With four and a half months left in the year, you still have time to get Hogan Certified in the US in 2018. Hogan’s certification and learning programs will equip you to leverage Hogan’s powerful assessment tools to solve critical business problems. Whether you want to select high performers, develop your high potentials, coach executives, or build stronger teams, the first step is to become Hogan Certified.

Hogan offers both Level 1 and Level 2 Workshops.

The 2-day Level 1 Workshop provides and in-depth understanding of how to use and interpret the Hogan Assessment Suite, offering a comprehensive tutorial of three Hogan inventories – Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI); Hogan Development Survey (HDS); and the Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI). Participants attending both days and successfully completing the Level 1 curriculum will be certified to use and interpret the Hogan inventories.

The 1-day Level 2 Workshop prepares the learner to apply more advanced feedback models, properly set the frame for a Hogan feedback session, create developmental action plans, and understand best practices for presenting Hogan data.

Insights acquired during Level 1 and Level 2 Workshops will challenge and change the way you think about human nature, leadership, and performance. Outlined below is a detailed schedule of all remaining Hogan Certification Workshops across the US in 2018:

Level 1 Workshops

Chicago, IL – August 28-29

Minneapolis, MN – September 18-19

Atlanta, GA – October 2-3

Chicago, IL – October 16-17

Washington, DC – October 23-24

Tulsa, OK – November 6-7

San Antonio, TX – November 8-9

Boston, MA – December 4-5

Portland, OR – December 4-5

Atlanta, GA – December 11-12

Level 2 Workshops

Minneapolis, MN – September 20

Portland, OR – September 20

Atlanta, GA – October 4

Tulsa, OK – November 8

Portland, OR – December 6

Atlanta, GA – December 13

Register for a workshop today at www.hogancertification.com.

*This is a guest post authored by Rob Field, Learning and Development Director at Advanced People Strategies.

Every business I know is working to measure engagement. After all, the difference between good and great lies in discretionary effort. Drive higher engagement and get better results. What could be simpler?

How to make it happen and where the responsibility lies is an interesting question. Often measured, evaluated, and benchmarked each year by HR through surveys – real ownership belongs to the line manager who can create a working climate where people enjoy contributing and feel valued. You can put anything you like on the walls about the corporate culture and ‘how we work around here’, however, it only becomes a reality through interactions managers have with their teams and how individual team members treat each other. That sets the culture, which determines the level of engagement.

We become engaged by what is important to us. Our values and motives, the things that drive us to act in particular ways. All of this can be measured, accurately. Supporting managers to understand their motives and values as part of their ongoing development is critical to their effectiveness as leaders.

This is not about pandering to individual team members and being over accommodating. It is about how work is presented, how team members are brought into discussions, and spotting the opportunities to use not only the talents of individuals but the underlying motivations as well.

A simple example. In Hogan assessments terms; a leader who is low on recognition may not be driven to be seen nor want the plaudits of others. Sure, they may be happy to receive some recognition, but they won’t go out of their way to attract it. They may prefer to just get on with things. The organisation may even prefer that as they are not seen as needing too much attention. The climate they may unconsciously create for their teams could be one where contributions go unnoticed or assumed. The assumption is more likely that people work for the intrinsic reward of doing a good job. They will probably provide few rewards and praise only superior performance. This is not about being judgemental but consider the impact if you are motivated and engaged by being recognized and looking for high visibility pieces of work by which to do so. After all – do you not want people to repeat skills and behaviours that lead to great results and confidence?

The same applies to affiliation, having predictability and order, financials, aesthetics, and other areas that could be important to individuals. These could be the things that attracted them to the job and the organisation in the first place.

The ability to weave these important aspects into how leaders increase their effectiveness is essential to driving ongoing success and building high performing teams. Raising the awareness from the start.

Perhaps we should include this in the objectives of managers and ensure they focus some attention on it. The difference would be worth the effort.

*Photo by rawpixel on Unsplash.

A few years ago, as I was standing in the bookstore, I heard someone on the radio talk about a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) showing that a computer algorithm, relying only on the things you “like” on Facebook, makes more accurate judgments of your personality than your friends. If you heard about this study, it might have made you feel a bit squeamish. Maybe it even made you want to delete your Facebook account. In the wake of Cambridge Analytica, it is certainly reasonable to wonder just how much big data companies (like Facebook, Google, Verizon, or Visa) know about you. Having personally reviewed this study before it was published, I was not quite so concerned. Let me explain.

The study itself showed that aggregated Facebook likes (i.e., the things that you like on Facebook) can be used to predict self-reports on a personality test. Further, when the total number of likes is large enough, the aggregated likes show a stronger relationship with self-reported personality than reports from your friends, family, spouse, or colleagues. This was widely reported to indicate that computers make better personality judgments than humans. I have three problems with this conclusion.

