When you use one of Hogan’s assessment solutions, you can trust that it works. Hogan conducted 40 ROI studies in 2011 and 2012 for clients ranging from retail to manufacturing. Year after year, we provide empirical evidence, from increased store sales to improved organizational safety, of how our assesments impact clients’ bottom lines. Regardless of industry sector or job type, Hogan’s assessments provide a significant, long-term return on investment.

Read the overall findings of our ROI study.

Although it sounds like the plot from dozens of bad romantic comedies, recent research suggests that who you are on the inside (your personality) is more important than how you look when it comes to catching the eye of that special someone.

Hogan recently asked 1,177 participants what was most important in a romantic partner: physical attractiveness, personal style, earning potential, education, social status, or personality.

Respondents were 40.3% male and 59.7% female.

82.1% said personality was most important in a partner
5.5% said personal style
4.9% said physical attractiveness

Want to know what else we found out?

Although it sounds like the plot from dozens of bad romantic comedies, recent research suggests that who you are on the inside (your personality) is more important than how you look when it comes to catching the eye of that special someone.

Hogan recently asked 1,177 participants what was most important in a romantic partner: physical attractiveness, personal style, earning potential, education, social status, or personality.

Respondents were 40.3% male and 59.7% female.

82.1% said personality was most important in a partner
5.5% said personal style
4.9% said physical attractiveness

Want to know what else we found out?

In season 3, episode 15, of the CBS sitcom “How I Met Your Mother,” one of the characters introduces the gang to a workplace phenomenon called the chain of screaming. I’ll let the video clip below do the heavy lifting, but it basically works like this: my boss’s boss screams at my boss, who in turn screams at me, after which I scream at one of my subordinates, and so on.

Although this seems like a clever joke around which to build a 20-minute episode, according to an article published yesterday on Forbes.com, the chain of screaming is real – sort of.

A new study suggests that bullying bosses affect more than just their victim. Researchers polled 233 people from various fields and found that, much like the chain of screaming, victims of a bullying boss often turn into bullies themselves, spreading their discontent through the office like a nasty virus.

Hogan’s own research supports these findings – 75% percent of working adults say the most stressful aspect of their job is their immediate boss.

Fortunately, companies aren’t powerless against the effects of bullying bosses and the disengaged workforces they create. To find out more, check out our free eBook, “Leadership: You’re Doing It Wrong.”

Virtually any job involves some level of decision-making; from simple, routine decisions that are easily trained and quickly learned (such as sorting or filing), to complex decisions with huge impact for which there may be no clearly correct answer (such as a major strategic shift at a multi-billion dollar global organization). The key to effective decision-making is exercising good judgment when assessing the situation, evaluating options, and choosing a course of action. This sounds obvious, but judgment is difficult to define and hard to develop. So how do you improve the exercise of good judgment in your organization?

First and foremost, it’s important to recognize that judgment is more than an individual attribute. Organizations can create a climate that promotes good judgment and decision-making. In a poor quality environment, even individuals with great personal judgment can make consistently poor decisions. Here are a few tips to help get things right on both fronts.

Practice Informed Skepticism

Informed Skeptics are critical consumers of information. They seek out data and listen to those close to the issue to build up their understanding of the subject. They question the assumptions underlying the data, and don’t take conventional wisdom for granted. They evaluate and consider information thoroughly in order to arrive at sound conclusions. They are informed by the data, but not beholden to them.

In Hogan terms, these people may score low-to-moderate Adjustment (detecting problems), low-to-moderate Interpersonal Sensitivity (challenging behaviors), and high Learning Approach (informed and analytical). They may also have an elevated HDS Skeptical score, a high MVPI Science score, or both.

In contrast, intuitive decision-makers rush to judgment based on their own experience. They rarely seek out new information, and tend to make decisions themselves without input from others. These people are often confident and charismatic, but may lack substance. On the other end of the spectrum, empiricists rely exclusively on the data, rarely questioning the underlying assumptions. They may fail to recognize when the external environment has changed, rendering previous assumptions invalid.

Identify relevant data points to inform decisions

Big data is a buzzword these days, and deservedly so. The amount of information available and the potential implications for virtually all business functions is enormous. But there are two things to consider in the big data movement. The first is that, although more data than ever are being collected, there are also more irrelevant data than ever. It’s critically important to identify relevant and meaningful data and metrics to help drive good judgment.

