Why is it that we give to others around the holiday season? Do we instinctively feel an innate desire (at the same time every year) to do something nice for them? Are we succumbing to marketing forces and great sales during the season of giving? Do we fear what would happen if we did not give gifts each December? (Tongue-in-cheek, this may be the case for some individuals.) Like a good scientist (Santa, I hope you are listening), I need to see what stories the data tell.

Analyzing a large community dataset, I found that the personality characteristic with the greatest relationship to those self-described as “giving” is the Hogan personality scale Interpersonal Sensitivity. This scale measures the degree to which a person is socially sensitive, perceptive, tactful, and skilled at maintaining relationships. This doesn’t necessarily answer whether we are sensitive and perceptive and thus react by giving gifts, or whether we give gifts to proactively build and maintain relationships. Nonetheless, this does suggest that, overall, those who are more socially sensitive and skilled at building and maintaining relationships are also self-described as giving.

Giving was also positively associated with good health practices and, when asked “How would you rate your health now?” giving individuals rated their health status more favorably than non-giving individuals. Finally, this study found that self-described “giving” individuals more positively endorsed the item “I am happy with my life.” Could it be that people in better mental and physical health are more likely to give? Perhaps. Conversely, giving to others may actually be what helps us to feel good. Either way, these results suggest that giving is associated with good health, and similar research corroborates a positive relationship between social relationships and health (e.g., House, Landis, & Umberson, 1988).

There are a couple key take-aways from these findings. Some people may be more pre-disposed to give during the holiday season based on their personality. However, if you don’t score high on the Interpersonal Sensitivity scale, don’t worry. Although not all individuals have innate tendencies driving them to give to others, overall those who are self-described as giving individuals are more likely to rate their current health status favorably and to be happy with their life.

So do we really give entirely for the benefit of others? Or do we attain some benefits ourselves through giving, such as positive emotions that motivate us to continue giving? Whatever the cause, the outcome of giving is likely to be positive for both the giver and recipient. So go ahead, and give a little.

 

Why is it that we give to others around the holiday season? Do we instinctively feel an innate desire (at the same time every year) to do something nice for them? Are we succumbing to marketing forces and great sales during the season of giving? Do we fear what would happen if we did not give gifts each December? (Tongue-in-cheek, this may be the case for some individuals.) Like a good scientist (Santa, I hope you are listening), I need to see what stories the data tell.

Analyzing a large community dataset, I found that the personality characteristic with the greatest relationship to those self-described as “giving” is the Hogan personality scale Interpersonal Sensitivity. This scale measures the degree to which a person is socially sensitive, perceptive, tactful, and skilled at maintaining relationships. This doesn’t necessarily answer whether we are sensitive and perceptive and thus react by giving gifts, or whether we give gifts to proactively build and maintain relationships. Nonetheless, this does suggest that, overall, those who are more socially sensitive and skilled at building and maintaining relationships are also self-described as giving.

Giving was also positively associated with good health practices and, when asked “How would you rate your health now?” giving individuals rated their health status more favorably than non-giving individuals. Finally, this study found that self-described “giving” individuals more positively endorsed the item “I am happy with my life.” Could it be that people in better mental and physical health are more likely to give? Perhaps. Conversely, giving to others may actually be what helps us to feel good. Either way, these results suggest that giving is associated with good health, and similar research corroborates a positive relationship between social relationships and health (e.g., House, Landis, & Umberson, 1988).

There are a couple key take-aways from these findings. Some people may be more pre-disposed to give during the holiday season based on their personality. However, if you don’t score high on the Interpersonal Sensitivity scale, don’t worry. Although not all individuals have innate tendencies driving them to give to others, overall those who are self-described as giving individuals are more likely to rate their current health status favorably and to be happy with their life.

So do we really give entirely for the benefit of others? Or do we attain some benefits ourselves through giving, such as positive emotions that motivate us to continue giving? Whatever the cause, the outcome of giving is likely to be positive for both the giver and recipient. So go ahead, and give a little.

