The concept of “engagement” has become a hot topic in applied psychology over the past two years. Like competency modeling and personality assessment before it, HR practitioners have forced the academic community to pay attention to engagement—it is not something that the academics discovered on their own.

The concept of engagement was first described by Yale organizational psychologist William Kahn. Kahn suggests that engagement occurs when a person’s identity and job role “exist in [a] dynamic…relation in which a person both drives personal energies into role behaviors and displays the self within the role.” Such role expression “fulfills the human spirit” at work. Kahn defines engagement in terms of four components: (1) Cognitive (the role is consistent with a person’s identity); (2) Emotional (the person likes the role); (3) Physical (the person will work at the role); (4) Existential (the role provides personal meaning).

There are two big reasons engagement matters. The first is “philosophical”; the second is financial. Concerning the first reason, Karl Marx was right—working in modern business organizations is inherently alienating; in many organizations, people must surrender their humanity in return for a paycheck. When people are not free to defect from organizations, their participation in it is inherently alienating, and engagement is a powerful and humane way to resolve the problem of alienation.

Second, the data overwhelmingly indicate that when the morale of a business unit is low, absenteeism, turnover, and theft go up, and productivity and customer satisfaction go down. Conversely, when morale is high, absenteeism, turnover, and theft go down, and productivity and customer satisfaction go up. Morale and engagement are pretty much the same, and there are clear financial consequences associated with high and low engagement. Engagement is the “g” factor in organizational life; it is correlated with (predicts) every important business outcome at the individual and the business unit level.

The concept of engagement has four important implications for management practice. First, there is such a thing as good and bad management; good management creates engagement, bad management destroys it. Second, because engagement is a function of how managers treat their staff, there are no cookie cutter solutions; engagement depends on building relationships with the staff, one person at a time. Third, not all managers can or will do this. And fourth, not all staff members are willing to engage with their managers.

Assuming that an organization decides to pay attention to engagement, assessment will be at the core of any implementation. Assessment can identify managers who are good at building engagement, managers who could build engagement but don’t, and managers who have no talent for building engagement. Assessment can also identify employees who are capable of becoming engaged, and employees who are, by virtue of their basic psychology, constitutionally alienated.

-- Robert Hogan

The concept of “engagement” has become a hot topic in applied psychology over the past two years. Like competency modeling and personality assessment before it, HR practitioners have forced the academic community to pay attention to engagement—it is not something that the academics discovered on their own.

The concept of engagement was first described by Yale organizational psychologist William Kahn. Kahn suggests that engagement occurs when a person’s identity and job role “exist in [a] dynamic…relation in which a person both drives personal energies into role behaviors and displays the self within the role.” Such role expression “fulfills the human spirit” at work. Kahn defines engagement in terms of four components: (1) Cognitive (the role is consistent with a person’s identity); (2) Emotional (the person likes the role); (3) Physical (the person will work at the role); (4) Existential (the role provides personal meaning).

There are two big reasons engagement matters. The first is “philosophical”; the second is financial. Concerning the first reason, Karl Marx was right—working in modern business organizations is inherently alienating; in many organizations, people must surrender their humanity in return for a paycheck. When people are not free to defect from organizations, their participation in it is inherently alienating, and engagement is a powerful and humane way to resolve the problem of alienation.

Second, the data overwhelmingly indicate that when the morale of a business unit is low, absenteeism, turnover, and theft go up, and productivity and customer satisfaction go down. Conversely, when morale is high, absenteeism, turnover, and theft go down, and productivity and customer satisfaction go up. Morale and engagement are pretty much the same, and there are clear financial consequences associated with high and low engagement. Engagement is the “g” factor in organizational life; it is correlated with (predicts) every important business outcome at the individual and the business unit level.

The concept of engagement has four important implications for management practice. First, there is such a thing as good and bad management; good management creates engagement, bad management destroys it. Second, because engagement is a function of how managers treat their staff, there are no cookie cutter solutions; engagement depends on building relationships with the staff, one person at a time. Third, not all managers can or will do this. And fourth, not all staff members are willing to engage with their managers.

