Extensive research highlights the importance of work engagement – employees’ morale and involvement with work – as determinant of individual and organizational performance. Large-scale studies show that engagement is positively correlated with a wide range of important business outcomes, such as organizational commitment, citizenship, innovation, and team performance, and negatively correlated with turnover intentions, strain, and burnout (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001; Seibert, Wang, & Courtright, 2011). Furthermore, meta-analytic evidence indicates that higher engagement levels are directly translated into higher business revenues and profits (Harter et al, 2009). These findings have prompted organizations to monitor engagement levels via regular employee surveys. According to Gallup, who surveys millions of employees every year, only 30% of Americans are engaged at work, and the most common reason for disengagement is employees’ direct boss or line manager. Thus leadership is a critical antecedent of engagement (Wollard & Shuck, 2011).

Leadership is typically defined as the ability to build and maintain high-performing teams (Hogan, 2007). As engagement is a key driver of individual-, team-, and unit-level performance, it has been argued that leaders influence organizational effectiveness by engaging employees, or failing to do so (Schaufeli & Salanova, 2007). Meta-analyses suggest that leadership effectiveness increases employees’ job satisfaction and commitment (Dumdum, Lowe, & Avolio, 2002; Fuller, Patterson, Hester, & Stringer, 1996; Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996), while independent studies report strong correlations between transformational leadership and employee engagement (Zhu, Avolio, & Walumbwa, 2009), where engagement mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and subordinates’ turnover intentions (Wefaltd et al, 2011). Although these findings support the idea that leadership is a major cause of employee engagement, an important unaddressed questions remains, namely what causes performance differences in leadership?  

To this end, this symposium includes four integrated presentations that highlight the role of leaders’ personality as determinant of subordinates’ engagement levels and discuss how this knowledge can be translated into actionable organizational recommendations.

First, SIOP Fellow Robert Hogan, who pioneered the use of personality assessments in organizational settings, presents a causal model for understanding the relationship between personality, leadership, and engagement. This model posits that personality characteristics drive individual differences in leadership effectiveness because they impact on employee engagement.

Then, Justin Black, Strategic Advisor at Sirota Survey Intelligence, puts Hogan’s model to the test by examining longitudinal effects of managers’ personality on their direct reports’ engagement in a multinational technology firm. Results highlight causal paths between managers’ reputation – how others’ evaluate them – and subordinates’ engagement: prudent and empathic managers engage; passive-aggressive and volatile managers disengage.

Next, Christine Fernandez, Director of Organizational Effectiveness at Starwood, discusses linkages between CEO’s competencies, employee engagement, and customer satisfaction in 398 worldwide hotels. Results show strong associations between CEOs interpersonal skills, multisource feedback, employee engagement, and guest loyalty, as well as providing a detailed account on the personality of successful hotel CEOs.

The final presentation, by Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, Professor of I-O Psychology at University College London and VP of Innovation at Hogan, examines the role of managers’ and employees’ emotional intelligence as determinant of employee engagement and job performance in a large retail chain, integrating both top-down and bottom-up perspectives on engagement.

This symposium will be held Thursday, May 15.

References available

Extensive research highlights the importance of work engagement – employees’ morale and involvement with work – as determinant of individual and organizational performance. Large-scale studies show that engagement is positively correlated with a wide range of important business outcomes, such as organizational commitment, citizenship, innovation, and team performance, and negatively correlated with turnover intentions, strain, and burnout (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001; Seibert, Wang, & Courtright, 2011). Furthermore, meta-analytic evidence indicates that higher engagement levels are directly translated into higher business revenues and profits (Harter et al, 2009). These findings have prompted organizations to monitor engagement levels via regular employee surveys. According to Gallup, who surveys millions of employees every year, only 30% of Americans are engaged at work, and the most common reason for disengagement is employees’ direct boss or line manager. Thus leadership is a critical antecedent of engagement (Wollard & Shuck, 2011).

