On episode 150 of The Science of Personality, Hogan’s Managing Director of Asia Pacific Krista Pederson, PhD, and Senior Consultant of Asia Pacific Nicole Dickie, MS, discuss key findings of the Global Leadership Effectiveness Study and implications for leaders around the world.

Our report, The Leadership Divide, contains personality assessment data from more than 21,000 executives in Hogan’s global database and survey responses from nearly 10,000 full-time employees around the world. Let’s explore.

What Is the Global Leadership Effectiveness Study?

As the global authority on leadership and job performance, Hogan Assessments differentiates between effective leadership and emergent leadership. Effective leaders focus on supporting their teams to perform and compete; emergent leaders focus on getting into positions of leadership and reaching the top. “We challenge people to think about what actions a leader needs to do to become effective,” said Krista.

Generally, effective leaders excel at casting a vision, making good decisions, and showing integrity, competence, and humility. But instead of surveying only leaders, the Global Leadership Effectiveness Study focuses on the perspective of employees. How do workers from different global markets describe effective leaders? Are those the people that organisations tend to promote?

Theoretical Background and Methodology

Implicit leadership theory informed the background of our study. “Every person has an unconscious, personal idea of what makes a leader,” Nicole explained. “When you evaluate someone as a leader, you’re willing to follow them. Our goal was to use information about respondents’ perceptions of an ideal leader to help develop current and future leaders.”

We used Hogan’s Job Evaluation Tool, or JET, to administer our survey. While a typical job analysis would survey subject-matter experts and incumbents about what success requires in a particular job (for example, accountant), this survey considered anyone who has ever had a boss to be a subject-matter expert on what success requires in an ideal leader. For each item, the survey presented a behavioural statement and asked respondents to rate the behaviour on a five-point scale (very good to very bad) for an ideal leader. For instance, global respondents said that the ability to see things from the perspective of others was very good for ideal leader performance. Perspective-taking was the top endorsed behaviour for ideal leaders around the world.

After collecting data on the leaders that people want, we compared their responses to the personality data of existing leaders. Our findings? We uncovered a concerningly large leadership divide.

The Leadership Divide: A Gap Between the Leaders We Have and the Leaders We Want

The leaders that organisations promote are not necessarily the leaders people want. Compare the five highest-ranking competencies of current global leaders with the competencies that global respondents want to see in their leaders.

The Leaders We Have

1. Inspiring others
2. Competing with others
3. Presenting to others
4. Taking initiative
5. Driving innovation

These behaviours correspond closely to those of emergent leaders, or leaders who strive to attain positions of leadership.

The Leaders We Want

1. Effective communication
2. Effective decision-making
3. Accountability
4. Integrity
5. Leadership ability (supporting team performance)

Respondents prioritised effective leadership characteristics, such as communicating to the team, making good decisions, and being willing to admit mistakes. “The leaders that we have are emergent leaders, and the leaders that people want are effective leaders,” Krista said.

What Employees Around the World Want from Their Leaders

The Global Leadership Effectiveness Study produced clear themes on how global employees view ideal leadership. First, they want their leaders to value teamwork and relationships. This relates to the Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI) scale Affiliation, which measures preferences for teamwork. Global executives score only moderately on Affiliation. However, their followers want them to foster a sense of belonging, help people work together as a team, and place importance on relationships in organisations.

Respondents also want people-first leadership. They positively described their ideal leaders as having energy and drive, being empathetic and caring about people, and being curious and strategic. These characteristics relate to higher scores on the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI) scales Ambition, Interpersonal Sensitivity, and Inquisitive. Global leaders do tend to have these characteristics. However, both high and low HPI scores have positive and negative behaviours associated with them. Someone who scores high on Interpersonal Sensitivity is likely to be tactful, empathic, and caring, but they may be reluctant to confront others. This can be an opportunity for development.

Finally, global workers emphatically do not want leaders who show Hogan Development Survey (HDS) behaviours associated with the scales Excitable, Cautious, Leisurely, and Bold. Excitable concerns emotional volatility, Cautious concerns fear of risk or failure, Leisurely concerns being outwardly agreeable but inwardly resentful, and Bold concerns entitlement and arrogance. Global leaders tend to have high HDS Bold scores, positioning themselves as the superheroes who will save their organisations. “The facet of Bold where leaders are entitled was really, really disliked by respondents,” Nicole said. Instead, employees desire humble leaders who admit their mistakes and listen to feedback.