I recently celebrated my 31st birthday, which, in today’s world, qualifies me to begin sentences with the phrase “back in my day.” I admit this begrudgingly; back in my day, it seemed that statement was reserved for an individual well out of his or her 30s. Still, from time to time, I do find myself sounding a bit curmudgeonly. No, I never claim to walk uphill both ways, barefoot in the snow to school, but I do sometimes struggle to grasp the rate at which technology has changed life since I was in school.

Over the past decade, technology exploded, and although the changes affected countless areas of our lives, they all had the same common thread: the sharing of information. We are a society saturated with data; individuals are in constant connection with one another, and details on virtually any topic can be obtained in a matter of seconds.

Why does that have to do with business? These connections have evolved from innocuous social interaction to business-relevant posting capable of promoting or destroying an organization’s reputation in a matter of minutes. The trend is the wave of the future. In the informed, well-connected prosumer, it has created what can either be a strong ally or an unstoppable adversary. Fortunately, as technology increases, so does its usability. Gone are the days when “I don’t know how” was a viable excuse; the response now will be “well, you’d better Google it.”

There are some steps we old folks can take to keep current, and they are steps that will build a foundation on which your organization can effectively evolve:

1. Blog – Hey, I’m doing it, how bad can it be? Blogging about your company lets the world know that you are there, that you are thinking, and that you are a human being.
2. Use social networking sites – And not just those aimed at the professional population. Facebook may still be banned by your IT department, but it is likely the best medium on the planet through which to reach young adults. Set up a page for your organization and regularly post relevant material and links to new product information.
3. E-mail – You’re probably thinking “E-mail? I do use e-mail.” I’m sure you do, but probably not to the capacity at which younger professionals wish you would. The technology boom resulted in youth with little desire to physically interact with anyone else. Even at 31, my first reaction to most events is to try to get someone on the phone; I would just rather talk to them. That is not a sentiment shared by those a bit younger than me; more often than not, I receive an e-mail in lieu of a call back when I have left someone a voicemail.
4. Update your website weekly, if not daily.

Heraclitus coined that “change is the only constant,” and while this has proven true, there has perhaps never been a period marked by such rapid change as the present. As humans we must now continually adapt, as what is new today will not just be old tomorrow, it will be archaic. Stay current my friends.

 

I recently celebrated my 31st birthday, which, in today’s world, qualifies me to begin sentences with the phrase “back in my day.” I admit this begrudgingly; back in my day, it seemed that statement was reserved for an individual well out of his or her 30s. Still, from time to time, I do find myself sounding a bit curmudgeonly. No, I never claim to walk uphill both ways, barefoot in the snow to school, but I do sometimes struggle to grasp the rate at which technology has changed life since I was in school.

Over the past decade, technology exploded, and although the changes affected countless areas of our lives, they all had the same common thread: the sharing of information. We are a society saturated with data; individuals are in constant connection with one another, and details on virtually any topic can be obtained in a matter of seconds.

Why does that have to do with business? These connections have evolved from innocuous social interaction to business-relevant posting capable of promoting or destroying an organization’s reputation in a matter of minutes. The trend is the wave of the future. In the informed, well-connected prosumer, it has created what can either be a strong ally or an unstoppable adversary. Fortunately, as technology increases, so does its usability. Gone are the days when “I don’t know how” was a viable excuse; the response now will be “well, you’d better Google it.”

There are some steps we old folks can take to keep current, and they are steps that will build a foundation on which your organization can effectively evolve:

1. Blog – Hey, I’m doing it, how bad can it be? Blogging about your company lets the world know that you are there, that you are thinking, and that you are a human being.
2. Use social networking sites – And not just those aimed at the professional population. Facebook may still be banned by your IT department, but it is likely the best medium on the planet through which to reach young adults. Set up a page for your organization and regularly post relevant material and links to new product information.
3. E-mail – You’re probably thinking “E-mail? I do use e-mail.” I’m sure you do, but probably not to the capacity at which younger professionals wish you would. The technology boom resulted in youth with little desire to physically interact with anyone else. Even at 31, my first reaction to most events is to try to get someone on the phone; I would just rather talk to them. That is not a sentiment shared by those a bit younger than me; more often than not, I receive an e-mail in lieu of a call back when I have left someone a voicemail.
4. Update your website weekly, if not daily.