1) The data show that self-other agreement with human judges was about r = .49, while self-other agreement with computer-based judgments was about r = .56. In real-world terms, what these numbers mean is that if you judge yourself to be above average (the median) on a trait, your friends are likely to guess that you are above average 74.5% of the time, while the computer algorithm guesses correctly 78% of the time. This is a real difference, so I don’t want to downplay it, but it is important not to oversell it either.

2) One of the most interesting findings from this paper was the fact that both aggregated Facebook likes AND peer judgments of personality predicted self-reports of personality largely independently of each other. Average self-other agreement with human judgments was r = .42 when controlling for computer judgments. Likewise, average self-other agreement with computer judgments was r = .38 when controlling for human judgments. Both the computer algorithm and human judgments were related to different parts of self-reports. That is, peer-judgments of you and like-based judgments of you did not overlap very much.

3) Although the reports made it sound as if computers have some sort of knowledge that we do not, this is of course not true. The computer-based algorithm for making personality judgments is based entirely on the person’s behavior. That is, “Liking” something on Facebook is a behavior. The computer is taking the sum total of those behaviors and using them as a basis for “judgment.” Critically, these behaviors came from the person whose personality is being judged. Thus, one could argue that the computer judgments are merely linking self-reports of behavior or preferences (e.g., I like Starbucks) with self-reports of personality. In other words, the paper showed that how you describe your own personality is related to the things that you like. When you put it like that, it does not sound nearly as disconcerting.

I don’t mean to denigrate the study here. It was an interesting and well-conducted study on personality assessment. Still, what would be more interesting is the knowing the degree to which aggregates of Facebook likes predict (a) one’s reputation and (b) how one will perform in the workplace. Regarding the former, the data from this study indicate the relationship between Facebook likes and reputation is pretty weak, suggesting that Facebook behavior is mostly about identity, not reputation. Regarding the latter, there appear to be no studies speaking to the question.

*Photo by Michał Kubalczyk on Unsplash.

The existing paradigm in the business world holds that successful CEOs are ambitious, result-oriented, individualistic, and, above all, charismatic. The rise of agency theory, or the notion that incentivizing managers should improve shareholder returns, put greater emphasis on the need to hire leaders that appear leader-like. Unfortunately, conventional wisdom of what a leader looks like is, quite simply, incorrect.

Charisma is a very attractive characteristic in a leader. Yet, when promoted, these individuals create chaos and ruin for their organizations. Humility, rather, is a much better indicator of leadership success. Jim Collins, renowned author of Good to Great, conducted extensive research on organizational success. His work clearly demonstrated that companies led by modest managers consistently outperformed their competitors, and tended to be the dominant players in their sectors. Moreover, humble leaders tend to stay at their organizations longer than their arrogant counterparts, and their companies continue to perform well even after they leave because humble leaders often ensure a succession plan before they depart.

The Problem with Charisma

Organizations tend to be good at identifying people who “look” like leaders. Individuals who seem confident, bright, charismatic, interesting, and politically savvy tend to get earmarked for promotion. Personality assessments show that charismatic leaders rank highly on measurements of self-confidence (Bold), dramatic flair (Colorful), readiness to test the limits (Mischievous), and expansive visionary thinking (Imaginative). These leaders know what it takes to get ahead and get noticed, and they strategically cater to individuals and audiences who can offer them power, influence, status, or access to resources. While these individuals are highly interpersonally savvy and excellent self-promoters, they lack basic leadership and management skills.

Although some charisma can be beneficial, it often leads to lower levels of leadership effectiveness. One possible explanation is that highly charismatic leaders may be more strategically ambitious but less effective at the day-to-day operations. Emergent (read: charismatic) leaders, or individuals who stand out from the crowd, get promoted because they spend their time politicking and networking – trying to please their bosses by managing up rather than being concerned with those working under them.

Emergent leaders also create a culture of competition, ambition, and narcissism. Leaders like people like themselves, so senior leaders are more likely to choose successors who best reflect the status quo. Of course, competition and ambition can be positive qualities in the business world, but not if it comes at the expense of actual hard work.

Humility Breeds Effectiveness

Whereas charismatic leaders tend to focus on personal advancement, humble leaders tend to focus on team performance and guiding their employees. Effective leaders are more modest; they are willing to admit mistakes, share credit, and learn from others. Higher levels of humility also lead to higher rates of employee engagement, more job satisfaction, and lower rates of turnover. To be clear, humility does not imply the absence of ego or ambition. Rather, humble leaders are better able to channel their ambition back into the organization, rather than use it for personal gain.

