The discipline of leadership is highly romanticized (Meindl, 1985). In particular, the popular press sensationalizes leaders by assigning them heroic qualities and crediting them with herculean feats of success. Common observation, however, suggests great people are almost always bad people (Acton, 1887) and that power is abused with surprising regularity (Kellerman, 2004). A relatively new wave of leadership research has exposed this phenomenon under a variety of banners, including petty tyranny, destructive leadership, and managerial derailment. Abusive supervision is one such area that focuses on the hostile actions perpetuated by a supervisor against their subordinates.

Although abusive supervision is a relatively low base-rate phenomenon (Tepper, Duffy, Henle, & Lambert, 2006), the annual damages it perpetuates in terms of health, productivity, retaliation, and employee withdrawal has been estimated to exceed $20 billion (Tepper, 2007). Clearly, the reduction of such behavior would greatly benefit followers and firms alike. While an impressive literature has been amassed on the consequences of abusive supervision (see Schyns & Schilling, 2013), relatively less empirical work has addressed why leaders – intentionally or otherwise – engage in subordinate mistreatment. At the time of his major review, Tepper (2007) noted only three studies on the antecedents of abuse, leading to calls for future research into its origins. Recognizing the likelihood abusive supervision is a multilevel and dynamic phenomenon, the goal of the current symposium is to address this question from a variety of vantage points, including leader characteristics, leader self-concepts, and environmental forces. Our ultimate aim is to help guide future research into this burgeoning arena.

The first study revisits the “great man,” or, in this case, “terrible man,” approach to leadership by pitting the normative side of personality (the Big Five) against its darker or maladaptive counterparts. Further, as a new trait model, Simonet, Bolen, and Nei argue derailing tendencies (as assessed by the Hogan Developmental Survey, HDS), owing to their interpersonally dysfunctional nature, should incrementally predict an abusive proxy above and beyond normative trait models. Using sequential logistic regressions and dominance analyses, they find multiple dysfunctional tendencies (e.g., excitable, cautious, leisurely, dutiful) increase the likelihood of classifying a supervisor as being too forceful and insensitive in their leadership style. Limitations are stressed and implications discussed.

Next, adopting a person-situation interactional approach, Schilling and Schyns provide a more likely portrayal of how supervisors’ dark side traits express themselves in harmful ways. Specifically, they found a main effect for Machiavellianism predicting abusive supervision. This finding was moderated by stress indicating Machiavellianism is less predictive of abusive supervision under high stress situations. They also found a main effect for narcissism predicting abusive supervision. This finding was moderated by procedural justice indicating that narcissism is more predictive of abusive supervision under low procedural justice situations.  Collectively, findings suggest self-interested persons are more likely to mistreat subordinates, a tendency which is exacerbated by unfair procedures and potentially, at least for Machiavellian individuals, mitigated by stress.             

The final panelist considers an array of macro-environmental factors which, to date, are woefully underrepresented in contemporary studies of abusive supervision. Using an ecological framework, Mulvey further develops the model of abusive supervision by considering the contextual factors of instability, perceived threat, cultural values, and an absence of checks and balances. Mulvey argues that this perspective allows for a richer and more useful set of research questions and conclusions. As such, this paper highlights the limitations of a purely behavioral perspective providing a contrast to the other papers.

This symposium will be held Thursday, May 15.

References available

The discipline of leadership is highly romanticized (Meindl, 1985). In particular, the popular press sensationalizes leaders by assigning them heroic qualities and crediting them with herculean feats of success. Common observation, however, suggests great people are almost always bad people (Acton, 1887) and that power is abused with surprising regularity (Kellerman, 2004). A relatively new wave of leadership research has exposed this phenomenon under a variety of banners, including petty tyranny, destructive leadership, and managerial derailment. Abusive supervision is one such area that focuses on the hostile actions perpetuated by a supervisor against their subordinates.

Although abusive supervision is a relatively low base-rate phenomenon (Tepper, Duffy, Henle, & Lambert, 2006), the annual damages it perpetuates in terms of health, productivity, retaliation, and employee withdrawal has been estimated to exceed $20 billion (Tepper, 2007). Clearly, the reduction of such behavior would greatly benefit followers and firms alike. While an impressive literature has been amassed on the consequences of abusive supervision (see Schyns & Schilling, 2013), relatively less empirical work has addressed why leaders – intentionally or otherwise – engage in subordinate mistreatment. At the time of his major review, Tepper (2007) noted only three studies on the antecedents of abuse, leading to calls for future research into its origins. Recognizing the likelihood abusive supervision is a multilevel and dynamic phenomenon, the goal of the current symposium is to address this question from a variety of vantage points, including leader characteristics, leader self-concepts, and environmental forces. Our ultimate aim is to help guide future research into this burgeoning arena.

