Goal setting; sound decision making; problem solving; networking, embracing diversity…these factors have more in common than their presence across worldwide competency models. The preceding competencies are some of the many skills acquired by a girl scout. As many may be aware, Girl Scouts of America is dedicated to the development and empowerment of girls through experiences, friendships, and learning opportunities. Although I’m fairly familiar with the organization — I was a brownie myself and my Aunt recently retired from her position as CEO of the Girl Scouts of Eastern Oklahoma — after further research, I was impressed to learn about the organization’s continual improvement efforts. Since its inception almost 100 years ago, the organization has progressed in conjunction with the issues facing young girls and with the evolution of women in business and leadership.

Last week, Fast Company released an article about the addition of an innovation component as part of the Girl Scouts’ curriculum. Young girls will be introduced to fields like web design and product development, and will work to obtain such honors as the “inventor” and “social innovation” badges. In today’s business environment, innovation is a key component of successful leadership. By providing these skills, the Girl Scouts are working to build strong female leaders for the future.

Beyond innovation, the Girl Scouts are offering programs focused on financial management, including “good credit,” “money manager,” and “budgeting” badges.

The new badges are among 136 unveiled in the Girl Scouts’ first program redesign in 25 years, the result of a years-long process in which scouts themselves laid out a list of skills they would like to learn. If it’s any indication how much things have changed, nearly 100 years ago, girl scouts were working toward “telegrapher” and “matron housekeeper” badges.

There’s something to be said about the balance maintained by the Girl Scouts. It’s essential for the organization to maintain the fun and flare that’s always been associated with being a Girl Scout, but also to remain forward-thinking and relevant. After reading about the organization’s program redesign, I was pleased to learn that such a balance is being achieved. Young girls will continue to enjoy Girl Scout traditions such as cookie sales, camping, and field trips, yet through these new programs, will become stronger students, community contributors, and eventually, leaders.

 

At the recent Conference Board in Chicago, a number of talent management professionals and consulting experts gave presentations on next-generation leadership. These discussions included a variety of topics, from recruiting generation Y and Millennial employees to social networking and overcoming the talent management gap as Baby Boomers retire. The common thread in these topics there were three recurrent questions 1) how do we develop next generation high potentials for senior leadership roles, 2) do we tell them they are high potentials, and 3) how will this impact their ability to be authentic leaders?

The general consensus from the Conference Board attendees was that telling these individuals was important for a number of reasons. Mostly, formal identification of high potentials allows employees to opt out of these programs if they are not interested. For those who are interested, formal identification may increase commitment to such programs. One of the concerns with telling these individuals they have been identified as the future of the organization is that they may lose sight of what they need to do from a development perspective today to ensure success once appointed to these senior leadership roles. Additionally, there is a concern about the ability of these individuals to be authentic leaders.

Last week my colleague Jackie VanBroekhoven wrote about the shadows leaders cast. These shadows begin developing early in our careers, and without careful attention and behavior modification they may supersede our successful initiatives and bottom line results. When reflecting on the Conference Board dialogue about high potential identification, the importance of shadow management could not be truer. In addition to committing to development programs these high potentials also need to commit to self-development and shadow awareness.

The current political environment is a great place to observe the consequences of our shadows in action. As we prepare for the 2012 election year the speeches and promises for change are in full force. Regardless of your political views, you are likely to observe politicians leveraging their confidence, charisma, and innovative ideas to change the current economy to get your vote. The question of authenticity comes into play when it is time to put these plans into action. Take Rick Perry’s current proposal of a flat tax plan. Is this the new financial strategy to save the US from the current debt crisis or is it simply a political message to take interest off his poking fun of President Obama’s birth certificate situation? What sort of shadow does Governor Perry cast and will this shadow impact his success in the upcoming election?

These leadership shadows are much easier to identify when people are in the public eye. Politicians, CEOs, and other public figures likely have these shadows following them quite literally when paparazzi are lurking in the bushes and standing in their driveways.

Public figures aside, have you ever thought about the shadow you cast? If others were to describe you when you weren’t around what would they say? Are you confident engaging and charming or arrogant socially dominant and risk taking? In addition to self-awareness and behavior change we all need to be mindful of these looming success killers or shadows that may negatively impact our reputation.

