A group of young hikers, anxious to explore the treacherous mountain ranges of Alaska, interviewed a number of guides at a remote outpost. "Yep, I'm the best there is," bragged an older, very weathered looking man; "I know every mountain and valley in Alaska – been hiking them for over 50 years.“

Impressed with his obvious experience, the hikers chose the elderly gentleman to lead their expedition. Days into their journey, the group seemed to be wandering aimlessly, passing by landmarks they'd seen before. Cold, hungry, and very skeptical, the group questioned, "We've been hiking 6 days and we're lost – you said you were the best guide in Alaska."

"I am," snapped the old-timer, "but we're in Canada now!”

Moral of the story: be careful who you follow.

Following last week’s deadly capsize and chaotic evacuation of the ultramodern cruise ship Costa Concordia, maritime experts have been raising questions about the captain's behavior, crew preparedness and bungled evacuation procedures.

The preliminary indications are that there may have been significant human error on the part of the ship's master, Francesco Schettino, which resulted in grave consequences, including 15 deaths and as many as 17 missing persons to date.

In an article entitled “The Link between Personality and Human Error: Using Assessments To Hire Safety-Minded Employees,” Greg Ford (HRVoice.Org) observes the strong role of personality and safety:

What’s interesting is that up to 90% of incidents are due to human error, not faulty equipment or other factors. For the past fifty years, social scientists have been researching personality . . . there has been more and more research into how certain personality types are naturally more “safety-oriented” than others.

Hogan Research Division (HRD) has been researching predictors of safety-related behaviors for nearly 30 years across a variety of industries. In a seminal whitepaper, they conclude:

Our research shows that individual differences in personality predict both safety related behaviors (as indicated by supervisory ratings) and on-the-job accidents and injuries. This research stands in contrast to previous findings showing little to no relationships between individual personality measures and safety incidents.

Employees with an “at risk” personality can be identified by assessing them on the following six dimensions:

“Everybody has a default personality. Some call it hard-wiring,” says Stephen Race, an assessment specialist with Performance Vector (HRVoice.Org). Race says, “We can teach people to behave in a certain way for short periods of time, but they will always revert back to who they are, especially when faced with unexpected circumstances.”

Captain “Sully” Sullenberger, who famously and safely ditched U.S. Airlines flight 1549 onto the Hudson River after crippling bird strikes, epitomized the expression of a safety conscious personality. Consistently described by all who know him as “cool, calm, and collected,” Sully credits his upbringing, family bonds, and a strong sense of personal integrity. He felt this led to him being hard-wired for safety.

Despite the remarkable fact that there is no training for such emergency landings, Sully described having a strong physiological reaction toward handling this unknown situation. His default personality was calm and focused, rather than panicky and overly reactive to this crucial situation, and as a result, all 155 passengers were able to rejoin their families and feel the embrace of their loved ones yet again.

The analysis of the cruise ship tragedy has just begun, and the role of Captain Schettino’s actions does not look good. He’s admitted that he messed up. Captain Sullenberger, in his book, Highest Duty: My Search for What Really Matters, offers a deeply inspiring message for all of us. Sully says, “We need to try to do the right thing every time, to perform at our best, because we never know what moment in our lives we’ll be judged on.”
 

In August I wrote about some interesting findings about how our personality makes us more or less physically attractive to others (read Part I). We learned that being friendly, attention-seeking, and demonstrating a genuine concern in networking with and helping others enhances perceptions of physical attractiveness, while being distant, indifferent, passive-aggressive, and eccentric can be real turn-offs. These results represented trends across people in general, regardless of their gender. To satisfy my insatiable curiosity, I decided to delve further by investigating whether there are personality characteristics that differentially relate to the physical attractiveness of men versus women.

Before getting into specific results for the sexes, I think there are some general results worth mentioning. Overall, I found that personality is far more important for predicting the physical attractiveness of women than for men. Chew on that for a second. Across 28 scales I found five predictors for men and eight for women. More telling is that HPI and HDS account for four and two times more variance (respectively) in predicting physically attractiveness for women than for men. Overall results for MVPI were similar between the sexes. What this means is the bright and dark side of our personalities may have a greater impact on the physical attractiveness of women than they do for men. What I believe this also says is that we men don’t have to worry as much about our behavior in attracting a mate; other factors may be more important (wallet size?).

Now that I have your attention, let us begin with the similarities between the sexes…all one of them! I found only one dimension of personality that provided a similarly strong relationship in predicting physical attractiveness in both sexes; MVPI Affiliation. For both men and women, we find attractive those who demonstrate an intrinsic interest in socializing with, networking with, and getting to know others.