Heraclitus coined that “change is the only constant,” and while this has proven true, there has perhaps never been a period marked by such rapid change as the present. As humans we must now continually adapt, as what is new today will not just be old tomorrow, it will be archaic. Stay current my friends.

Jerry Seinfeld once remarked that “the only difference between a job interview and a blind date is that there is a slightly higher chance you'll be naked at the end of the date – otherwise, they're not that much different." Indeed, both share a lot in common; two strangers meeting for the first time, trying to figure each other out, trying to see beyond the facade and evaluate the person.

One of my Hogan colleagues just shared an interesting survey of nearly 7,000 organizations in Canada concerning their use of various selection practices. Of the organizations surveyed, 79% use interviews, 10% use a job knowledge test, and only 9% use a personality assessment.

Yet, the traditional job interview is tainted by a number of factors:

•    Questions Used – logically, the nature of the questions asked is critical to the reliability and validity of the interview (using job-related, structured interview questions doubles validity).
•    Applicant Characteristics – the effect of the interviewer’s personal liking of the applicant has consistently been found to be related to interviewers’ evaluations. ("Wow, he reminds me of Uncle Billy.") Again, it has been shown that this similar-to-me effect is much less pronounced when the interview is structured and job requirements are clear.
•    Nonverbal Behaviors – most studies have concluded that nonverbal cues are, in fact, related to evaluations. Eye contact, head movement, smiling, hand movement, and general body posture (rigidity versus movement) are cues that are related to favorable interview decisions.
•    Verbal Facility – articulate and verbally-capable individuals can create strong positive impressions, leading to what communications experts call the “halo effect.” Poor or inconsistent articulation can lead to negative summations; just witness the latest debate gaffes, flubs, and lapses of memory from our current crop of presidential wannabes.  
•    Weighting Information – it has been found that more weight is given to negative information over positive information in the interviewer’s decision, even for experienced interviewers.

One of the big disadvantages of using a typical employment interview is that the interviewees are not given the chance to demonstrate the job-related skills he or she may possess. There is a glaring exception; if the interview context places the interviewee in a situation that mimics the job-related setting, then it is possible to evaluate the interviewee’s ability to handle this kind of job. This can give the interviewer a better idea of whether or not the applicant can truly perform the job.

Up until 1945, National League baseball played with an ugly, unwritten rule of membership: no Black baseball players allowed. That was until Branch Rickey, general manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers, interviewed the great Jackie Robinson for the opportunity to be the first baseball player to break the color barrier in baseball. Rickey closely scrutinized Robinson during their first interview and solemnly warned him of the abuse, ridicule, and scorn he would receive from fans, sportswriters, and even fellow players. If he were not able to take the abuse and insults by not fighting back, then he would fail and set integration of baseball back twenty years.

Robinson listened calmly and pondered Rickey's verbal picture of what life would be like for this pioneering role. Then for five minutes Robinson sat absolutely silent; Robinson thought while Rickey waited. He finally responded that he had full confidence in his ability to play in the National League without incident. Rickey hired him. Rickey was very impressed with Robinson's silent control, his obvious ability in demonstrating he would not be provoked.

So whether you’re preparing for a job interview or blind date, you might heed some advice from Henry Kissinger, who once opened a press conference with this famous line, “I hope you have questions for the answers that I’ve prepared today!”

Jerry Seinfeld once remarked that “the only difference between a job interview and a blind date is that there is a slightly higher chance you’ll be naked at the end of the date – otherwise, they’re not that much different.” Indeed, both share a lot in common; two strangers meeting for the first time, trying to figure each other out, trying to see beyond the facade and evaluate the person.

