It can be hard to remember all the great moments of the Oklahoma City Thunder’s season when sports announcers and writers have been more focused this week on the Thunder’s “collapse” after losing to the Dallas Mavericks in the Western Conference. Although many fans faced disappointment after Games 4 and 5 (especially those of us in Oklahoma), the Thunder’s hard fought third season should not go overlooked. At the forefront of the adolescent Thunder team is Kevin Durant, who sums up the season nicely in a tweet he released last night: “It’s been a fun ride for us. We had 15 guys on this team and a whole city behind us. Everybody was great. We’ll keep working hard.”

Durant’s achievements make him nothing short of a superstar. In his short NBA career since his college stint as a Texas Longhorn, Durant has won such awards as NBA Rookie of the Year, 2-time NBA All-Star, and the youngest scoring leader in NBA history at 21 years of age, among many others. He is undoubtedly one of the most talented players in the league, yet also one of the most humble, genuine, and respectful. As I’ve started paying more attention to Durant’s performance on the court these past few years, what I’ve found most impressive is how he leads his team off the court — by example.

In an article written by Daniel Locke on Durant’s leadership style, Locke states, “The best thing to occur during the ‘Summer of LeBron’ for the Thunder was Kevin Durant signing a five-year contract extension worth about $86 million.” His signing not only ensured that we can watch Durant carry the Thunder for several seasons to come, it also served as a great example of Durant’s character. There were no major press releases, countdowns, or TV specials; just a simple tweet to share his gratitude: @KDthunderup: “Extension for 5 more years wit the #thunder….God Is Great, me and my family came a long way…I love yall man for real, this a blessing!” Durant could’ve taken the route of LeBron and milked it for all it was worth, but that’s not his style. He’s been unafraid to remain true to himself, his upbringing and his values, all qualities that make him an admirable basketball player, individual, and leader.

After the devastating loss to the Mavs this past Monday night, Durant took full responsibility as the team leader. He stated he felt upset for letting his team and city down. We don’t often see this level of ownership from high-level sports figures, not to mention from leaders. Many leaders are not introspective; it’s easier to point a finger and make excuses for the team’s failure, but not for Kevin Durant. He remains committed to his team, the city for which he plays, and most importantly, to himself. His leadership should serve as a strong example for the leaders of the world, whether they lead on the basketball court, on the field, or in the boardroom. His leadership style is one of commitment and respect, while pushing himself and his teammates to perform to the best of their abilities.

By Hogan standards, Durant has proven himself a successful leader—you simply have to take a look at the success of the team he leads. Team success can be measured in a number of ways, and it’s safe to say that the Thunder have seen success, even without winning a NBA title… yet.

Yet again Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi is facing another trial that is, as tradition has it, bursting with serious and scandalous allegations. The nature of these allegations is not really what is interesting about his story (though if you Google Bunga Bunga you will find plenty of details concerning the latest scandal); what is absolutely fascinating about this political figure is his demonstrated ability to not only fight back at his accusers, but to also survive these scandals with remarkable ease. But can he survive this one?

Indeed, despite previous trials and allegations (which have included accusations of corruption, abuse of power and potential links with the Mafia), Berlusconi remains Italy’s second-longest-serving prime minister after Mussolini. He thought he was almost untouchable and well supported by the nation, until recently, as it is estimated that the latest scandal has prompted one million Italians to march in more than 200 cities worldwide to protest against the damage that the prime minister is perpetrating to the country’s reputation. The Premier has also lost the support of a number of key political allies and his popularity is finally in decline, with ratings falling to their lowest level since he came to power (33%).

There were, of course, some high points of his leadership (the effective handling of L’Aquila earthquake crisis, as well as saving troubled state airline Alitalia from bankruptcy), but these achievements will be inevitably lost amidst an ocean of scandals, political gaffes and accusations.

Could we have ever predicted that this story would end this way? The answer is yes, absolutely. In fact, there are three important leadership lessons to be learned as we watch the final acts of the Berlusconi saga.

Firstly, his story is one of classic (almost textbook-like) leadership derailment, a topic that is dear to Hogan consultants and subject matter experts in leadership and management. If we follow the insightful taxonomy provided by the Hogan Development Survey, which lists 11 leadership derailers, we can easily identify the behaviours that most typify Berlusconi’s leadership style, allowing us to speculate about his derailing tendencies.

