First, do no harm – a phrase typically associated with the Hippocratic oath medical students take before transitioning into a licensed professional. While nurses and doctors pledge to uphold the highest standard of medical care possible, in corporate healthcare, some aspects of patient safety fall through the cracks.

Nursing and clinical staff face demanding work environments that, when mishandled, can devastate patient care. Long hours, heavy patient loads, and high turnover all contribute to putting patient safety at risk. When it comes to performing in such a high-stakes atmosphere, all applicants are not created equal. Our research shows that there are six personality-based competencies that accurately predict an individual’s ability to perform his or her job safely.

Download our newest safety ebook, First, Do No Harm, to learn what they are and find out how to minimize the risks of patient safety, starting first with your people.

First, do no harm – a phrase typically associated with the Hippocratic oath medical students take before transitioning into a licensed professional. While nurses and doctors pledge to uphold the highest standard of medical care possible, in corporate healthcare, some aspects of patient safety fall through the cracks.

Nursing and clinical staff face demanding work environments that, when mishandled, can devastate patient care. Long hours, heavy patient loads, and high turnover all contribute to putting patient safety at risk. When it comes to performing in such a high-stakes atmosphere, all applicants are not created equal. Our research shows that there are six personality-based competencies that accurately predict an individual’s ability to perform his or her job safely.

Download our newest safety ebook, First, Do No Harm, to learn what they are and find out how to minimize the risks of patient safety, starting first with your people.

Good empirical studies examining coaching and development are always hard to find. But here two from Q1 we thought coaches might enjoy:

• In an effort to determine what influences a client's perception of coaching effectiveness, de Haan et al. examined a number of potential factors using data from over 150 client-coach pairs. They found the perceived quality of the client-coach relationship, or working alliance, was most critical in determining how clients perceive coaching effectiveness.  
• Do you know someone who is dealing with emotional exhaustion or low job satisfaction? If so, research conducted by Hulsheger et al. on the effects of mindfulness might be the answer. In general, employees who are attentive to and accepting of what is going on around them are generally more satisfied with their jobs. The article provides a brief review of and references to additional information concerning mindfulness training.

• Do you need more evidence indicating that delivery method (e.g., paper and pencil v. internet) does not impact results? If so, recent work by Weigold et al. not only supports previous research finding that both methods produce equivalent results, but provides a nice outline of potential problems with studies that have failed to find equivalence.  
• Are you trying to figure out how to increase survey response rates?  Research by Fauth et al. shows you might be up against than you realize. Aside from job satisfaction, several group-level variables, such as work group size, heterogeneity in tenure, and heterogeneity in gender, significantly influence response rates. One positive takeaway is social influences likely matter, so, when trying to increase participation, peer pressure may help.
• On the statistics front, coefficient alpha continues to be the most widely used reliability estimate. For that reason, it is also probably the most widely criticized. Peterson & Kim examined differences between alpha and a popular alternative, composite reliability. Across thousands of estimates, they found that the average estimates from the two approaches differed by only .02. Based on these results, there is no reason to assume that coefficient alpha won’t continue to rain as the king of reliability estimates in I/O Psychology.

Next up, Part 3 of our review will cover a diverse range of articles we thought were worth sharing. And in case you missed it, be sure to check out Part 1 of our review, which summarized articles dealing with a variety of factors that drive performance in organizations. Again, we invite you to provide information relating to any other articles from the first three months of 2013 that we failed to include here.

Good empirical studies examining coaching and development are always hard to find. But here two from Q1 we thought coaches might enjoy:

• In an effort to determine what influences a client’s perception of coaching effectiveness, de Haan et al. examined a number of potential factors using data from over 150 client-coach pairs. They found the perceived quality of the client-coach relationship, or working alliance, was most critical in determining how clients perceive coaching effectiveness.
• Do you know someone who is dealing with emotional exhaustion or low job satisfaction? If so, research conducted by Hulsheger et al. on the effects of mindfulness might be the answer. In general, employees who are attentive to and accepting of what is going on around them are generally more satisfied with their jobs. The article provides a brief review of and references to additional information concerning mindfulness training.