As previously mentioned, I only found five predictors of mention for the physical attractiveness of males. I found positive correlations for HDS Dutiful and MVPI Affiliation. I found negative correlations for HDS Excitable, HDS Skeptical, and MVPI Science. In plain language, men are considered more attractive when they are the types who are more conforming team players who don’t rock the boat. For some reason, the ingratiating, deferential type is found to be more alluring. We also see that the emotionally volatile, cynical, distrusting scientists are considered less attractive. So apparently the type of guy who doesn’t believe it until he sees it and wants to see the proof in the form of facts is found to be unattractive. Yikes, that one hits close to home. Who knew that logic was a turnoff?

I find a few more things interesting about these results. First, I was a bit surprised that the attractiveness of the strong, alpha male archetype was not well supported by these data. Second, there were no significant effects for HPI, indicating that normal day-to-day behavior does not seem to have a noteworthy effect on the perceived physical attractiveness of males. Lastly, I think it is intriguing to see where the differences between the genders fall on these scales. For four of these five scales (all but MVPI Affiliation), there was a negligible effect for women’s perceived attractiveness. In other words, emotional volatility, cynicism, ingratiating behavior, and a desire for fact-based decision making have almost no effect on whether we find women attractive. I find that first one a bit surprising!

Now let us turn our attention to the fairer sex. I found eight personality predictors of physical attractiveness for females. There were positive correlations with HPI Interpersonal Sensitivity, HDS Mischievous, HDS Colorful, and MVPI Affiliation, while I found negative correlations with HPI Learning Approach, HDS Reserved, HDS Leisurely, and HDS Imaginative. In non-Hoganese, these results mean that we find women attractive when they are warm and friendly, charming (even if a bit manipulative), attention-seeking, and interested in teamwork and social networking. Altogether, this paints the picture of a charismatic type of woman as most attractive. At the same time, we appear to be turned off by the studious, aloof, passive-aggressive, and eccentric types. The first part is intriguing. According to these results, the diligent female students who tend to know more about many different subjects are less attractive to us. I hesitate to say, but this result seems to partially support the attractive bimbo archetype.

There are two more points of interest within these results for females. First, these data do not support other research indicating that masculine, assertive females are less attractive. Second, as before, it is interesting to look at the disparate relationships in some of these predictors for the other gender. HPI Interpersonal Sensitivity, although an important predictor for female attractiveness, had no relationship for males, indicating that friendliness or agreeableness has no bearing on perceptions of physical attractiveness in males. The other contrast of note is with HDS Mischievous. It is positively correlated with attractiveness for females but negatively correlated with attractiveness for males. Hence, we find the charming, manipulative, risk-taking females appealing while their male counterparts are more repelling. That is a result I have yet to understand.

In summary, personality seems to matter more for females than males in predicting physical attractiveness. According to this single study, males need only concern themselves with being a better team player and less of a Doubting Thomas to increase their hotness factor. For women, a little charm will go a long way to being seen as more attractive. Just make sure to keep the random factoids and wild ideas to yourself.

In the third and final installment of this series, I will split the data once more and investigate how the gender of both the target and the rater affect perceptions of physical attractiveness. Sneak preview: male personality does matter more; it just depends on who you are asking.

Although it sounds like the hook in a romantic comedy, recent findings indicate that your inner beauty (or lack thereof) might be affecting your outer beauty.

Let me back up. A few months ago I was analyzing data from a large community sample and I stumbled upon some interesting information. Specifically, I found peer ratings of physical attractiveness on a sample of people who completed the Hogan personality and values assessments. Considering that I am (a) distractible and (b) a nerd, I decided to investigate further.

It’s important to note that these were not ratings of likeability, friendliness, etc. Peers rated the extent to which the target person was “good-looking,” “unattractive,” “physically attractive,” and “not good-looking.” So the question became: does one’s personality affect their perceived physical attractiveness? The answer, to an extent, is yes.

There were significant effects on seven of twenty-eight scales across the Hogan Personality Inventory, Hogan Development Survey, and Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory. I found positive correlations between ratings of physical attractiveness and scores on HPI Interpersonal Sensitivity, HDS Colorful, MVPI Affiliation, and MVPI Altruistic. Additionally, I found negative correlations between physical attractiveness and HDS Reserved, HDS Leisurely, and HDS Imaginative.