The first study revisits the “great man,” or, in this case, “terrible man,” approach to leadership by pitting the normative side of personality (the Big Five) against its darker or maladaptive counterparts. Further, as a new trait model, Simonet, Bolen, and Nei argue derailing tendencies (as assessed by the Hogan Developmental Survey, HDS), owing to their interpersonally dysfunctional nature, should incrementally predict an abusive proxy above and beyond normative trait models. Using sequential logistic regressions and dominance analyses, they find multiple dysfunctional tendencies (e.g., excitable, cautious, leisurely, dutiful) increase the likelihood of classifying a supervisor as being too forceful and insensitive in their leadership style. Limitations are stressed and implications discussed.

Next, adopting a person-situation interactional approach, Schilling and Schyns provide a more likely portrayal of how supervisors’ dark side traits express themselves in harmful ways. Specifically, they found a main effect for Machiavellianism predicting abusive supervision. This finding was moderated by stress indicating Machiavellianism is less predictive of abusive supervision under high stress situations. They also found a main effect for narcissism predicting abusive supervision. This finding was moderated by procedural justice indicating that narcissism is more predictive of abusive supervision under low procedural justice situations.  Collectively, findings suggest self-interested persons are more likely to mistreat subordinates, a tendency which is exacerbated by unfair procedures and potentially, at least for Machiavellian individuals, mitigated by stress.

The final panelist considers an array of macro-environmental factors which, to date, are woefully underrepresented in contemporary studies of abusive supervision. Using an ecological framework, Mulvey further develops the model of abusive supervision by considering the contextual factors of instability, perceived threat, cultural values, and an absence of checks and balances. Mulvey argues that this perspective allows for a richer and more useful set of research questions and conclusions. As such, this paper highlights the limitations of a purely behavioral perspective providing a contrast to the other papers.

This symposium will be held Thursday, May 15.

References available

Ever heard that phrase “fake it until you make it”? In his latest book, Confidence, Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic advises that “when you are competent, fake modesty. When you are not, fake competence. And if you cannot fake competence, then try to fake confidence.” 

While the narcissistic attitude that goes hand in hand with charm and enthusiasm can be a handy asset for promotion, it has its downsides. People with narcissistic tendencies are likely to be impulsive, unrealistic in evaluating their abilities, pigheaded, and entitled, to name a few.

In a recent online trend, humble CEOs are being lauded for their superior leadership styles and healthy organizations. Learn more about the perfect balance of hubris and humility in the workplace.

Recently, I had the opportunity to attend a Conference Board event in New York City which focused heavily on talent management strategy, and many of the sessions were insightful. A presentation by Korn/Ferry covered a hot topic in the talent management circles these days – learning agility. As defined by Korn/Ferry, learning agility is a professional’s ability and willingness to learn from experience, and subsequently apply that learning to perform successfully under new or first-time conditions. Agile learners possess innate tendencies that position them for success in leadership role. Professionals with high learning agility are described as people who...

• Continuously seek new challenges
• Solicit direct feedback
• Self-reflect
• Think critically in first-time situations
• Work well with all kinds of people
• Thrive on change

Korn/Ferry measures learning agility through an assessment, and participants are scored on 5 dimensions: Self-awareness, Mental Agility, People Agility, Change Agility, and Results Agility. Although Hogan does not have a separate assessment to measure Learning Agility and its 5 dimensions, I do think a savvy Hogan interpreter can find intuitive connections between the 5 learning agility dimensions and Hogan’s HPI scales. I’ll save a full mapping Hogan to learning agility for another blog post.

In my opinion, Korn/Ferry’s philosophy is solid and makes intuitive sense, but is slightly flawed. Is there such a thing as the dark side of learning agility? Here at Hogan, we think too much of a good thing can derail one’s career. This can be especially true of agile learners, who constantly seek new knowledge in several areas. Although they take initiative, possess a broad-range of knowledge, and are generally curious people, they might also be described as arrogant or know-it-alls. Perhaps the agile learner is willing to apply only his knowledge or ideas, which can create a reputation of being difficult to work with and stubborn. I believe too much learning agility can derail an agile learner’s career. Have you ever met someone who seems to know everything about everything? Has anyone observed a derailing, agile learner?