Humility is broadly defined as 1) self-awareness, 2) appreciating others’ strengths and contribution, and 3) openness to new ideas and feedback regarding one’s performance. Leaders who are humble have a better grasp on organizational needs and make better informed decisions about task performance. They are also better able to ask for help than their charismatic counterparts. What’s more is that humble leaders help to foster a culture of development with their employees by legitimizing learning and personal development. Humility also encourages cultures of openness, trust, and recognition, which are important precursors to success.

Dig Deeper to Identify Humble Leaders

The challenge in hiring and developing strong leaders is in their identification. Charismatic, or highly emergent, leaders easily stand out from the crowd and their likability masks more important characteristics of performance. Humble, and typically more effective, leaders may fly under the radar and be passed over for hiring or promoting. Building selection and development programs that overcome personal biases and focus on objective indicators of success can help identify these low flyers. Organizations can benefit from the use of psychometric testing and 360 evaluation to counteract political factors by developing a data-driven approach that ensures organizations recognize and promote those who will be effective and humble leaders.

This article was originally published in Talent Economy.

Does personality change? This is a question we receive regularly from our clients, along with a lot of hypotheses about when and why scores shift. Answering this seemingly straightforward question actually requires addressing three related questions:

1. How often do scores on assessments change?
2. When scores on assessments change, how large are those changes?
3. Why do scores on assessments sometimes change?

How often do scores on assessments change?

Personality assessments—like the ones we create at Hogan—measure patterns of behavior. Decades of research have demonstrated that personality assessments predict future behavior, including workplace performance. A major reason why personality assessments work so well at predicting future behavior is because personality is quite stable; that is, people do not change very much. For example, in one study elementary school teacher ratings of students’ personalities predicted how those students behaved as adults 40 years later! The best method for quantifying personality stability is the test-retest correlation: you take a test now and we see how well it predicts your scores on the same test in the future. The short term (14-21 day) test-retest correlations for the Hogan Personality Inventory scales range from .69-.87. The long term (8-year) test-retest correlations range from .30-.73. A meta-analysis of 3,217 (7-year) test-retest correlations ranged from .30-.70. The point here is this: personality test scores are highly stable. Thus, most of the time, a person retaking a personality assessment will get very similar results.

When scores on assessments change, how large are those changes?

If you are a careful reader, you will note that “very similar results” is not the same thing as “identical results,” or that the test-retest correlations just described are not perfect. Indeed, even over short intervals, test scores do fluctuate. This is true for all tests, including cognitive ability and even medical tests (e.g., blood pressure, glucose tests, etc.). For Hogan, reassessments typically fall within two raw points of the original assessment. This indicates a small degree of fluctuation, and typically does not change the interpretation of the overall profile.

Why do scores on assessments sometimes change?

Consider the following situation: Your doctor measures your cholesterol levels. After some time has passed, your doctor measures your cholesterol again to discover the result has changed. In this scenario, there are two broad (and obvious) reasons the result changed: (a) something about the measurement process changed and/or (b) your actual cholesterol levels changed. Likewise, for psychological assessments, changes in scores may occur because of measurement-related and/or individual/psychological reasons.

Changes Related to the Measure

Sometimes aspects of the testing and measurement process itself result in score changes upon reassessment. There are three major methodological reasons scores on a psychological assessment might change: (1) imprecision in measurement, (2) changes in forms, and (3) changes in norms.

Imprecision in Measurement. When a doctor measures your cholesterol, he or she is not literally measuring all of the cholesterol in your bloodstream. Only a small sample of your blood is taken, and this sample is assumed to represent all of your bloodstream. Cholesterol in one sample may vary from cholesterol in another sample. Thus, one reason your cholesterol levels might change is because the instruments and procedures employed are imperfect. These imperfections are referred to as measurement errors. On a personality assessment, most people will always mark the item “I like to bend the rules every now and then” as either True or False no matter how many times they are asked. However, for a small group of people, whether they mark True or False to this item may depend on something that has happened to them recently (e.g., watched a movie about prisoners; sped through an intersection). Such imprecision in measurement affects the person’s score on the assessment. The good news is that these measurement errors occur randomly, meaning that the tests are unbiased. Such imperfections are present in all assessments, including medical tests. In developing our assessments, we work to reduce measurement error to the minimum possible. The short-term test-retest correlations reported above indicate that measurement error is quite low for our assessments.

Changes in forms. At Hogan, we believe in Kaizen Psychometrics. This means we work to continually improve our assessments. In doing so, we regularly update our testing instruments with new, better, forms when they are available. Because the new forms are designed to be better, they are not identical to the previous forms. Thus, a person completing an assessment on an earlier form and later taking an assessment on a new form, may receive slightly different scores.