Leadership is typically defined as the ability to build and maintain high-performing teams (Hogan, 2007). As engagement is a key driver of individual-, team-, and unit-level performance, it has been argued that leaders influence organizational effectiveness by engaging employees, or failing to do so (Schaufeli & Salanova, 2007). Meta-analyses suggest that leadership effectiveness increases employees’ job satisfaction and commitment (Dumdum, Lowe, & Avolio, 2002; Fuller, Patterson, Hester, & Stringer, 1996; Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996), while independent studies report strong correlations between transformational leadership and employee engagement (Zhu, Avolio, & Walumbwa, 2009), where engagement mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and subordinates’ turnover intentions (Wefaltd et al, 2011). Although these findings support the idea that leadership is a major cause of employee engagement, an important unaddressed questions remains, namely what causes performance differences in leadership?

To this end, this symposium includes four integrated presentations that highlight the role of leaders’ personality as determinant of subordinates’ engagement levels and discuss how this knowledge can be translated into actionable organizational recommendations.

First, SIOP Fellow Robert Hogan, who pioneered the use of personality assessments in organizational settings, presents a causal model for understanding the relationship between personality, leadership, and engagement. This model posits that personality characteristics drive individual differences in leadership effectiveness because they impact on employee engagement.

Then, Justin Black, Strategic Advisor at Sirota Survey Intelligence, puts Hogan’s model to the test by examining longitudinal effects of managers’ personality on their direct reports’ engagement in a multinational technology firm. Results highlight causal paths between managers’ reputation – how others’ evaluate them – and subordinates’ engagement: prudent and empathic managers engage; passive-aggressive and volatile managers disengage.

Next, Christine Fernandez, Director of Organizational Effectiveness at Starwood, discusses linkages between CEO’s competencies, employee engagement, and customer satisfaction in 398 worldwide hotels. Results show strong associations between CEOs interpersonal skills, multisource feedback, employee engagement, and guest loyalty, as well as providing a detailed account on the personality of successful hotel CEOs.

The final presentation, by Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, Professor of I-O Psychology at University College London and VP of Innovation at Hogan, examines the role of managers’ and employees’ emotional intelligence as determinant of employee engagement and job performance in a large retail chain, integrating both top-down and bottom-up perspectives on engagement.

This symposium will be held Thursday, May 15.

References available

A quick search for the word engagement yields more than 6 million websites, thousands of books, and myriad articles. Yet, a Gallup poll showed that more than 71% of American employees are disengaged at their jobs, indicating that although most companies recognize employee engagement as important, many still struggle to understand it. Dr. Robert Hogan discusses the concept of engagement, work-life balance, and workaholics in this Q&A.

Q: What is engagement?
A: Engagement refers to how employees perceive their jobs and employers. It is an ideal state rarely fully achieved. It is the opposite of alienation. When employees are engaged, they like their jobs, they work hard at their jobs, they take initiative, and they show loyalty. When employees are alienated, they hate their jobs, they don’t work very hard, they never take initiative or show loyalty. The data are perfectly clear, when employees are engaged, their employers make more money. And engagement is easy to measure.

Q: What are some of the hallmarks of an engaged employee?
A: Positive attitudes, hard work, loyalty, low absenteeism, low turnover, high productivity, and high customer service ratings.

Q: Most people have 24/7 access to their phones and email accounts. Although that gives most people added freedom, it also comes with the expectation of constant availability. Do you think this blurring of the line between work life and family/home life makes people more engaged or less engaged at their job?
A: You have the question backwards. How people react to constant availability depends on how engaged they are. The more engaged an employee, the more he or she will be willing to bring work into their family/home life.

Q: How would you define a workaholic in the typical negative context? Are there certain characteristics or derailers that you would see in a typical workaholic?
A: A workaholic is someone who works constantly to defend him or herself against anxiety and the threat of being criticized or rejected. There is neurotic propulsion to their work efforts – they are driven, rigid, inflexible, and afraid of innovation or change.

Q: What is the difference between a workaholic and an engaged workaholic? What kind of characteristics are you likely to see in an engaged workaholic?
A: For a workaholic, engagement would be therapeutic. Engaged people find their work meaningful. A big problem for workaholics is that they are seeking meaning and purpose and can’t find it. An engaged workaholic would be a terrific employee.

Q: What are the different reasons these two types of people are likely to burn out?
A: A disengaged workaholic is already burnt out. They live in a state of psychological burn out. Workaholics are fragile by definition. An engaged workaholic will burn out by taking on too much work.