This topic of shadow awareness is particularly salient in the current workforce. Although organizations may not be identifying the next CEO or United States President in their current high potential programs, they are indentifying the next generation of leaders who may be tasked with ascending the ranks of the organization faster than their predecessors. That being said, these programs need to focus on developing the skills and behaviors for leadership, but also challenging these individuals to think about the legacy they want to leave behind and figuring out whether you’re afraid of your shadow is a great place to start!

I recently listened to a talk given by Greg Barnett, one of Hogan’s veteran consultants and our Director of Product Development, about the importance of defining a strong leadership brand. The concept of an individual leadership brand departs from our conventional understanding of branding from an organizational standpoint. For example, consider the brand that Apple computers has created; the exemplars of innovation, elegant simplicity, and sleek, modern, technology. Now consider the individual leadership brand that Steve Jobs created – in many ways, his personality embodies many of the same qualities of Apple’s brand – Jobs is hailed as an innovative, creative genius who changed the world with his brilliance and innovation. Even his physical image aligned with Apple’s brand – sleek, simple, and timeless with a modern slant.

So, what does a strong leadership brand get you? To cite Barnett, developing a strong leadership brand can earn friends, fans, and followers – and not just the kind you get on Facebook or Twitter. It defines your identity and distinctiveness, communicates what value you bring to the table, and provides focus and direction to guide leadership efforts. It also insulates you from your shortcomings and mistakes.

A strong, consistent brand creates a kind of umbrella, so-to-speak, that defines you as a leader and makes your day-to-day actions (and blunders) less relevant. For example, consider the legacy left behind by Bill Clinton; despite his well-publicized lapses in judgment and abuse of political power, he remains a beloved American president who is remembered for leading our nation through one of the most prosperous decades in U.S. History. Although President Clinton withstood some harsh criticism and mockery, his overall image, strong leadership brand, and arguably his charm, helped cushion these blows and preserve his overall reputation and contributions in the hearts, minds, and history books of the American people. By contrast, Howard Dean’s brand image was not strong enough to save him from his “I have a scream…” speech, which sealed his fate forever as a volatile lunatic unfit for presidential office.

However, no matter how magnetic, impactful, or authentic the leadership brand, all human beings have a dark side – a kind of shadow that follows you around, lurking in the peripheral, with the potential to emerge in times of stress, pressure, novelty, or boredom. This is what Hogan refers to as leadership derailment, wherein our personality characteristics betray us, degrade our success, and generally send us on a fast train to nowhere. Our shadow is particularly dangerous because it tends to lie beyond the reach of our awareness, but is highly apparent to those around us.

In the wake of Jobs’ premature passing, his strong leadership brand permits his fans and followers to remember him fondly for his brilliant contributions to the world, his insistence on quality, and the legacy he leaves behind him at Apple. Nobody is highlighting his failures, setbacks, or well-known dark side. Well, almost nobody…

In a scathing post-mortem commentary titled What Everyone is Too Polite to Say About Steve Jobs, Gawker’s Ryan Tate points out some elements of Steve Jobs’ shadow. Some have described him as a ruthless tyrant who inspired fear among his ranks with his hostility, unpredictable temperament, humiliation tactics, and harsh censorship practices. Yet, in the aftermath of Jobs’ death, he is still heralded as a prodigy, a strategic genius, and a gifted innovator who changed the technological landscape forever. Only history will be able to tell us which version of Jobs lives in the collective public memory – the genius, or his shadow? Was his brand strong enough to fend off the smudge that his shadow left on an otherwise pristine career?

In listening to Greg’s talk, he posed some powerful questions that are still rattling around persistently in my own head many days later: What defines your leadership brand? What do you stand for? What do people say about you when you’re not around?

People have a difficult time answering these questions honestly because human beings are masters of self-deception. Our clever minds and defensive egos do a phenomenal job of protecting us from the truth, as do the people around us who shield us from the painful reality that we are not perfect. We receive feedback from our peers and loved ones in the form of sugar-coated rubber bullets that contain a shred of truth, but do little to help us become truly self-aware.

It is worth reflecting on the unintended consequences that your shadow can have on your brand reputation and ultimate success. If you get to know your shadow, you arm yourself with the self-awareness needed to manage your dark side, prevent derailment, and create a true leadership brand that is authentic, high-quality, and differentiates you from others.
 