Changes in norms. Because raw scales score can be hard to interpret (e.g., what does a 7 out of 12 mean?), we report normed (percentile) scores for our clients. Our norms are calculated from a stratified sample of millions of assessments completed by test-takers from nearly every job in every sector all over the world. However, in keeping with our commitment to Kaizen Psychometrics, we continually work to update our norms as better or more representative samples become available. As a result, a person completing an assessment scored on a previous norm may receive slightly different scores on a more recent assessment using updated norms.

Changes Related to the Individual

Beyond methodological reasons for change, there are also psychological reasons scores on assessments can change over time related to (a) maturity, (b) major life events, and (c) feedback and coaching.

Maturity. Although personality is relatively stable, personality does change across the lifespan. People become more self-confident, agreeable, conscientious, and more emotionally stable as they age. This pattern of personality development is typical for most people and reflects maturation into adulthood. As a result, such changes in personality are most dramatic for teenagers and young adults (early 20s), with personality becoming more stable with age. Thus, assessments taken over a shorter time span and assessments taken by older adults are less likely to show change.

Major Life Events. Personality can also change due to life events or personal experiences. For example, personality does seem to change in the wake of major life events (e.g., unemployment, marriage, divorce). Likewise, there is some evidence that experience in the military can result in personality change. However, people tend to adapt and return towards their baseline scores shortly after, even when these events are traumatic (such as bereavement) or conversely, positive (such as winning the lottery). Large changes due to major life events are rarely permanent, though small changes may be more lasting. Assessments taken recently after a major life event may show dramatically different results from assessments taken under more normal circumstances. However, in our experience, these results are still accurate at the time of assessment. For example, if a person experiencing a personal trauma scores lower on a scale measuring stress tolerance compared to their baseline, this is often a real and interpretable result. In other words, even though the change in scores may be temporary, they should not be discarded as “inaccurate.”

Assessment Feedback and Coaching. Finally, there is evidence that personality can change as a result of intentional practice and/or expert feedback and coaching. Likewise, effective coaching in business contexts appears to affect personal and organizational outcomes. However, in such cases the change in personality assessment scores tends to be relatively small. Thus, while coaching can be effective, we would expect any changes to manifest in 360° or performance feedback rather than in personality test results. When changes do occur, it is impossible to discern whether this is due to actual developmental growth or due to increased awareness about one’s assessment results (e.g., the person becomes aware of tendency to be arrogant and un- or sub-consciously manipulates assessment responses). These changes can and do occur in both directions: (1) the score becomes more exaggerated or (2) decreases in strength due to heightened awareness.

Summary

Personality is quite stable overall. Changes in scores on re-assessments of personality are rare, usually small, and often due to methodological reasons related to the assessment rather than meaningful psychological reasons specific to the individual. Thus, when a reassessment looks very different from the original result, it is best to verify whether these differences are driven by methodological reasons first (changes in forms or norms). Although less common, assessment results may change due to psychological factors (maturation, life events, or intentional efforts). However, such changes usually are not very large or meaningful, and are difficult to interpret.

Want to learn more about personality tests? Check out The Ultimate Guide to Personality Tests

*This post was co-authored by Hogan’s Chief Science Officer, Ryne Sherman, and Hogan’s Director of Global Learning, Jackie VanBroekhoven Sahm.

The demanding nature of today’s globalized markets has forced organizations to be ever reliant on teams for breakthrough solutions that keep them ahead of the competition. While effective teamwork is still necessary for success, today’s teams face far bigger obstacles than teams of the past.

Stumbling blocks of late include the modern team’s makeup, which is usually arranged to flex with the continuously evolving business landscape: they tend to be more diverse, operate in a digital environment, and are increasingly dynamic. Perhaps these challenges are behind the alarming statistic that only 1 in 5 teams are considered high performing!

Dr. Gordon Curphy, famed author of The Rocket Model, will guest-host this upcoming webinar, brought to you by Hogan’s Solutions Partner Team. Dr. Curphy will be discussing the elements of team effectiveness, pitfalls to avoid, and how a consultant can use the Team Assessment Survey in conjunction with individuals’ Hogan results to help struggling teams of the Fortune 500 get back on track. More specifically, we review how to effectively deploy and utilize these metrics in the following talent management initiatives:

• Team off-site facilitation
• Leadership coaching & development
• Succession planning

As always, supportive data, practical take-aways, and tales of success will be in abundance! You will also learn about your chance to register for the next TAS Workshop in Chicago on September 12-13.

