have worked for the person in question. The most cost-effective, quickest, and most objective way to evaluate leadership potential is with well validated psychological assessments.

Leadership is one of the most important topics in the social, behavioral, and organizational sciences. When good leadership prevails, organizations and people prosper. Bad leadership is almost always accompanied by inevitable bankruptcies, corporate corruption, and business disasters. Yet, according to Dr. Robert Hogan, the keys to effective leadership are still largely misunderstood. In the following interview, Hogan, answers several common questions regarding effective leadership.

What is leadership?
Leadership is not being in charge; many people who are in charge of teams and organizations are either lucky or are good politicians and have no talent for leadership. Leadership should be defined as the ability to build and maintain a high-performing team that bests the competition. In turn, leadership should be evaluated in relation to the performance of the team.

What influences good leadership?
Being able to evaluate the talents of the team members to be sure the right people are on the team, the wrong people are off the team, and the right people are in the right positions. Good leadership also involves developing a good strategy for the team, so that it can outperform the competition.

How can we measure corporate leadership?
The best way to measure leadership in corporations is in terms of the performance of the team or unit of which the leader is in charge. The second best way to measure leadership is to ask the members of the team to evaluate the performance of their leader. Subordinates’ evaluations of leaders are a good proxy or substitute for measures of overall team performance.

How can we identify and grow corporate leaders?
The wrong way to identify leaders is to ask the senior people which junior leaders they like. The typical high potential program is more about politics than talent. The quickest, most cost effective and most objective way to identify and grow leaders is by using a systematic assessment process. Well-validated assessments can be used to identify leadership potential and to give the potential leaders feedback regarding their strengths and developmental needs.

Are men better leaders than women?
Men are not better leaders than women. There are as many incompetent male leaders as there are incompetent female leaders. When women are good, they are just as good as men; when they are bad, they are just as bad as men.

Is there any shift in managing younger leaders? Are their values different from their bosses?
Good values are good for business; bad values are bad for business. Some older people have good values, some have bad values. Some younger people have good values, some have bad values. Working hard and wanting to do a good job is important for young people and older people. Everyone, young and old, needs to understand customer service. Integrity is as important for younger people as it is for older people. Being a good colleague and good team player is as important for younger workers as it is for older workers. The strange haircuts, tattoos, and clothing styles that young people prefer are irrelevant to job performance.

What is leadership failure?
If a leader gets fired, that is failure. If the team performs poorly, that is failure. If the team members hate their leader and refuse to work for him/her, that is failure. If the team has high rates of absenteeism, turnover, and accidents, and low levels of productivity and morale, and poor ratings for customer service, that is failure.

What causes leadership failure?
Leadership failure results from a leader being unable to build and maintain a high performing team. This is usually because the leader: (a) is untrustworthy; (b) makes bad decisions; (c) lacks competence in and knowledge of the business; (d) has no vision for the team. Leaders who lie, steal, cheat, play favorites, bully their subordinates, and are unable to control their emotions are usually seen as untrustworthy, the most important factor contributing to leadership failure.

Can leadership failure be prevented?
The best way to prevent leadership failure is to promote people into leadership positions who have some talent for leadership in the first place. The best way to evaluate leadership potential is to ask people who have worked for the person in question. The most cost-effective, quickest, and most objective way to evaluate leadership potential is with well validated psychological assessments.

Earlier this month, I had the pleasure of serving jury duty. I’ve never been summoned to serve on a jury. The holding room for potential jurors is in a hot, windowless basement. The thought of sitting in what Tulsans affectionately call The Cellar Club wasn’t exactly my idea of a good time. I thought I’d pass the time catching up on work or finally finishing The Hunger Games. Instead, I found myself playing my new favorite game – Guess the Hogan Scales. People-watching is the best at the airport and courthouses apparently.

My name was called again to officially serve on a civil case after having answered several questions by the judge and lawyers. No, it wasn’t anything like Law & Order. The case itself wasn’t all that enthralling, and I’m still confused how the two parties couldn’t simply settle outside of court after 6 years. While listening to the arguments of both the prosecution and defense lawyers, I noticed that each exhibited similar styles. I couldn’t help but continue my Guess the Hogan Scales game as I watched them engage with witnesses and the judge.