Does Effective Leadership Look the Same Around the World?

Our data show that employees are overall consistent in what they want in a leader (see above). But there are intriguing differences in regional data, Nicole explained. High MVPI Science was more desirable in some regions than others. The demand for making data-based decisions was particularly strong in Latin America (Mexico, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, and Colombia), Europe (Spain, Lithuania, Romania, Czech Republic, Greece), and Asia Pacific (Mainland China and India). Fifty percent or more of respondents in these countries said that high Science behaviours are good to very good for ideal leadership.

High HPI Prudence was more desirable in other regions. Respondents in these markets want leaders to organise work, adhere to rules, strive for quality, and initiate structure: Middle East (specifically United Arab Emirates), Asia Pacific (Vietnam and Greater China), Europe (France and Spain), and Latin America (Colombia, Chile, Bolivia, and Mexico).

Each country showed individualised and nuanced results. Indian leaders tend to have high Excitable, high Leisurely, high Bold, and moderate Cautious scores. Yet most respondents in India did not want Excitable, Leisurely, Bold, and Cautious behaviours in leaders—a significant misalignment. Conversely, respondents did not prioritise HPI Ambition in Japan, where harmony and group consensus are valued, and this is consistent with how Japanese leaders tend to score. However, in Denmark, where executives tend to have extremely high Ambition scores, respondents did not prioritise Ambition either. Danish respondents perhaps have less concern with competition and prefer cooperation and collaboration.

How to Use These Findings to Develop Better Leaders

“We hope the results of this report can inspire organisations to think about how leadership development programs can better support the needs of the followers,” Krista said. Most organisations assume that leaders know what their followers need from them. Instead, organisations can increase engagement by knowing what teams say they need and providing leadership development to close any gaps. “We should think beyond a leader who can drive profitability and think about leaders who can support the team members,” she added.

Executive coaches can increase developmental impact by focusing on top gaps and themes. Nicole called out MVPI Affiliation, MVPI Science, and HDS Bold. Leaders who prefer operating independently (Affiliation) should learn relationship-building techniques. Practical techniques include informal check-ins, team rituals, cross-team collaboration, and meetings without agendas to prioritise connection. Leaders who rely on intuition and experience to make decisions (Science) should make their reasoning clear to teams, test their assumptions, and use data as an input rather than an afterthought. Leaders who are confident and decisive (Bold) should be wary of overusing these strengths. “We see in the data from respondents that they don’t want to be steamrolled,” Nicole said. “They want their leaders to be open to feedback. They want their leaders to be humble.” She added that coaches equipped with regional data can tailor development goals to align with specific trends.

Overall, the Global Leadership Effectiveness Study shows that employees know what they need to be successful. They desire leaders who are emotionally intelligent and people oriented, driven for excellence and quality, thoughtful and structured, and confident and goal directed. “Let’s listen to employees and see if we can align to meet their expectations to better engage them,” Nicole said.

Listen to this conversation in full on episode 150 of The Science of Personality.

*This article originally appeared on Hogan Assessments.

The post The Leadership Divide: Global Leadership Effectiveness Study Findings appeared first on Peter Berry Consultancy.

Some leaders are more concerned with appearing loyal to executives than earning their team’s trust. It can make them seem ingratiating toward authority and unwilling to protect their employees. At Hogan, we describe this type of behaviour as Dutiful.

Characteristics of Dutiful Leaders

The Hogan assessments measure personality strengths, counterproductive tendencies, and values. The Hogan Development Survey (HDS) measures the dark side of personality in 11 behavioural patterns, called derailers. These characteristics may be strengths on a day-to-day basis, but they can cause career derailment when an individual stops self-monitoring under pressure, stress, complacency, or boredom. The HDS’s Dutiful derailer concerns seeming supportive and loyal, at times to a fault.

A Dutiful leadership style can have strengths. In addition to being dependable, these leaders typically have reputations for being flexible, agreeable, and compliant. They can be easy to work with because they accommodate whatever’s asked of them. But when overused, this behaviour style turns into people-pleasing, ingratiation, and reluctance to take independent action. Leaders might seek approval before acting, hesitate to speak up, depend on others for advice, and wait for direction. They tend to be unwilling to challenge their superiors or question the status quo. (Think of TV workplace comedy characters Gabe Lewis from The Office and Tom Wambsgans from Succession.)