To Attend the Webinar:

Team Effectiveness: Moving Target or Continuous Journey?
Thursday, August 23, 2018
11:00 am | Central Daylight Time (Chicago, GMT-05:00) | 1 hr
Meeting number: 801 666 213

Join by Phone:
Call-in toll-free number: 1-678-981-8487 (US)
Call-in number: 1-866-505-4014 (US)
Show global numbers
Conference Code: 696 085 8362

Hogan is proud to officially announce the addition of RELEVANT Management Consulting to the Hogan International Distributor Network. Hogan has an intense focus for helping individuals, teams, and companies across the globe be the best they can be, and we are so happy to have RELEVANT improving our reach throughout Europe and beyond.

Leading this charge is RELEVANT owner, Dr.René Kusch, a renowned psychologist that is known for being a go-to Hogan Expert in German-speaking countries. Dr. Kusch has been working with Hogan Assessments since 2008 and is also a member of the global Hogan Coaching Network. He exemplifies the hardworking, but still hedonistic spirit of Hogan with his workplace mantra of “Relevance arises where goal-orientation, effectiveness, and fun come together.”

Together with Sarah Asskamp, Head of Operations, and their 10 consultants, RELEVANT consults global German organizations, but also supports consultancies, coaches, and trainers to develop, offer, and implement solutions for their own customers. Additionally, RELEVANT has already been working with other Hogan partners, distributors, and clients from all over the world for many years.

“Their contributions and experience have led to the implementation and execution of a wide range of projects,” said Dustin Hunter, Hogan’s Practice Manager of the Hogan International Distributor Network. “I’m proud of our team’s hard work in securing more world-class distributors like RELEVANT every year. It’s incredible to know that we are making a huge difference for companies all over the world from our global headquarters in Tulsa, Oklahoma.”

RELEVANT is also extending Hogan’s collaboration with the International Coach Federation with the German Chapter and together we are sponsoring the first German Prism award for a coaching program with outstanding effectiveness and sustainability.

In addition to providing consulting services that leverage the predictive power of Hogan’s assessments for individuals and teams, RELEVANT also facilitates Hogan Certification Workshops throughout Germany, with 10 already scheduled from September 2018 to July 2019.

Sarah Asskamp, who directs the training program, says: “The impact we can have on the European workforce is far greater if we are able to educate and train HR practitioners, talent management professionals,coaches, consultants, and trainers to implement Hogan’s assessments.”

Kusch agrees: “As the saying goes, ‘give a man a fish, he eats for a day; teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime.’”

For more information about RELEVANT Management Consulting, visit http://www.relevantmanagementconsulting.com/hogan/.

*This interview was originally published in Business Class Magazin – this is the translation of the Hungarian text. The original version can be found here.

We met Dr. Robert Hogan at the Four Seasons Budapest. He is an American psychologist and the founder of Hogan Assessments who has institutionalized the use of personality assessments for the enhancement of work performance, and whose organization serves more than half of the Fortune 500 companies. He visited Budapest for the “Future of Coaching in Organisations” international conference organized in April, and he took some time to meet us for a glass of Chardonnay.

Please summarize briefly the principles and main elements of the personality test which you have developed, and which is used so widely in the business world.

People who have power make decisions every day that affect those who have less power. They hire, promote or fire them. These decisions are usually based on work interviews with them, but this is the worst possible way to make a decision that has such an effect on a person’s life. My aim was to make employee evaluations – firings, promotions, hiring interviews – that is, the whole decision-making process – rational and empirical. So, I based it on defensible, scientific foundations. Over the years, we have built up a serious database – based on this we can demonstrate that if business leaders listen to us, they will make better decisions regarding their employees. And why is this important? The keys to success in business are money and people. Managers generally make rational decisions when comes to money, so why wouldn’t they want to make rational decisions when it comes to people?

Do you think it’s important for a good leader to have psychological or coaching experience?

It’s a good question. My views are based on scientific research and data. These data show that good leaders need to possess four attributes. They have to be honest – it’s important that they have a moral compass, so you don’t end up with liars, thieves or frauds. They shouldn’t make duplicitous decisions behind the backs of others. If they are not honest, then they will fail. For example, Bill Clinton was a liar, that’s why nobody was loyal to him in his government. The second requirement is to be competent – they have to know what to do and how they should do it. If you are always the boss, people turn to you for advice. If you don’t know what you are talking about, then you can’t give good advice, which has immediate consequences. For example, Barack Obama never led anything, he wasn’t ever the boss of anything, and so he failed.

Do you think he failed?

Yes, I think so, namely because he didn’t know what he was doing.

He was elected twice.

The reason behind this is the quality of his rivals. Many people don’t like Donald Trump, but what was the alternative?

Honesty and competence. Which other attributes are necessary?