Q: How can companies build engagement in their workforce and prevent burnout?
A: First, assess the current level of engagement to identify pockets of alienation. Second, fire the managers who run the operations that are alienated. Third, train the remaining managers on how to be good managers. Fourth, follow up with successive assessments of employee engagement. Fifth, some employees are impossible to engage, so don’t hire any more of them.

A quick search for the word engagement yields more than 6 million websites, thousands of books, and myriad articles. Yet, a Gallup poll showed that more than 71% of American employees are disengaged at their jobs, indicating that although most companies recognize employee engagement as important, many still struggle to understand it. Dr. Robert Hogan discusses the concept of engagement, work-life balance, and workaholics in this Q&A.

Q: What is engagement?
A: Engagement refers to how employees perceive their jobs and employers. It is an ideal state rarely fully achieved. It is the opposite of alienation. When employees are engaged, they like their jobs, they work hard at their jobs, they take initiative, and they show loyalty. When employees are alienated, they hate their jobs, they don’t work very hard, they never take initiative or show loyalty. The data are perfectly clear, when employees are engaged, their employers make more money. And engagement is easy to measure.

Q: What are some of the hallmarks of an engaged employee?
A: Positive attitudes, hard work, loyalty, low absenteeism, low turnover, high productivity, and high customer service ratings.

Q: Most people have 24/7 access to their phones and email accounts. Although that gives most people added freedom, it also comes with the expectation of constant availability. Do you think this blurring of the line between work life and family/home life makes people more engaged or less engaged at their job?
A: You have the question backwards. How people react to constant availability depends on how engaged they are. The more engaged an employee, the more he or she will be willing to bring work into their family/home life.

Q: How would you define a workaholic in the typical negative context? Are there certain characteristics or derailers that you would see in a typical workaholic?
A: A workaholic is someone who works constantly to defend him or herself against anxiety and the threat of being criticized or rejected. There is neurotic propulsion to their work efforts – they are driven, rigid, inflexible, and afraid of innovation or change.

Q: What is the difference between a workaholic and an engaged workaholic? What kind of characteristics are you likely to see in an engaged workaholic?
A: For a workaholic, engagement would be therapeutic. Engaged people find their work meaningful. A big problem for workaholics is that they are seeking meaning and purpose and can’t find it. An engaged workaholic would be a terrific employee.

Q: What are the different reasons these two types of people are likely to burn out?
A: A disengaged workaholic is already burnt out. They live in a state of psychological burn out. Workaholics are fragile by definition. An engaged workaholic will burn out by taking on too much work.

Q: How can companies build engagement in their workforce and prevent burnout?
A: First, assess the current level of engagement to identify pockets of alienation. Second, fire the managers who run the operations that are alienated. Third, train the remaining managers on how to be good managers. Fourth, follow up with successive assessments of employee engagement. Fifth, some employees are impossible to engage, so don’t hire any more of them.

Talk of personal branding on social platforms is rampant. Rarely, however is there mention of how a personal brand can affect engagement at work.

Employee engagement refers to the rational and emotional commitment one has to various aspects associated with the organization where he or she works. An employee’s commitment level translates into discretionary effort and intent to stay, which both affect organizational performance. Additionally, employee engagement is associated with job commitment, lack of burnout and well being. As Dr. Robert Hogan attests, “when employees are engaged, they like their jobs, they work hard at their jobs, they take initiative, and they show loyalty.”

When you brand yourself effectively within a company culture, co-workers and supervisors will have a clearer and more concise understanding of what it takes for you to be successful. Accurately projecting who you are to others will give them the necessary information to help you along the way. Even if they're well-intentioned, peers and supervisors cannot contribute to your engagement or success if they do not have a clear picture of your personality traits and motives. 

How can one take control of one’s personal brand and intentionally portray it favorably every day? It all starts with self-knowledge, which is a basic necessity to building your personal brand. Managing your reputation within an organization can only arise from strategic self-awareness.

Here are 3 ways to accurately define and project your personal brand at work.

Define it Simply

Identify what your three core brand attributes are. You should be able to fit them on a Post-it. Start by collecting feedback on how co-workers describe you, your strengths, your development opportunities and some of your top drivers.

