It was only a month ago that President Obama announced the death of America’s biggest villain and proudly proclaimed victory in the name of justice.

For most, the events that unfolded and the success of the mission were symbols of American power. But to those of us who have a passion for leadership, the more subtle story revolved around President Obama and the potential impact this success would have on perceptions of his effectiveness as a leader.

April 24, just days before he announced Bin Laden’s death, Real Clear Politics, a site that averages political polls, showed President Obama’s job approval ratings at just 45%, with 50% disapproving. Experts owed those negative poll numbers to public dissatisfaction with the economy – high gas prices, debt, and signs of inflation. Less than a month later, those perceptions had changed for the better.

The ultimate measure of senior executive selection and succession planning is how well we can identify future high performers. Even with decades of research and industry leading tools, the best we can predict is somewhere around 30% to 40% of leadership potential, and this is better than most of our competitors.

So what's going on with the other 60% to 70%? The following factors are just some of the complexities of executive performance:

Success often relies on a few key decisions.
The base rate of those critical decisions is low, making them difficult to reliably measure. How many times does a leader have the opportunity to take out Public Enemy No.1 and change his/her foreign policy reputation overnight? If you are Google, is it a good choice to buy You Tube? Skype if you are Microsoft? How much do you invest in your new product, the iPod? It only takes one decision to make or break a reputation, or a company's value.

Real impact is only visible in the long-term.
It can take years before the value of some executive decisions can be measured. Experts argue decisions made more than 40 years ago to provide covert assistance to Afghan rebels’ fight against the USSR – hailed as a US victory in the Cold War – lead to the creation of modern-day Al-Qaeda. Short-term brilliance can actually have very bad effects, and, likewise, your "dud" of a leader may just have a long-term plan in mind.

Success often means having good timing.
The US economy recently took a plunge unlike anything we could have expected. Sure, there were some leaders who were responsible for the decline (yes, I'm looking at you, Wall Street), and there were policy decisions in Washington that were equally critical (Barney Frank). There were also executives who had no control over the market’s movement. If you would have measured executive performance using a “snapshot” method during that time, you would have seen some ugly metrics: sinking revenue, poor profits, negative stock value, and low employee engagement. Now, as companies rebound, those in power reap the benefits of economic recovery without necessarily doing anything.

Success sometimes comes down to luck.
Social scientists are trained early and often on the importance of statistical significance – identifying relationships that are not due to chance alone. And whatever you call it – luck, chance, or good fortune – there is an element to executive performance which is not entirely within a leader's control. President Bush took a big hit to his reputation as an effective leader due to his response to Hurricane Katrina, even though so much of what happened – an intense hurricane hitting exactly where it did – was beyond his control.

Politics makes leadership a visible sport, but it is easy to forget some of the lessons it teaches us about measuring executive performance. You may be able to identify who has the right stuff, but judging whether someone will be truly successful is no easy task.

Finally, ask yourself about your own leaders: Do they really make good decisions? Or are they riding the coat tails of someone else's decisions, reaping the benefits of good timing, and enjoying a little luck?
 

It can be hard to remember all the great moments of the Oklahoma City Thunder’s season when sports announcers and writers have been more focused this week on the Thunder’s “collapse” after losing to the Dallas Mavericks in the Western Conference. Although many fans faced disappointment after Games 4 and 5 (especially those of us in Oklahoma), the Thunder’s hard fought third season should not go overlooked. At the forefront of the adolescent Thunder team is Kevin Durant, who sums up the season nicely in a tweet he released last night: “It's been a fun ride for us. We had 15 guys on this team and a whole city behind us. Everybody was great. We'll keep working hard."

Durant’s achievements make him nothing short of a superstar. In his short NBA career since his college stint as a Texas Longhorn, Durant has won such awards as NBA Rookie of the Year, 2-time NBA All-Star, and the youngest scoring leader in NBA history at 21 years of age, among many others. He is undoubtedly one of the most talented players in the league, yet also one of the most humble, genuine, and respectful. As I’ve started paying more attention to Durant’s performance on the court these past few years, what I’ve found most impressive is how he leads his team off the court -- by example.

In an article written by Daniel Locke on Durant’s leadership style, Locke states, “The best thing to occur during the ‘Summer of LeBron’ for the Thunder was Kevin Durant signing a five-year contract extension worth about $86 million.” His signing not only ensured that we can watch Durant carry the Thunder for several seasons to come, it also served as a great example of Durant’s character. There were no major press releases, countdowns, or TV specials; just a simple tweet to share his gratitude: @KDthunderup: “Extension for 5 more years wit the #thunder….God Is Great, me and my family came a long way…I love yall man for real, this a blessing!” Durant could’ve taken the route of LeBron and milked it for all it was worth, but that’s not his style. He’s been unafraid to remain true to himself, his upbringing and his values, all qualities that make him an admirable basketball player, individual, and leader.