I’m a big movie buff. Since I have young children I rarely get a chance to go the movie theaters anymore to see a film that doesn’t star Woody, Buzz, Lightning McQueen, or a princess of some type. In my 5+ years of fatherhood, Netflix has become a savior in terms of feeding my movie addiction. For me and 20 million other subscribers, seeing that a new movie is available for streaming online or getting that red envelope in the mail is one of life’s simple joys.

The joy of being a Netflix customer was mightily shaken last July when customers received a brisk, impersonal email informing them that the video subscription service pricing would be increased by as much as 60% per month unless subscribers decided to substantially limit the services they were receiving. In essence, customers were abruptly told that they would no longer be able to enjoy both the streaming movies and DVD-by-mail features. They would be required to choose one type of service otherwise incur the price hike to retain both options.

Netflix customers were outraged by this imposed price increase and/or elimination of service options. This outrage was not only communicated via blogs and Facebook posts. Many customers have truly put their money where their mouth is by canceling their subscriptions. The company’s stock price is now 42% lower than it was in July before the price hike announcement. An organization that by all accounts changed the video rental industry and was experiencing a fantastic upward trajectory envied by the business world has taken a serious turn for the worse. How did this happen?

The recent events at Netflix appear to be yet another unfortunate example of leadership derailment. The company’s decision to increase prices and the manner in which they communicated the changes to customers has been perceived by many as a bold and arrogant move. In September, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings issued a statement apologizing to customers. However, it is possible that some may view his apology as too little, too late. Even after the initial customer backlash, Netflix at first confidently defended their decision and even announced in August that they expected to gain 400,000 subscribers by the end of September. Recently, Netflix has projected that it will have actually lost 600,000 customers by the end of September. In other bad news, Starz, a key movie content partner for Netflix, ended its partnership with the organization. The company has decided to rebrand their DVD-by-mail service as a separate company called Qwikster. The effectiveness of this strategy is being questioned by many and could further stoke the flames of the fire started earlier this summer.

Two months after the initial controversy, Reed Hastings’ blog post apology stated that the July announcement “lacked respect and humility” and indicated that he should have personally communicated in more detail the reasons for the changes. He went on to say, “In hindsight, I slid into arrogance based upon past success.” Hastings ends his statement by saying that he and his team will work hard to regain customers’ trust. Interestingly enough, his actions and choice of terminology strongly parallel the leadership derailment research findings of Hogan Assessment Systems.

High potential leaders assessed by Hogan tend to be seen as confident, assertive, ambitious, and visionary. Some of these very characteristics are likely present in the senior leadership team at Netflix and surely contributed significantly to the company’s hugely successful rise. However, during stress or heavy workloads, when leaders aren’t paying attention, or during times of change, this confident style may emerge as counterproductive behaviors viewed by others as arrogant, lacking humility, setting unrealistic expectations, and ignoring negative feedback. In his own words, Hastings acknowledged a very similar behavioral pattern. Furthermore, derailing behaviors related to arrogance often lead to the inability of leaders to be seen as trustworthy and sincere, hence Hastings’ comment that Netflix is now committed to regaining customer trust.

Leaders that allow their natural confidence to descend into arrogance rarely admit when they are wrong, learn from mistakes, or take responsibility when things go wrong. This recent statement by the CEO appears to potentially demonstrate a realization that a mistake was made and a willingness to take ownership of the misstep…however the pricing increase was not rescinded and only the poor communication of the policy change was addressed. Will the apology and Qwikster rebranding strategy be effective in retaining customers and attracting new subscribers? Can Netflix and its leaders get back on track after derailing so drastically? Stay tuned!
 

We heard it all before: leaders behaving one way in public, then very differently behind closed doors.

Right now in the UK, ex Labour Chancellor Alistair Darling is spilling the beans over the leadership style of former Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Seemingly placid, timid and shy on the surface, rumours of an explosive, temperamental and potentially bullying Brown gradually started emerging from Number 10 in the final months of his presidency. These allegations were quickly dismissed by government officials and no further action was taken. Mr Darling is now telling the world about the “hellish” behaviour he experienced and the “brutal regime” he suffered at the hands of Mr Brown. And while, admittedly, we have only heard one side of the story (Brown has yet to comment), Darling painfully refers to this period as "hellish... very personal. It left a scar on me... you just can't get over it." Once again, a leader’s personality is on the front cover of all newspapers.