One of my Hogan colleagues just shared an interesting survey of nearly 7,000 organizations in Canada concerning their use of various selection practices. Of the organizations surveyed, 79% use interviews, 10% use a job knowledge test, and only 9% use a personality assessment.

Yet, the traditional job interview is tainted by a number of factors:

•    Questions Used – logically, the nature of the questions asked is critical to the reliability and validity of the interview (using job-related, structured interview questions doubles validity).
•    Applicant Characteristics – the effect of the interviewer’s personal liking of the applicant has consistently been found to be related to interviewers’ evaluations. (“Wow, he reminds me of Uncle Billy.”) Again, it has been shown that this similar-to-me effect is much less pronounced when the interview is structured and job requirements are clear.
•    Nonverbal Behaviors – most studies have concluded that nonverbal cues are, in fact, related to evaluations. Eye contact, head movement, smiling, hand movement, and general body posture (rigidity versus movement) are cues that are related to favorable interview decisions.
•    Verbal Facility – articulate and verbally-capable individuals can create strong positive impressions, leading to what communications experts call the “halo effect.” Poor or inconsistent articulation can lead to negative summations; just witness the latest debate gaffes, flubs, and lapses of memory from our current crop of presidential wannabes.  
•    Weighting Information – it has been found that more weight is given to negative information over positive information in the interviewer’s decision, even for experienced interviewers.

One of the big disadvantages of using a typical employment interview is that the interviewees are not given the chance to demonstrate the job-related skills he or she may possess. There is a glaring exception; if the interview context places the interviewee in a situation that mimics the job-related setting, then it is possible to evaluate the interviewee’s ability to handle this kind of job. This can give the interviewer a better idea of whether or not the applicant can truly perform the job.

Up until 1945, National League baseball played with an ugly, unwritten rule of membership: no Black baseball players allowed. That was until Branch Rickey, general manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers, interviewed the great Jackie Robinson for the opportunity to be the first baseball player to break the color barrier in baseball. Rickey closely scrutinized Robinson during their first interview and solemnly warned him of the abuse, ridicule, and scorn he would receive from fans, sportswriters, and even fellow players. If he were not able to take the abuse and insults by not fighting back, then he would fail and set integration of baseball back twenty years.

Robinson listened calmly and pondered Rickey’s verbal picture of what life would be like for this pioneering role. Then for five minutes Robinson sat absolutely silent; Robinson thought while Rickey waited. He finally responded that he had full confidence in his ability to play in the National League without incident. Rickey hired him. Rickey was very impressed with Robinson’s silent control, his obvious ability in demonstrating he would not be provoked.

So whether you’re preparing for a job interview or blind date, you might heed some advice from Henry Kissinger, who once opened a press conference with this famous line, “I hope you have questions for the answers that I’ve prepared today!”

If you couldn’t already tell by overt advertising and buzz around Black Friday deals, it appears the holiday season is upon us. My favorite holiday, Thanksgiving, is this week, and I couldn’t be more excited. The three F’s – food, family, and football – will consume my four-day weekend. I’ll undoubtedly gain five pounds in those few short days, but it’s so worth it.

This is my favorite time of the year for a variety of reasons. However, I enjoy the spirit of the holidays around Thanksgiving the most. The sense of gratitude, being thanked, and having a reason to thank others seems to charge me up. This shouldn’t surprise me. I scored a 100 on the MVPI Altruistic scale. Like others who score high on the Altruistic scale, I’m driven to do right by others through volunteering, and I also tend to motivate others to share my sense of social responsibility. People on the opposite end of the Altruistic scale also tend to give back, just in a different way. Most likely, it’s through monetary donations. I’ve started to notice others around me demonstrate altruistic tendencies more so during the holidays. Whether this is by giving time through volunteering or donating money to a charitable cause, I always enjoy the jump in giving back during the holidays.
 
