I live for pats on the back. They keep me motivated and are a much appreciated reward for a job well done. There are even times I resent not receiving my duly earned recognition, and therefore, as a manager, I do my best to ensure everyone on my team is recognized for a job well done. I do this through a variety of different mediums…verbally, publicly, in an email, a personal note, or through some type of gift. It’s a vicious animal; I appreciate when I am recognized, therefore work hard to receive said recognition, and I assumed everyone appreciates recognition as much as I do. I was an unconsciously competent manager.

We all have them, a set of innate preferences and intrinsic motivators which unconsciously impact our lives on a daily basis. This group of preferences is at the core of who we are as a person and largely dictates our managerial/leadership style. As leaders, we unconsciously create an environment around ourselves which aligns with our own motivators and preferences. As in the example above, I was managing my team based on my own preference for pats on the back, assuming everyone valued recognition as a motivator. It was not until I fully understood my own unconscious biases that I could understand the impact they had on my managerial effectiveness.

I live for pats on the back. They keep me motivated and are a much appreciated reward for a job well done. There are even times I resent not receiving my duly earned recognition, and therefore, as a manager, I do my best to ensure everyone on my team is recognized for a job well done. I do this through a variety of different mediums…verbally, publicly, in an email, a personal note, or through some type of gift. It’s a vicious animal; I appreciate when I am recognized, therefore work hard to receive said recognition, and I assumed everyone appreciates recognition as much as I do. I was an unconsciously competent manager.

We all have them, a set of innate preferences and intrinsic motivators which unconsciously impact our lives on a daily basis. This group of preferences is at the core of who we are as a person and largely dictates our managerial/leadership style. As leaders, we unconsciously create an environment around ourselves which aligns with our own motivators and preferences. As in the example above, I was managing my team based on my own preference for pats on the back, assuming everyone valued recognition as a motivator. It was not until I fully understood my own unconscious biases that I could understand the impact they had on my managerial effectiveness.

Last Saturday I enjoyed a few hours of tailgating with old college friends. The next morning I got up and went to church. I enjoyed letting loose like John Blutarsky on Saturday, and on Sunday I ratcheted things back in the general direction of Ned Flanders. One might ask which is the real me – the “Animal House” version or the “God’s house” version? The answer, of course, is both. Like any functioning adult, I adjust my behavior to accommodate my surroundings. This is nothing special or unique about me – none of us act exactly the same at church as we would at a tailgate party. The same applies at work, where our behavior varies around supervisors versus peers or subordinates.

This is common sense, but has caused problems in the world of performance appraisal, especially multi-source (or 360) ratings. Historically, professionals assumed that each person has one true performance level, and dismissed differences across raters as error. Only in the last two years have researchers concluded that (shockingly) a person’s performance varies across contexts, and various parties think differently about effective job performance. Specifically, supervisors focus on technical performance, whereas peers and subordinates focus on interpersonal and leadership performance, respectively. Research now confirms what basic logic tells us – our performance varies across different groups at work, and those groups expect different behavior from us.

These insights hold major implications for personality assessment and employee development initiatives, especially leadership development. Historically, these efforts provide employees with feedback about maximizing performance in light of personality, but have done so by considering how the person looks on average across all groups. However, by considering rating differences across groups, we can tailor this information to inform employees about specific changes they can make to maximize their performance as viewed by supervisors, peers, subordinates, or other groups. This line of thinking represents a more dynamic, flexible, and multi-faceted view on personality and performance, and falls more in line with the common sense notion that we may each act like John Blutarsky in one instance and Ned Flanders in another.

Last Saturday I enjoyed a few hours of tailgating with old college friends. The next morning I got up and went to church. I enjoyed letting loose like John Blutarsky on Saturday, and on Sunday I ratcheted things back in the general direction of Ned Flanders. One might ask which is the real me – the “Animal House” version or the “God’s house” version? The answer, of course, is both. Like any functioning adult, I adjust my behavior to accommodate my surroundings. This is nothing special or unique about me – none of us act exactly the same at church as we would at a tailgate party. The same applies at work, where our behavior varies around supervisors versus peers or subordinates.