It is not hard to see why Brown’s personality captured the attention of the media. Reports of Brown’s behaviour away from the public eye appeared like two inexplicable sides of the same coin – and the difficulty in the reconciliation of the two once again highlighted our inner challenges with ambiguity and conflicts.

This is not surprising; human beings do not like to consider themselves conflicted and it is known that most of us find inconsistencies in behaviour unsettling. In the history of personality research, these conflicts were once considered discrepancies and thus wrongly attributed to assessment and measurement errors. Today, consultants specialising in the assessment of the bright and dark side of personality are aware that conflicting behaviours can be exhibited in different circumstances or even days (e.g. emotionally composed and mature one day, volatile and abusive the next). In fact, we often encounter these conflicts when interpreting psychometric reports and delivering feedback to organisational leaders. Addressing intrapersonal conflicts is a complex task that requires careful analysis, introspection and a desire to change.

Years of research conducted by the Centre for Creative Leadership and Hogan Assessment Systems, as well as an increasing number of publications (see Dotlich and Cairo’s Why CEOs Fail), demonstrate that leadership derailment can be attributed to recurrent, measurable and most importantly, manageable themes (or derailing tendencies).

Darling’s testimony is a stark reminder that these derailers do not only represent barriers to leadership effectiveness and well-being at work, but also constitute significant barriers to individual, team and organisational performance (in this instance coming in the way of something as important as tackling the country’s financial crisis). These destructive tendencies affect the ability of leaders to gain trust from subordinates and form coalitions at work, which in turn negatively affect a range of executive functions, such as decision-making, the objective analysis of crucial facts and figures, and the ability to build and maintain a high performing team.

Brown’s example of leadership style characterised by an excessive focus on managing relationships publicly with external customers and stakeholders, while ignoring the quality of the interactions with internal ones: colleagues, peers and subordinates. Leaders adopting this style have a tendency to release their frustration upon team members, disregarding the consequences of their behaviour, either because they think that the behaviour is acceptable (it’s between us) or simply because they can get away with it (no one will know).

We never fully know what goes on behind the closed doors of an organisation. But leaders who keep smiling in public, only to behave carelessly towards their team members, have an opportunity to learn a valuable lesson from this story.

After all, reputations are powerful and enduring things; they can be buried, but they never fully go away.

Andrea Facchini, MSc.
Business Psychologist and Guest Blogger

For as long as I can remember, I have had a strong affinity for canines. In fact, I haven’t ever been without at least one, and don’t ever imagine a time in my life when I will. In keeping with that trend I recently became the proud adopted father to two dogs - Weimaraners. You have probably heard about how utterly insane this particular breed of canine can be. You may have even experienced it firsthand; either way their reputation precedes them. I tend to sway from popular opinion and think that people often err on the side of exaggeration, so I went with the mentality of “how bad can it really be?” and took the leap. The diplomatic way to summate the result of that leap is to say that I have learned a lot in these past months. I have learned a lot about patience, when to laugh, when to scream, when to cry, and also just how quickly my hair can morph into the color of the very beasts causing the change. Oddly enough, however, I have also been able to draw some conclusions about an unexpected topic: leadership.

As mentioned above there are two of them: a boy and a girl. Note that I did not say a male and a female. The terms boy and girl imply some degree of adolescence or immaturity, and although these dogs are well into adulthood, I think boy and girl more aptly describe them. In an effort to protect their anonymity I will henceforth refer to them as Bonnie and Clyde, but their real names are Shiner and Luna. To be fair, I am not sure I have ever met two creatures with better intentions than Bonnie and Clyde. They are incredibly sweet and good-natured; it’s just that they have some wires loose. Or maybe even all of their wires loose. And maybe not just loose, but severed and hanging.

