On episode 147 of The Science of Personality, personality psychology experts and cohosts Ryne Sherman, PhD, and Blake Loepp answered questions posed by ChatGPT about personality psychology, leadership, and team dynamics.ⁱ

The conversation ranges from how stable personality is over time to what role personality psychology should play in the development of AI agents.

Personality Psychology

If most organisations say they value certain personality traits (e.g., humility, collaboration), but reward others (e.g., dominance, self-promotion), what actually predicts success?

The key to this question is one’s definition of success. At Hogan, we distinguish between leadership emergence and effectiveness. Leadership emergence concerns gaining leadership roles and seeming leaderlike. Leadership effectiveness concerns building and maintaining a high-performing team. In other words, one type of success is about yourself and the other is about your team.

Organisations that reward dominance and self-promotion before humility and collaboration value emergence above effectiveness, whether they say so or not. Team outcomes and organisational outcomes are ultimately more significant than individual outcomes, which means that organisations ought to value and reward leadership effectiveness.

You both study personality professionally—so where do you still see yourselves falling into predictable personality traps in your own work or collaboration?

Ryne said he falls into the trap of assuming he’s an expert on other people’s personalities, even if they’ve just met. He tends to believe he can predict how someone will behave based on his judgment of their personality.

Blake said he has to be mindful of a particular scale combination in his personality data: high HDS Dutiful and high HPI Interpersonal Sensitivity. Dutiful relates to trying to please others, and when combined with Interpersonal Sensitivity, the combination can result in an inability to say no for fear of hurting others’ feelings.

How stable is personality in practice within organisations? Do people really change, or do they just learn how to strategically adapt?

Personality psychology research shows that personality tends to be quite stable over time. A person’s reputation, or how others view their personality, is usually similar across a variety of contexts as seen by different people. Often, personality is so consistent that it doesn’t take others long to tell how someone is likely to behave. However, strategically adapting one’s behavioural approaches in the workplace or elsewhere is both possible and advantageous. One of the goals of personality assessment is to build strategic self-awareness to enable behavioural adaptation and increase effectiveness.

Leadership

What’s something personality psychology gets wrong—or at least oversimplifies—when applied to leadership selection?

Nonexperts tend to focus on the wrong personality dimensions, such as confidence, charisma, and charm. Meanwhile, even experts can get it wrong by trying to define one ideal leadership profile. Leadership effectiveness cannot be confined to a single personality profile because a variety of profiles can lead to highly successful leadership.

Also, some personality psychology theories wrongly hold that traits cause behaviours. In reality, people don’t always know why they do what they do. Thus, traits are merely descriptive. While those descriptions are useful for predicting how someone might behave in the future, they don’t explain the causes of someone’s behaviour.

What’s the most common way leaders misinterpret personality assessments like the Hogan tools?

Misunderstandings around the HDS scales tend to centre on the assumption that the dark side of personality is bad. But high scores aren’t always bad, and low scores aren’t always good. Elevations on the HDS indicate personality strengths that could potentially become overused if not managed.

Another common misinterpretation comes from a concept in personality psychology called egosyntonic personality. That means most people tend to like their own personalities. This causes them to assume that their personality assessment results are good without considering the potential downsides of their scores, whether high or low.

What personality traits become more dangerous as someone gains power or authority?

At Hogan, we say that power doesn’t corrupt, it reveals. Dark-side personality traits emerge when leaders gain power and reduce self-monitoring or managing how they present themselves. Many executives get into danger from elevations on the Moving Against cluster of scales on the HDS: Bold, Mischievous, Colourful, and Imaginative. Without self-monitoring (or receiving and listening to critical feedback), executives’ Moving Against behaviours can potentially harm their careers, teams, and organisations.

Team Dynamics

If you could design the ideal team from a personality standpoint, would you optimise for similarity, complementarity, or something else entirely?

High-performing teams, like effective leaders, don’t come with a formula. Hogan research on team personality indicates no ideal combination of personalities exists. The key to team dynamics is understanding how to work together functionally, communicate productively, and have healthy conflict. Learning about each other’s personalities helps team members better coordinate work tasks in a complementary way.

How should organisations think about the tradeoff between hiring high performers who may be toxic versus solid performers who elevate team dynamics?

Some data suggest that organisations need to hire four superstar performers to offset the hidden costs of one toxic employee. Avoiding the hire of someone who will create a toxic workplace environment is extremely important because of the hidden potential costs. For instance, in recruiting elite athletes, scouts search not only for performing at a high level but also for handling adversity well. All other skills being equal, a potential recruit who cheers teammates is better for the team than one who does not.