This is common sense, but has caused problems in the world of performance appraisal, especially multi-source (or 360) ratings. Historically, professionals assumed that each person has one true performance level, and dismissed differences across raters as error. Only in the last two years have researchers concluded that (shockingly) a person’s performance varies across contexts, and various parties think differently about effective job performance. Specifically, supervisors focus on technical performance, whereas peers and subordinates focus on interpersonal and leadership performance, respectively. Research now confirms what basic logic tells us – our performance varies across different groups at work, and those groups expect different behavior from us.

These insights hold major implications for personality assessment and employee development initiatives, especially leadership development. Historically, these efforts provide employees with feedback about maximizing performance in light of personality, but have done so by considering how the person looks on average across all groups. However, by considering rating differences across groups, we can tailor this information to inform employees about specific changes they can make to maximize their performance as viewed by supervisors, peers, subordinates, or other groups. This line of thinking represents a more dynamic, flexible, and multi-faceted view on personality and performance, and falls more in line with the common sense notion that we may each act like John Blutarsky in one instance and Ned Flanders in another.

As I was flipping through the channels the other night, I noticed a pattern. Making my way up through the 100s of channels, I saw multiple shows featuring “clowns." These are not the kind of clowns you find at the circus or the kind of clowns that make you go, “haha,” but the kind of clowns that make you go, “meh” (or worse).

News shows, talk shows, reality shows...as I flipped through the channels, I was amazed to see people espousing ideas, behaviors, and attitudes that are generally reserved for the make-believe world of sitcoms and movie blockbusters. Their emotional outbursts, exaggerated smugness, and what can only be described as extremely poor attention-seeking strategies do attract viewers. We like to laugh at others. We like to feel an emotional charge now and then. We even like watching others make fools of themselves. And during my channel surfing, I sometimes find myself staring at the train wrecks too (several of my personal favorites come from MTV, Fox News, and MSNBC).

Sometimes the Glenn Becks, Chris Matthews, and Snookis of the world are entertaining. Not because they are intentionally funny, but because of the extreme, negative characteristics they display. I can’t imagine trying to get work done in an office space with someone who needs as much attention as Snooki or trying to reach anything resembling a compromise by Mr. Matthews. Even my ten-month-old son appears to display more emotional control than Mr. Beck. Although these people are fine in their roles, most would agree that having to interact with them day after day would take its toll (sometimes I can’t even bear it through a whole TV segment).

My personal opinions and facetiousness aside, some of these clowns’ behaviors are extreme examples of interaction styles we all encounter at work. Be it your Colorful boss, your Excitable co-worker, or your unbelievably Bold subordinate, you have met and worked with these people. Although passion, confidence, and social skills are desirable, taken to the extreme, these same characteristics will derail everyone sometime during their careers.

Luckily, we have the ability to measure individuals’ propensity to engage in these derailing behaviors. The Hogan Development Survey (HDS) allows us to be cautious about whom we hire, or to be proactive in coaching individuals who are predisposed towards certain undesirable actions (like writing a blog the night before it’s due). Knowing what could go wrong can be just as important as knowing what could go right. Remember, the next time you have to make a human capital decision, you could be dealing with “The Situation.”

As I was flipping through the channels the other night, I noticed a pattern. Making my way up through the 100s of channels, I saw multiple shows featuring “clowns.” These are not the kind of clowns you find at the circus or the kind of clowns that make you go, “haha,” but the kind of clowns that make you go, “meh” (or worse).

News shows, talk shows, reality shows…as I flipped through the channels, I was amazed to see people espousing ideas, behaviors, and attitudes that are generally reserved for the make-believe world of sitcoms and movie blockbusters. Their emotional outbursts, exaggerated smugness, and what can only be described as extremely poor attention-seeking strategies do attract viewers. We like to laugh at others. We like to feel an emotional charge now and then. We even like watching others make fools of themselves. And during my channel surfing, I sometimes find myself staring at the train wrecks too (several of my personal favorites come from MTV, Fox News, and MSNBC).

Sometimes the Glenn Becks, Chris Matthews, and Snookis of the world are entertaining. Not because they are intentionally funny, but because of the extreme, negative characteristics they display. I can’t imagine trying to get work done in an office space with someone who needs as much attention as Snooki or trying to reach anything resembling a compromise by Mr. Matthews. Even my ten-month-old son appears to display more emotional control than Mr. Beck. Although these people are fine in their roles, most would agree that having to interact with them day after day would take its toll (sometimes I can’t even bear it through a whole TV segment).