Below are a few recent articles covering topics related to methods and statistics. Enjoy.

• Do you need more evidence indicating that delivery method (e.g., paper and pencil v. internet) does not impact results? If so, recent work by Weigold et al. not only supports previous research finding that both methods produce equivalent results, but provides a nice outline of potential problems with studies that have failed to find equivalence.
• Are you trying to figure out how to increase survey response rates?  Research by Fauth et al. shows you might be up against than you realize. Aside from job satisfaction, several group-level variables, such as work group size, heterogeneity in tenure, and heterogeneity in gender, significantly influence response rates. One positive takeaway is social influences likely matter, so, when trying to increase participation, peer pressure may help.
• On the statistics front, coefficient alpha continues to be the most widely used reliability estimate. For that reason, it is also probably the most widely criticized. Peterson & Kim examined differences between alpha and a popular alternative, composite reliability. Across thousands of estimates, they found that the average estimates from the two approaches differed by only .02. Based on these results, there is no reason to assume that coefficient alpha won’t continue to rain as the king of reliability estimates in I/O Psychology.

Next up, Part 3 of our review will cover a diverse range of articles we thought were worth sharing. And in case you missed it, be sure to check out Part 1 of our review, which summarized articles dealing with a variety of factors that drive performance in organizations. Again, we invite you to provide information relating to any other articles from the first three months of 2013 that we failed to include here.

Working with managers and leaders across organizations and industries, I often wonder if they enjoy their jobs and truly want to lead others. Too often organizations promote talented individuals based on their capability to perform the job in question without considering their desire to perform the job. One critical piece of high potential models that I fear may be overlooked is the individual’s appetite for advanced responsibility. Forget for a moment about whether or not the person will do the job and consider if the person will like the job. A strong individual contributor may enjoy collaborating with others, but have no interest in supervising others. A high potential employee known for generating innovative ideas may prefer to work in one narrow area of expertise rather than applying those creativity skills to overall organizational strategy. 

Good help is hard to find, and it is certainly understandable that organizations who attract and hire high potential employees want to make the most of that talent. However, by placing employees in jobs for which they are a poor fit, you might inadvertently put an expiration date on their tenure. Over the years I’ve heard many stories of employees who chose to leave their jobs not because they couldn’t do the job, but because they couldn’t stand the job.

So, what are organizations to do? How can they benefit from employees’ talent if they can’t advance those employees to leadership? The most concise and most honest answer is, “I don’t know”. However, I do have a few ideas:

1. Consider how high potential is defined. The characteristics that constitute success in one job may not contribute to effective performance in another job. You may need to adopt multiple high potential models to represent different divisions, levels, or jobs in your organization.
2. Ask honest questions about what employees want to do and be ready to hear that upper management might not be their ultimate goal.
3. When developing high potential employees, define and offer multiple career paths if possible. Let them know that you want them to be engaged in your organization and allow them to make a positive impact by aligning their aspirations with your strategy.
4. If you find that your designated high potentials do not aspire to traditional leader roles, start looking at other employees. Your solid performers might flourish in managerial positions where your exceptional performers would flounder. 
5. After promoting employees, keep an eye on them to ensure they are appropriately challenged and satisfied in their roles. Be prepared to make adjustments, as is feasible, so that you aren’t forcing individuals to stay in positions or perform work that is not a good fit for their natural work styles or core values.

What are your thoughts? Please comment on this blog to share your ideas and experiences in leveraging and retaining talented employees who don’t aspire to traditional leadership roles.

Working with managers and leaders across organizations and industries, I often wonder if they enjoy their jobs and truly want to lead others. Too often organizations promote talented individuals based on their capability to perform the job in question without considering their desire to perform the job. One critical piece of high potential models that I fear may be overlooked is the individual’s appetite for advanced responsibility. Forget for a moment about whether or not the person will do the job and consider if the person will like the job. A strong individual contributor may enjoy collaborating with others, but have no interest in supervising others. A high potential employee known for generating innovative ideas may prefer to work in one narrow area of expertise rather than applying those creativity skills to overall organizational strategy. 