Convey it Clearly

Project yourself in a concise manner. Mixed messages will confuse others. Focus on sending out a clear message of how you like to get things done, what makes you get those things done and why you do the things you do in a compact way.

Project it Confidently

Establish yourself as an expert in a relevant field. Once you show competence, you can more easily create a confident presence and build credibility. Become a good source of knowledge for others in a specific area and take control of disseminating that information. By sharing your expertise others will become more aware of what engages you.

If you are not feeling engaged at work, consider what image you are projecting to others.  Sharply defining your personal brand could be a step in the right direction.

Talk of personal branding on social platforms is rampant. Rarely, however is there mention of how a personal brand can affect engagement at work.

Employee engagement refers to the rational and emotional commitment one has to various aspects associated with the organization where he or she works. An employee’s commitment level translates into discretionary effort and intent to stay, which both affect organizational performance. Additionally, employee engagement is associated with job commitment, lack of burnout and well being. As Dr. Robert Hogan attests, “when employees are engaged, they like their jobs, they work hard at their jobs, they take initiative, and they show loyalty.”

When you brand yourself effectively within a company culture, co-workers and supervisors will have a clearer and more concise understanding of what it takes for you to be successful. Accurately projecting who you are to others will give them the necessary information to help you along the way. Even if they’re well-intentioned, peers and supervisors cannot contribute to your engagement or success if they do not have a clear picture of your personality traits and motives.

How can one take control of one’s personal brand and intentionally portray it favorably every day? It all starts with self-knowledge, which is a basic necessity to building your personal brand. Managing your reputation within an organization can only arise from strategic self-awareness.

Here are 3 ways to accurately define and project your personal brand at work.

Define it Simply

Identify what your three core brand attributes are. You should be able to fit them on a Post-it. Start by collecting feedback on how co-workers describe you, your strengths, your development opportunities and some of your top drivers.

Convey it Clearly

Project yourself in a concise manner. Mixed messages will confuse others. Focus on sending out a clear message of how you like to get things done, what makes you get those things done and why you do the things you do in a compact way.

Project it Confidently

Establish yourself as an expert in a relevant field. Once you show competence, you can more easily create a confident presence and build credibility. Become a good source of knowledge for others in a specific area and take control of disseminating that information. By sharing your expertise others will become more aware of what engages you.

If you are not feeling engaged at work, consider what image you are projecting to others.  Sharply defining your personal brand could be a step in the right direction.

Over the past 12 months, Hogan has discussed a number of hot topics in the talent management arena. We’ve introduced you to an interesting, entertaining, and derailing cast of characters with howdoyouderail.com, and we’ve provided insight about engagement, team building, and organizational culture with our series on The Rocket Model. After reviewing the blog entries for this year, I compiled a list of Hogan’s Hottest, Hot Topics in 2012. 

1. The Dark Side: Derailment and the Hogan Development Survey
This topic makes the top of the list because it is a real phenomenon. It is estimated that at least half of the individuals who are currently in leadership roles are failing or nearly derailing. The Dark Side (i.e. behaviors that emerge when we are under stress, pressure, or simply not self-monitoring) can rear its ugly head in a number of ways. We’ve all met the Loose Cannon, worked with the Show Off, or tried to deliver feedback to the Skeptic. These derailing behaviors can be career killers…literally. So it’s important that we focus on our reputation and self-awareness.

2. Self-Awareness: The value of understanding one’s reputation
One of the largest debates in the area of personality is that of identity and reputation. Identity relates to our values, goals, hopes, and dreams while reputation represents the behaviors that other people see that can either help or impede goal attainment. Reputation is what matters. It is what helps you climb the corporate ladder or go down the chute of derailment. We cannot modify our reputations without understanding why we do the things we do. Self-Awareness is the key to reconciling the differences between identity and reputation. Self-Awareness is the key to leadership success. 