Both lawyers seemed to become somewhat emotional during the trial. No tears were shed, but several sighs, eye rolling, objections, red faces, and a general look of frustration from both were ever present throughout the trial. During my guessing game I speculated these two lawyers likely scored in the lower range on Adjustment, Interpersonal Sensitivity, and Prudence. The lawyers’ emotionality, direct and challenging communication style, and attempts to bend the rules of the court made me a bit curious about how lawyers behave in general. After serving nearly a week of jury duty, I returned to the Hogan office ready to see what existing research I could find around Hogan and lawyers.

As it turns out, Hogan published results from the Hogan Assessment Project of Lawyer Personality in 2009 (Understanding Lawyers: Why We Do the Things We Do). According to the study of 2,000 lawyers that used Hogan’s three core inventories (HPI, HDS, and MVPI), I wasn’t too far off from my predictions. Although lawyers are responsible for different tasks and work in a variety of capacities, there are certain personality traits that are characteristic of lawyers in general.

The study shows the average results are significantly below the midpoint on the HPI Adjustment (44th percentile), which indicates lawyers on average tend to be emotionally expressive and moody, yet open to feedback and more self-aware of these behaviors. Additionally, the lowest average score is on HPI Interpersonal Sensitivity (40th percentile), “indicating that lawyers are task-oriented and tend to speak their minds but may also come across as cold, critical, and argumentative.” Moreover, lawyers exhibit more Excitable and Leisurely behaviors as measured by the HDS, which may explain the eye rolling, red faces, and limited respect for the judge’s rules I observed in the courtroom.

Although my recent and only experience yielded me a sample size of 2, the study I found in the archives seems to match my observations for the most part. It appears that I’m winning my Guess the Hogan scales game. I left jury duty feeling rewarded for my service and enlightened with different perspective of lawyers than I see on my favorite prime-time crime shows.

Earlier this month, I had the pleasure of serving jury duty. I’ve never been summoned to serve on a jury. The holding room for potential jurors is in a hot, windowless basement. The thought of sitting in what Tulsans affectionately call The Cellar Club wasn’t exactly my idea of a good time. I thought I’d pass the time catching up on work or finally finishing The Hunger Games. Instead, I found myself playing my new favorite game – Guess the Hogan Scales. People-watching is the best at the airport and courthouses apparently.

My name was called again to officially serve on a civil case after having answered several questions by the judge and lawyers. No, it wasn’t anything like Law & Order. The case itself wasn’t all that enthralling, and I’m still confused how the two parties couldn’t simply settle outside of court after 6 years. While listening to the arguments of both the prosecution and defense lawyers, I noticed that each exhibited similar styles. I couldn’t help but continue my Guess the Hogan Scales game as I watched them engage with witnesses and the judge.

Both lawyers seemed to become somewhat emotional during the trial. No tears were shed, but several sighs, eye rolling, objections, red faces, and a general look of frustration from both were ever present throughout the trial. During my guessing game I speculated these two lawyers likely scored in the lower range on Adjustment, Interpersonal Sensitivity, and Prudence. The lawyers’ emotionality, direct and challenging communication style, and attempts to bend the rules of the court made me a bit curious about how lawyers behave in general. After serving nearly a week of jury duty, I returned to the Hogan office ready to see what existing research I could find around Hogan and lawyers.

As it turns out, Hogan published results from the Hogan Assessment Project of Lawyer Personality in 2009 (Understanding Lawyers: Why We Do the Things We Do). According to the study of 2,000 lawyers that used Hogan’s three core inventories (HPI, HDS, and MVPI), I wasn’t too far off from my predictions. Although lawyers are responsible for different tasks and work in a variety of capacities, there are certain personality traits that are characteristic of lawyers in general.

The study shows the average results are significantly below the midpoint on the HPI Adjustment (44th percentile), which indicates lawyers on average tend to be emotionally expressive and moody, yet open to feedback and more self-aware of these behaviors. Additionally, the lowest average score is on HPI Interpersonal Sensitivity (40th percentile), “indicating that lawyers are task-oriented and tend to speak their minds but may also come across as cold, critical, and argumentative.” Moreover, lawyers exhibit more Excitable and Leisurely behaviors as measured by the HDS, which may explain the eye rolling, red faces, and limited respect for the judge’s rules I observed in the courtroom.