So what do these two schizophrenic, hyperactive, sociopathic creatures have to do with leadership? To begin with, I am in a position to lead these two beasts. I have had to step in as a secondary authority figure and become the alpha male (or so I have to tell myself) of the pack. If you were to ask Clyde, he would probably tell you something different, but he can neither write nor speak English, so I win. To date Clyde and I hold many long standing battles, one of which is the trash. The dog loves, moreover needs, to get into the trash. He has figured out how to use the foot release (I think his cunning wire is the only one still connected) to open the lid and stick his head in, and if he still can’t get what he is after, he will just knock the whole can over and enjoy. I have yet to learn how to teach the animal not to exhibit this behavior, so as a leader in this situation I feel like I have effectively failed.

I have analyzed the aforementioned failure for months and tried in vain to formulate different ways to work with Clyde, but I had a moment this past weekend that could only be described as an epiphany. It was Saturday afternoon and he had rummaged the kitchen trash. In lieu of the normal scolding, Clyde and I had a moment of unspoken conversation marked by about 30 seconds of locked eyes and puzzled facial expression. It went something like this:

Me: “Clyde, why do you keep knocking over the trash? You know you I am just going to put it back in the can and you are going to get in trouble. Why do you do this?”
Clyde: “Why do you keep standing the can back up, picking up the trash, and scolding me? You know I am just going to knock it right back over when you turn around.”

That dialogue, while it may seem trivial, changed my frame of mind. Occupationally, I am surrounded daily by conversations about leadership. What is good leadership? What makes it? What traits coincide with it? What often arises is that leadership starts with values. In order to effectively lead individuals, a person must find a way to align his or her values with those being led. Such an alignment helps to form a bond that motivates people to work toward and achieve a common goal. Historically, those individuals who have led successfully, frequently did so by using their skills to make others believe what they believed. With certain exceptions, of course, those who have attempted to lead through intimidation failed, and failed rather quickly. An iron fist certainly has its place, but it can rapidly cause a breakdown in cohesion that will lead to resentment, or even mutiny. We have all been surrounded by people in leadership positions all of our lives (note that I didn’t say leaders). Thinking back, which of those individuals stick out in your mind? To me it isn’t the screaming football coach, tyrannical geometry teacher, or angry manager. It is those individuals who led me in such a way that I didn’t even realize I was being led; those individuals who held a strong passion for something and found a way to make that passion contagious. Exposure to that type of leadership is more than motivating, it is inspiring, and long-lasting.

What struck me this past Saturday afternoon was that Clyde and I are suffering from a terrible misalignment of values. It is not that he acts this way because he likes to anger me (at least so I think), in fact I know he doesn’t like to get in trouble. It is just that one of his core values is food. And it is not that I like to become angry and scold him, it’s just that I value cleanliness and order. The result of this misalignment is a pretty big problem, as Clyde is a dog, and a German dog at that. I don’t speak dogese or German, so this is going to be a constant struggle. I could try to adapt to his way of thinking, but that would just leave me overweight with a messy kitchen. To make a long story short, Clyde is going to win this battle and I just need to resign to cleaning up trash for the rest of his days. Leading people is different, however, as we can understand spoken language and have a stronger ability to reason. People enjoy leadership through inspiration, and a sure fire way to inspire is to tap into an individual’s values and drivers…and the first step in tapping into them is to identify them.
 

My colleagues and I recently attended a local breakfast meeting with Tulsa’s Lead Change Group. We focus on leadership virtually every day at Hogan, but stepping away from our desks and engaging in a community discussion about leadership proved to be both interesting and insightful. Plus, the bagels and coffee helped get the early morning off to a great start.

The Lead Change Group meets every other month, and usually involves a panel discussion about a specific topic. This particular meeting focused on defining moments in leadership. Four local leaders discussed defining moments that changed how they lead.

Two of the panelists’ stories involved a personal decision to leave an organization to focus on family. The remaining panelists described similar situations – a decision to stay or leave an organization going through considerable change during a tumultuous economic time. One panelist decided that if half of his entire department was going to be reorganized, he would voluntarily join them as he believed the departmental cuts were unnecessary and unfairly treated the staff. Conversely, the last panelist faced the same defining moment but decided to stay. Although he had the opportunity to focus on his own projects and commitments to the community, he felt that his commitment to lead others and standing by his staff was more important. He stayed to lead those who relied on him.