Why People-Pleasing Doesn’t Help Leaders

The same dependability that earns trust early in a career can damage a leader’s reputation when used in excess. Without strategic self-awareness, leaders who have Dutiful tendencies can limit their careers, alienate their teams, and hinder organisational outcomes.

Leaders at higher levels are expected to be independent, self-reliant, and willing to take and defend a position. Advancement in most organisations requires a degree of self-sufficiency, decisiveness, and tough-mindedness.

If a leader is unable to make decisions without supervisor approval, their employees might lose trust in them. If they’re too ingratiating to authority, they might not stand up for their direct reports. (Some might describe this as “kiss up, kick down” behaviour.) People-pleasing often means difficulty providing critical feedback, especially in a formal setting. If a leader always withholds their opinion for fear of contradiction, no one can tell what they actually think.

How to Manage People-Pleasing at Work

Dutiful leaders should first acknowledge that deference could be a problematic behavioural response. Understand the conditions that prompt people-pleasing, including general states such as stress, pressure, and complacency, as well as specific triggers. Perhaps a previous work environment discouraged speaking up or unclear instructions resulted in blame.

Then build coping strategies or alternate behaviours by setting development goals. This might look like roleplaying expressing disagreement or giving negative feedback. Deciding on specific criteria for when supervisor approval is needed promotes independent decision-making. Creating a list of ideas for process or strategy improvements and sharing them can be another development exercise for Dutiful individuals to gain practice taking a stance.

The direct reports of a people-pleasing leader should gauge their level of psychological safety in the team or environment. If the environment feels safe, the team could request support or express needs related to business objectives, thus giving the leader a strategic reason to speak up for them. When providing an opinion that the leader might perceive as dissenting, team members can support their case with data and consensus.

Building and maintaining a high-performing team will earn esteem for a leader more successfully than people-pleasing behaviour. Effective leadership sometimes requires the assertiveness to contradict superiors and the autonomy to make an impact.

Expert Contributor

Ryan Rush, PhD, is a cognitive psychologist who works as a senior consultant on the talent solutions team at Hogan Assessments.

*This article originally appeared on Hogan Assessments.

The post The Fine Line Between Dependability and People-Pleasing at Work appeared first on Peter Berry Consultancy.

An easy way to think about this concept is with a bullseye metaphor: The very center of the bullseye is exactly what you want to assess.

What is Validity?

Validity refers to the accuracy of the assessment. In essence, does it measure what it is supposed to measure? While there are several types of validity to pay attention to, the most important for our purposes is predictive validity.

Predictive validity tells us how accurate a tool is at predicting a certain outcome. In the case of personality assessments, a good tool will be able to predict how well someone will perform their job. Validity is typically measured with a coefficient between 0 and 11 (called the Pearson correlation coefficient). The closer to one, the more accurate the predictive power of the test. The predictive validity of the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI) is .29 for predicting performance across job families. However, when the HPI is combined with the Hogan Development Survey (HDS) and Motives, Values, and Preferences Inventory (MVPI), that number jumps to .54. While this may not seem very high, a good comparison is to look at the validity for something completely unrelated. For example, the predictive validity of ibuprofen for pain reduction is only .14. For another, more closely-related example, the correlation between structured job interviews and job performance is .18. There are many ways of measuring validity, some more useful than others. Any assessment provider worth their salt should be able to provide you with evidence of validity. If they don’t, it’s worth considering why not.

What is Reliability?

Reliability, on the other hand, refers to the consistency of the test. The reliability of an assessment can be evaluated in two broad ways: 1) internal consistency, and 2) test-retest reliability.

