In the past 10 days, much of the country has been blanketed by snow, courtesy of a blizzard that swept through the Midwest and buried the Hogan offices under nearly 30 inches. Stores closed, events were cancelled, businesses sent everyone home, and most of the area hunkered down and braced for the worst. The local meteorologists provided marathon sessions of analysis and updates, warning everyone not to go outside unless absolutely necessary. In the following days, the city cleanup crews described their efforts to clear the streets, noting that the largest obstacle was the number of abandoned cars on the road. This included cars deserted in the middle of the street, on the side of the road, on highway ramps, and just about everywhere.

This made me think about the judgment exercised by the owners of the autos lining the roads. The majority of these vehicles were smaller cars that had virtually no chance of navigating the streets. I assume that most of the owners simply walked home, as they couldn’t have possibly made it far before getting stuck. Was it that they were skeptical and didn’t trust the weather forecast? Did they believe their driving ability was far superior to others? Did they think the warnings and advice didn’t apply to them? Or did they really just not understand that 15 inches of snow was too much for them?

Whatever the case, the same types of characteristics that drive these decisions will influence decision-making and judgment in the workplace. We’ve all encountered the skeptical co-worker that doesn’t trust others and plays political games, the employee who believes that his or her talents are infinitely superior to those around them, the folks that don’t believe the rules apply to them, and the ones that just don’t seem to have the ability to analyze the situation and make good decisions. Often the results won’t be as immediate and obvious as an abandoned car in the middle of the street, but over time the results will become visible and detrimental.

While we can’t dramatically improve other motorists’ skills on the roads, we can identify and target the types of behaviors that lead to these bad decisions in an organization. Many of these characteristics are rooted in our personalities and cognitive abilities. We can screen these characteristics out of candidate pools, or we can raise awareness of these characteristics with current employees and enhance decision-making styles and abilities.

In the past 10 days, much of the country has been blanketed by snow, courtesy of a blizzard that swept through the Midwest and buried the Hogan offices under nearly 30 inches. Stores closed, events were cancelled, businesses sent everyone home, and most of the area hunkered down and braced for the worst. The local meteorologists provided marathon sessions of analysis and updates, warning everyone not to go outside unless absolutely necessary. In the following days, the city cleanup crews described their efforts to clear the streets, noting that the largest obstacle was the number of abandoned cars on the road. This included cars deserted in the middle of the street, on the side of the road, on highway ramps, and just about everywhere.

This made me think about the judgment exercised by the owners of the autos lining the roads. The majority of these vehicles were smaller cars that had virtually no chance of navigating the streets. I assume that most of the owners simply walked home, as they couldn’t have possibly made it far before getting stuck. Was it that they were skeptical and didn’t trust the weather forecast? Did they believe their driving ability was far superior to others? Did they think the warnings and advice didn’t apply to them? Or did they really just not understand that 15 inches of snow was too much for them?

Whatever the case, the same types of characteristics that drive these decisions will influence decision-making and judgment in the workplace. We’ve all encountered the skeptical co-worker that doesn’t trust others and plays political games, the employee who believes that his or her talents are infinitely superior to those around them, the folks that don’t believe the rules apply to them, and the ones that just don’t seem to have the ability to analyze the situation and make good decisions. Often the results won’t be as immediate and obvious as an abandoned car in the middle of the street, but over time the results will become visible and detrimental.

While we can’t dramatically improve other motorists’ skills on the roads, we can identify and target the types of behaviors that lead to these bad decisions in an organization. Many of these characteristics are rooted in our personalities and cognitive abilities. We can screen these characteristics out of candidate pools, or we can raise awareness of these characteristics with current employees and enhance decision-making styles and abilities.

As I was flipping through the channels the other night, I noticed a pattern. Making my way up through the 100s of channels, I saw multiple shows featuring “clowns." These are not the kind of clowns you find at the circus or the kind of clowns that make you go, “haha,” but the kind of clowns that make you go, “meh” (or worse).