Each of the panelists’ defining decisions emphasized the importance of people. Through their defining moments, the panelists learned that building and maintaining relationships rather than emphasizing the bottom line proved to not only be more rewarding, but also a valuable lesson that reshaped their leadership style.

Interestingly, this meeting occurred the same week Steve Jobs had an important defining moment. According to an article at The Daily Beast, Jobs wrote a letter to Apple’s board and explained, "I have always said if there ever came a day when I could no longer meet my duties and expectations as Apple’s CEO, I would be the first to let you know. Unfortunately, that day has come."

Jobs decision to step down indefinitely most likely included many compounding factors, not just his health. One could argue that Jobs is putting both Apple and its people ahead of his desire to be in charge. His admirable decision to allow Tim Cook to take over CEO role begs important questions. Do successful leaders choose people over their companies’ success? Is it the other way around, company over people? Is it possible to keep both in mind and successfully lead?
 

Globalization has arrived. The work of individuals, teams, business units, and companies span geographic boundaries, markets, cultures, and languages. Organizations have operations around the globe, and the major economies of the world are tightly interconnected.

As applied practitioners of organizational psychology, it’s important for us to understand the implications for work in these organizations, and in particular how to manage talent needs as the nature of business changes. Tasks and duties in low-complexity jobs are often more tangible and easily defined, may have little differentiation across cultures. For example, basic assembly and manufacturing positions require some degree of conscientiousness and teamwork, and may have little variance in the knowledge, skills, abilities, and personality characteristics (KSAPs) required to successfully perform the job in different cultures. In high-complexity jobs, the specific task and duty requirements may be harder to define, and require a higher degree of judgment and discretion on the part of the employee. In these roles, the cultural context may dictate the specific set of KSAPs that will facilitate performance.

Management and leadership positions are generally considered to be high-complexity jobs. The people that fill these roles are given broad goals and targets to accomplish, and are afforded the discretion to exercise their judgment regarding the best way to meet these goals. Just about the only common characteristic of these jobs is the responsibility of the leader to facilitate the work of others. But how do leaders facilitate the work of others? How do they build and motivate high-performing teams? The answer to this is the most oft-uttered line of any psychologist – “it depends.”

Here at Hogan we’ve initiated some research to explore the leadership characteristics in various cultures around the world. These characteristics reflect a culture’s beliefs about what constitutes leadership. According to Implicit Leadership Theory (Fischbein and Lord, 2004), people develop ideas of what constitutes leadership. Collectively, these beliefs form an individual’s leadership prototype. People then compare others to this leadership prototype, and to the extent that a person matches the leadership prototype, we ascribe leadership qualities to that person. Through this research, we are examining whether there may exist cultural differences in leadership prototypes, and thus in the people that are promoted into leadership positions in organizations. Naturally, this will hold implications for organizations whose operations span cultural boundaries.

Stay tuned for research updates, and look for our findings to be presented at the 2012 SIOP Conference in San Diego.
 

A virtual debate in the business blogosphere has been growing more and more heated over the past several weeks and months.  It appears the debate began with a May 17th New York Times article that quoted Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s illustrious CEO, as saying, “Someone who is exceptional in their role is not just a little better than someone who is pretty good. They are 100 times better.”  Although difficult to follow at first, Zuckerberg’s argument is that a brilliant individual is 100 times more valuable than a mediocre team.  His statement reflects a new strategy in the War on Talent that many have also begun to adopt.  According to the Times article, many of the giants in Silicon Valley are so desperate for fresh talent they have resorted to purchasing entire companies simply to acquire the gifted entrepreneurs, engineers, and programmers that created and comprise them.  This new practice has been dubbed “acqhiring,” and is becoming more common in industries where the competition for talent is fierce and requires more benefits, dazzling incentives, and creative ways to attract the best and brightest.

Zuckerberg’s thoughts are not shared by all, however.  In a rebuttal of sorts, HBR blogger Bill Taylor posted a piece of his mind called Great People Are Overrated on June 20th, in which he questions the practice of placing all of the eggs in a single, metaphorical basket.  Taylor warns his readers about the dangers of putting too much emphasis on “star players” and underestimating the power of an effective team.  In simpler terms, the quarterback cannot win the game alone, but the entire second string playing as a team may have a fighting chance; or at least they would in a heartwarming Hollywood blockbuster.  In our desperation to retain top talent, are those of us in talent management becoming overly focused on star-power and losing sight of what actually drives performance?  Taylor also points out that most talent decisions would not realistically involve a choice between one exceptional person and 100 mediocre people.  However, if forced to make the choice what would you decide?