What does this mean in non-Hoganese? First, we are physically attracted to people who are nice, friendly, approachable, and considerate. No big surprise there; mean people are ugly (or is it that ugly people are mean because they are ugly?). Second, we are attracted to people who have a flair for the dramatic, drawing a lot of attention to themselves, and being the center of attention, even to a fault. These big personalities draw our eyes to them and we seem to find them attractive for that, even if they are acting in this way for self-serving reasons. Next, we find people who value networking, teamwork, collaboration, and social interaction physically attractive. This may indicate that we are attracted to people who have the inclination or desire to engage and get to know us. Finally, the altruists of our society are found to be attractive. These individuals are motivated by a concern for the welfare of others. The attraction is likely borne out of the perception that the person is taking a genuine interest and concern for our needs and well-being; perhaps a more generous lover?

Now let us turn our attention to our turn-offs. First, we are not fans of the cold, stoic, aloof types. These individuals appear indifferent to the feelings or concerns of others, so this finding is in alignment with the aforementioned factors of heightened attraction. Next, we find passive-aggressive behavior to be particularly unattractive. Although these individuals may appear friendly and cooperative on the surface, we seem to see through fa?ade and recognize that they are likely to act on their own agenda, which makes them less desirable. Finally, our eccentric visionaries are apparently persona non grata. Overall, results indicate that creativity is not related to attractiveness, but here we have an indication that extreme (and unconventional) creativity is actually a mild repellant.

These results come from a single (but large) community sample. Therefore, these are not necessarily universal truths. Nonetheless, the trends are clearly there and of mention. Also, the peers providing these ratings knew the target people, so there is no guarantee that these results would generalize to how attractive a stranger at a bar will find you. That being said, it is logical that personality affects physical attractiveness only at the point that someone gets to know us at least a little bit.

In summary, these results indicate that personality does have an impact on physical attractiveness. If you want to be perceived as attractive, stop acting like an inconsiderate jerk. Even if you have the face of Adonis (or Persephone), curt, brash, or uncaring behavior will likely downgrade your hotness factor.
 
The next installment on this topic dives into gender differences, explaining what it takes for men and women (separately) to be perceived as physically attractive. Sneak preview: there are clear differences and the results do not confirm what we may commonly assume…

Blogging is another means of communication that reflects a person’s attitudes, ideas, interests, and values. Many of these characteristics gel with a few others to ultimately make up an individual’s personality or as we refer to it here at Hogan – “reputation.”

Companies and employees spend quite a bit of time and money on employee development programs. These engagements are designed to make an employee aware of behaviors that impede their performance, future opportunities, and relationships with other employees.  Let’s face it, changing reputation takes a lot of effort. To be successful, an employee must target specific, non-desirable behaviors time and time again until their natural derailing tendencies are curtailed and replaced with new desirable ones. If they are successful, other people’s perceptions of them change and so does their reputation.

However, it only takes a few oversights to erode their progress of change. One such oversight, that can undo all of their hard work, is not managing their online personality. With the pervasiveness of social media, such as LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter, often an employee forgets these sites are an extension of themselves. Like it or not, blogging creates reputation. In many instances, an employee can have more than 1,000 connections, friends or followers on these websites. Trying to keep track of which people are outside the corporate circle, not somehow otherwise connected to co-workers or even future employers, is just not manageable.

When creating your development plan to change negative components of your reputation, don’t forget to consider and include your personality found in social media. It just may make the extra difference in changing your behaviors and ultimately your reputation, getting you that promotion at work, and strengthening your relationships with your co-workers.  
 

Fun fact - I’m recently engaged.

And so far, wedding planning has been fast and furious. In two short months, I already have a venue, photographer, date, color palate, and budget. What can I say? I scored in the high range on the HPI Prudence Scale; details are kind of my thing.

But when it comes to choosing my bridal party, I’m dragging my feet. What’s holding me back? I’m worried about the drama.

Although it’s what makes pop culture hits like 27 Dresses, Bridesmaids, and Say Yes to the Dress so fun to watch, it’s a nightmare to live through, and I really don’t want any drama with the girls.

As a four-time bridesmaid, I’ve witnessed, and maybe caused, some reality show-worthy episodes. I may or may not have accidentally rolled my eyes, contributed to a power struggle, and/or complained about the dress “I’ll be able to wear again someday.” Guilty as charged.

As hard as I may try to avoid drama, it almost never fails. The bridesmaids’ individual motivators and drivers create a volatile mix. Something happens to one or more of the bridesmaids at some point in the process. Somebody yells, cries, or oversteps her bounds.