He is often charming and amusing when speaking publicly, using humour and fun (often at the expense of others) as a shield to deflect criticism during interviews. He has also demonstrated a strong tendency to test the limits (we only need to consider the ever growing number of political gaffes to make that observation) and ignore rules (even by making his own), behaviours that are typical of the Mischievous leadership derailer.

Mr Berlusconi is also known to constantly crave public and national attention, behaving in an excessively attention-seeking and self-centred manner (particularly when surrounded by his international peers, or even when in the presence of Her Majesty the Queen), behaviours that are typical of the Colorful leadership derailer.

He has also frequently vowed revenge and punishment for his prosecutors, alleging that all trials and accusations directed at him were part of a conspiracy orchestrated by left-wing politicians (behaviours that are commonly associated with the Skeptical leadership derailer).

Secondly, like most leadership derailment scenarios, this is the story of a leader who is unwilling to give up his power, a leader who has become completely uninterested in his followers and unconcerned about their best interests, and whose only goal is to preserve his political status. It is not uncommon for derailing leaders to overstay their welcome.

Thirdly, this story provides further evidence that demonstrates how “dark side” personality characteristics can indeed support individual career advancement (i.e. “getting ahead”), but at the expense of others (often followers and peers). This is a classic leadership mistake as, by forgetting that we still need to “get along” once we have reached the top, these leaders ultimately end up alienating and disengaging their followers, losing the support required to prevent leadership failure.

Regardless of the outcome of this latest trial, the events leading to it and the damage to Berlusconi’s reputation were easily predictable; it was all too much like a disaster waiting to happen. Yet, no one but Berlusconi himself could have prevented it; unfortunately, he lacked the strategic self-awareness required to identify derailing tendencies and modify his behaviour accordingly. Just like many other leaders who have derailed before him, Berlusconi is facing the consequences of letting his “dark side” run loose.

The fundamental lesson to be learned is that leaders who fail to manage their “dark side” (and their respective reputations) will inevitably, and I repeat inevitably, derail, leaving a trail of embarrassment and destruction behind them.

Let’s not forget, however, the role that context plays in these circumstances. Being an extremely powerful and rich person can exacerbate these destructive tendencies, as leadership positions come with plenty of discretional behaviour and lack of honest and objective feedback from peers and subordinates. As Lord Acton once said: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

It is perhaps Gianfranco Fini, Berlusconi’s ex-ally, who encapsulates this story brilliantly by stating that the Premier consistently “confuses leadership with absolute monarchy.”

So, now that you have read this story, I will ask you a question. Before you hire your next CEO or promote your next leader, wouldn't you want to know the risks associated with their personality? Considering the final acts of the Berlusconi show, I certainly would.

by Andrea Facchini
Business Pyschologist & Guest Blogger
 

Yet again Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi is facing another trial that is, as tradition has it, bursting with serious and scandalous allegations. The nature of these allegations is not really what is interesting about his story (though if you Google Bunga Bunga you will find plenty of details concerning the latest scandal); what is absolutely fascinating about this political figure is his demonstrated ability to not only fight back at his accusers, but to also survive these scandals with remarkable ease. But can he survive this one?

Indeed, despite previous trials and allegations (which have included accusations of corruption, abuse of power and potential links with the Mafia), Berlusconi remains Italy’s second-longest-serving prime minister after Mussolini. He thought he was almost untouchable and well supported by the nation, until recently, as it is estimated that the latest scandal has prompted one million Italians to march in more than 200 cities worldwide to protest against the damage that the prime minister is perpetrating to the country’s reputation. The Premier has also lost the support of a number of key political allies and his popularity is finally in decline, with ratings falling to their lowest level since he came to power (33%).

There were, of course, some high points of his leadership (the effective handling of L’Aquila earthquake crisis, as well as saving troubled state airline Alitalia from bankruptcy), but these achievements will be inevitably lost amidst an ocean of scandals, political gaffes and accusations.

Could we have ever predicted that this story would end this way? The answer is yes, absolutely. In fact, there are three important leadership lessons to be learned as we watch the final acts of the Berlusconi saga.

Firstly, his story is one of classic (almost textbook-like) leadership derailment, a topic that is dear to Hogan consultants and subject matter experts in leadership and management. If we follow the insightful taxonomy provided by the Hogan Development Survey, which lists 11 leadership derailers, we can easily identify the behaviours that most typify Berlusconi’s leadership style, allowing us to speculate about his derailing tendencies.