Assuming that an organization decides to pay attention to engagement, assessment will be at the core of any implementation. Assessment can identify managers who are good at building engagement, managers who could build engagement but don’t, and managers who have no talent for building engagement. Assessment can also identify employees who are capable of becoming engaged, and employees who are, by virtue of their basic psychology, constitutionally alienated.

— Robert Hogan

The following is an excerpt from a fascinating (and often humorous) autobiographical piece that Dr. Robert Hogan wrote for the Journal of Personality Assessment in 2006. During the course of the article, Hogan describes his upbringing, his education, and the curiosity and conviction that led to a life-long career as a preeminent personality psychologist.

My parents were from farm families in the Texas panhandle; they moved to Los Angeles during the great depression of the 1930s with little money or prospects. I was born there in 1937. When I started kindergarten, the little girls could already read, and I realized that they knew something I didn’t. They still do.

In 1942, we moved 50 miles east of Los Angeles to the hard scrabble town of Fontana. Henry Kaiser had built a steel mill there and staffed it with ethnic families from the rust belt—tough, no nonsense people with strong religious convictions. Money was always a problem at home, and I was encouraged to start working early—but such is the tradition of farm families who can’t survive without a stern work ethic. I found my first paying job when I was 13 and have continued to work since then.

By the second grade, I was a voracious reader. School, however, was boring, and I was an indifferent and disruptive pupil for several years; I became quite familiar with paddles and principal’s offices. From early childhood, however, I was fascinated by “animal behavior” and spent a lot of time gathering and watching insects and various critters. In the sixth grade, I started a Biology Club and persuaded other kids to bring in specimens—mostly desert reptiles. In high school, I discovered girls, alcohol, and geometry and found them all as interesting as animal behavior but for different reasons.

I began reading evolutionary theory (George Gaylord Simpson), which seemed intuitively correct and thrillingly controversial from the perspective of Christian fundamentalism— which I had abandoned when I was 10. During the summer before the 12th grade, I read Freud’s (1900) The Interpretation of Dreams, and I was hooked. Many of Freud’s claims were implausible, but the idea that the mind can operate outside awareness seemed obvious, and the notion that one could trace errors and mistakes that seemed random back to underlying erotic preoccupations was a revelation. I wanted to be a psychologist and decode the secrets of other people—to what purpose, it wasn’t clear.

Download the full article here.

The following is an excerpt from a fascinating (and often humorous) autobiographical piece that Dr. Robert Hogan wrote for the Journal of Personality Assessment in 2006. During the course of the article, Hogan describes his upbringing, his education, and the curiosity and conviction that led to a life-long career as a preeminent personality psychologist.

My parents were from farm families in the Texas panhandle; they moved to Los Angeles during the great depression of the 1930s with little money or prospects. I was born there in 1937. When I started kindergarten, the little girls could already read, and I realized that they knew something I didn’t. They still do.

In 1942, we moved 50 miles east of Los Angeles to the hard scrabble town of Fontana. Henry Kaiser had built a steel mill there and staffed it with ethnic families from the rust belt—tough, no nonsense people with strong religious convictions. Money was always a problem at home, and I was encouraged to start working early—but such is the tradition of farm families who can’t survive without a stern work ethic. I found my first paying job when I was 13 and have continued to work since then.

By the second grade, I was a voracious reader. School, however, was boring, and I was an indifferent and disruptive pupil for several years; I became quite familiar with paddles and principal’s offices. From early childhood, however, I was fascinated by “animal behavior” and spent a lot of time gathering and watching insects and various critters. In the sixth grade, I started a Biology Club and persuaded other kids to bring in specimens—mostly desert reptiles. In high school, I discovered girls, alcohol, and geometry and found them all as interesting as animal behavior but for different reasons.

I began reading evolutionary theory (George Gaylord Simpson), which seemed intuitively correct and thrillingly controversial from the perspective of Christian fundamentalism— which I had abandoned when I was 10. During the summer before the 12th grade, I read Freud’s (1900) The Interpretation of Dreams, and I was hooked. Many of Freud’s claims were implausible, but the idea that the mind can operate outside awareness seemed obvious, and the notion that one could trace errors and mistakes that seemed random back to underlying erotic preoccupations was a revelation. I wanted to be a psychologist and decode the secrets of other people—to what purpose, it wasn’t clear.