According to an article in Psychology Today, showing and receiving gratitude “both exemplify the positive in human behavior and provide us with a positive charge that boosts our emotional balance.” The happiness many of us feel after giving back can actually be very rewarding emotionally. In work environments that emphasize altruism, this can be very rewarding professionally as well.

What am I thankful for? Hogan and its community focus. I am able to feed my altruistic tendencies at the workplace, as Hogan offers its employees a variety of ways to give back throughout the year. Obviously, I can’t grow a moustache for Movember, but I’ll donate money to support my male colleagues who are raising awareness with their facial hair art. Our community food bank donation boxes are full. There’s talk of adopting an Angel this Christmas. The opportunities are endless.

For those who are motivated and driven by the chance to give back, working in an environment that provides these opportunities can be very rewarding and motivating emotionally and professionally. My desire to volunteer my time and having a chance to give back to others increases during this wonderful time of the year, and I have many options to participate, volunteer, or give back because of Hogan. So, this is me giving thanks to Hogan for the opportunity to give back. It’s an endless cycle of thanks.

Don’t forget to give thanks this holiday season, even if it has nothing to do with helping others (warning: an emotional boost may result). Happy Thanksgiving! Oh, and go Cowboys!

 

If you couldn’t already tell by overt advertising and buzz around Black Friday deals, it appears the holiday season is upon us. My favorite holiday, Thanksgiving, is this week, and I couldn’t be more excited. The three F’s – food, family, and football – will consume my four-day weekend. I’ll undoubtedly gain five pounds in those few short days, but it’s so worth it.

This is my favorite time of the year for a variety of reasons. However, I enjoy the spirit of the holidays around Thanksgiving the most. The sense of gratitude, being thanked, and having a reason to thank others seems to charge me up. This shouldn’t surprise me. I scored a 100 on the MVPI Altruistic scale. Like others who score high on the Altruistic scale, I’m driven to do right by others through volunteering, and I also tend to motivate others to share my sense of social responsibility. People on the opposite end of the Altruistic scale also tend to give back, just in a different way. Most likely, it’s through monetary donations. I’ve started to notice others around me demonstrate altruistic tendencies more so during the holidays. Whether this is by giving time through volunteering or donating money to a charitable cause, I always enjoy the jump in giving back during the holidays.
 
According to an article in Psychology Today, showing and receiving gratitude “both exemplify the positive in human behavior and provide us with a positive charge that boosts our emotional balance.” The happiness many of us feel after giving back can actually be very rewarding emotionally. In work environments that emphasize altruism, this can be very rewarding professionally as well.

What am I thankful for? Hogan and its community focus. I am able to feed my altruistic tendencies at the workplace, as Hogan offers its employees a variety of ways to give back throughout the year. Obviously, I can’t grow a moustache for Movember, but I’ll donate money to support my male colleagues who are raising awareness with their facial hair art. Our community food bank donation boxes are full. There’s talk of adopting an Angel this Christmas. The opportunities are endless.

For those who are motivated and driven by the chance to give back, working in an environment that provides these opportunities can be very rewarding and motivating emotionally and professionally. My desire to volunteer my time and having a chance to give back to others increases during this wonderful time of the year, and I have many options to participate, volunteer, or give back because of Hogan. So, this is me giving thanks to Hogan for the opportunity to give back. It’s an endless cycle of thanks.

Don’t forget to give thanks this holiday season, even if it has nothing to do with helping others (warning: an emotional boost may result). Happy Thanksgiving! Oh, and go Cowboys!

Are you getting ready to head home for Thanksgiving and wondering how successful your reunion at the local bar with friends will be? You’re in luck! Just in time, I have returned to provide the third and final installment of this series on the physical attractiveness of your personality. To bring you up to speed, you can read Part I and Part II. Part I revealed that people, in general, are perceived to be physically attractive when they are seen as friendly, attention-seeking, and altruistic networkers. In Part II we learned that the story changes a bit when we are judging the attractiveness of men and women separately.