Looking ahead five to ten years, how do you think personality psychology will need to evolve in an AI-driven workplace where AI agents may replace or augment human roles?

To what extent should AI agents have a personality? Are there certain characteristics expressed by agents that are better suited for certain roles? You might expect a customer service AI agent to be friendly and polite, for instance. As well, personality impacts how successfully individuals work in an AI-driven workplace. The rise of AI agents will likely amplify the need for communication and interpersonal skills as core workplace competencies.

“One of the big questions we have to figure out is to what extent does personality psychology need to advise on the creation, development, production, and use of AI agents?” Ryne said.

Listen to this conversation in full on episode 147 of The Science of Personality. Never miss an episode by following us anywhere you get podcasts.

Note

1. Blake prompted: “My name is Blake Loepp and I am one of the hosts of The Science of Personalitypodcast. My cohost, Ryne Sherman, and I are wanting to have you on as a guest, but YOU will be asking us the questions you want to learn more about as it pertains to personality psychology, leadership, and team dynamics. What 10 questions would you like to ask us for this episode?”

ChatGPT replied: “That’s a really cool twist on the format—basically flipping the interviewer/interviewee dynamic. If I’m in the guest seat asking you questions, I’d focus on things that surface real-world insight, tension, and practical application (not just theory).”

*This article originally appeared on Hogan Assessments.

The post AI Asks Experts About Personality Psychology appeared first on Peter Berry Consultancy.

Organisations naturally want their top employees in a high-potential program, but identification processes based on performance aren’t working. You’d think that close to 100% of participants in high-potential programs would be above-average leaders, but no. More than 40% of the participants are actually below-average leaders, with about 12% in the bottom quartile of effectiveness.¹ Imagine what happens when one of these unsuitable leaders advances to the C-suite . . . and then flops. Consider that the CEO alone can influence as much as 55% of a firm’s overall value.² Any degree of executive derailment, or unmanaged behaviour under stress and pressure, can easily cost millions,³ not to mention indirect losses in productivity, engagement, and reputation.

Smart organisations recognise that they need a robust pipeline of talented high-potential employees ready to take leadership roles. But most are relying on performance for high-potential identification when they should be assessing potential. No wonder an estimated half of new leaders fail in a new role.³ The success of your future leadership relies on the critical difference between high potentials who seem leaderlike and those who lead effectively. By evaluating high potentials for the right criteria using the right tools, you can stop promoting the wrong people and start developing the right ones.

The Difference Between Potential and Performance

The core problem with performance as a method for identifying potential is that performance is subjective. Performance reviews are more opinion than fact, interviews merely showcase charisma, and organisational politics operate under the influence of unconscious bias. According to Trish Kellett, executive advisor of strategic initiatives at Hogan, “Too often in identification, affinity bias is given too much weight: ‘I want somebody just like me.’”

Performance and potential are not the same, and conflating them is where organisations go wrong:

• Performance refers to how effective someone seems in their current role and context.
• Potential refers to how ready someone is for an expanded role and broader context based on their objective, measurable personality characteristics and values.

“High-potential programs over focus on current performance for program selection,” said Jackie Sahm, vice president of integrated solutions at Hogan. Performing well in their current role simply doesn’t show how someone will likely behave under new circumstances with new demands. The definition of leadership potential isn’t identical for every level at every organisation. The first thing to determine is potential . . . for what, exactly?

Defining Leadership Potential

The definition of leadership potential depends entirely on the context of the organisation and the role. The potential to take on the next role shouldn’t be linked only to performance in the current role. High-potential employees should also demonstrate future leadership capability according to what the organisation will need. But taking a future focus doesn’t mean that leadership potential is subjective. It’s possible to determine which competencies are most likely to be important for a leader in a given context and assess for those qualities.

Whenever identification is subjective, organisations risk perpetuating unfair talent management systems. Sahm said that using performance reviews to judge who has potential can bias decisions with serious consequences. “The politics of potential is not just about money spent. Who do we give opportunities to lead, and who currently does not get those opportunities?” Sahm asked. “We might ignore someone who could make the world a much, much better place to live and work.”

Personality is the best way to measure potential across organisational levels because it provides fair, accurate, and precise information about how someone is likely to lead. No, personality data can’t forecast every single little decision a leader would make. But personality does predict whether a leader is likely to make decisions using spreadsheets or intuition.