It is hard to overstate the importance of the concept of intelligence for applied psychology; intelligence testing may be the most important single contribution psychology has made to larger society. Advocates of intelligence testing provide data showing that IQ predicts virtually every significant life outcome from income and occupational status to life expectancy. Nonetheless, the concept continues to make some of us uncomfortable for three reasons. First, the concept of intelligence is still poorly defined; the default definition is, “intelligence is what intelligence tests test”. Second, all of us know people who have received very high scores on standard IQ measures who nonetheless have trouble functioning in the world. And third, in standardized cognitive assessment, problems are fully defined; in the real world, problems are almost always poorly defined.

The term “intelligent” is a judgment that we use to evaluate performance; for example, in athletics, certain people are known as smart players and others are not. A moment’s reflection suggests that the term “intelligent” mostly applies to decisions—smart decisions precede smart actions and vice versa. Decision making is particularly important in business, politics, and warfare where money and lives are on the line and bad decisions affect the welfare of many people. Decision making is also typically difficult in business, politics, and warfare because there is almost never enough time or information to make a carefully reasoned decision. The term “good judgment” applies to the ability to make sound and defensible decisions with limited time and information.

The book, “Why Smart Executives Fail” by Sydney Finkelstein (2003), contains a large number of richly detailed case studies of failed business enterprises and is a superb data base for thinking about good (and bad) judgment. At the surface level, businesses fail for a variety of reasons—technology shifts, new competitors, ill-advised acquisitions—but at a deeper level, bad judgment appears to be the cause of the problem in every case. And in every case, the bad judgment was exercised in two stages. In the first stage, the company’s CEO chose the wrong means to accomplish a desired end. In the second stage, the CEO stayed with his/her choice despite information that the choice was a bad one.

For example, in the 1980s, General Motors (GM), the world’s largest automobile manufacturer, faced two looming problems. The first was competition from low cost, high quality Japanese cars. The second was labor unrest at home. The CEO of GM, Roger Smith, decided he could solve both problems by replacing his workers with robots. He invested more than $45 billion in robots—enough to buy both Toyota and Nissan—but the investment failed because the key to the Japanese success was the manner in which they integrated their technology with their workforce, rather than their robotic technology per se. As one industry insider noted, by using technology without the prepared workforce, all Roger Smith did was automate confusion. However, he persisted in his decision, and GM’s productivity continued to decline relative to Toyota.

Again, bad judgment is a two stage process. In the first stage, a person chooses the wrong means to get to the desired end. In the second stage, a person persists with the choice despite evidence that it was wrong. For persons familiar with the structure of the Hogan Business Reasoning Inventory (HBRI), choosing the wrong means to get to a desired end is a failure in Strategic Reasoning, while persisting in a bad choice after data are available is a failure of Tactical Reasoning.

It is hard to overstate the importance of the concept of intelligence for applied psychology; intelligence testing may be the most important single contribution psychology has made to larger society. Advocates of intelligence testing provide data showing that IQ predicts virtually every significant life outcome from income and occupational status to life expectancy. Nonetheless, the concept continues to make some of us uncomfortable for three reasons. First, the concept of intelligence is still poorly defined; the default definition is, “intelligence is what intelligence tests test”. Second, all of us know people who have received very high scores on standard IQ measures who nonetheless have trouble functioning in the world. And third, in standardized cognitive assessment, problems are fully defined; in the real world, problems are almost always poorly defined.

The term “intelligent” is a judgment that we use to evaluate performance; for example, in athletics, certain people are known as smart players and others are not. A moment’s reflection suggests that the term “intelligent” mostly applies to decisions—smart decisions precede smart actions and vice versa. Decision making is particularly important in business, politics, and warfare where money and lives are on the line and bad decisions affect the welfare of many people. Decision making is also typically difficult in business, politics, and warfare because there is almost never enough time or information to make a carefully reasoned decision. The term “good judgment” applies to the ability to make sound and defensible decisions with limited time and information.

The book, “Why Smart Executives Fail” by Sydney Finkelstein (2003), contains a large number of richly detailed case studies of failed business enterprises and is a superb data base for thinking about good (and bad) judgment. At the surface level, businesses fail for a variety of reasons—technology shifts, new competitors, ill-advised acquisitions—but at a deeper level, bad judgment appears to be the cause of the problem in every case. And in every case, the bad judgment was exercised in two stages. In the first stage, the company’s CEO chose the wrong means to accomplish a desired end. In the second stage, the CEO stayed with his/her choice despite information that the choice was a bad one.