Although my recent and only experience yielded me a sample size of 2, the study I found in the archives seems to match my observations for the most part. It appears that I’m winning my Guess the Hogan scales game. I left jury duty feeling rewarded for my service and enlightened with different perspective of lawyers than I see on my favorite prime-time crime shows.

Ron Ashkenas recently posted an interesting blog on Harvard Business Review positing two common failures of high potential development programs: (1) employers are uncomfortable tapping some employees for development over others, and (2) managers are uncomfortable maintaining the complex coaching dialogue needed to develop these high potential employees. Ashkenas writes:

Taken together, the twin discomforts of differentiation and dialogue hinder high-potential programs, even when senior line and HR executives do a good job of centrally structuring assessments, rotations, and training. This may at least partly explain why so many company-identified high potentials don't remain with their firms.

Ashkenas places much of the blame on squeamish managers:

… most managers hate to differentiate. They would prefer to treat everyone the same, avoiding the uncomfortable process of sorting people by levels of performance … engaging in … developmental dialogue is foreign to many managers and can cause just as much anxiety as the need to differentiate.

This is where I disagree, at least in part. Yes, managers are uncomfortable ranking their employees. However, this discomfort with differentiation likely exists because, in many cases, being selected for development has more to do with politics than potential. Good personality assessment provides a fair, accurate way to identify employees who have the potential to become strong leaders, which effectively absolves managers of accusations that they play favorites.

Similarly, managers are often uncomfortable mentoring their high potential employees because without the data-driven development framework provided by personality assessment, feedback can be unfocused, and performance critiques taken as a personal attack.

For more information on high potential development, check out our recent whitepaper, “From Potential to Performance,” in which we examine how these and other common talent management problems can be solved by making personality assessment the cornerstone of any high potential selection and development program.

Ron Ashkenas recently posted an interesting blog on Harvard Business Review positing two common failures of high potential development programs: (1) employers are uncomfortable tapping some employees for development over others, and (2) managers are uncomfortable maintaining the complex coaching dialogue needed to develop these high potential employees. Ashkenas writes:

Taken together, the twin discomforts of differentiation and dialogue hinder high-potential programs, even when senior line and HR executives do a good job of centrally structuring assessments, rotations, and training. This may at least partly explain why so many company-identified high potentials don’t remain with their firms.

Ashkenas places much of the blame on squeamish managers:

… most managers hate to differentiate. They would prefer to treat everyone the same, avoiding the uncomfortable process of sorting people by levels of performance … engaging in … developmental dialogue is foreign to many managers and can cause just as much anxiety as the need to differentiate.

This is where I disagree, at least in part. Yes, managers are uncomfortable ranking their employees. However, this discomfort with differentiation likely exists because, in many cases, being selected for development has more to do with politics than potential. Good personality assessment provides a fair, accurate way to identify employees who have the potential to become strong leaders, which effectively absolves managers of accusations that they play favorites.

Similarly, managers are often uncomfortable mentoring their high potential employees because without the data-driven development framework provided by personality assessment, feedback can be unfocused, and performance critiques taken as a personal attack.

For more information on high potential development, check out our recent whitepaper, “From Potential to Performance,” in which we examine how these and other common talent management problems can be solved by making personality assessment the cornerstone of any high potential selection and development program.

The modern economy is changing more and more rapidly than ever before. Companies depend on their leaders to guide them through this turbulent marketplace, making the availability of savvy, well-developed leaders a crucial part of business suc­cess. However, a recent survey found that although the majority of HR directors identified high-potential leader development as their most important focus, more than 80% of those surveyed expected their HR budget either to shrink or stay the same.

This leaves many HR managers struggling to answer an important question: In such a cost-driven busi­ness atmosphere, how can companies still provide critical professional development opportunities to their leaders? “Awareness Coaching” demonstrates that by combining the powerful science of personality assessments with a limited number of coaching sessions, companies can provide a highly impactful, cost-effective experience for their high-potential employees.