Test-retest reliability is a measure of consistency of responses over time. In other words, are people responding to questions the same way each time they take the test? Inconsistent responses can indicate that assessments results are not actually measuring personality, which should be relatively stable over time. Test-retest reliability uses a correlation of scores (again, using the Pearson coefficient) from a first assessment and a second assessment sometime later. For Hogan, the short-term test-retest reliability is .81 for the HPI, .70 for the HDS, and .79 for the MVPI. Internal consistency relates to the questions that are used in each assessment. Test takers will notice that many questions appear to measure the same thing. This is on purpose. Asking a question in a few different ways helps us to ensure that we are getting an accurate measurement of the concept. Like validity, reliability scores are also measured between 0 and 1 (this time with a coefficient called Cronbach’s alpha). The closer to 1, the higher the reliability. The average internal consistency for the HPI scales is .76, .71 for the HDS, and .76 for the MVPI. 1Absolute value. Scores between -1 and 0 indicate a negative correlation.

The important thing to note is that there is no one right way to measure reliability or validity. In fact, assessment publishers should constantly be monitoring their products to ensure they maintain the accuracy that they claim. Hogan Assessments are far above industry standards with continual evaluation of our own assessments. We are partial though, and we encourage you to seek out this information with any assessment system you choose. Hogan Assessments have appeared in over 400 peer-reviewed publications to ensure that our tests are hitting the bullseye.

The post A Quick and Dirty Guide to Validity & Reliability appeared first on Peter Berry Consultancy.

On episode 149 of The Science of Personality, Gustavo Razzetti, CEO and founder of Fearless Culture and author of Forward Talk: The Bold New Method for Getting Teams Unstuck, discusses why teams get stuck and what it takes to get them moving again.

“If you want to change your culture, you need to start by changing your conversations,” Gustavo said.

The Avoidance Trap

Teams get stuck when they avoid having conversations that help them move forward. Anyone who’s worked on a team knows exactly how that feels.

Gustavo describes a two-by-two matrix for diagnosing stuck teams. One axis is whether the team is focused on the past or the future. The other is whether the team is addressing the issue or avoiding it. Three of the four quadrants are unhelpful:

• Blame (past + addressing) – The team focuses on what went wrong and who’s at fault instead of moving forward.
• Avoidance (past + avoiding) – The team neither addresses past issues nor moves past them.
• Groupthink (future + avoiding) – The team agrees to move on, creating the illusion of progress while leaving the real issue unaddressed.

The fourth quadrant is forward talk. This means the team has conversations that address the issue and focus on the future rather than the past.

Why Teams Avoid Difficult Conversations

Our emotions keep us from having challenging conversations. Fear is one reason why team members don’t engage in conversation, share their perspectives, or ask questions. When Gustavo surveyed team members about why they thought others don’t engage in important conversations, most said their colleagues were afraid.

Resignation is another reason why team members don’t, can’t, or won’t communicate. When Gustavo asked team members why they themselves didn’t engage, most said, “Because nothing’s going to change.” When organisations ignore the results of engagement surveys or handle change management poorly, trust suffers.

When teams avoid important conversations, they accrue what Gustavo called conversational debt. He compared this concept to credit card debt: the debt exists whether you open your credit card statement or not. The same happens with unresolved conflict. “The more we avoid it, the worse it’s going to become,” he said. On the other hand, when people engage in a genuine, authentic conversation, even if it is tough, they usually perceive that it went well. They also feel relief from their fear.

Personality and Conflict Avoidance

People with certain personality characteristics are more likely to avoid conflict than others. These people are more sensitive to or influenced by the workplace environment, such as the degree of psychological safety. “If a context is safe, people are going to speak more than if it’s not,” Gustavo said. The opposite is also true.

Other people are more likely to speak up or push back no matter the context. In Hogan terms, these behaviours are likely related to groups of scales on the Hogan Development Survey, which measures how people tend to behave when they aren’t self-monitoring. Someone who has a low Cautious score or a low Dutiful score would be more likely to speak up and challenge authority. Conversely, someone with a high Cautious score might be more likely to avoid conflict, and someone with a high Dutiful score might be particularly prone to groupthink.

The Leader’s Role in Team Communication

The personality of the leader also plays an important role in how teams communicate and respond to their environment. Leaders who dominate conversations need to learn to facilitate conversations instead. Effective leadership means building and maintaining a high-performing team. That means leaders accomplish work by means of their team and shouldn’t provide all the answers themselves. “You [a leader] should be curating the answers from your team, getting the best out of people. You need to make sense of those different personalities to inform your decisions,” Gustavo said.