For example, in the 1980s, General Motors (GM), the world’s largest automobile manufacturer, faced two looming problems. The first was competition from low cost, high quality Japanese cars. The second was labor unrest at home. The CEO of GM, Roger Smith, decided he could solve both problems by replacing his workers with robots. He invested more than $45 billion in robots—enough to buy both Toyota and Nissan—but the investment failed because the key to the Japanese success was the manner in which they integrated their technology with their workforce, rather than their robotic technology per se. As one industry insider noted, by using technology without the prepared workforce, all Roger Smith did was automate confusion. However, he persisted in his decision, and GM’s productivity continued to decline relative to Toyota.

Again, bad judgment is a two stage process. In the first stage, a person chooses the wrong means to get to the desired end. In the second stage, a person persists with the choice despite evidence that it was wrong. For persons familiar with the structure of the Hogan Business Reasoning Inventory (HBRI), choosing the wrong means to get to a desired end is a failure in Strategic Reasoning, while persisting in a bad choice after data are available is a failure of Tactical Reasoning.

At Hogan, we believe that leadership is the most important problem in management science. When good leaders are in place, organizations and their members prosper, when bad leaders are in place, organizations and their members suffer. At the same time, the academic study of leadership has largely failed to deliver any real-world generalizations about leadership or recommendations regarding how to find it or develop it. The academic study of leadership has failed for three reasons: (1) Leadership is poorly defined; (2) Mainstream literature ignores personality; (3) Nobody pays attention to return on investment (ROI).

Let’s consider these points in turn.

The Definition of Leadership.
Leadership is defined in academic literature primarily in terms of the people who are in charge. The assumption is, if a person is a manager, president or CEO, he/she is by definition a leader. This is a big mistake for at least two reasons. First, ask yourself how a person rises in a large, hierarchical, bureaucratic, male-dominated organization. The answer is, by playing politics, not by exercising leadership. It was said of Dwight Eisenhower, “He didn’t become a politician because he was a general, he became a general because he was a politician.” People typically rise in large organizations by pleasing their superiors with their loyalty and technical knowledge, not by displaying leadership skills. Second, the base rate of failure for managers in America is about 65%; thus, 65% of the people in “leadership” positions today will fail in one way or another. To the degree that leadership is defined in terms of who is in charge, the research won’t lead to replicable conclusions—because success in any organization is idiosyncratic. Who wins in such pursuits will largely depend on the circumstances—the nature of the competition, the team of judges, the climate of the times, etc.

Situations versus Personality.
Most major organizations in the United States, public or private, military or civilian, assume that almost anyone can be (or can learn to be) a leader, and will perform appropriately when put in charge of other people. People are promoted based on time in service and technical talent, with no consideration given to the possibility that some people have more talent for leadership than others. Sometimes this assumption is based on intellectual laziness, but among psychologists the assumption reflects the lingering effects of behaviorism and situationism—the view that what people do depends on where they are not who they are. However, the average person understands that some people perform better in leadership positions than others, and the reason has to do with the kinds of persons they are—i.e., their personalities.

ROI-based Research.
Most managers are evaluated by their bosses—the people who hired or promoted them and who have a vested interest in their doing well. But many bad managers are skilled at pleasing their bosses, which drives the bosses’ evaluations. It seems obvious to us that managers ought to be evaluated in terms of the performance of the group that they manage. Although this is rarely done, it is easy to do, and when done correctly, it turns out that effective managers have a distinctive personality style which varies systematically with the industry and their level in their organization. We discuss this in more detail below.

The remainder of this discussion is organized in six parts. We define personality, we define leadership, then we show how personality impacts leadership, and how leadership (properly defined) impacts business unit performance. We then analyze the crucial role of followers for business unit performance, and how to enhance their engagement.