The second consideration is what I’ll call 'smart' data. Smart data allow you to link data points from one application or activity to related data points somewhere else, making new connections across functions to uncover new patterns. Smart data help link your recruitment activity to your candidate pool, your selection tools, your training and onboarding programs, your performance management system, your high potential identification program, and your leadership development program. New patterns for the entire employment life cycle can be explored. If the data you have all sit in separate silos and cannot be combined without colossal effort, then you have piles of 'dumb' data, and they can’t deliver the same value.

The generation of relevant, informative data is therefore a structural aspect of an organization. It takes deliberate effort and purposeful design to create databases that link meaningful data to one another. Poor quality information produces a 'garbage in, garbage out' result.

Make data widely available throughout the organization

Organizations often restrict access to information in varying degrees, but good judgment is required at virtually all levels of an organization. To improve the quality of decisions on a widespread level, data have to be available to inform these decisions. Absent that information, the ability to exercise judgment is constrained, and a culture of poor decision-making can develop.

A new trend emerging in startups is the transparent organization. In the most extreme cases, all data – from company financials to individual performance reviews – are freely available to everyone. Is that too much? Almost certainly (see the point about relevant data). But the spirit of providing information to those who need it is on target.

On the other hand, providing too little information leads decision-makers to rely on the information available, which may be outdated, irrelevant, or misleading. Consider the allegory of Plato’s Cave, in which captives grew up immobilized and could only see shadows of objects out of view, and hear sounds of those objects reflected and distorted off of a wall. The captives perceived the shadows and sounds to be reality, unaware of the reality of the objects casting the shadows and making the sounds. In the absence of information, decision-makers will act based on shadows and distorted sounds, all but ensuring that decision-making will suffer.

In season 3, episode 15, of the CBS sitcom “How I Met Your Mother,” one of the characters introduces the gang to a workplace phenomenon called the chain of screaming. I’ll let the video clip below do the heavy lifting, but it basically works like this: my boss’s boss screams at my boss, who in turn screams at me, after which I scream at one of my subordinates, and so on.

Although this seems like a clever joke around which to build a 20-minute episode, according to an article published yesterday on Forbes.com, the chain of screaming is real – sort of.

A new study suggests that bullying bosses affect more than just their victim. Researchers polled 233 people from various fields and found that, much like the chain of screaming, victims of a bullying boss often turn into bullies themselves, spreading their discontent through the office like a nasty virus.

Hogan’s own research supports these findings – 75% percent of working adults say the most stressful aspect of their job is their immediate boss.

Fortunately, companies aren’t powerless against the effects of bullying bosses and the disengaged workforces they create. To find out more, check out our free eBook, “Leadership: You’re Doing It Wrong.”

Virtually any job involves some level of decision-making; from simple, routine decisions that are easily trained and quickly learned (such as sorting or filing), to complex decisions with huge impact for which there may be no clearly correct answer (such as a major strategic shift at a multi-billion dollar global organization). The key to effective decision-making is exercising good judgment when assessing the situation, evaluating options, and choosing a course of action. This sounds obvious, but judgment is difficult to define and hard to develop. So how do you improve the exercise of good judgment in your organization?

First and foremost, it’s important to recognize that judgment is more than an individual attribute. Organizations can create a climate that promotes good judgment and decision-making. In a poor quality environment, even individuals with great personal judgment can make consistently poor decisions. Here are a few tips to help get things right on both fronts.

Practice Informed Skepticism

Informed Skeptics are critical consumers of information. They seek out data and listen to those close to the issue to build up their understanding of the subject. They question the assumptions underlying the data, and don’t take conventional wisdom for granted. They evaluate and consider information thoroughly in order to arrive at sound conclusions. They are informed by the data, but not beholden to them.

In Hogan terms, these people may score low-to-moderate Adjustment (detecting problems), low-to-moderate Interpersonal Sensitivity (challenging behaviors), and high Learning Approach (informed and analytical). They may also have an elevated HDS Skeptical score, a high MVPI Science score, or both.

In contrast, intuitive decision-makers rush to judgment based on their own experience. They rarely seek out new information, and tend to make decisions themselves without input from others. These people are often confident and charismatic, but may lack substance. On the other end of the spectrum, empiricists rely exclusively on the data, rarely questioning the underlying assumptions. They may fail to recognize when the external environment has changed, rendering previous assumptions invalid.