After the devastating loss to the Mavs this past Monday night, Durant took full responsibility as the team leader. He stated he felt upset for letting his team and city down. We don’t often see this level of ownership from high-level sports figures, not to mention from leaders. Many leaders are not introspective; it’s easier to point a finger and make excuses for the team’s failure, but not for Kevin Durant. He remains committed to his team, the city for which he plays, and most importantly, to himself. His leadership should serve as a strong example for the leaders of the world, whether they lead on the basketball court, on the field, or in the boardroom. His leadership style is one of commitment and respect, while pushing himself and his teammates to perform to the best of their abilities.

By Hogan standards, Durant has proven himself a successful leader—you simply have to take a look at the success of the team he leads. Team success can be measured in a number of ways, and it’s safe to say that the Thunder have seen success, even without winning a NBA title… yet.

I am the proud father of three children: a 4-year-old boy, a 4-year-old girl, and a 7-month-old baby girl. As you might assume, the 4-year-olds are twins. I have observed many things that have amazed me with the twins over the past 4 years. One observation was that a multitude of people, from strangers at the shopping mall to professionals with PhDs, would ask me if the boy and girl were identical. I would, of course, politely respond “no.” I wanted to say that not only did these children not result from the splitting of a single zygote, but there is a very fundamental difference between the anatomy of a boy and a girl that prevent them from being identical!

Another observation that I noticed very early on was how differently they behaved when they were upset. The children share the same family circus environment and around 50% of the same DNA, however their reactions under stress follow very consistent, yet distinctly unique, patterns. Through my work at Hogan as a consultant, I began to see clear parallels between the derailing behavior of leaders as assessed by the Hogan Development Survey (HDS) and the challenges I was facing at home as a father.

A derailer is a counterproductive tendency that, in normal circumstances, likely manifests as a strength. When we are tired, pressured, bored, or otherwise distracted, these behaviors can become overused strengths or risk factors that inhibit our effectiveness. The HDS measures 11 such risk factors. For example, leaders scoring in the high-risk zone on two of these HDS risk factors, Excitable and Diligent, are likely to struggle with a vicious cycle of behavior when under stress. They tend to be perfectionistic and typically impose high performance standards on their employees causing others to view them as demanding and nitpicky (Diligent). When employees do not meet these lofty expectations, the leader may react with emotional outbursts and become overly disappointed in others performance (Excitable). As a result, leaders might demoralize and disempower staff through moody overreactions and a refusal to delegate, which places additional pressure upon the leader to deliver results, and this increased stress level is likely to further trigger the Diligent/Excitable cycle of behaviors.

Now, I obviously cannot administer the HDS to my 4 year-old son. If I could, I would bet dollars to donuts that he would score in the high risk zone on both Excitable and Diligent. Like any leader, child, or human, my son has many wonderful aspects to his personality. He is very hardworking (loves to help his dad shovel snow, pull weeds) and his positive enthusiasm is contagious in our household. However, he has very specific and rigid expectations for his own and others behavior (Diligent) and he becomes overly upset when things don’t play out to his liking (Excitable) such that his negative emotions also set the tone for the house.

Another interesting combination of HDS factors occurs when a leader scores in the high risk zone on both Mischievous and Colorful. These leaders tend to get noticed and succeed early on through their ability to command the spotlight with outgoing and animated behavior (Colorful) and charm others with their impulsivity and excitement seeking (Mischievous). However, these behaviors can cross the line into the realm of derailment when leaders are too dramatic too often such that they manage by crisis in reaction to stress. Performance can also be inhibited when leaders invite negative attention by testing limits, taking risks, and favoring pleasure over commitments. On a smaller scale, Colorful and Mischievous are very accurate labels for my daughter. On the positive side, she is endlessly entertaining with her family room theatrical productions and already demonstrates a capability to use finesse to win others over. However, her dramatic antics are less entertaining when she reacts to a simple splinter extraction as if it were major surgery without proper anesthetic.

The real fun begins when one person’s derailers collide with the derailers of another individual. In my work life as a consultant, these derailers collide among members of work teams. In my personal life, they collide between my twins. What do you think happens when you pair one child who demands that everyone color inside the lines and gets upset when they don’t with another child who truly relishes coloring outside the lines and pushing other peoples’ buttons? Sometimes it resembles a mixed martial arts pay-per-view event. That being said, the twins also function like a little old married couple where neither individual could function without the other. I can’t wait to see what my 7-month-old eventually adds to this behavioral stew!

The Hogan leadership research tells us that most people will struggle with at least one or two derailers. So I guess that makes my children normal. The research also indicates exactly what I’ve observed in that we develop risk factors early in life while learning to deal with parents, peers, and relatives. This behavior that develops while we are young may become habitual and we may be unaware that we behave in certain ways because it’s simply the way we’ve always acted. These derailers can inhibit both individual and team performance both at work and at home. Strategic self-awareness of these potential risk factors is the critical first step for understanding our behavior and beginning to manage ourselves to get the most out of our strengths.