News shows, talk shows, reality shows...as I flipped through the channels, I was amazed to see people espousing ideas, behaviors, and attitudes that are generally reserved for the make-believe world of sitcoms and movie blockbusters. Their emotional outbursts, exaggerated smugness, and what can only be described as extremely poor attention-seeking strategies do attract viewers. We like to laugh at others. We like to feel an emotional charge now and then. We even like watching others make fools of themselves. And during my channel surfing, I sometimes find myself staring at the train wrecks too (several of my personal favorites come from MTV, Fox News, and MSNBC).

Sometimes the Glenn Becks, Chris Matthews, and Snookis of the world are entertaining. Not because they are intentionally funny, but because of the extreme, negative characteristics they display. I can’t imagine trying to get work done in an office space with someone who needs as much attention as Snooki or trying to reach anything resembling a compromise by Mr. Matthews. Even my ten-month-old son appears to display more emotional control than Mr. Beck. Although these people are fine in their roles, most would agree that having to interact with them day after day would take its toll (sometimes I can’t even bear it through a whole TV segment).

My personal opinions and facetiousness aside, some of these clowns’ behaviors are extreme examples of interaction styles we all encounter at work. Be it your Colorful boss, your Excitable co-worker, or your unbelievably Bold subordinate, you have met and worked with these people. Although passion, confidence, and social skills are desirable, taken to the extreme, these same characteristics will derail everyone sometime during their careers.

Luckily, we have the ability to measure individuals’ propensity to engage in these derailing behaviors. The Hogan Development Survey (HDS) allows us to be cautious about whom we hire, or to be proactive in coaching individuals who are predisposed towards certain undesirable actions (like writing a blog the night before it’s due). Knowing what could go wrong can be just as important as knowing what could go right. Remember, the next time you have to make a human capital decision, you could be dealing with “The Situation.”

As I was flipping through the channels the other night, I noticed a pattern. Making my way up through the 100s of channels, I saw multiple shows featuring “clowns.” These are not the kind of clowns you find at the circus or the kind of clowns that make you go, “haha,” but the kind of clowns that make you go, “meh” (or worse).

News shows, talk shows, reality shows…as I flipped through the channels, I was amazed to see people espousing ideas, behaviors, and attitudes that are generally reserved for the make-believe world of sitcoms and movie blockbusters. Their emotional outbursts, exaggerated smugness, and what can only be described as extremely poor attention-seeking strategies do attract viewers. We like to laugh at others. We like to feel an emotional charge now and then. We even like watching others make fools of themselves. And during my channel surfing, I sometimes find myself staring at the train wrecks too (several of my personal favorites come from MTV, Fox News, and MSNBC).

Sometimes the Glenn Becks, Chris Matthews, and Snookis of the world are entertaining. Not because they are intentionally funny, but because of the extreme, negative characteristics they display. I can’t imagine trying to get work done in an office space with someone who needs as much attention as Snooki or trying to reach anything resembling a compromise by Mr. Matthews. Even my ten-month-old son appears to display more emotional control than Mr. Beck. Although these people are fine in their roles, most would agree that having to interact with them day after day would take its toll (sometimes I can’t even bear it through a whole TV segment).

My personal opinions and facetiousness aside, some of these clowns’ behaviors are extreme examples of interaction styles we all encounter at work. Be it your Colorful boss, your Excitable co-worker, or your unbelievably Bold subordinate, you have met and worked with these people. Although passion, confidence, and social skills are desirable, taken to the extreme, these same characteristics will derail everyone sometime during their careers.

Luckily, we have the ability to measure individuals’ propensity to engage in these derailing behaviors. The Hogan Development Survey (HDS) allows us to be cautious about whom we hire, or to be proactive in coaching individuals who are predisposed towards certain undesirable actions (like writing a blog the night before it’s due). Knowing what could go wrong can be just as important as knowing what could go right. Remember, the next time you have to make a human capital decision, you could be dealing with “The Situation.”