While current performance can be a prerequisite for entry into a high-potential program, candidate identification should remain as objective as possible while keeping specific, contextual organisational needs in mind. “Personality assessment is one of the most bias-free methods we can use to gauge potential during the identification process and to help develop high-potential program participants,” said Sahm.

Emergence Versus Effectiveness

Knowing how to identify high-potential employees also relates to emergent leadership and effective leadership. Successful leaders accomplish their work indirectly, not by their own effort but through their team’s efforts. The Hogan view on leadership is that leaders succeed or fail according to the success or failure of their teams.⁴ The difference between emergence and effectiveness concerns leading teams.

Emergent Leadership

Emergent leadership concerns holding leadership titles, advancing in rank, and seeming leaderlike. Performance-based identification methods, such as supervisor nominations, tend to recognise emergent leaders. These people may appear confident and charismatic. They’re likely interpersonally savvy, great at forming alliances, and excellent self-promoters. However, emergent characteristics alone aren’t enough to succeed at the top.

Effective Leadership

Effective leadership is the ability to build and maintain a team that outperforms the competition. Effective leaders excel at leading people, motivating others to pursue shared goals. High-potential employees overwhelmingly say that their core challenge is leading teams.⁵

On average, managers spend only about 7% of their time managing people.⁶ (An above-average leader likely gives their team more than a mere 34 minutes out of their eight-hour workday.) But the best managers quickly discover that people-focused leadership makes a team successful, according to Erin Lazarus, senior director of business development at Hogan. “To work through others, you have to know what inspires and motivates your people,” Lazarus said. “You have to balance coaching and guidance with giving up control.”

Team orientation is an excellent natural inclination for a high-potential candidate. Scientifically valid personality assessments can measure not only someone’s social and communication styles but also their drive and energy, approach to learning and solving problems, and stress tolerance. Personality data can also help high potentials learn to adapt their behaviour to increase their effectiveness relative to the competition, which Hogan calls strategic self-awareness. This capacity for growth is precisely why potential requires different tools and criteria than performance. This is also why measuring both demands a more nuanced approach.

Measuring Leadership Potential

Measuring leadership potential should be based on context across managerial levels. “Potential will look different going into each role that you’re slating,” Lazarus said.

Organisations should use a competency model to measure leaders from the front line to the boardroom. Entry-level leaders need to demonstrate the basics of managing others. Mid-level and senior leadership should be measured by an organisational framework of success. In addition to having a high-performing team, they’ll need alignment with organisational values and future direction. Executives should be measured by criteria curated to their individual roles. These might also reflect how well a candidate’s strengths and challenges complement those of the other executive team members.

Succession planning throughout the talent management cycle depends on accurate, objective high-potential measurement. “Done right, personality assessment can help challenge organisational leadership’s thinking about who the leaders in their organisation are,” Sahm said.

The Hogan Leadership Framework

At Hogan, we predict potential using objective data about someone’s personality and core values, which reveal how likely they are to perform well in their next role. The Hogan Leadership Framework is the theoretical underpinning of how we view leadership potential. The framework has four domains: (1) Intrapersonal, or managing the self; (2) Interpersonal, or managing relationships; (3) Operational, or working in the business; and (4) Strategic, or working on the business. Every leader takes an individual approach to each of the domains, and context determines if the approach is effective.

Leadership potential is not whether someone leads but how effectively they lead in context. “The Hogan Leadership Framework accepts the fact that leadership takes a different approach in different scenarios,” Sahm observed.

An effective leader needs to be flexible, coachable, and responsive to feedback; there’s a reason that learning agility is a criterion for high-potential identification in more than half of talent companies.³ Sahm drew a connection between coachability and humility: “Leadership requires a willingness to learn and self-correct, a tendency to focus on other people’s needs instead of your own career.”

Arguably, the most important skill for high potentials to develop is managing others. Kellett suggests that high potentials hold a project manager role to experience multiple aspects of the business. Leading a team or project also helps differentiate top performers from those who can work through others.

Engagement and Effectiveness

“For high potentials, the ability to lead a team is going to be more important than ever,” Kellett said. Why? Managing others well has a direct effect on engagement, and engagement has a direct effect on practically every organisational outcome. Between business units in the top and bottom quartiles of engagement, there is a difference in customer loyalty (10%), sales productivity (18%), profitability (23%), quality (32%), safety (63%), well-being (70%), and absenteeism (78%).⁶

What managers most want employees to do is drive for results.¹ In other words, they want their teams to be productive. Well, productivity and engagement are connected by a straight line. Employees’ relationship with their manager has a 70% influence on how they feel at work.⁶

The leaders of high-performing teams tend to be highly engaged themselves. Such leaders are eager for development opportunities. More than three-fourths of job candidates said they highly valued skill development.⁷ “Leaders who feel personally committed are inspirational. They bring passion and fire to their work, and that motivates others,” Lazarus said.