How to Tell If Your Team Is Stuck

The team seems to be performing well. Then suddenly their metrics start to suffer. Why? “If you’re not addressing the real topics, that’s going to hurt the team,” Gustavo explained.

Signs that a team is stuck include a lack of consensus and relitigation of decisions. Blaming others, whether another employee, the budget, the timeline, or anything else, is also an indication that all is not well with team communication.

Gustavo told a story about an executive team he worked with whose CEO was leaving the organisation after many years of leadership. The team was definitely stuck. Some team members thought they would become the next CEO. Others wanted the current CEO to stay longer so they could accomplish their goals. None of them faced the reality of the CEO’s departure. They didn’t have a conversation about next steps for themselves and their organisation.

For a leader to notice that their team communication is stuck, they need humility to realise they don’t have all the answers. They need to build a psychologically safe environment for their team members to speak. And they need to take the lead on modelling courage by admitting their mistakes. Leaders who only hand down orders are unlikely to be aware that their team even has a leadership problem.

The Link Between Team Communication and Trust

One excellent place for leaders to start is by asking for feedback. Gustavo points to Steve Jobs, who got only silence at Pixar town halls until he started asking two simple questions: What’s working? What’s not working? The questions gave employees permission to acknowledge what was going well and to name what could improve.

This openness, even when starting small, fosters trust. “Trust is the foundation of effective conversations,” Gustavo said. “Trust gets built through actions and interactions.” The two questions also signal positive intent toward improving team communication and reducing team dysfunction.

Advice for Leaders

When team members have worked together for weeks, months, and years, difficult conversations can be challenging. However, avoidance only contributes to the problem. “We all play a part in the conversations. If other people are not participating, that’s not an excuse for you to not do so,” Gustavo said. He urged leaders not to regret the conversations they avoid having. Team communication can improve . . . but only if the leader has enough courage to address why the team is stuck. Listen to this conversation in full on episode 149 of The Science of Personality.

*This article originally appeared on Hogan Assessments.

The post Is Your Team Stuck? What Personality Reveals About Team Communication appeared first on Peter Berry Consultancy.

This behaviour, which Hogan calls Colourful, can be both an asset and a liability. Leaders who seem talkative, drawn to drama, and entertaining can be excellent at engaging and influencing others. However, if taken too far, their approach can also make them appear boastful, distractible, and attention-seeking.

Signs of Attention-Seeking Behaviour

The Hogan assessments measure three aspects of personality: the bright side (everyday personality), the dark side (potential derailers), and the inside (motives and values). The Hogan Development Survey (HDS) describes dark-side personality characteristics that can cause career derailment when unmanaged. The Colourful scale on the HDS concerns behaviours that range from self-restraint and blending in to self-display and standing out. Colourful is just one of the 11 derailers described by the HDS.

Using their dynamic social skill to win a room is a clear strength of a Colourful leader. But that strength can stop being an asset if overused during stress, boredom, or complacency. A leader with unchecked Colourful behaviour can act like an outlandish showboat, such as fictional soap opera star and matriarch Moira Rose of Schitt’s Creek. Attention-seeking behaviour can damage a leader’s reputation and hinder productivity. Thus, it’s beneficial for leaders to have strategic self-awareness to adapt or modify their attention-seeking behaviour based on their context.

How Excessive Self-Display Disrupts Teams

Talking loudly, expressively, quickly, and assertively can be appropriate and effective. But a leader who habitually interrupts, repeats themselves, wastes time, and feeds off attention will eventually cause friction that doesn’t serve them or their team.

A leader who has high Colourful behaviour may expect others to find their public performances fascinating. To win attention, they might adopt a noticeable style of fashion or body language. At work, their outgoing nature and social skills can make them seem easily distracted or in need of constant stimulation. They may miss or ignore signals that they should share attention with others. Without control over these tendencies, they will likely seem unfocused and busy without accomplishing tasks.

Managing Colourful Behaviour

As a derailer, Colourful can be more complicated than it might seem. Higher Colourful people often mistake attention for validation. Their theatrical behaviour can mask underlying insecurity and self-doubt. Identifying the underlying need can help with managing the behaviour effectively. Using the stop-start-continue framework, a leader might stop reading silence as an invitation to keep talking, start identifying the triggers that turn this strength into a derailer, and continue using their social skill to engage and influence others.