Specifically, women are found more attractive when they are charismatic, attention-seeking team players, while attractive men are unassuming team players. In this installment, we will be examining the pattern of results when separating the genders of both the target and the rater. Because of the complexity of these 2x2 analyses, I will start by providing a table that displays all of the significant predictors of physical attractiveness by target and rater, in descending order of predictive power. This should be particularly useful for those of you who speak Hoganese. You can also check out the Physically Attractive Profiles based on relationships between Hogan scores and ratings of physical attractiveness.

Once again, there is an overall finding worth note. Far and away, personality has a much stronger relationship with physical attractiveness when we are evaluating the same sex than when judging the opposite sex. There were twenty significant predictors (scales) related to physical attractiveness in same-sex pairings (males rating males and females rating females), but only six for opposite-sex pairings. As we get further into the specific gender pairings, it will become more apparent that the conclusions I have drawn in the past two parts of this series were being primarily driven by this stronger role of personality in same-sex pairings. If it is true that personality predicts attractiveness less in opposite-sex pairings and if we presume that the majority of this sample is heterosexual, as is found in the general population, these results may indicate that we tend to largely separate looks from personality when evaluating potential mates. When evaluating the attractiveness of peers, personality plays a much greater role. Does this mean that we can be more objective about the physical attractiveness of potential mates than of gender peers? It would be interesting to see if this pattern is replicated within an exclusively homosexual population – is it a gender or “love” effect?

Now let’s get into what makes men appear more attractive. There was only one characteristic that men and women agreed upon when it came to evaluating men; they both don’t care for the cynical, mistrusting types (a negative correlation for HDS Skeptical). Trust is apparently an important characteristic in determining the attractiveness of men, which makes particular sense for a woman who will find it unattractive when a man constantly doubts her intentions and actions. But how do we reconcile that people tend to find females more attractive when they are more mischievous in nature (as revealed in Part 2)? So we are more attracted to somewhat manipulative women who will keep us guessing, but then they don’t like it when we are skeptical of their ways? This is one interpretation but it could also be that the more unattractive parts of Skeptical turning both men and women off are the tendencies to be critical and argumentative, and it is clear to see the reasons for that. What is also interesting is that Skeptical has almost no relationship with attractiveness in women, regardless of who is evaluating them. We are tolerant of criticism, cynicism, and mistrust in women, but it is a major turn-off in men.

In addition to Skeptical, women are also not particularly fond of men who are emotionally volatile (Excitable) and party-boys (Hedonism). Taken together, these findings dispute the belief that women are attracted to the “bad boy” type. If that exists, it is likely a minority. It is also peculiar to note that none of the HPI scales was a significant predictor of male attractiveness through women’s eyes. This indicates that a man’s normal day-to-day behavior does not really interact with perceptions of a man’s good looks. I am having difficulty getting my head around this, but does this finding contradict the common convention that women’s interest in men is greatly affected by their personalities, wherein an objectively attractive female can love an unattractive man as long as he has a “good” personality? Or is it that the female is still attracted to and interested in the man, perhaps as a mate, even if she is not physically attracted to him?

Personality has the strongest relationship with physical attractiveness for men rating other men. As seen in the table above, there were seven positive and six negative correlations. The strongest predictor was Aesthetics, indicating that men find the creative, artistic types most attractive. Summarizing across so many dimensions can be difficult, but it would appear that men find other men attractive when they are creative and caring team players with big personalities that command attention but aren’t in it just for themselves. Men appear to take umbrage with other men who are quietly arrogant, more guarded, less transparent, micromanaging, and overly concerned with financial matters. It paints a picture of someone who is critical and judgmental of others but not forthcoming with their own ideas and intentions. Sounds like a great boss, doesn’t it?