Recently, I had the opportunity to attend a Conference Board event in New York City which focused heavily on talent management strategy, and many of the sessions were insightful. A presentation by Korn/Ferry covered a hot topic in the talent management circles these days – learning agility. As defined by Korn/Ferry, learning agility is a professional’s ability and willingness to learn from experience, and subsequently apply that learning to perform successfully under new or first-time conditions. Agile learners possess innate tendencies that position them for success in leadership role. Professionals with high learning agility are described as people who…

• Continuously seek new challenges
• Solicit direct feedback
• Self-reflect
• Think critically in first-time situations
• Work well with all kinds of people
• Thrive on change

Korn/Ferry measures learning agility through an assessment, and participants are scored on 5 dimensions: Self-awareness, Mental Agility, People Agility, Change Agility, and Results Agility. Although Hogan does not have a separate assessment to measure Learning Agility and its 5 dimensions, I do think a savvy Hogan interpreter can find intuitive connections between the 5 learning agility dimensions and Hogan’s HPI scales. I’ll save a full mapping Hogan to learning agility for another blog post.

In my opinion, Korn/Ferry’s philosophy is solid and makes intuitive sense, but is slightly flawed. Is there such a thing as the dark side of learning agility? Here at Hogan, we think too much of a good thing can derail one’s career. This can be especially true of agile learners, who constantly seek new knowledge in several areas. Although they take initiative, possess a broad-range of knowledge, and are generally curious people, they might also be described as arrogant or know-it-alls. Perhaps the agile learner is willing to apply only his knowledge or ideas, which can create a reputation of being difficult to work with and stubborn. I believe too much learning agility can derail an agile learner’s career. Have you ever met someone who seems to know everything about everything? Has anyone observed a derailing, agile learner?

We’ve talked about the good aspects of being a narcissist, especially when climbing the corporate ladder, but what about humility? When placed side-by-side, the two qualities bring to mind arch nemeses – hubris, the ever-charming yet self-absorbed compatriot, and humility, the soft-spoken, humble negotiator.

While narcissists’ secret power is their compelling charisma which masks their weaknesses, the humble wield an arguably even greater power – the power of modesty.

People with low self-confidence and ambition constantly evaluate their weaknesses and work tirelessly to improve while individuals with narcissistic tendencies tend to listen to positive feedback and ignore the negative.

Jim Collins, a leading authority on management and author of Good to Great, spent more than 30 years investigating why certain organizations are more successful than others. Collins found that companies led by modest managers consistently outperformed their competitors, and tended to be the dominant players in their sectors. He also found that humble leaders tended to stay at their organizations longer than their arrogant counterparts, and that their companies continue to perform well even after they leave because humble leaders often ensure a succession plan before they depart.

Learn more about the secret powers of both narcissistic and humble leaders and judge for yourself which side you’re on in our ebook Hubris or Humility?

We’ve talked about the good aspects of being a narcissist, especially when climbing the corporate ladder, but what about humility? When placed side-by-side, the two qualities bring to mind arch nemeses – hubris, the ever-charming yet self-absorbed compatriot, and humility, the soft-spoken, humble negotiator.

While narcissists’ secret power is their compelling charisma which masks their weaknesses, the humble wield an arguably even greater power – the power of modesty.

People with low self-confidence and ambition constantly evaluate their weaknesses and work tirelessly to improve while individuals with narcissistic tendencies tend to listen to positive feedback and ignore the negative.

Jim Collins, a leading authority on management and author of Good to Great, spent more than 30 years investigating why certain organizations are more successful than others. Collins found that companies led by modest managers consistently outperformed their competitors, and tended to be the dominant players in their sectors. He also found that humble leaders tended to stay at their organizations longer than their arrogant counterparts, and that their companies continue to perform well even after they leave because humble leaders often ensure a succession plan before they depart.

[Spoiler Alert – This will pretty much ruin The LEGO Movie for you if you haven’t seen it]

I love LEGOs, so when two of my kids wanted to see The LEGO Movie I happily took them. In the movie, the wizard Vitruvius protects a superweapon known as the Kragle from the evil Lord Business. When Lord Business steals the Kragle, the wizard prophesizes that the Special will arise and find the Piece of Resistance to destroy the Kragle and Lord Business’s evil plans.

Enter Emmet, an ordinary construction figure who always follows the instructions and builds things by the book. He’s far from special, but when he stumbles upon the Piece of Resistance he is thrust into leadership over a rebel group of creative Master Builders. They tell Emmet of a time when characters from all playsets worked together to build hodgepodge worlds and adventures. Confused and angered by this chaos, Lord Business built walls to separate the worlds. He now intends to use the Kragle to freeze the world in this ordered state.

We eventually learn that the story is playing out in the imagination of a boy playing with prized sets belonging to his father, a micro-managing businessman. The playsets are separated by walls, and signs reading “Hands Off” or “Do Not Touch” warn others not to play. The father chastises his son for combining characters and playsets, starts to use Krazy Glue to permanently set the pieces, but notices his son’s work and asks him about it. The father is shocked to learn that he is the antagonist in his own son’s struggle to play freely. His eyes now opened to his suffocation of his son’s creativity, the father relinquishes control and lets his son lead the way as they play together.