Next Steps

The state of leadership is one of the biggest challenges in our world right now. Global CEO turnover remains high.⁸ Worse, more than half of early-career professionals are actively avoiding management roles.⁹ Current leaders are leaving the C-suite and their potential successors aren’t interested in those seats. Foresighted organisations are scrambling to address this impending leadership drought. The others don’t yet see it coming.

Developing a high-potential program that provides a steady pipeline of talented employees who are ready to lead is critical to your organisation’s survival. “We as a society, given all of the technological transformation, need to emphasise leaders as team builders rather than as individual personalities,” said Kellett.

Validated personality assessments help identify and develop high-potential leaders with the strategic self-awareness to engage teams successfully. But so many organisations don’t recognise the difference between potential and performance, facing a talent management crisis as a result. “It takes better leaders to create better leaders,” Lazarus said. “That’s why we have Hogan.”

Expert Contributors

• Trish Kellett, executive advisor, strategic initiatives at Hogan Assessments
• Erin Lazarus, MS, senior director, business development at Hogan Assessments
• Jackie Sahm, MA, vice president, integrated solutions at Hogan Assessments

*This article originally appeared on Hogan Assessments.

The post Potential Is Not Performance appeared first on Peter Berry Consultancy.

The post 3 Tips for Combining 360 and Personality Assessment Feedback appeared first on Peter Berry Consultancy.

On episode 146 of The Science of Personality, cohosts Ryne Sherman, PhD, and Blake Loepp spoke with Jack El-Hai, world-renowned journalist and author of The Nazi and the Psychiatrist, about the personality of authoritarians.

During the first Nuremberg trials, US Army psychiatrist Douglas M. Kelley, MD, assessed and interviewed the German defendants, which he wrote about in 22 Cells in Nuremberg (1947). Jack’s 2013 biography of Kelley, which forms the basis of the 2025 film Nuremberg, highlights the relationship between Kelley and Hermann Göring, who was convicted of conspiracy to commit crimes, war crimes, crimes against peace, and crimes against humanity.

So, how dark is the dark side of personality? What is an evil personality? And how can we resist authoritarian leaders?

The Nazi and the Psychiatrist: Hermann Göring and Douglas Kelley

Jack, whose research has often taken him down dark paths, discovered Kelley’s story while working on another book. Kelley worked among the high-ranking German defendants in the first Nuremberg trial, particularly with Hermann Göring, the most powerful man in the Nazi regime after Adolf Hitler. Yet Kelley did not call them monsters or write off their behaviour as the product of mental illness.

“Kelley came to the belief that men like that were not outside the range of ‘normal personality,’” Jack said.ⁱ “That’s what’s so frightening about them. There are people all around us in every era who are capable of evil acts.”

Drawing on thousands of pages of Kelley’s personal archive, Jack published The Nazi and the Psychiatrist to tell the story of real-life Nazi war criminals and those who sought to understand them. He pushed back on the idea that the defendants fit Hannah Arendt’s famous “banality of evil” framing. Where Arendt described Adolf Eichmann as a colourless bureaucrat who would not have stood out in a crowd, Jack noted that the Nuremberg defendants were a different case entirely. “Many of the Nuremberg defendants were colourful, unforgettable figures,” he said. “But people who make a choice to do an evil thing can be held responsible and accountable for their choices.”

What Personality Characteristics Do Authoritarian Leaders Share?

As Kelley evaluated the people who were tried and convicted of some of history’s most evil crimes, he hypothesised that he would find a so-called Nazi virus, a psychiatric disorder that would explain their behaviour.

But after Kelley administered numerous psychiatric assessments to the German defendants in the first Nuremberg trial, he concluded there was no Nazi virus. The defendants did not share a common disorder.

Kelley did notice some personality characteristics that they shared, including opportunistic behaviour. Many of the defendants were interested in acquiring and exercising power over others and looked for opportunities to give themselves that chance. For example, Göring told Kelley he was initially attracted to the Nazi party precisely because it was very small at the beginning of the 1920s. Someone with opportunistic inclinations could easily rise to the top.