Let us now move our attention to the ladies. There was no overlap in significant predictors of attractiveness of females by male and female raters; men and women do not seem to agree in what makes a hot personality. From men, there were three scales related to the physical attractiveness of women; positive correlations with MVPI Altruistic and HPI Sociability and Ambition. The strongest predictor (Altruistic) indicates that men are most attracted to women who display nurturing, perhaps maternal, instincts. This should come as little surprise as men are wired, from an evolutionary psychology perspective, to seek out mates who have a greater potential to care for their offspring. Even though men are looking for the nurturing type, they are not as attracted to the docile midwife. Instead, men have made it clear that they are looking for stronger interpersonal impact in women; they are attracted to assertiveness and gregariousness. What I find interesting is that men find these two qualities of Ambition and Sociability to be equally predictive of attractiveness in either sex, but women ascribe almost no importance to these two qualities in their appraisals of attractiveness. Why might that be? What is also surprising to me is that none of the HDS scales was a significant driver of attractiveness for men evaluating women. Can this really mean that men are indifferent to these “dark side” characteristics in potential mates? Perhaps we, as men, just assume some of that stuff will be there and must be willing to accept it or else there would be no women to choose from. I will await the backlash from that last comment.

Women see beauty in other women who are friendly, caring, and collaborative types with a flair for the dramatic. They are turned off by passive-aggressive, indifferent, book-smart worrywarts. If we view physical attractiveness in this vein as friend potential, it is easy to see how the prior would make their lives easier and a bit more fun, while the latter might be a recipe for the “high-maintenance friend” who is not approachable or forthcoming.

So what have we learned along this three-part journey? In summary, personality does appear to have an effect on perceptions of physical attractiveness. The extent to which it does is a matter of whom you are asking about whom. Largely, personality affects attractiveness more for members of our same gender than it does for members of opposite genders. That being said, I still have some dating advice that can be inferred from these analyses. Guys, if you want to appear more attractive to the ladies, ditch the bad boy attitude, don’t be so critical, and control the temper. Ladies, if you want to attract a man, play up your nurturing ways but look to be a peer, not the introverted, subservient type. And, for goodness’ sake, comb your hair.

Like many people, my coworker is afraid of flying. We encourage him to take sleeping pills and try to distract him with entertaining stories during takeoff, but despite our best efforts, he usually remains anxious throughout the flight.

Because of his fear, my coworker is drawn to news stories about plane crashes and equipment malfunctions, and shares them with us as proof that his fear is legitimate. And there have been many headlines about pilot error leading to tragedy; in early 2009, a commuter plane crashed into a New York house after the pilots were mindlessly chatting and then panicked when they realized the aircraft was in trouble. More recently, a Russian passenger airplane missed the runway and crashed because the navigator was drunk.

Given all of the doom and gloom in the headlines, it’s refreshing to hear about pilots who do things right. For example, in 2009, US Airways flight 1549 famously crash-landed into the Hudson River after striking a flock of geese during takeoff. The pilot, Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger, was described as “cool, calm and collected” as he maneuvered the plane into a safe landing position. Because of Sully’s focus and composure, a tragic accident was averted and all 155 people onboard survived.

Earlier this month, pilot Tadeusz Wrona safely crash-landed a passenger plane in Warsaw’s main airport after the landing gear failed to deploy. Luckily, all 230 passengers and crew members survived the belly-landing. Wrona and his crew remained vigilant and focused during the flight, immediately taking notice when the landing gear failed to open on the second attempt. After identifying the problem, the crew began to review belly-landing training guidelines while flight attendants explained emergency landing procedures to passengers. The flight crew remained calm and steady during the perilous situation, preventing hysteria from breaking out in the cabin.

When reading news stories like these, you realize the importance of the pilot’s training, skills, and personality when you board any airplane. From unsuccessful crash-landings to heroic ones, pilots’ behavior greatly affects passengers, crew members, the airline industry, and the general public (not to mention my co-worker). As such, organizations must take great care when hiring for jobs like pilots where the consequences of an unsafe decision can mean life or death.