The third is whether you are capable of making good decisions, or if you made a mistake, to admit it and fix it. Evidence shows that 50 percent of business decisions are bad. So you can’t always arrive at good decisions. The key to good judgement is to realize if you’ve made a bad decision, and to be able to fix it. Let me mention one more politician as an example, George W. Bush and the invasion of Iraq – which was a bad idea. Then, Bush raised the stakes and he didn’t leave the area. Bad decisions ruin the organisation, whether it’s a corporation or a political body. In the end, it’s important whether you have vision, whether you can explain why you are doing what you are doing, or what your objective is from which others can set their own. These are the four indispensable tools of a leader. Things like having to be kind to others are not among these. Meanwhile, I think a good leader has to be humble as well; he or she has to listen to the opinions of others. It’s important for him or her to be open, and it’s just as important that when he or she delegates a task to someone, he or she has confidence in that person. At the same time, a good leader is also a good manipulator – it doesn’t necessarily mean that he or she has to understand people, he or she just has to persuade them to follow him or her. To bring up another presidential example: although Ronald Reagan was an excellent manipulator, he couldn’t be truly appreciated because all his other attributes were imperfect.

They were politicians?

Exactly.

Aren’t business and political attitudes different? Don’t they require different skills and capabilities?

There are solid arguments which prove that really successful executives are humble and listen to their employees. They listen to feedback. They trust their people and they build teams. This is why Barack Obama failed – he never built a team, never talked to anyone, just sat in his office alone. You have to be able to build a team.

I suppose that you are aware of the highly successful series, “House of Cards” – what is your opinion of Frank Underwood; what kind of leader is the president in that series?

I liked the British version more. The BBC version was top-notch. Frank Underwood is a real leader. Politics are about this, people like him can collect votes, but then what will they add to the whole when they get to the top? I think this is a problem in the business world too: that in the end politicians rise above executives, but they are not experts in anything apart from getting themselves elected. Even campaign slogans are about this: for being able to make a change, they have to be elected first, but what do they actually do after having been elected? They try to remain in power, and for this they just say to the people whatever they want to hear. And this is just a kind of entertainment, nothing more. At the same time, as a corporate leader you have to do something to bring about change, you have to achieve something. An army general or the coach of an athletic team has to achieve victory; it’s not enough for him or her to be popular.

What caused you turn your attention towards the business sphere after leaving university, as a practicing psychologist?

I have always been interested in leadership and the business world. During my university years during the ‘60s and ‘70s, the general view among academics was that the personality of the leader is unimportant. If business was successful, they owed it to luck, not the personality of the leader. But I have never believed this. I had been practicing as an academic for a long time, and when I finally received my pay check, I started asking myself about the way ahead. Academic salaries are poor, and I didn’t want to live this way; I had to make money somehow. I knew that I was good at psychological evaluations, and that maybe I could profit from this, so I tried to make money from my interest, that is, from studying leaders.

It wasn’t easy to shape the way of thinking, you have been attacked by many.

I have proven with my team that managerial attitude is indeed important. In the 1990s, we proved, scientifically and supported by data, that the role of personality is fundamental in how people perform in the workplace. Then in the beginning of the 2000s we proved that leadership characteristics are also determinants in leading a company to success. And in the middle of the 2000s I published that personality characteristics determine corporate results. It turned out that the successful operation of an organization depends on the formation of personal relationships within the organization. We have proven that if companies listen to us with these questions, they will earn more money, because they will hire more effective people for the corresponding positions.

Which skills do you think helped you to become so successful in your field?

First of all, our team has worked very hard. We do very high-quality work, and we pay attention to what our customers want. We have found the way to promote what we know. One has to work very hard; 90 percent of ventures go bust.  At first,we have had both good and difficult moments, but when you get that first big client, everything comes together immediately. In our case, this big client was the government. We received an order from the American government.

*This article was written by Danielle King and published in Human Resource Executive on June 1, 2018. 

How to Recognize Absentee Leaders. 

A high-performing salesperson knocks his sales goals out of the park every month and consistently brings in new clients while maintaining great internal and external relationships. When a new sales-leadership position opens, his boss suggests that this star performer fill the role. Following a stellar interview, the star performer is now a sales leader. Is this happily ever after?

Not always, says Scott Gregory, CEO of Hogan Assessments. Too often these top performers are promoted into leadership positions for which they aren’t suited, he says.

“What it takes to be a successful salesperson versus a successful sales leader is different,” says Gregory. “Companies fail to recognize that and fail to measure the characteristics required for leadership roles appropriately. These star contributors get promoted but not on the basis that they have talent for a leadership role.”