Snuggling with my kids, I was overtaken by the allergens floating around the theater’s air-conditioning, as well as the movie’s message. All too often we micro-manage others instead of allowing them to explore their own way. As an admitted control freak, I struggle with this as a parent. But the more I considered things, the more I thought that The LEGO Movie applies not only to parenting, but also to how business can kill innovation.

Think about it. Are your organization’s leaders solely focused on doing things by the book? Do they think that combining things in new ways ruins them? Do they build walls or otherwise separate people? Do they micro-manage? Worst of all, have they said “That’s the way we’ve always done it”?

If you answered “yes” to more than a few of those questions, you may work for Lord Business. But the good news is you can be Emmet. Not everyone is creative, but creativity can come from almost anywhere. So throw out the Krazy Glue, grab some nail polish remover, and unglue your bricks at work.  Break them apart from how they should be and see if you can make something better. Make a mess and don’t be afraid to fail. Toss out the instructions. See if someone on the other side of the wall wants to play. You may be able to create something really innovative if you’re not afraid to put your pieces together in a new way or combine your pieces with someone else’s.

But…when you’re done innovating at work, go home. Put your things down. Resist that urge to pick up your iPad or turn on the TV. If you’ve got young kids, get down on the floor and play with them. Let them lead. If your kids are older or if you don’t have any kids, no worries. LEGOs are awesome for grown-ups, too.

[Spoiler Alert – This will pretty much ruin The LEGO Movie for you if you haven’t seen it]

I love LEGOs, so when two of my kids wanted to see The LEGO Movie I happily took them. In the movie, the wizard Vitruvius protects a superweapon known as the Kragle from the evil Lord Business. When Lord Business steals the Kragle, the wizard prophesizes that the Special will arise and find the Piece of Resistance to destroy the Kragle and Lord Business’s evil plans.

Enter Emmet, an ordinary construction figure who always follows the instructions and builds things by the book. He’s far from special, but when he stumbles upon the Piece of Resistance he is thrust into leadership over a rebel group of creative Master Builders. They tell Emmet of a time when characters from all playsets worked together to build hodgepodge worlds and adventures. Confused and angered by this chaos, Lord Business built walls to separate the worlds. He now intends to use the Kragle to freeze the world in this ordered state.

We eventually learn that the story is playing out in the imagination of a boy playing with prized sets belonging to his father, a micro-managing businessman. The playsets are separated by walls, and signs reading “Hands Off” or “Do Not Touch” warn others not to play. The father chastises his son for combining characters and playsets, starts to use Krazy Glue to permanently set the pieces, but notices his son’s work and asks him about it. The father is shocked to learn that he is the antagonist in his own son’s struggle to play freely. His eyes now opened to his suffocation of his son’s creativity, the father relinquishes control and lets his son lead the way as they play together.

Snuggling with my kids, I was overtaken by the allergens floating around the theater’s air-conditioning, as well as the movie’s message. All too often we micro-manage others instead of allowing them to explore their own way. As an admitted control freak, I struggle with this as a parent. But the more I considered things, the more I thought that The LEGO Movie applies not only to parenting, but also to how business can kill innovation.

Think about it. Are your organization’s leaders solely focused on doing things by the book? Do they think that combining things in new ways ruins them? Do they build walls or otherwise separate people? Do they micro-manage? Worst of all, have they said “That’s the way we’ve always done it”?

If you answered “yes” to more than a few of those questions, you may work for Lord Business. But the good news is you can be Emmet. Not everyone is creative, but creativity can come from almost anywhere. So throw out the Krazy Glue, grab some nail polish remover, and unglue your bricks at work.  Break them apart from how they should be and see if you can make something better. Make a mess and don’t be afraid to fail. Toss out the instructions. See if someone on the other side of the wall wants to play. You may be able to create something really innovative if you’re not afraid to put your pieces together in a new way or combine your pieces with someone else’s.

But…when you’re done innovating at work, go home. Put your things down. Resist that urge to pick up your iPad or turn on the TV. If you’ve got young kids, get down on the floor and play with them. Let them lead. If your kids are older or if you don’t have any kids, no worries. LEGOs are awesome for grown-ups, too.

Everyone has made a bad hire. In fact, research shows that more than half of new employees fail. In the third installment of our new video series “Drinks with Hogan”, Global Alliances Consultant Dustin Hunter briefly walks us through using personality assessments in a selection context.