1. Defining Personality.
We believe that personality is related to leadership—who you are determines how you lead. But we need to define personality, and it should be defined from two perspectives: how a person thinks about him/herself and how others think about that person. We refer to this as the actor’s and the observer’s perspectives on personality, and it is important to keep them distinct. The actor’s perspective is a person’s identity, the story that he/she tells others about him/herself—it is an idealized self view. Although identity has been the major focus of personality research from Freud to the present, it has been a non-productive focus. After 150 years of research, there are no reliable generalizations to report, there is no measurement base, there is no taxonomy to organize the subject matter. How people think about themselves is almost impossible to study in a rigorous way; hence that study has led to no conclusions.

On the other hand, personality from the observer’s perspective—a person’s reputation—is easy to study and leads to some very useful generalizations. First, unlike identity, reputation is quite stable over time. Second, reputation has a well recognized taxonomy—it is called the Five-Factor Model (sometimes “the Big Five”). Everyone’s reputation can be described in terms of five dimensions: (1) Anxious vs. Confident; (2) Shy vs. Assertive; (3) Tough vs. Charming; (4) Careless vs. Conscientous; and (5) Narrow- minded vs. Open-minded. And third, these five dimensions predict a wide range of performance outcomes, including leadership, better than measures of cognitive ability. There is almost complete consensus in the research community that personality should be defined in terms of these five (large) dimensions, with finer distinctions within the five being possible and useful.

2. Defining Leadership.
Conventional leadership literature focuses on charismatic or transformational leadership, and this focus has led to few reliable generalizations. We prefer a functional definition—because leadership has a job to do. The leader’s job is to persuade otherwise selfish people to work together for a period of time to accomplish a common objective. Thus we define leadership in terms of the ability to build and maintain a high performing team, and we think leadership should be evaluated in terms of the performance of the team, relative to the competition. Defining leadership this way has two useful consequences. On the one hand, the research literature becomes interpretable. On the other hand, this definition brings the issue of ROI into focus.

3. Personality and Leadership.
We have now defined personality (as reputation) and leadership (as the ability to build a team). The next question concerns the links between personality and leadership. (We should note that, as recently as 1990, academic researchers maintained that this question was nonsense—because leadership was deemed to be a function of “the situation”—e.g., situational leadership.) In 2002, Tim Judge, a researcher at the University of Florida, published a landmark study. Using 20,000 managers from 5,000 organizations, representing every industry sector, he showed that personality, defined in terms of the Five-Factor Model, predicts rated leadership performance very substantially, and much better than measures of cognitive ability. For those of us who believe in data, this seals the case—personality and leadership are rather tightly connected. Good managers are Confident, Assertive, Conscientious, Open-minded, and not necessarily Charming.

4. Leadership and Business Unit Performance.
In 2002, James Harter, Frank Schmidt, and Ted Hayes, three researchers funded by Gallup, published another landmark study that shows three things. First, the personality of the manager impacts the morale of the work group. Second, when morale is up, good business results follow; when morale is down, bad results follow. And third, the link between the manager’s personality and business unit performance is mediated by staff morale. This means that leadership is indirectly, and staff morale is directly, connected to ROI.

5. Understanding the Role of the Follower.
Leadership involves getting results through other people—it is not about the charisma of individual leaders, it is about persuading followers to adopt the leader’s agenda. Work is a (sometimes painful) extension of everyday life. Personality psychology tells us that people have three overriding needs that govern their lives: (1) People need acceptance and respect, and they dread criticism and rejection; (2) People need status and the control of resources, and dread the loss of status and resources; (3) And people need structure and predictability in their lives, and find the lack of structure to be stressful. These needs are operating at work, during interaction with peers and management. Thus, good managers provide their staff with respect, allow them to control their own work, and make sense out of business activities. Bad managers do the opposite, and are unable to build a team.

6. The Lessons of Engagement.
Engagement is the central factor underlying employee performance in modern business, and it is almost entirely a function of leadership. Senior leadership needs to establish a culture that recognizes, values, and facilitates engagement. First line supervisors and managers need to treat their employees in ways that minimally don’t actively alienate them, and ideally in ways that encourage engagement. But there is no cookie cutter approach to this. Rather, encouraging engagement puts specific demands on individual leaders, who must establish and maintain working relationships with their employees, one employee at a time. Some people are better able to do this than others, such people can be identified by their personality signature, and to the degree that organizations value ROI, they will pay attention to this research-based conclusion.