My personal opinions and facetiousness aside, some of these clowns’ behaviors are extreme examples of interaction styles we all encounter at work. Be it your Colorful boss, your Excitable co-worker, or your unbelievably Bold subordinate, you have met and worked with these people. Although passion, confidence, and social skills are desirable, taken to the extreme, these same characteristics will derail everyone sometime during their careers.

Luckily, we have the ability to measure individuals’ propensity to engage in these derailing behaviors. The Hogan Development Survey (HDS) allows us to be cautious about whom we hire, or to be proactive in coaching individuals who are predisposed towards certain undesirable actions (like writing a blog the night before it’s due). Knowing what could go wrong can be just as important as knowing what could go right. Remember, the next time you have to make a human capital decision, you could be dealing with “The Situation.”

I’ve had a lot of jobs. In my short 11-year tenure of being a working adult, I’ve held positions in two advertising agencies, two marketing departments and a radio station. Through all of them, one thing remained the same. My boss always affected the way I felt about my job.

My first job was as the lowest man on the totem pole in a tyrannically-run advertising agency. It was low pay, zero respect and very long hours. Both newbies and veterans scattered like cockroaches when the owner was around. And the creative director was a raging…well, she had ridiculous expectations of her minions. I left after a year and a half, as most people do at that agency.

My next job was in the marketing department of my family-owned manufacturing company. While working for family may sound like a cush gig, I knew absolutely nothing about flexographic printing and desperately wanted to impress them. They were very busy with little time to teach me the ropes so I floundered along for three years.

After being in manufacturing, I wanted to get back in to advertising so I accepted a position with a small agency. I had good friends and the environment was fun but my boss never had one good thing to say about anyone and made snide comments not only behind your back, but also to your face. These comments were always ‘in jest,’ of course, but everyone knew he meant them. I’ve always held the belief that you have to give respect in order to get respect. Evidently, he didn’t feel the same. Towards the end of my four years there, I despised going to work.

My job as promotions director at the radio station was another new work experience for me. My supervisors there were fun but had erratic tempers. After having stress-induced hives for eight days, it was a blessing in disguise to be laid off along with 1800 other people.

The marketing department at Hogan has been the best experience by far. (And I’m not just sucking up when I say that.) It’s a laid-back, creative, fun environment that I enjoy every day. I’ve also learned a lot about myself including why all of those previous jobs were not right for me and why most of my old supervisors were not good leaders. It has been a developmental milestone to realize my recurring problem of less-than-savory supervisors was not actually my fault and I was actually a successful employee. So if you’re in the same boat, it’s most likely not your fault either. Bad managers are running rampant.

A quote by Dr. Hogan really brought it all home and has stuck with me. He says, “People don’t quit their job, they quit their boss.”

I think he’s right.

I’ve had a lot of jobs. In my short 11-year tenure of being a working adult, I’ve held positions in two advertising agencies, two marketing departments and a radio station. Through all of them, one thing remained the same. My boss always affected the way I felt about my job.

My first job was as the lowest man on the totem pole in a tyrannically-run advertising agency. It was low pay, zero respect and very long hours. Both newbies and veterans scattered like cockroaches when the owner was around. And the creative director was a raging…well, she had ridiculous expectations of her minions. I left after a year and a half, as most people do at that agency.

My next job was in the marketing department of my family-owned manufacturing company. While working for family may sound like a cush gig, I knew absolutely nothing about flexographic printing and desperately wanted to impress them. They were very busy with little time to teach me the ropes so I floundered along for three years.

After being in manufacturing, I wanted to get back in to advertising so I accepted a position with a small agency. I had good friends and the environment was fun but my boss never had one good thing to say about anyone and made snide comments not only behind your back, but also to your face. These comments were always ‘in jest,’ of course, but everyone knew he meant them. I’ve always held the belief that you have to give respect in order to get respect. Evidently, he didn’t feel the same. Towards the end of my four years there, I despised going to work.

My job as promotions director at the radio station was another new work experience for me. My supervisors there were fun but had erratic tempers. After having stress-induced hives for eight days, it was a blessing in disguise to be laid off along with 1800 other people.