A socially skilled leader always accounts for the audience. Colourful leaders should let others know that they tend to be talkative and sometimes take a while to make a point. They should be mindful about how often and how long they speak. Leaders who develop strategic self-awareness monitor their own performance and learn when to lean into their Colourful behaviour and when to dial it back.

Expert Contributor

Erin Lazarus, MS, is a senior director of business development on the talent solutions team at Hogan Assessments.

*This article originally appeared on Hogan Assessments.

The post Attention-Seeking Behavior in Leaders: The Cost of Performance appeared first on Peter Berry Consultancy.

The post PBC Webinar Replay – Inside the Best (and Worst) Teams: What Really Drives Performance appeared first on Peter Berry Consultancy.

The post PBC Webinar Replay – Using the Hogan 360 to Elevate Collective Performance appeared first on Peter Berry Consultancy.

On episode 148 of The Science of Personality, cohosts Ryne Sherman, PhD, and Blake Loepp spoke with Victoria Grady, PhD, associate professor of management at George Mason University’s Costello College of Business, to talk about the psychology of change.

“I am inherently a change-averse person,” Victoria said. “As I studied change to help myself become more flexible, I became fascinated with the role that attachment theory plays in how we manage through the change process.”

Read on to learn about the tension between innovation and change, how attachment theory affects our responses to change, and the importance of strength anchors.

Resistance to Change Versus Innovation

“Based on my experience in studying attachment behaviour for 15 years, I don’t believe that it is the change that people are resisting. Instead, I think it is more about the loss that they will experience because of going through the change,” Victoria stated. People don’t resist the change itself but rather the uncertainty of the transition from a current state to a future state. Psychoanalyst D. W. Winnicott published on this concept about the transitional space in the 1950s.¹ Resistance to the transitional space can be rooted in uncertainty, instability, and anxiety about loss.

Innovation inherently brings change—and risk. The demand for innovation and the fear of uncertainty are often juxtaposed. People feel justifiably concerned about what losses might result from change. This includes intangible losses, such as productivity, creativity, and innovation itself.

Victoria described a tech startup that moved locations from a one-room space to an office suite. About half of the company was excited and half uncertain. After their move, productivity plummeted. Victoria found that the creative connections of the small space had become siloed by the new office. Once Victoria restored a space for connection, the startup’s performance increased.

“Identifying and providing support mechanisms for individuals who are experiencing change is critical to success,” Victoria said. In that scenario, the support mechanism that fuelled the startup’s innovation was feeling connected. Regardless of whether the individuals were resilient or resistant, they all needed that support mechanism to regain productivity.

How Attachment Theory Affects Responses to Change

Resistance to change may be rooted in our attachment style. Attachment theory suggests that emotional bonds with others affect how we respond to stressors. Development during early childhood—mainly our relationship with our primary caregiver from birth to age five—affects our disposition to attach.

Attachment Styles

While everybody feels some degree of stress during change, individual differences in attachment style affect how much resistance we may show:

• Secure attachment – Likely to respond in a resilient, proactive way
• Fearful attachment – Reluctant to trust others for fear of being let down
• Dismissive attachment – Likely to seem distant or even shut down
• Preoccupied attachment – Likely to need approval or seem dependent on others

Someone with a dismissive attachment style tends to be skilled at finding support mechanisms during change. Those with secure attachment are also nuanced in the types of support mechanisms they seek. These support mechanisms, also called strength anchors, are extremely important in our responses to change.

Strength Anchors

Strength anchors can be individuals, objects, environments, or values. “The strength anchor is what helps you reset when you feel that initial uncertainty or instability or anxiety related to a change,” Victoria explained.

Victoria worked with a government organisation that was losing a leader after 35 years. Members of the organisation felt sad about the loss and struggled to reconcile their grief with wanting to celebrate the leader’s next phase. The leader held an all-hands meeting to acknowledge their feelings and give each member a fidget toy printed with the organisation’s mission. “The leader created a culture that flourished at a level even more productive, more innovative, more effective in his absence because he empowered his people to believe that they could do it on their own,” she said.

Many organisations fail to acknowledge what is hard and talk about how to move forward. Although the leader was previously the strength anchor, the new strength anchor became not the toy itself but the shared values of the organisational culture. Effective leaders help their teams find the object, whether tangible or intangible, that can provide support during a transition.