-- Dr. Robert Hogan

At Hogan, we believe that leadership is the most important problem in management science. When good leaders are in place, organizations and their members prosper, when bad leaders are in place, organizations and their members suffer. At the same time, the academic study of leadership has largely failed to deliver any real-world generalizations about leadership or recommendations regarding how to find it or develop it. The academic study of leadership has failed for three reasons: (1) Leadership is poorly defined; (2) Mainstream literature ignores personality; (3) Nobody pays attention to return on investment (ROI).

Let’s consider these points in turn.

The Definition of Leadership.
Leadership is defined in academic literature primarily in terms of the people who are in charge. The assumption is, if a person is a manager, president or CEO, he/she is by definition a leader. This is a big mistake for at least two reasons. First, ask yourself how a person rises in a large, hierarchical, bureaucratic, male-dominated organization. The answer is, by playing politics, not by exercising leadership. It was said of Dwight Eisenhower, “He didn’t become a politician because he was a general, he became a general because he was a politician.” People typically rise in large organizations by pleasing their superiors with their loyalty and technical knowledge, not by displaying leadership skills. Second, the base rate of failure for managers in America is about 65%; thus, 65% of the people in “leadership” positions today will fail in one way or another. To the degree that leadership is defined in terms of who is in charge, the research won’t lead to replicable conclusions—because success in any organization is idiosyncratic. Who wins in such pursuits will largely depend on the circumstances—the nature of the competition, the team of judges, the climate of the times, etc.

Situations versus Personality.
Most major organizations in the United States, public or private, military or civilian, assume that almost anyone can be (or can learn to be) a leader, and will perform appropriately when put in charge of other people. People are promoted based on time in service and technical talent, with no consideration given to the possibility that some people have more talent for leadership than others. Sometimes this assumption is based on intellectual laziness, but among psychologists the assumption reflects the lingering effects of behaviorism and situationism—the view that what people do depends on where they are not who they are. However, the average person understands that some people perform better in leadership positions than others, and the reason has to do with the kinds of persons they are—i.e., their personalities.

ROI-based Research.
Most managers are evaluated by their bosses—the people who hired or promoted them and who have a vested interest in their doing well. But many bad managers are skilled at pleasing their bosses, which drives the bosses’ evaluations. It seems obvious to us that managers ought to be evaluated in terms of the performance of the group that they manage. Although this is rarely done, it is easy to do, and when done correctly, it turns out that effective managers have a distinctive personality style which varies systematically with the industry and their level in their organization. We discuss this in more detail below.

The remainder of this discussion is organized in six parts. We define personality, we define leadership, then we show how personality impacts leadership, and how leadership (properly defined) impacts business unit performance. We then analyze the crucial role of followers for business unit performance, and how to enhance their engagement.

1. Defining Personality.
We believe that personality is related to leadership—who you are determines how you lead. But we need to define personality, and it should be defined from two perspectives: how a person thinks about him/herself and how others think about that person. We refer to this as the actor’s and the observer’s perspectives on personality, and it is important to keep them distinct. The actor’s perspective is a person’s identity, the story that he/she tells others about him/herself—it is an idealized self view. Although identity has been the major focus of personality research from Freud to the present, it has been a non-productive focus. After 150 years of research, there are no reliable generalizations to report, there is no measurement base, there is no taxonomy to organize the subject matter. How people think about themselves is almost impossible to study in a rigorous way; hence that study has led to no conclusions.

On the other hand, personality from the observer’s perspective—a person’s reputation—is easy to study and leads to some very useful generalizations. First, unlike identity, reputation is quite stable over time. Second, reputation has a well recognized taxonomy—it is called the Five-Factor Model (sometimes “the Big Five”). Everyone’s reputation can be described in terms of five dimensions: (1) Anxious vs. Confident; (2) Shy vs. Assertive; (3) Tough vs. Charming; (4) Careless vs. Conscientous; and (5) Narrow- minded vs. Open-minded. And third, these five dimensions predict a wide range of performance outcomes, including leadership, better than measures of cognitive ability. There is almost complete consensus in the research community that personality should be defined in terms of these five (large) dimensions, with finer distinctions within the five being possible and useful.