In the star-performer scenario, you lose the best salesperson and gain a poor manager. It’s not good for the leader who got promoted, his team or the organization, says Gregory.

These types of corporate promotions happen frequently and the characteristics that may have made a stellar salesperson don’t carry over easily into leadership, which can derail both the leader and the company. Many leaders fail because of what Hogan has termed “dark-side” characteristics, or strong and overused personality characteristics that get in the way of productive leadership. Some of the same characteristics that made for a good salesperson, for example, strong self-confidence and independence, may become derailers in a leadership role if the person shows up as overly confident or unwilling to consider others’ perspectives. A good deal is known about identifying dark-side characteristics, and they are relatively obvious in many organizations. Bosses and teams often know when dark-side characteristics are getting in the way of leadership success.

The dark side of leadership is just as worrisome as it sounds. It may suggest a narcissistic, passive-aggressive, emotionally abusive and demanding figure; however, that’s not the only kind of derailed leader, says Gregory. He argues that an even worse leader is one in title only.

“Absentee leaders are neither actively destructive nor constructive, so they tend to get overlooked,” he says. “In organizations, people pay attention to actively destructive, dark-side leaders. People who don’t cause trouble won’t get much air time. They’re invisible. That’s why it doesn’t get talked about.”

Absentee leaders are psychologically absent from their roles—they enjoy the perks and privileges that come with a promotion but shirk any management-related tasks and avoid meaningful involvement with their teams. Though these leaders may fly under the radar, their negative impact on the company is much more pronounced. Gregory says that the most significant impact absentee leaders have on employees is job satisfaction—rather, the lack thereof.

“There are decades of research on how to measure job satisfaction and it’s well known that job satisfaction is highly related to turnover, individual performance, role ambiguity and more,” he says.

In 2015, Interact Authentic Communication conducted a survey of 1,000 U.S. workers to uncover the top complaints about leadership—although not labeled as such, the overwhelming majority of responses were related to absentee leaders. Some of the issues workers cited were that their leaders were not giving clear direction, not recognizing employee achievements, refusing to talk to subordinates and not giving constructive feedback.

Gregory says that on top of decreased job satisfaction, research indicates that there’s an increased risk of bullying within work teams who have an absentee leader and that safety outcomes are compromised when active leadership is lacking.

Employees are left wondering who is in charge, what they should really be doing and to what standards will they be held. This ambiguity often manifests into stress, which is detrimental to both the individual and the organization.

“We know that the conservative estimate of stress in the U.S. workplace is that it costs nearly $30 billion per year, making absentee leadership a costly organizational problem.”

Personality Assessments Highlight the Bright and Dark Sides of Leaders 

Absentee leaders, the silent killers of an organization, are hard to pick out from a crowd. Gregory says people’s dark-side qualities usually don’t appear until they have let their guard down, but are obvious when they appear.  Absentee leadership, by its nature, is detectable only through the vacuum it creates.

This means that absentee leaders may already be settled into their management roles before problems arise. Though no assessment currently exists to pinpoint the exact qualities of an absentee leader, Hogan’s Leadership Forecast Series combines four development-focused reports that paint a clear picture of the good, the bad and the ugly sides of a leader.

Its three flagship assessments, the Hogan Personality Inventory (bright side); Hogan Development Survey (dark side); and Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (inside) offer information regarding the characteristics, competencies and values that underlie ways in which a leader approaches work, leadership and interaction with others in the workplace.

Gregory says that the Hogan Personality Inventory characteristics, or bright side of leadership, show up in a person’s day-to-day behavior and predict performance in a variety of jobs. The Hogan Development Survey highlights dark-side characteristics that appear when someone is stressed, bored or not self-monitoring their behavior. These characteristics don’t show up during interviews because most people are highly self-aware during the interview process. Finally, the Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory measures, as the name suggests, someone’s motivation and values. It answers questions such as: What does this person value? Are those values compatible with an organization’s values? Will he or she be a good fit within this company’s culture?

The Series, and its subsequent self-awareness and development reports, are targeted toward senior- and executive-level leaders. There are four core reports, three of which correspond to the assessments. The fourth can be one of the following: a summary report, which supplies an integration across the other reports; or a coaching report, which is designed to help the individual think holistically about the results and translate them into a development plan.

Gregory cautions that there is not one set of characteristics that pinpoints an absentee leader—yet.

“It may not be a set of dark-side characteristics.It might be the absence of some bright-side characteristics, such as ambition, desire to be in charge or make an impact—things that aren’t overtly destructive unless in their absence,” he says. “It’s something we’re actively researching. It’s clear that absentee-leadership qualities differ from what has been found in overtly dark-side leaders, which are easy to spot based on dark-side characteristics—absentee leadership is more about what’s missing than what’s actively present.”