Social psychology concerns how people behave in specific situations—for example, as members of a jury panel or eye witnesses to a mugging. Social psychology is very popular, but it doesn’t concern “human nature,” it concerns how people behave in carefully defined contexts.

Personality psychology concerns “human nature"—understanding oneself and other people independent of specific situations. Despite its importance, it is vastly less popular than social psychology—for example, there are only about 400 personality psychologists in the United States.

Even worse, modern personality psychology largely focuses on aspects of the so-called Big Five Theory. According to this respected academic model, what we know about ourselves and other people can be described as follows:

1. Some people are shy and reserved; others are outgoing and talkative
2. Some people are nervous and guilt prone, others are confident and resilient
3. Some people are impulsive and reckless, other people are cautious and self-disciplined
4. Some people are rude and insensitive, others are charming and tactful
5. Some people are narrow minded, others are open-minded.
Much modern research is devoted to the genetics and neurological underpinnings of these five dimensions.

An academic friend just returned from an accreditation visit to a psychology program in Denmark. He was surprised to find that the Danes are interested in Sigmund Freud and psychoanalysis and have yet to discover Big Five Theory—which would represent progress on their part.

But consider the following six Freudian generalizations about people and decide which theory—Big Five or Freud—has the more interesting things to say about people.

1. Development matters; unpleasant events from childhood nag us for the rest of our lives.

2. The most important developmental event concerns how children relate to adult authority. Some children become rebellious and defiant, some accommodate, and some become slaves to authority. The Conscientiousness dimension of Big Five theory captures attitudes toward authority. Scores on this dimension predict a wide range of important career and health related outcomes. Low scorers tend to be creative and entrepreneurial and do well in sales—but they have problems following rules of any kind. High scorers tend to be disciplined and procedural and do well in accounting and law enforcement—and enjoy following and enforcing rules.

3. Every human relationship is ambivalent; even those people we most like and respect do things that annoy us and that is a lesson with which we have to learn to live.

4. Everyone is self-deceived, all people lie to themselves about their motives and desires, and spin theories about why they behave as they do. The real motives behind much social behavior—including behavior that seems perfectly altruistic—are completely selfish and egoistic.

5. There are real, biological differences between women and men, and these differences have consequences. For example, women are better students than men because they are more conscientious, dutiful, and eager to please.

6. Leadership and personality are inextricably intertwined. Leaders have charisma, but are ultimately narcissistic and possibly psychopathic; followers are needy, dependent, and gullible. The leadership process can only be understood in terms of the relationships that form between leaders and followers.

We can learn many important lessons about human nature from Freud, lessons that we ignore at our personal and collective peril. At the same time, however, Alfred Adler, Carl Jung, Karen Horney, Erik Erikson, and George Kelly have important things to say about human nature; their ideas are an important part of the rational/humanistic intellectual heritage of the West. The modern indifference to personality theory means we are in danger of losing this heritage.

Dr. Robert Hogan
President
Hogan Assessment Systems

Recent events in politics and business again show the importance of personal integrity in everyday affairs, especially at the leadership level. Our analysis of the psychology of integrity suggests that the topic, although a crucial element in human affairs, is somewhat more paradoxical than it might appear at first blush.

In Memories, Dreams, and Reflections, Carl Jung describes meeting Albert Schweizer (1875-1965), the legendary theologian, organist, philosopher, and physician known for founding a hospital for the poor in Gabon. Schweizer received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1952, and by anyone’s standards qualifies as a great moral figure. Jung reported that he spent two days prying at Schweizer, trying to find the neurotic underpinnings for his moral nobility, and he could find nothing. Then Jung noted that he met Schweizer’s wife, and Schweizer’s narcissism was revealed. Similarly, Erik Erikson wrote a psycho-biographical study of Mohandas Ghandi, the “great-souled father” of modern India, the man who invented non-violent civil disobedience as a way of protesting political oppression, and virtually everyone’s prototype of a great moral figure. Erikson was so disgusted by Gandhi’s hypocrisy and narcissism that he almost abandoned the project. Mother Theresa similarly fails to hold up well under close moral scrutiny.

June 4th, 2010 marked the passing of basketball coaching legend John Wooden. As many people are aware, Wooden was known as the “Wizard of Westwood” for his unmatched success as coach of the UCLA men’s basketball team, leading them to a record 88 consecutive victories and 10 national championships among other accomplishments. What is less widely publicized is the strategy that Wooden designed and deployed in order to recruit, assess, select, develop, and mentor his players into successful individuals on and off the court. This aspect of the coach’s legend interestingly establishes him as not only an innovator in the sport of basketball, but also a pioneer in the realm of talent management.