The marketing department at Hogan has been the best experience by far. (And I’m not just sucking up when I say that.) It’s a laid-back, creative, fun environment that I enjoy every day. I’ve also learned a lot about myself including why all of those previous jobs were not right for me and why most of my old supervisors were not good leaders. It has been a developmental milestone to realize my recurring problem of less-than-savory supervisors was not actually my fault and I was actually a successful employee. So if you’re in the same boat, it’s most likely not your fault either. Bad managers are running rampant.

A quote by Dr. Hogan really brought it all home and has stuck with me. He says, “People don’t quit their job, they quit their boss.”

I think he’s right.

Last week, Steven Slater, the former JetBlue flight attendant acted out the fantasy of a large contingent of employees who have had enough of on-the-job stresses. After a heated exchange with a passenger (an exchange that is now more in doubt than previously reported), he grabbed the PA and let out a few choice words, grabbed his stuff (including a few beers), and stormed off of the plane via the emergency exit slide announcing that he quit. Fortunately, the plane was on the tarmac and near the gate. Nobody was injured.

In the aftermath of this instant-classic example of how to quit one’s job, Mr. Slater has garnered the adulation of many, as evidenced by the numerous Facebook fan pages with thousands of friends and any number of blogs on the internet. Many have romanticized his actions, making him out to be a man who stood up for himself, didn’t take abuse from anyone, or had just had enough and decided it was time to move on.

However, the reality of the situation is quite a bit different. Within days, Mr. Slater had retained a lawyer, and was asking for his position with JetBlue back, saying he loved his job, the airline, and he wanted to return to work. His lawyer offered a number of explanations for his behavior, including the stress of the job, an injury sustained in the course of the flight, and a confrontation with an unruly passenger (which is, at this time, unsubstantiated by any of the passengers).

Mr. Slater’s behavior is actually a perfect example of derailing behavior. He lost his cool under stress, made an emotionally charged decision (the Excitable derailer), and executed his decision in a dramatic and attention-seeking manner (the Colorful derailer). Despite all the adoration lavished upon him in the aftermath, Mr. Slater quickly regretted his decision and is now contemplating a lawsuit to retain the position he so sensationally abandoned. A working-class hero sticking it to the man, or a case of derailment played out in dramatic fashion? The preponderance of evidence at this time points to the latter.

Jarrett Shalhoop
Senior Consultant
Hogan Assessment Systems

Last week, Steven Slater, the former JetBlue flight attendant acted out the fantasy of a large contingent of employees who have had enough of on-the-job stresses. After a heated exchange with a passenger (an exchange that is now more in doubt than previously reported), he grabbed the PA and let out a few choice words, grabbed his stuff (including a few beers), and stormed off of the plane via the emergency exit slide announcing that he quit. Fortunately, the plane was on the tarmac and near the gate. Nobody was injured.

In the aftermath of this instant-classic example of how to quit one’s job, Mr. Slater has garnered the adulation of many, as evidenced by the numerous Facebook fan pages with thousands of friends and any number of blogs on the internet. Many have romanticized his actions, making him out to be a man who stood up for himself, didn’t take abuse from anyone, or had just had enough and decided it was time to move on.

However, the reality of the situation is quite a bit different. Within days, Mr. Slater had retained a lawyer, and was asking for his position with JetBlue back, saying he loved his job, the airline, and he wanted to return to work. His lawyer offered a number of explanations for his behavior, including the stress of the job, an injury sustained in the course of the flight, and a confrontation with an unruly passenger (which is, at this time, unsubstantiated by any of the passengers).

Mr. Slater’s behavior is actually a perfect example of derailing behavior. He lost his cool under stress, made an emotionally charged decision (the Excitable derailer), and executed his decision in a dramatic and attention-seeking manner (the Colorful derailer). Despite all the adoration lavished upon him in the aftermath, Mr. Slater quickly regretted his decision and is now contemplating a lawsuit to retain the position he so sensationally abandoned. A working-class hero sticking it to the man, or a case of derailment played out in dramatic fashion? The preponderance of evidence at this time points to the latter.

Jarrett Shalhoop
Senior Consultant
Hogan Assessment Systems