*Photo by Benjamin Child on Unsplash

The fate of any organization is largely a function of that organization’s leadership. The organization of the United States is no exception to this rule. As such, it is appropriate to understand Donald Trump’s personality and its impact on the function of the United States.

I do not personally know Mr. Trump and I have never had the opportunity to professionally assess his personality (though I’d be happy to do so if he were willing). Thus, my views are based purely on watching his behavior.¹ His personality is captured by his reputation, which is the sum of his behavior, and organized by a standard set of themes as follows.

We can look at two sides of the Personality of Donald Trump. His Bright Side (how he typically behaves when he’s at his best) and his Dark Side (how he behaves when he lets down his guard).

The Personality of Donald Trump

Beginning with the Bright Side we can expect Mr. Trump to be:

Highly Adjusted. Mr. Trump does not appear anxious or nervous. When at his best, he remains calm under pressure, doesn’t break down in the face of criticism, and is quite pleased with himself as a person. The downside is that he is reluctant to listen to feedback — especially negative feedback — from others.

Highly Ambitious. Mr. Trump is competitive, wants to win, and wants to be in charge. He is concerned about results and getting things done. On the downside, he tends to compete with those who are actually on his team and alienate his staff when he does.

Highly Sociable. Mr. Trump likes to entertain, to be the center of attention, and to talk…a lot. The obvious downside is that he can be unwilling to listen, overbearing, and shoot off at the mouth without thinking.

Low on Interpersonal Sensitivity. Mr. Trump is direct, doesn’t shy away from confrontation, or really care much about peoples’ feelings. The upside is that he is willing to let people go when needed (e.g., “You’re Fired”). The downside is that he is hostile and alienates others.

Low on Prudence. Mr. Trump doesn’t care much for rules and tends to avoid them. He is independent minded and has little patience for anyone who might try to order him around. The positive side is that he will be quick to make decisions and to make things happen.

Highly Inquisitive. Mr. Trump has a lot of ideas and a big imagination. He has all sorts of ideas for solving problems, but has difficulty implementing his plans and thinking through the details of their execution.

On the Dark Side we can expect Mr. Trump to be:

Highly Excitable. Mr. Trump is emotional and highly unpredictable. This is most apparent in his Twitter usage where he is prone to sling personal insults and attacks on the media. Such people are difficult to work with because you never know what will set them off and people often have to walk on eggshells around them.

Highly Bold. This is Mr. Trump’s most defining characteristic. He is unusually self-confident, and shows feelings of grandiosity and entitlement. Such individuals tend to make a good first impression, but are difficult to work with because they feel entitled to special treatment, ignore their critics, and intimidate others. As a result, he tends to overestimate his capabilities.

Highly Mischievous. Mr. Trump is charming, interesting, and daring. He enjoys taking risks, pushing the limits, and thrives on excitement. Such people are hard to work with because they are impulsive, downplay their mistakes, take ill-advised risks, and have no regrets.

Highly Colorful. Mr. Trump is quick, fun, and socially skilled. He loves making use of his celebrity and having his accomplishments recognized. He’s very good at calling attention to himself. Such people are hard to work with because they are self-promoting, overcommitted, and easily angered.

Low on Diligence. Mr. Trump is uninterested in the details and execution of plans. Instead, he prefers to put his big ideas forward and leaves others to figure out the details of making them work. As a result, he tends to focus on short-term fixes without considering the long-term consequences.

Low on Dutifulness. Mr. Trump likes to defy the status quo, doesn’t care about pleasing others, and is quick to make decisions. He doesn’t take orders (or advice) from many people (if anyone).

In summary, what we see from Mr. Trump is what we already knew about him. The real-estate mogul and reality TV star is the same person we see as President.

What has this meant for the United States as an organization? First, foreign and domestic policies have been created and acted upon quickly, sometimes without the proper vetting (e.g., US immigration policy; trade tariffs). Second, the US is perceived as aggressive, competitive, and tough, guided by a strong desire to “win,” even at the expense of others (allies and enemies included). Third, the US is perceived as less predictable and unbound by rules and past agreements (e.g., Iran deal). This will result in a lack trust from our allies in the future.

Want to learn more about personality tests? Check out The Ultimate Guide to Personality Tests

¹ Which is the same method everyone else uses. I do have the advantage of being a trained personality psychologist with experience assessing many people. The assessment here compares Mr. Trump to the population in general, not other politicians or political candidates. Many politicians are very similar to Mr. Trump on a number of these characteristics.

*The original version of this article was published by Psychology Today on September 17, 2015, prior to Donald Trump’s election victory in 2016. It has been updated to reflect observations made since he took office.