Adding to the web debate is fellow HBR blogger Jeff Stibel, CEO of Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp.  Stibel responded directly to Taylor on June 27th with his blog, Why a Great Individual Is Better Than a Good Team.  He not only agrees with Zuckerberg, but takes it one step further by saying that a great individual is worth an infinite number of average people.  Why?  Stibel claims that our cognitive functioning breaks down in group settings, and that the value of an individual contributor declines with each additional team member working on a single idea or project.  He likens his argument to the economic law of diminishing returns, or – more simply put – too many cooks in the kitchen will spoil the broth.

Evaluating both sides of this argument from a psychologist’s perspective, I propose another point of view.  As with all matters involving human beings, we cannot place too much or too little emphasis on the importance of individual differences in our talent management philosophy.  The dynamics of human interaction, team performance, and individual effectiveness are far too complex to be reduced to sports metaphors or culinary idioms.  It is very easy to cull up images of the brilliant artist, boy genius, or start-up entrepreneur who works best as a “lone wolf,” locked up in an office or studio with nothing more than their ideas and their IQ points.  For these individuals, perhaps it is possible to claim that an individual is better than a team.  These salient examples, however intriguing they are, do not define the global workforce or talent pool that we are currently facing.  Today’s effective organizations need dreamers and doers, leaders and team players, and generally rely on the cooperation and coordination of many. 

Jeff Stibel’s argument is somewhat lost on me for a few reasons.  First, individual differences matter.  For every person who works better alone, there is at least one person who thrives on social interaction, gains energy from working in teams, and feels motivated by opportunities to collaborate.  Behind every brilliant program or idea developed by a software genius is a person or team who knows how to actually market the product, balance the books, manage the necessary resources, etc.  Second, organizational performance cannot be determined by calculating the arithmetic sum of each individual contributor’s brilliance, ability, or creativity.  Rather, organizational performance is determined by the extent to which individuals can effectively perform together as a team.  Finally, taking into account individual differences and team dynamics, success will also depend on the quality of leadership, which ideally provides a compelling vision, adequate resources, and the strategic direction necessary to maximize the talent within an organization.

The debate rages on – see Taylor’s Great People Are Overrated (Part II).  However, it seems that all parties agree that the War on Talent is a reality, and that continued organizational success depends on the ability to attract, retain, and perhaps even “acqhire” top talent.  My opinion diverges from the debate based on a belief that neither the individual nor the team is sufficient to guarantee organizational success.  A much more complex formula governs the outcomes we care about in today’s talent landscape and informs where we decide to funnel our resources.  The final statement in Stibel’s blog is one I absolutely agree with: “One decision is easy: find the best people and empower them to do great things.” 

An acquaintance of mine was recently sharing her on boarding experiences for a job she just started. She was hired her based on her experiences with dynamic talent management projects and they assigned her the mission of driving progressive change in the organization’s candidate selection and leadership development programs. An early indication of the obstacles standing in her way became clear when a colleague said, “Before we brainwash you into doing business as usual around here, tell me your ideas.” At least they were self-aware of their problem!

I’ve been hearing about this same phenomenon across other organizations and industries. The organization’s leadership team has steered the company to a significant level of success due to a combination of certain strengths but given recent industry shifts, the future upward trajectory of the company appears limited due to a combination of certain weaknesses or a perceived lack of required capabilities. The leadership team then decides to drive strategic change by hiring a new leader that exhibits these complementary attributes. The next progression of events can be described as being very similar to the medical occurrence of transplant rejection.

Transplant rejection occurs when a transplanted organ is not accepted by the body of the transplant recipient. The immune system of the recipient attacks the transplanted organ because the purposed of the immune system is to distinguish foreign material within the body and attempt to destroy it. This is what seems to happen with some leadership teams. They ask for someone new to join the group to essentially offer a unique, dissenting voice. They must play resident devil’s advocate to stimulate diverse ways of thinking and ideas to enact change. However, these teams display a tendency to reject the new ideas in favor of their tried-and-true approaches. The initial strategy of incorporating a change agent into the mix is replaced by directly or indirectly motivating the new employee to conform. The new leader then typically elects one of two options: assimilation or attrition. In assimilation, the leader adopts the team’s prevailing methods and customs as a means for survival. In attrition, the leader recognizes that making a case for change is a losing battle and leaves the company. In either scenario, change is compromised.