Good help is hard to find, and it is certainly understandable that organizations who attract and hire high potential employees want to make the most of that talent. However, by placing employees in jobs for which they are a poor fit, you might inadvertently put an expiration date on their tenure. Over the years I’ve heard many stories of employees who chose to leave their jobs not because they couldn’t do the job, but because they couldn’t stand the job.

So, what are organizations to do? How can they benefit from employees’ talent if they can’t advance those employees to leadership? The most concise and most honest answer is, “I don’t know”. However, I do have a few ideas:

1. Consider how high potential is defined. The characteristics that constitute success in one job may not contribute to effective performance in another job. You may need to adopt multiple high potential models to represent different divisions, levels, or jobs in your organization.
2. Ask honest questions about what employees want to do and be ready to hear that upper management might not be their ultimate goal.
3. When developing high potential employees, define and offer multiple career paths if possible. Let them know that you want them to be engaged in your organization and allow them to make a positive impact by aligning their aspirations with your strategy.
4. If you find that your designated high potentials do not aspire to traditional leader roles, start looking at other employees. Your solid performers might flourish in managerial positions where your exceptional performers would flounder. 
5. After promoting employees, keep an eye on them to ensure they are appropriately challenged and satisfied in their roles. Be prepared to make adjustments, as is feasible, so that you aren’t forcing individuals to stay in positions or perform work that is not a good fit for their natural work styles or core values.

What are your thoughts? Please comment on this blog to share your ideas and experiences in leveraging and retaining talented employees who don’t aspire to traditional leadership roles.

Who wouldn't want a higher level of emotional intelligence? Studies have shown that a high emotional quotient (or EQ) boosts career success, entrepreneurial potential, leadership talent, health, relationship satisfaction, humor, and happiness. It is also the best antidote to work stress and it matters in every job — because all jobs involve dealing with people, and people with higher EQ are more rewarding to deal with.

Most coaching interventions try to enhance some aspect of EQ, usually under the name of social, interpersonal, or soft skills training. The underlying reasoning is that, whereas IQ is very hard to change, EQ can increase with deliberate practice and training.

But what is the evidence? For example, if you've been told you need to keep your temper under control, show more empathy for others, or be a better listener, what are the odds you can really do it? How do you know if your efforts will pay off, and which interventions will be most effective?

Nearly 3,000 scientific articles have been published on EQ since the concept was first introduced in 1990, and there are five key points to consider.

Continue reading on the HBR Blog Network.

More on EQ
Overview
eBook | Want a Better Job?
Infographic | Who's Got the Highest EQ?
Sample Report
Video | Why EQ?

Who wouldn’t want a higher level of emotional intelligence? Studies have shown that a high emotional quotient (or EQ) boosts career success, entrepreneurial potential, leadership talent, health, relationship satisfaction, humor, and happiness. It is also the best antidote to work stress and it matters in every job — because all jobs involve dealing with people, and people with higher EQ are more rewarding to deal with.

Most coaching interventions try to enhance some aspect of EQ, usually under the name of social, interpersonal, or soft skills training. The underlying reasoning is that, whereas IQ is very hard to change, EQ can increase with deliberate practice and training.

But what is the evidence? For example, if you’ve been told you need to keep your temper under control, show more empathy for others, or be a better listener, what are the odds you can really do it? How do you know if your efforts will pay off, and which interventions will be most effective?

Nearly 3,000 scientific articles have been published on EQ since the concept was first introduced in 1990, and there are five key points to consider.

Continue reading on the HBR Blog Network.

More on EQ
Sample Report
Video | Why EQ?

We got a kick out of this U.S. Navy office safety video from the 1940s.

Although the office environment (and the tone of the safety videos) has changed a bit since then, the underlying point of the video remains relevant – some personalities make an individual more prone to carelessness and, even in the most mundane of environments, that carelessness can cause accidents.

For more information about how people’s personalities influence office safety, check out Hogan SafeSystem.