Identify relevant data points to inform decisions

Big data is a buzzword these days, and deservedly so. The amount of information available and the potential implications for virtually all business functions is enormous. But there are two things to consider in the big data movement. The first is that, although more data than ever are being collected, there are also more irrelevant data than ever. It’s critically important to identify relevant and meaningful data and metrics to help drive good judgment.

The second consideration is what I’ll call ‘smart’ data. Smart data allow you to link data points from one application or activity to related data points somewhere else, making new connections across functions to uncover new patterns. Smart data help link your recruitment activity to your candidate pool, your selection tools, your training and onboarding programs, your performance management system, your high potential identification program, and your leadership development program. New patterns for the entire employment life cycle can be explored. If the data you have all sit in separate silos and cannot be combined without colossal effort, then you have piles of ‘dumb’ data, and they can’t deliver the same value.

The generation of relevant, informative data is therefore a structural aspect of an organization. It takes deliberate effort and purposeful design to create databases that link meaningful data to one another. Poor quality information produces a ‘garbage in, garbage out’ result.

Make data widely available throughout the organization

Organizations often restrict access to information in varying degrees, but good judgment is required at virtually all levels of an organization. To improve the quality of decisions on a widespread level, data have to be available to inform these decisions. Absent that information, the ability to exercise judgment is constrained, and a culture of poor decision-making can develop.

A new trend emerging in startups is the transparent organization. In the most extreme cases, all data – from company financials to individual performance reviews – are freely available to everyone. Is that too much? Almost certainly (see the point about relevant data). But the spirit of providing information to those who need it is on target.

On the other hand, providing too little information leads decision-makers to rely on the information available, which may be outdated, irrelevant, or misleading. Consider the allegory of Plato’s Cave, in which captives grew up immobilized and could only see shadows of objects out of view, and hear sounds of those objects reflected and distorted off of a wall. The captives perceived the shadows and sounds to be reality, unaware of the reality of the objects casting the shadows and making the sounds. In the absence of information, decision-makers will act based on shadows and distorted sounds, all but ensuring that decision-making will suffer.

Three days after the Super Bowl XLVII dust has settled, the Twittersphere is still buzzing with predictable comments, including Beyonce’s wardrobe choice, the funniest commercials, and what caused the 30-minute blackout. Not surprisingly, Ravens linebacker Ray Lewis was not excluded from popular trending topics. As many are aware, Lewis ended his NFL career on Sunday with his second Super Bowl win, a bittersweet day for Baltimore Ravens fans. While most of the attention around Lewis after the win on Sunday was positive, historically, Lewis’ reputation with the media has been quite controversial. (A quick Google search will give you all the grizzly details). Despite Lewis’ rocky past and the public’s love/hate relationship with him, his influence and impact on his team are indisputable. As another football great retires, there are a couple of key observations to glean from Lewis’ career as a leader.

The performance of his team

The qualities of an effective leader have long been debated and are still not well-defined. Dr. Hogan will tell you that the best determinant for measuring a leader’s success is by the performance of his/her team. Applying this principle to Ray Lewis, his success as a leader is clear. In a recent Yahoo! Sports article, former teammate Tony Pashos was quoted as saying “…you know what happens when Ray Lewis is in the locker room, and on the field? Guess what, you just maximized your entire salary cap, because everyone around him is playing at the highest level he can play. When I hear about the great ones like [Boston Celtics legend] Bill Russell, they say that he made everyone around him better. That’s Ray.”

His impact beyond raw talent

As many sports writers attest, Lewis did not earn his champion status based solely on his athletic talent. Although he has many accolades of which to be proud, including being selected in 13 Pro Bowls, receiving the NFL Defensive Player of the Year award twice, and two Super Bowl rings, his legacy will be known for much more. Sports writer Michael Silver states: “Because he ascended to the top of his profession on the strength of intangibles — work ethic, attention to detail, relentless passion, indefatigable drive — Lewis' locker-room cred is tremendous. I exist in a world in which players routinely take private jabs at one another, especially those whose outsized personalities cause them to become public caricatures. Yet I've never covered an athlete more revered by teammates and opponents than Lewis, who habitually exceeds the lofty expectations of the newcomers that enter the Baltimore locker room.”

Although there may be other determining factors that lead one to such legacy status, these aspirations should be weighted heavily when considering how to make the greatest leadership impact. By focusing on such objectives, current leaders may realize some of the same notoriety upon retirement, just like the football legend himself.