In the medical world, doctors overcome transplant rejection by determining donor-recipient match. In the talent management realm, we must adopt a similar practice of ensuring leader-team match based on two critical components. First, we must ensure proper fit between the individual leader and the current team’s style and organizational culture. Second, we must ensure match between the candidate’s capabilities and the competencies required to drive change and elevate the business beyond current performance levels. Some leaders may be a great fit with the team, but do not bring the necessary behaviors to the table to help the company adapt to industry shifts and evolve. On the other hand, some leaders are potentially effective change agents yet, when hired into the wrong team, they could appear like a bull in a china shop and clash with others. Identifying and selecting leaders with both the mentality and tools to drive change AND attributes to connect with colleagues is a balancing act. We can break this balancing act down into the simple model of starts, stops, and continues.

Continue What Got You There
I’ll start with the “continues.” We must identify leaders who can continue (or at least respect and support) the traditions and strategies that have made the leadership team and organization successful. Some organizations refer to this as their DNA. When teams are self-aware and understand how the flipside (or dark side) of their strengths may actually be holding them back from further success, the immediate reaction is to assume that they need to overcorrect in the opposite direction. Operationally-sound leaders think they need to shed their current methods to become highly creative and innovative. Collaborative, enabling leaders see an opportunity to switch their mentality and adopt an entirely top-down, forceful behavioral style. These are ineffective shifts and likely not humanly possible. It is important to remember to retain and maintain the behaviors that led to success in the first place. Leaders that are hired to drive change must also display these core competencies in order to support a continuation of effective behaviors (or at least allow others who exhibit these skills to contribute to the team).

Stop Doing What Is Not Working 
There are two kinds of “stops.” First, we need to evaluate candidates and select leaders with low risk for the counterproductive behavioral styles that are holding back the success of the current team and leading to derailment. For one of my healthcare clients, the focus was on screening out leaders who were overly cautious on high stakes decisions and reacted to pressure by appearing as closed-door managers in a highly collaborative culture. They already had too many of those individuals. However, given that they were trying to hire more ambitious, big picture types, they needed to incorporate a second kind of “stop” in the candidate evaluation process. The goal here was to stop the potential problem of hiring leaders with too much a good thing. For this organization, it meant that targeting confident change agents must be tempered with reducing the likelihood that you will end up with arrogant risk takers who are not willing to partner with others on decisions. In some cases, we must put a figurative ceiling on these behaviors. Be careful what you ask for, you just may get too much of it.

Start Doing What Needs To Be Done
The “continues” and “stops” mitigate the risk of leader rejection from the team. Combined with that approach, selecting for the “starts” is what allows us to stack the deck in favor of not just leader retention, but also successful execution of strategic change. This new leader still needs to bring some unique ingredients to the overall team recipe to take things to the next level. We typically think of change as being linked to creativity, risk taking, the development of new products, etc. Yet the need for change could also be represented by a team that is highly innovative and cutting-edge and requires a new leader to the join the group to provide stability related to finances and operations. The behaviors that the leadership team needs to start demonstrating usually represent a balancing of the current preferences and capabilities of the incumbent leaders. The end result is not a 180 degree shift and likely resembles a more balanced, versatile team composition. 

The start-stop-continue model, with a focus on balance, is a matter of identifying leaders who display the “continue” behaviors, do not exhibit significant risk for “stop” behaviors, and show high potential for the required unique behaviors to enable the team to “start” moving in a new direction without losing their DNA. Keep in mind that selection of the right leaders with the requisite capabilities, fit factors, and low likelihood for derailment is really just the beginning. Ongoing leader and team development is critical to promote long-term success. Back to the transplant analogy, talent management professionals and executive coaches serve in the capacity of doctors who help the patient (i.e., leadership team) through the post transplant recovery process (i.e., ongoing leader and team development) so that the team can gel and overcome challenges.