Resistance to Change and Team Dynamics

Just as personality affects team dynamics, so does attachment style. One team that Victoria worked with had representatives from various attachment styles. “Once they realised how to work with each other, it became a powerhouse team. But it took a minute,” she said, explaining that a team member with a preoccupied attachment style caused frustration until all understood each other’s styles.

From a change perspective, understanding what it looks like to work together is an important component to navigating the change process and avoiding change fatigue. Organisations that assume healthy team dynamics will form without any transition time have unreasonable expectations. An activity to improve team dynamics might identify how attachment styles and personality tendencies affect workplace performance.

There is no perfect combination of attachment styles for a high-performing team. “The magic formula is to take the time to understand who you have on your team,” Victoria said. Effective leaders learn how each team member contributes, what makes them feel supported, and what anchors them to the team’s mission. That understanding is also what reduces resistance to change when transitions inevitably occur.

Strategies for Introducing Change

How organisations and leaders introduce change can have a huge impact on how it’s eventually received. Victoria advised using these strategies for introducing change:

• Be aware of the role that attachment plays in the workplace. Every leader and team member can observe the behaviors of others at work and infer how they attach. Attachment is part of our biological instinct and stays with us through our entire life.
• Select a framework to suit the team. The framework that will best guide the change process will be specific to the organisation, the change, and how the change will impact people.
• Affirm a commitment to mission or values. Change management processes can become positive when they connect to people’s job satisfaction. For instance, Apple has weathered significant change because the spirit of innovation acts as a strength anchor, not the specific person of Steve Jobs.
• Provide the team with a strength anchor. Leadership through change should equip others with the transitional object that helps carry them through despite uncertainty and loss.

“My biggest takeaway for leaders would be to take the time to recognise that you and everybody who works with you need the support that comes from a transitional object,” Victoria said. “A strength anchor has the power to influence the change strategy, whatever framework you pick.”

Listen to this conversation in full on episode 148  of The Science of Personality. Never miss an episode by following us anywhere you get podcasts.

Reference

1. Winnicott, D. W. (1953). Transitional Objects and Transitional Phenomena; A Study of the First Not-Me Possession. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 34(2), 89–97. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1954-02354-001

*This article originally appeared on Hogan Assessments.

The post Understanding Resistance to Change Through Attachment Theory appeared first on Peter Berry Consultancy.

A single 360 captures a moment in time. Repeat 360s create a leadership development cycle—insight, action, and evidence of change.

When organisations move from doing a 360 to embedding repeat cycles, feedback becomes more than reflection—it becomes a practical, measurable tool for development and organisational capability.

Why repeat?

Repeat 360 feedback helps leaders understand how they are experienced, focus their development, and demonstrate improvement over time. It turns good intentions into follow-through.

With a repeat cycle in place, organisations can:

• Make progress visible over time
• Measure behaviour change with credible feedback data
• Increase accountability for development goals

The result is a practical development tool that links insight to action—and action to outcomes.

How the repeat 360 cycle works

1) Baseline: Establish a clear picture of strengths, blind spots and leadership reputation.

2) Development: Translate feedback into a focused plan supported by coaching, goal-setting and deliberate practice.

3) Re-measure: Repeat the 360 at the right cadence to confirm what has changed and what to strengthen next.

When leaders can see their results shift—particularly in how they are experienced by others—momentum builds and development becomes meaningful and sustained.

Organisational impact

High-performing organisations treat leadership effectiveness like any other critical capability: it is tracked, reviewed and improved. Repeat 360 feedback provides credible, longitudinal data that shows whether development investment is translating into observable behaviour change.

When embedded into performance and development cycles, repeat 360s help organisations build:

• Consistency: clear, shared expectations of leadership behaviour
• Credibility: data-informed conversations that reduce reliance on anecdote
• Engagement: leaders role-model openness to feedback and growth
• Sustainability: development momentum that continues beyond a single intervention

A repeat 360 is not about “scoring higher”. It is about becoming more effective—as seen by the people who work with a leader every day.