2. Defining Leadership.
Conventional leadership literature focuses on charismatic or transformational leadership, and this focus has led to few reliable generalizations. We prefer a functional definition—because leadership has a job to do. The leader’s job is to persuade otherwise selfish people to work together for a period of time to accomplish a common objective. Thus we define leadership in terms of the ability to build and maintain a high performing team, and we think leadership should be evaluated in terms of the performance of the team, relative to the competition. Defining leadership this way has two useful consequences. On the one hand, the research literature becomes interpretable. On the other hand, this definition brings the issue of ROI into focus.

3. Personality and Leadership.
We have now defined personality (as reputation) and leadership (as the ability to build a team). The next question concerns the links between personality and leadership. (We should note that, as recently as 1990, academic researchers maintained that this question was nonsense—because leadership was deemed to be a function of “the situation”—e.g., situational leadership.) In 2002, Tim Judge, a researcher at the University of Florida, published a landmark study. Using 20,000 managers from 5,000 organizations, representing every industry sector, he showed that personality, defined in terms of the Five-Factor Model, predicts rated leadership performance very substantially, and much better than measures of cognitive ability. For those of us who believe in data, this seals the case—personality and leadership are rather tightly connected. Good managers are Confident, Assertive, Conscientious, Open-minded, and not necessarily Charming.

4. Leadership and Business Unit Performance.
In 2002, James Harter, Frank Schmidt, and Ted Hayes, three researchers funded by Gallup, published another landmark study that shows three things. First, the personality of the manager impacts the morale of the work group. Second, when morale is up, good business results follow; when morale is down, bad results follow. And third, the link between the manager’s personality and business unit performance is mediated by staff morale. This means that leadership is indirectly, and staff morale is directly, connected to ROI.

5. Understanding the Role of the Follower.
Leadership involves getting results through other people—it is not about the charisma of individual leaders, it is about persuading followers to adopt the leader’s agenda. Work is a (sometimes painful) extension of everyday life. Personality psychology tells us that people have three overriding needs that govern their lives: (1) People need acceptance and respect, and they dread criticism and rejection; (2) People need status and the control of resources, and dread the loss of status and resources; (3) And people need structure and predictability in their lives, and find the lack of structure to be stressful. These needs are operating at work, during interaction with peers and management. Thus, good managers provide their staff with respect, allow them to control their own work, and make sense out of business activities. Bad managers do the opposite, and are unable to build a team.

6. The Lessons of Engagement.
Engagement is the central factor underlying employee performance in modern business, and it is almost entirely a function of leadership. Senior leadership needs to establish a culture that recognizes, values, and facilitates engagement. First line supervisors and managers need to treat their employees in ways that minimally don’t actively alienate them, and ideally in ways that encourage engagement. But there is no cookie cutter approach to this. Rather, encouraging engagement puts specific demands on individual leaders, who must establish and maintain working relationships with their employees, one employee at a time. Some people are better able to do this than others, such people can be identified by their personality signature, and to the degree that organizations value ROI, they will pay attention to this research-based conclusion.

— Dr. Robert Hogan

A small number of psychologists, economists, and management theorists have been enthusiastically trying to determine how modern evolutionary theory can be used to understand the dynamics of organizations. Traditional evolutionary theory—the survival of the fittest model—supports selfishness, predatory capitalism, and the importance of individual self-interest. However, some economists have begun to test people using variants of competitive games (of which the Prisoner’s Dilemma is the best known). This research has led to two important findings.

First, the strategies that people use in these competitive bargaining games fall into three robust and replicable categories. About 15% of every population consists of altruists—people whose first instinct is to cooperate, to extend benefits to others, to work for the common good. About 20% of every population consists of free riders—people whose first instinct is to take advantage of other people, act selfishly, and contribute nothing to the common good. And finally, about 65% of every population consists of people who tailor their actions to those of the other person—they will cooperate when others cooperate, and compete when others compete. Second, these data show quite clearly that the selfishness model proposed by traditional evolutionary theory is wrong, it does not characterize the behavior of most people.

The new thinking argues that traditional evolutionary theory needs to be augmented with insights from: (1) multi-level selection; and (2) gene-culture co-evolution theory. Putting the three lines of analysis together tells us that people evolved as group living animals, and that the groups competed with one another for scarce resources. This, in turn, leads to several interesting insights regarding organizational dynamics. The first insight is that the percentages of altruists, free riders/cheaters, and switch hitters described above are about what we should expect to find in any normal population.