He is often charming and amusing when speaking publicly, using humour and fun (often at the expense of others) as a shield to deflect criticism during interviews. He has also demonstrated a strong tendency to test the limits (we only need to consider the ever growing number of political gaffes to make that observation) and ignore rules (even by making his own), behaviours that are typical of the Mischievous leadership derailer.

Mr Berlusconi is also known to constantly crave public and national attention, behaving in an excessively attention-seeking and self-centred manner (particularly when surrounded by his international peers, or even when in the presence of Her Majesty the Queen), behaviours that are typical of the Colorful leadership derailer.

He has also frequently vowed revenge and punishment for his prosecutors, alleging that all trials and accusations directed at him were part of a conspiracy orchestrated by left-wing politicians (behaviours that are commonly associated with the Skeptical leadership derailer).

Secondly, like most leadership derailment scenarios, this is the story of a leader who is unwilling to give up his power, a leader who has become completely uninterested in his followers and unconcerned about their best interests, and whose only goal is to preserve his political status. It is not uncommon for derailing leaders to overstay their welcome.

Thirdly, this story provides further evidence that demonstrates how “dark side” personality characteristics can indeed support individual career advancement (i.e. “getting ahead”), but at the expense of others (often followers and peers). This is a classic leadership mistake as, by forgetting that we still need to “get along” once we have reached the top, these leaders ultimately end up alienating and disengaging their followers, losing the support required to prevent leadership failure.

Regardless of the outcome of this latest trial, the events leading to it and the damage to Berlusconi’s reputation were easily predictable; it was all too much like a disaster waiting to happen. Yet, no one but Berlusconi himself could have prevented it; unfortunately, he lacked the strategic self-awareness required to identify derailing tendencies and modify his behaviour accordingly. Just like many other leaders who have derailed before him, Berlusconi is facing the consequences of letting his “dark side” run loose.

The fundamental lesson to be learned is that leaders who fail to manage their “dark side” (and their respective reputations) will inevitably, and I repeat inevitably, derail, leaving a trail of embarrassment and destruction behind them.

Let’s not forget, however, the role that context plays in these circumstances. Being an extremely powerful and rich person can exacerbate these destructive tendencies, as leadership positions come with plenty of discretional behaviour and lack of honest and objective feedback from peers and subordinates. As Lord Acton once said: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

It is perhaps Gianfranco Fini, Berlusconi’s ex-ally, who encapsulates this story brilliantly by stating that the Premier consistently “confuses leadership with absolute monarchy.”

So, now that you have read this story, I will ask you a question. Before you hire your next CEO or promote your next leader, wouldn’t you want to know the risks associated with their personality? Considering the final acts of the Berlusconi show, I certainly would.

by Andrea Facchini
Business Pyschologist & Guest Blogger
 

Understanding the dynamics of a team is critical to successful goal attainment. What does the team value? What drives the team members and sets them up for success, and more importantly, what derailment obstacles may they encounter? 

A couple of weeks ago, I had the opportunity to experience the power of collaboration in action. Every year, Oklahoma City hosts a marathon in honor of those who lost their lives in the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. The 2011 race marked the 11th annual marathon event, which includes everything from 5k races to the full marathon and even a marathon relay. This year, I participated in the marathon relay with an amazing group of women. We called ourselves the Derailing Divas because over the course of 26.2 miles with six driven, socially self-confident, and engaging women there is bound to be a little derailment going on. Although the relay consisted of five legs, the Derailing Divas had six team members. The sixth, The Coach, ran the half marathon and served as the running expert for our team.

The race is not something that the Divas will forget anytime soon. As we left our hotel at 5:30am on Sunday May 1st, the sky was dark and cloudy. Within minutes of arriving at the race site, thunder and lightning came crashing around us and so did the rain…torrential rain. Visions of a beautiful and sunny race day quickly faded, but with these dreary conditions, the Divas’ determination increased.

After a 30 minute delay, I walked to the starting line with The Coach. As we worked our way through the thousands of runners to find our place on the wet pavement, a sense of urgency (HPI Adjustment) and fear of potential failure (HDS Cautious) emerged. Would we be able to complete the relay in these conditions? Am I going to let my team down if I run slower in the rain? In that moment of self-doubt something amazing happened -- the race started and as thousands of runners made their way past the memorial, the crowd began to cheer. It was at this point that I realized that the race wasn’t about my time; it was about our team goal to finish the race with a sense of pride for the cause, to have a fun, and persevere despite the weather.