We run into the same dynamics in the office. The wrong mix of personalities can result in power struggles, a tense workplace and low morale, which is why screening for similar values and drivers can be so important.

Unfortunately, when it comes to my bridesmaids, at least a little drama may be unavoidable. While personality assessment would certainly help me screen for the differences between my lovely friends, it would also officially make me a Bravo-worthy Bridezilla.

A person completes a personality assessment. He or she then receives individual feedback on his or her personality profile. If the assessment is worth its salt, the person probably agreed with much of the interpretation and was challenged or surprised by the rest. For the feedback that resonated with him or her, the likely response was, “Yep, I knew that about myself. Now I have a test that validates it.” For the surprising feedback, the likely response was, “Interesting. I didn’t know I was being perceived in that way.” Now what? What does this person do with that information? The way I see it, the person now has an excuse for that behavior or an opportunity to improve it.

Purely for academic purposes, let’s say that I scored low on the Prudence scale from the Hogan Personality Inventory. This means that people tend to perceive me as someone who is flexible and open to change but also someone who is not always detail-oriented and can be impulsive at times. What do I do with that information? One approach would be to use it as an excuse or a crutch. When I overlook a detail and it affects the outcome of a project, I can simply say, “Yep, that’s my low Prudence coming out!” and laugh it off. People will come to expect that Kevin is not a details guy and may expect me to focus on bigger picture issues instead. However, what will also happen is that people may begin to not trust in my ability to deliver a high-quality, well-proofed work product, and I will miss out on opportunities for challenge or advancement. This would ultimately affect my career success.

Continuing with this hypothetical example, a second approach to using this information about my lack of conscientiousness (not to be read as conscience) is as an opportunity. If I am serious about having a successful career, I should use the results of my personality assessment to leverage my strengths and develop my shortcomings. If I am working on a project with a tight timeline and I notice my natural propensity to cut corners or fudge over details starting to rear its head, I can seize the opportunity to take extra care and create the highest quality product I can. By intentionally changing my behaviors to do what may not come naturally and what others would not expect me to, I am effecting change on my reputation, which will ultimately have an effect on my success.

All of this being said, the irony is that the choice between Excuse Avenue and Opportunity Road is largely based on personality. People who are naturally open to feedback and change and driven to be successful are those who are more likely to take a right on Opportunity Road, while those who are resistant to feedback and change and not particularly motivated will take a left on Excuse Avenue (which runs parallel to Easy Street). The good news is that the same high-quality personality assessment will identify the likely path the person is to take. From that assessment, we can identify those individuals who may need a bit more help steering toward Opportunity Road if we are serious about investing in their success.

At the end of the day, there is always a choice. We can ultimately decide whether we want to be who we are now with all of our warts, caveats, and excuses, or if we want to be the more successful versions of ourselves with fewer warts and more opportunities…however you define that success.

With approximately 2.3 million Americans working as customer service representatives, it is one of the fastest growing and largest occupations in the U.S.

My brother is one of those customer service representatives. He has worked at a well-known television provider for the past year and a half, and in that time he acquired not only an “employee of the month” award, but several interesting stories to share over dinner.

Like the time a man called in because he was having difficulty with his television service. My brother instructed him to look behind the receiver box to make sure a cable on the left-hand side was connected tightly.

“My left or your left?” the customer asked, “I’m right handed.”

My brother was confused by the question because he was talking to the man on the phone; however, without missing a beat he replied, “Your left.” And with that the man fixed the problem and hung up, satisfied with his service.

Or another time when a woman called in because her remote control kept making a loud beeping noise. My brother explained to her that the remote was not capable of beeping so the noise must be coming from somewhere else.

“It’s definitely coming from the remote!” the woman claimed.

My brother instructed her to remove the remote batteries. Although the beeping continued after she removed the batteries, the woman still insisted the remote was the culprit. Finally, my brother convinced her to put the remote on her front porch to see if the beeping continued in the house. It’s at that time she discovered the noise was coming from her smoke detector.

I think my brother’s success in handling situations like these is due mostly to his personality - the way he relates to customers, remains calm, and acts in a dependable manner. Even when asked ridiculous questions, my brother remains friendly and polite, and leaves customers satisfied with their service. Also, he doesn’t lose his cool. Although he encounters angry customers on a daily basis, he stays calm and collected and doesn’t take it personally. Finally, he’s dependable. He shows up to work on time and works hard while there.

As the demand for customer service representatives grows, so does the need for companies to staff people like my brother who display the personality characteristics related to successful performance.