The second insight is that people are best understood in terms of their relations to the other members of their groups. Thus, although traditional psychoanalysis and psychology has focused on isolated individuals and how they deal with their private demons, this has been a big mistake because what is inside, in people’s psyches, started outside in their relations with others.

Third, human evolutionary history has designed people so that they are pre-programmed in two main ways. On the one hand, they are from birth ready to compete with the other members of their group for status and resources. On the other hand, they will cooperate with the other members of their group when faced with external competition. Thus people live in a state of internal tension and must learn to balance their desires to compete with others against their needs for the support of others.

Fourth, every human group is faced with two unavoidable problems. On the one hand, there is a strong tendency for “leaders” to exploit their groups for their own selfish purposes, and subordinate group members must maintain a watchful eye to avoid being exploited. On the other hand, there is a strong tendency for the members of any one group to begin fighting with their neighboring groups. Thus, organizations that are composed of several groups will compete with one another based on the degree to which they can persuade their constituent groups to stop the internal fighting. Think, for example, of the two major U.S. political parties.

Finally, then, good leadership is a resource for the group rather than a source of privilege for the leader(s). Good leadership is able to: (1) persuade the subordinate group members that the leadership won’t exploit them; and (2) persuade the subordinate group members to stop fighting with one another and concentrate on the competition.

-- Robert Hogan

A small number of psychologists, economists, and management theorists have been enthusiastically trying to determine how modern evolutionary theory can be used to understand the dynamics of organizations. Traditional evolutionary theory—the survival of the fittest model—supports selfishness, predatory capitalism, and the importance of individual self-interest. However, some economists have begun to test people using variants of competitive games (of which the Prisoner’s Dilemma is the best known). This research has led to two important findings.

First, the strategies that people use in these competitive bargaining games fall into three robust and replicable categories. About 15% of every population consists of altruists—people whose first instinct is to cooperate, to extend benefits to others, to work for the common good. About 20% of every population consists of free riders—people whose first instinct is to take advantage of other people, act selfishly, and contribute nothing to the common good. And finally, about 65% of every population consists of people who tailor their actions to those of the other person—they will cooperate when others cooperate, and compete when others compete. Second, these data show quite clearly that the selfishness model proposed by traditional evolutionary theory is wrong, it does not characterize the behavior of most people.

The new thinking argues that traditional evolutionary theory needs to be augmented with insights from: (1) multi-level selection; and (2) gene-culture co-evolution theory. Putting the three lines of analysis together tells us that people evolved as group living animals, and that the groups competed with one another for scarce resources. This, in turn, leads to several interesting insights regarding organizational dynamics. The first insight is that the percentages of altruists, free riders/cheaters, and switch hitters described above are about what we should expect to find in any normal population.

The second insight is that people are best understood in terms of their relations to the other members of their groups. Thus, although traditional psychoanalysis and psychology has focused on isolated individuals and how they deal with their private demons, this has been a big mistake because what is inside, in people’s psyches, started outside in their relations with others.

Third, human evolutionary history has designed people so that they are pre-programmed in two main ways. On the one hand, they are from birth ready to compete with the other members of their group for status and resources. On the other hand, they will cooperate with the other members of their group when faced with external competition. Thus people live in a state of internal tension and must learn to balance their desires to compete with others against their needs for the support of others.

Fourth, every human group is faced with two unavoidable problems. On the one hand, there is a strong tendency for “leaders” to exploit their groups for their own selfish purposes, and subordinate group members must maintain a watchful eye to avoid being exploited. On the other hand, there is a strong tendency for the members of any one group to begin fighting with their neighboring groups. Thus, organizations that are composed of several groups will compete with one another based on the degree to which they can persuade their constituent groups to stop the internal fighting. Think, for example, of the two major U.S. political parties.

Finally, then, good leadership is a resource for the group rather than a source of privilege for the leader(s). Good leadership is able to: (1) persuade the subordinate group members that the leadership won’t exploit them; and (2) persuade the subordinate group members to stop fighting with one another and concentrate on the competition.

— Robert Hogan