As I started the last mile of my 6-mile leg, my shoes and clothes were soaked, and I was ready to throw in the wet towel. Then I started thinking about our team and the fact that the other Derailing Divas were waiting on me. I began running faster and met The Navigator at the relay station. She greeted me enthusiastically and took off to continue the race. The Navigator eventually met up with The Timekeeper, and as the race progressed, we continued to run faster. When The Timekeeper met The Networker she received updates on everyone’s progress and the weather conditions. On the final transition, The Finisher took the baton and ran with heart and determination to finish the race despite wind, rain, and hail.

When the race was complete, the Derailing Divas had a celebratory lunch and shared stories of their experiences throughout the day. I’m not sure if it was our competitive drive (HPI Ambition) or sensitivity to our teammates’ emotions (HPI Interpersonal Sensitivity) that pushed us to persevere and exceed our own expectations, but the Derailing Divas succeeded. We completed the race 30 minutes faster than we anticipated! The Derailing Divas’ success was impacted by a number of things, but most of all we were successful because we shared a few things in common. The Divas are driven and competitive (HPI Ambition), collaborative and sensitive to others needs (HPI Interpersonal Sensitivity and MVPI Affiliation), and like to have fun and tell a good story (MVPI Hedonism and HDS Colorful).  I would certainly be willing to run a race with these Divas again, only next time I hope for a little more sunshine!
 

Understanding the dynamics of a team is critical to successful goal attainment. What does the team value? What drives the team members and sets them up for success, and more importantly, what derailment obstacles may they encounter?

A couple of weeks ago, I had the opportunity to experience the power of collaboration in action. Every year, Oklahoma City hosts a marathon in honor of those who lost their lives in the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. The 2011 race marked the 11th annual marathon event, which includes everything from 5k races to the full marathon and even a marathon relay. This year, I participated in the marathon relay with an amazing group of women. We called ourselves the Derailing Divas because over the course of 26.2 miles with six driven, socially self-confident, and engaging women there is bound to be a little derailment going on. Although the relay consisted of five legs, the Derailing Divas had six team members. The sixth, The Coach, ran the half marathon and served as the running expert for our team.

The race is not something that the Divas will forget anytime soon. As we left our hotel at 5:30am on Sunday May 1st, the sky was dark and cloudy. Within minutes of arriving at the race site, thunder and lightning came crashing around us and so did the rain…torrential rain. Visions of a beautiful and sunny race day quickly faded, but with these dreary conditions, the Divas’ determination increased.

After a 30 minute delay, I walked to the starting line with The Coach. As we worked our way through the thousands of runners to find our place on the wet pavement, a sense of urgency (HPI Adjustment) and fear of potential failure (HDS Cautious) emerged. Would we be able to complete the relay in these conditions? Am I going to let my team down if I run slower in the rain? In that moment of self-doubt something amazing happened — the race started and as thousands of runners made their way past the memorial, the crowd began to cheer. It was at this point that I realized that the race wasn’t about my time; it was about our team goal to finish the race with a sense of pride for the cause, to have a fun, and persevere despite the weather.

As I started the last mile of my 6-mile leg, my shoes and clothes were soaked, and I was ready to throw in the wet towel. Then I started thinking about our team and the fact that the other Derailing Divas were waiting on me. I began running faster and met The Navigator at the relay station. She greeted me enthusiastically and took off to continue the race. The Navigator eventually met up with The Timekeeper, and as the race progressed, we continued to run faster. When The Timekeeper met The Networker she received updates on everyone’s progress and the weather conditions. On the final transition, The Finisher took the baton and ran with heart and determination to finish the race despite wind, rain, and hail.

When the race was complete, the Derailing Divas had a celebratory lunch and shared stories of their experiences throughout the day. I’m not sure if it was our competitive drive (HPI Ambition) or sensitivity to our teammates’ emotions (HPI Interpersonal Sensitivity) that pushed us to persevere and exceed our own expectations, but the Derailing Divas succeeded. We completed the race 30 minutes faster than we anticipated! The Derailing Divas’ success was impacted by a number of things, but most of all we were successful because we shared a few things in common. The Divas are driven and competitive (HPI Ambition), collaborative and sensitive to others needs (HPI Interpersonal Sensitivity and MVPI Affiliation), and like to have fun and tell a good story (MVPI Hedonism and HDS Colorful).  I would certainly be willing to run a race with these Divas again, only next time I hope for a little more sunshine!