3. The Talent Management Gap: Building a high potential pipeline in a Millennial world
If you have doubts about the generational differences in the reliance on technology or the importance of social networking just ask any 10-year-old who wants an iPhone for Christmas, or consult the children’s toy aisle at your local big box store and you will find an assortment of Kindles, Nooks, and even iPad look-a-likes for babies. I can personally attest to this because my five-month-old received one from our friends for Christmas. There are differences in the way Millenials and eventually Generation Z will approach the work world. These groups have a significant reliance on technology, are highly affiliative, and require immediate and regular feedback. Jackie VanBroekhoven’s blog, The Generational Workforce of the Future, is a great illustration of the need to understand each of the generations representing the workforce in order to build the talent bench of the future.

4. Engagement: Focusing on the employee and the team
Employee engagement has been a hot topic for a number of years and it will likely become increasingly important as we see a shift in the make-up of the workforce. Engaged employees tend to be more satisfied and more productive, and productivity ties directly to the financial bottom line. The moral to the story is that morale and engagement matter and an employee’s engagement is largely driven by his/her boss. That being said, we need to focus on developing leaders who can empower and foster engagement in their staff.

What’s in store for 2013? We have a number of new and interesting topics to address next year, so stay tuned for more information from The Science of Personality. Until then, Happy Holidays from all of us at Hogan!

Over the past 12 months, Hogan has discussed a number of hot topics in the talent management arena. We’ve introduced you to an interesting, entertaining, and derailing cast of characters with howdoyouderail.com, and we’ve provided insight about engagement, team building, and organizational culture with our series on The Rocket Model. After reviewing the blog entries for this year, I compiled a list of Hogan’s Hottest, Hot Topics in 2012.

1. The Dark Side: Derailment and the Hogan Development Survey
This topic makes the top of the list because it is a real phenomenon. It is estimated that at least half of the individuals who are currently in leadership roles are failing or nearly derailing. The Dark Side (i.e. behaviors that emerge when we are under stress, pressure, or simply not self-monitoring) can rear its ugly head in a number of ways. We’ve all met the Loose Cannon, worked with the Show Off, or tried to deliver feedback to the Skeptic. These derailing behaviors can be career killers…literally. So it’s important that we focus on our reputation and self-awareness.

2. Self-Awareness: The value of understanding one’s reputation
One of the largest debates in the area of personality is that of identity and reputation. Identity relates to our values, goals, hopes, and dreams while reputation represents the behaviors that other people see that can either help or impede goal attainment. Reputation is what matters. It is what helps you climb the corporate ladder or go down the chute of derailment. We cannot modify our reputations without understanding why we do the things we do. Self-Awareness is the key to reconciling the differences between identity and reputation. Self-Awareness is the key to leadership success.

3. The Talent Management Gap: Building a high potential pipeline in a Millennial world
If you have doubts about the generational differences in the reliance on technology or the importance of social networking just ask any 10-year-old who wants an iPhone for Christmas, or consult the children’s toy aisle at your local big box store and you will find an assortment of Kindles, Nooks, and even iPad look-a-likes for babies. I can personally attest to this because my five-month-old received one from our friends for Christmas. There are differences in the way Millenials and eventually Generation Z will approach the work world. These groups have a significant reliance on technology, are highly affiliative, and require immediate and regular feedback. Jackie VanBroekhoven’s blog, The Generational Workforce of the Future, is a great illustration of the need to understand each of the generations representing the workforce in order to build the talent bench of the future.

4. Engagement: Focusing on the employee and the team
Employee engagement has been a hot topic for a number of years and it will likely become increasingly important as we see a shift in the make-up of the workforce. Engaged employees tend to be more satisfied and more productive, and productivity ties directly to the financial bottom line. The moral to the story is that morale and engagement matter and an employee’s engagement is largely driven by his/her boss. That being said, we need to focus on developing leaders who can empower and foster engagement in their staff.

What’s in store for 2013? We have a number of new and interesting topics to address next year, so stay tuned for more information from The Science of Personality. Until then, Happy Holidays from all of us at Hogan!

Ever heard the phrase, “employees leave their bosses, not their jobs”? Bad managers are easy to spot, but good managers are more difficult to identify. Because staff engagement is most strongly linked to the behavior of leaders, it is paramount that we recognize what makes a good manager good and a bad manager bad.

Download Good Managers and learn the tipping point that distinguishes a good leader from a bad leader.