What good looks like

• Integrated into performance and development cycles
• Aligned to your leadership framework and strategy
• Supported by skilled debriefing and coaching
• Focused on a small number of priority behaviours
• Repeated at an agreed cadence to track improvement over time

Using data well is what makes the difference

Not all 360 programs deliver meaningful change. The strongest outcomes come from validated tools, clear expectations, high-quality interpretation, and a commitment to act on the feedback. In these environments, repeat 360s are not about compliance or comparison—they are about sustained effectiveness.

Outcomes you can expect

• Stronger leaders with clearer development priorities
• Higher-performing teams through improved day-to-day leadership behaviours
• Leadership capability that improves year on year
• Evidence of impact to support development investment decisions

Next Step 

Consider the cadence and support you want around your 360 process—baseline, development, and re-measurement—so feedback becomes a sustained system for leadership growth, not a one-off event.

The post Turning insight into measurable leadership growth appeared first on Peter Berry Consultancy.

When evaluating leadership potential, cognitive ability and personality are often considered separately: one reflecting how individuals think, the other how they are likely to behave. However, recent research conducted by PBC suggests that leadership effectiveness is shaped not by these factors in isolation, but by how they interact.

Drawing on this research, PBC in collaboration with JVR recently produced an Interpretive Guide examining the interplay between cognitive ability and dark‑side personality tendencies, as measured by the Hogan Development Survey (HDS). This work aimed to support more informed interpretation of assessment data in leadership selection contexts, particularly where decisions involve increasing demonstrated leadership capability.

How cognitive ability shapes the expression of dark-side tendencies

A central theme emerging from this research is that cognitive ability plays an important role in moderating the relationship between dark‑side personality tendencies and demonstrated leadership capability (quality of work, technical proficiency, self-development and dealing with complexity). Dark‑side tendencies represent behavioural risks that are most likely to emerge when individuals are not at their best, such as when they are under pressure or have become complacent. The extent to which these tendencies influence leadership outcomes appears to depend, in part, on their interaction with cognitive ability.

The interaction between cognitive ability and personality tendencies also provides insight into a leader’s likely ability to reflect on their thinking processes and how this may influence their workplace reputation for being capable. In this sense, cognitive ability may shape not only how leaders approach complex problems, but also how effectively they manage the behavioural implications of their personality profile over time.

Implications for performance and leadership risk

A key implication for leadership selection is that cognitive ability may mitigate some of the risks associated with higher scores on certain dark‑side personality tendencies, allowing those tendencies to be channelled more productively. Conversely, when cognitive ability is lower, dark‑side tendencies may be more likely to have negative effects on decision‑making and task performance.

Importantly, the findings also highlight that the relationship between personality tendencies and performance is not simply linear. For some HDS scales, moderate levels of these tendencies, when paired with stronger cognitive ability, may be associated with increasingly higher levels of performance. This demonstrates the importance of considering not only the presence of particular tendencies, but also their intensity and how they interact with cognitive ability when evaluating leadership capability.

Moving beyond a risk-only view of dark-side personality

Consistent with existing interpretations of the HDS, dark‑side personality tendencies are best understood as overplayed strengths rather than inherently negative attributes. The insights from this research demonstrate that these tendencies can contribute positively to leadership effectiveness, particularly when supported by higher levels of cognitive ability. Rather than viewing dark‑side tendencies purely as risks, leadership selection decisions benefit from understanding how they may function in combination with reasoning ability.

From a practical perspective, these findings underscore the value of integrated assessment approaches in leadership selection. Considering both personality tendencies and cognitive ability provides a more informative basis for identifying individuals who are likely to succeed in leadership roles, particularly in complex and high‑pressure environments.

Conclusion: Implications for leadership selection decisions

In conclusion, the key message from this research is that leadership effectiveness is shaped by the interaction between cognitive ability and personality tendencies. By accounting for these interactions, organisations can make more informed leadership selection decisions: identifying individuals who are capable of managing complexity while also navigating the cognitive, emotional, and behavioural demands associated with their personality profile. Recognising dark‑side tendencies as potential strengths, rather than risks alone, allows leadership selection to move beyond avoiding derailment and toward understanding the conditions under which leaders are most likely to demonstrate capability over time.

Download the full paper here

The post Cognitive Ability and Dark‑Side Personality: Insights for Leadership Selection appeared first on Peter Berry Consultancy.