Last month I chaired a panel at the annual SIOP Conference in Chicago on the topic of norming personality assessments. We had participation from a number of other test publishers, and a couple of audience members that added some real value to the discussion. The topics ranged from things such as factors that influence norms, to the appropriateness of global norms, and the implications of highly specialized norms. Overall I came away with a greater awareness that we’re all dealing with the same issues, and pleasantly surprised that the thoughts in the field seem to be converging, at least to some extent. For those of you with an unquenchable thirst for all things norms, here’s a brief summary of some of the key takeaways.

1. Norms are critical for the interpretation of personality assessments. A reviewer of our SIOP submission suggested this might not be so clear cut. However, the entire panel and the active audience members were in complete agreement that without norms there is no effective way to interpret personality results.

2. There are a lot of factors that influence norms, and decisions about the appropriate level for norming are rarely obvious. Make a norm that’s too specific, and it likely loses interpretive value. Make a norm that’s too encompassing, and it is likely just averaging the true cultural differences to create a norm that isn’t really representative of anyone. The bottom line: selecting the appropriate level for norming is a both an art and a science. Select a level that is conceptually meaningful, representative of the target population, and then put a lot of work towards minimizing differences due to extraneous factors such as language.

3. In reference to benchmarking vs. norming, the panel seemed to agree that the appropriateness of each varies by the level of specificity. Norms are appropriate for macro levels of analysis (e.g., country). As the level of analysis gets more specific, benchmarks become more appropriate. If you’re thinking about making a norm for left-handed, midwestern, senior Account Managers in the pharmaceutical industry named Robert, you should probably reconsider.

4. A fascinating bit of research share by one of the panelists displayed personality characteristics in the US by state using a heat map. Check out Rentfrow, P. J., Gosling, S. D. & Potter, J. (2008). The findings? New Yorkers are as neurotic as you think, the West Coast is pretty high on Openness, and southern hospitality (Agreeableness) in real, though maybe not in Alabama.

5. Another good reference. For factors contributing to the variance in norms (error and otherwise), check out Meyer & Foster (2008). They have a 3-factor model that presents things nicely.

Overall, it was a good session with great contributions from the panelists and audience. We continue to struggle through some of the same issues, and hopefully collaborative efforts like this will help us arrive at a set of best practices and solutions to some the issues that have plagued the field for years.

Last month I chaired a panel at the annual SIOP Conference in Chicago on the topic of norming personality assessments. We had participation from a number of other test publishers, and a couple of audience members that added some real value to the discussion. The topics ranged from things such as factors that influence norms, to the appropriateness of global norms, and the implications of highly specialized norms. Overall I came away with a greater awareness that we’re all dealing with the same issues, and pleasantly surprised that the thoughts in the field seem to be converging, at least to some extent. For those of you with an unquenchable thirst for all things norms, here’s a brief summary of some of the key takeaways.

1. Norms are critical for the interpretation of personality assessments. A reviewer of our SIOP submission suggested this might not be so clear cut. However, the entire panel and the active audience members were in complete agreement that without norms there is no effective way to interpret personality results.

2. There are a lot of factors that influence norms, and decisions about the appropriate level for norming are rarely obvious. Make a norm that’s too specific, and it likely loses interpretive value. Make a norm that’s too encompassing, and it is likely just averaging the true cultural differences to create a norm that isn’t really representative of anyone. The bottom line: selecting the appropriate level for norming is a both an art and a science. Select a level that is conceptually meaningful, representative of the target population, and then put a lot of work towards minimizing differences due to extraneous factors such as language.

3. In reference to benchmarking vs. norming, the panel seemed to agree that the appropriateness of each varies by the level of specificity. Norms are appropriate for macro levels of analysis (e.g., country). As the level of analysis gets more specific, benchmarks become more appropriate. If you’re thinking about making a norm for left-handed, midwestern, senior Account Managers in the pharmaceutical industry named Robert, you should probably reconsider.

4. A fascinating bit of research share by one of the panelists displayed personality characteristics in the US by state using a heat map. Check out Rentfrow, P. J., Gosling, S. D. & Potter, J. (2008). The findings? New Yorkers are as neurotic as you think, the West Coast is pretty high on Openness, and southern hospitality (Agreeableness) in real, though maybe not in Alabama.

5. Another good reference. For factors contributing to the variance in norms (error and otherwise), check out Meyer & Foster (2008). They have a 3-factor model that presents things nicely.

Overall, it was a good session with great contributions from the panelists and audience. We continue to struggle through some of the same issues, and hopefully collaborative efforts like this will help us arrive at a set of best practices and solutions to some the issues that have plagued the field for years.

I recently flipped on the news to find Donald Trump on an episode of CNN’s State of the Union with Candy Crowley discussing the fact that he has risen to a top contender in the polls for the next republican presidential nominee.

Why is Donald Trump considering a presidential bid in the 2012 election? When asked, he replied, “I wish I didn't have to do it. I would prefer not doing it. But I love this country…I will tell you, I am giving it serious, serious thought.”

I was immediately struck by the boldness of this statement – it was his obligation to save America from itself, and the US would simply be lost without his guidance. He would prefer not to be president, but his undying love for the red, white, and blue has driven him to seriously, seriously consider taking office.

Trump is well known for his bravado – he refers to himself as “The Donald” – but these statements take it to a whole new level.

After the interview ended, I did some more research and learned that Trump spoke at an April 16 Tea Party rally in Boca Raton, Florida. There, he elaborated on this boldness, suggesting that his superior business skills qualify him to run one of the most powerful countries in the world: "We need people that win. We don't need people that lose all the time. I've beaten many people and companies, and I've won many wars. I...earned many, many billions of dollars. It's both a scorecard and an acknowledgment of certain abilities.”

In an ABC interview, Trump quipped, "Part of the beauty of me is that I'm very rich…That's a huge advantage. I must tell you, that's a huge advantage over the other candidates.”

When asked about how he measures up to potential opponent Mitt Romney, he replied, "I have a much bigger net worth… I'm a much bigger businessman. I mean my net worth is many, many, many times Mitt Romney's."

In these statements, Trump reveals an intensely competitive nature, a hunger for power and status, and a viewpoint that promotes financial success as a way to keep score. He also demonstrates a belief that emphatically repeating or restating your words is an effective influence tactic. Many, many, many times more effective than his opponents’ techniques.

Hogan enthusiasts and coaches are already mentally plotting Trump’s scores on his hypothetical HDS Challenge Report. I am willing to wager that Trump would score high on the derailment scales of Mischievous, Imaginative, Bold, and Colorful…in ascending order. This is what we at Hogan refer to as the “Charismatic Cluster” of scores commonly found in leadership profiles. The positive behaviors associated with these scales involve seeming daring, visionary, confident, and energetic – characteristics that make a person seem leader-like and influential. Taken to the extreme, these scales take on a negative quality, resulting in a tendency to be impulsive, unpredictable, arrogant, and dramatic – characteristics that are distinctly Trump-like.

To be fair, The Donald isn’t the only one who exhibits these characteristics. In fact, these descriptors may apply to many of the politicians and celebrities that stand out in history. The characteristics that make them impactful and memorable are often the same ones that make them destructive and infamous.
 

I recently flipped on the news to find Donald Trump on an episode of CNN’s State of the Union with Candy Crowley discussing the fact that he has risen to a top contender in the polls for the next republican presidential nominee.

Why is Donald Trump considering a presidential bid in the 2012 election? When asked, he replied, “I wish I didn’t have to do it. I would prefer not doing it. But I love this country…I will tell you, I am giving it serious, serious thought.”

I was immediately struck by the boldness of this statement – it was his obligation to save America from itself, and the US would simply be lost without his guidance. He would prefer not to be president, but his undying love for the red, white, and blue has driven him to seriously, seriously consider taking office.

Trump is well known for his bravado – he refers to himself as “The Donald” – but these statements take it to a whole new level.

After the interview ended, I did some more research and learned that Trump spoke at an April 16 Tea Party rally in Boca Raton, Florida. There, he elaborated on this boldness, suggesting that his superior business skills qualify him to run one of the most powerful countries in the world: “We need people that win. We don’t need people that lose all the time. I’ve beaten many people and companies, and I’ve won many wars. I…earned many, many billions of dollars. It’s both a scorecard and an acknowledgment of certain abilities.”

In an ABC interview, Trump quipped, “Part of the beauty of me is that I’m very rich…That’s a huge advantage. I must tell you, that’s a huge advantage over the other candidates.”

When asked about how he measures up to potential opponent Mitt Romney, he replied, “I have a much bigger net worth… I’m a much bigger businessman. I mean my net worth is many, many, many times Mitt Romney’s.”

In these statements, Trump reveals an intensely competitive nature, a hunger for power and status, and a viewpoint that promotes financial success as a way to keep score. He also demonstrates a belief that emphatically repeating or restating your words is an effective influence tactic. Many, many, many times more effective than his opponents’ techniques.

Hogan enthusiasts and coaches are already mentally plotting Trump’s scores on his hypothetical HDS Challenge Report. I am willing to wager that Trump would score high on the derailment scales of Mischievous, Imaginative, Bold, and Colorful…in ascending order. This is what we at Hogan refer to as the “Charismatic Cluster” of scores commonly found in leadership profiles. The positive behaviors associated with these scales involve seeming daring, visionary, confident, and energetic – characteristics that make a person seem leader-like and influential. Taken to the extreme, these scales take on a negative quality, resulting in a tendency to be impulsive, unpredictable, arrogant, and dramatic – characteristics that are distinctly Trump-like.

To be fair, The Donald isn’t the only one who exhibits these characteristics. In fact, these descriptors may apply to many of the politicians and celebrities that stand out in history. The characteristics that make them impactful and memorable are often the same ones that make them destructive and infamous.
 

I was recently working with a long-term client of Hogan when my contact made the above statement. As the discussion continued, the client cited behaviors such as arrogance, emotional outbursts, lack of decisiveness, stubbornness, poor interpersonal skills, inflexibility, and ass-kissing as a few of the reasons why their last senior-level hires did not work out. When we examined the company’s track record over the past two years in hiring senior level talent, more than half of the hires did not work out. How could this be? It’s a Fortune 500 company, a leader in its industry, and its hiring process was refined. The company used the best recruiters, was careful, involved many people in the process, and invested a significant amount of resources in finding top talent. What were they missing?

Interestingly, during our entire discussion, not once did my contacts mention a lack of technical competency, education, intelligence, or general ability as the reasons for failure. Like most organizations, it was clear the hiring process focused on finding talent with the desired work experience and technical competence. In fact, the company was incredibly efficient at finding intelligent people who had a proven record of successful performance. These candidates were the best of the best, leaders in their field, and yet, over half failed miserably.

Toward the end of our discussion, it was clear the organization did not understand how each of the candidates’ personalities fit the job and the organizational culture. They made the all too common assumption – if the candidate was successful at Company A and met the competency requirements, he or she will surely be successful in our company. Like many other organizations, they failed to understand what is happening under the surface – beyond the polished interview, impeccable resume, and solid performance record. It’s a story we hear daily at Hogan, and here are some of my key points to anyone considering using Hogan’s inventories in a pre-hire situation:

PROVEN – Time and again, personality has shown to predict future job-related behavior as good as or better than interviews, cognitive measures, and simulations. From a statistical standpoint, validity coefficients increase exponentially when organizations supplement these hiring methodologies with a valid personality assessment.

INSIGHTFUL – Hogan’s assessment battery provides unparalleled insights into a candidate’s day-to-day work style, derailment tendencies under stress, and core value drivers. As mentioned above, combine these insights with the other common components of the hiring process to develop a thorough recruitment and onboarding process. These insights can also be used to strengthen the behavioral based interview process by targeting specific areas of strength or concern which might have not been noticed earlier in the hiring process.

ORGANIZATIONAL FIT – Hogan’s pre-hire solutions answer the following organizational fit questions for hiring managers:

• • How well does this candidate fit the critical success factors of the job or workgroup?

• • How well do the candidate’s core values match those of the organization?

• • Are the candidate’s innate, unconscious leadership biases congruent with the long-term strategy of the company?

• • What are the most critical personality risks of hiring this candidate, and are we willing to put up with those risks?

• How can we maximize the onboarding process and what development opportunities should the hiring manager direct his or her focus?

AFTER THE HONEYMOON – Hogan provides a predictor of what will happen after the “honeymoon period” is over. When the pressure is on and your candidate is no longer a newbie, how will they react to the environment? Hogan’s report can provide insights into the potential areas of risk, and managers can take proactive steps to prevent a potential failure.

As leadership talent begins its great exodus from the workplace over the next couple of years, those organizations who can effectively strategically staff critical roles will hold a competitive advantage. It only makes sense that hiring managers and leadership selection teams use all available forms of information to ensure a candidate is the appropriate fit for the job and the organization.