Jack explained: “As Göring was talking with Kelley, he was within his own mind formulating his own defence. Göring professed not to care about some of the foundational articles of Nazism—for instance, anti-Semitism. That has to be taken with a great deal of salt because Göring himself was the architect of many of the worst anti-Semitic policies that Nazi Germany instituted. What Göring said about his reasons for becoming a Nazi accords with the principles of opportunism, thinking of oneself primarily and thinking of a political movement as an opportunity to climb a ladder.”

Moving Against

In addition to being opportunistic, the defendants also seemed to Kelley to be workaholic, narcissistic, and lacking in remorse. Kelley was most intrigued by Göring, who appeared intelligent, charming, and self-deprecating. “He told jokes about himself and about Hitler,” Jack said. Yet Göring seemed to lack a conscience and only cared about himself and his immediate family.

Based on this high-level description of Göring’s personality, Göring perhaps would have scored high on a certain cluster of scales on the Hogan Development Survey (HDS). The HDS describes behaviours that can be counterproductive when overused, such as when too much confidence becomes arrogance. One response to stress, pressure, or complacency is to overuse the Moving Against cluster of behaviours, characterized by a tendency to dominate and intimidate others.

The Moving Against cluster concerns showing overconfidence in oneself, charm and charisma, a willingness to take risks, and the ability to keep others’ attention. These behavioural strategies are typical for executive profiles. At their worst, as Göring likely demonstrated, Moving Against characteristics can include entitled, exploitative behaviour.

The Authoritarian Personality: Followers

Some ordinary people who yield to situational pressures may become evil actors. Kelley asked Göring why more people didn’t say no to Adolf Hitler. “Göring’s response was that the no-men, those who disagreed or voiced objections, ended up underground in graves,” Jack said. Those who wanted to stay alive agreed with Hitler.

The personality characteristics that Kelley identified in Göring and the other defendants were not newly developed but rather lifelong traits. The men’s upbringing, political environment, and life experiences contributed to their political savvy and drive for power. Jack observed that the structure of the Nazi party followed that of many authoritarian regimes: a chain of command that makes it difficult for followers to disobey orders.

The German defendants were not uniformly rebellious and defiant. Some both gave and took commands; some were both leaders and followers. This suggests aspects of the authoritarian personality may also be related to the HDS Dutiful scale, which concerns waiting for and wanting to follow orders. Whether from fear, the desire to gain favour, or other complex motives, the willingness to comply with authority is characteristic of a follower personality.

The Authoritarian Personality: Leaders

Göring took a leadership role among the other defendants—gathering them together, coaching them on defence strategy, and giving them pep talks. As Ryne observed during the episode, Göring seemed to view his codefendants as subordinates and nobodies, an impression Jack confirmed. “He had a very high opinion of himself, as did Douglas Kelley,” Jack said. Göring resented sharing the limelight of the trial with others whom he viewed as nobodies. Instead, he took a leadership role among the other figures at the trial, coaching them about their defence strategy and giving them pep talks.

Those with authoritarian tendencies tend to dismiss perspectives that don’t align with their own. Like Göring, they proceed with actions in their own interest regardless of the consequences. Göring’s flair for drama and his overconfidence meant that he did not try to deflect blame. “Instead of seeing them as expressions of racism or hatred or out-of-control animosity, he tried to cast all of the crimes that happened during the war as expressions of patriotism and loyalty,” Jack explained.

Most people who have opportunistic traits don’t become mass murderers or designers of genocidal systems. Those in positions of power typically have the strategic self-awareness to know they are likely to suffer consequences for committing crimes. In the case of the German defendants who were convicted at the trials, they took the chance anyway and exercised their power in criminal acts.

How to Resist Authoritarian Leadership Behaviour

Authoritarianism did not end with the Nuremberg trials. Kelley viewed authoritarian leadership as currently happening in America. He saw Southern politicians as Nazi-like in their emotionally manipulative propaganda and rights-restricting policies. “Kelley recommended that to preserve our democracy, we need to rebuild our educational system to reinforce critical thinking,” Jack said. “If you have a public that’s good at critical thinking, you have hobbled many of the strongest efforts of authoritarians because the propaganda won’t work.”

According to Jack, critical thinking is always important, but it’s even more difficult now because of the need to judge the credibility of a source. This challenge is compounded by widespread loss of faith in institutions. “The loss of faith creates a void. The authoritarian tries to fill it,” he added. He urged people to consider a variety of information from a variety of sources.

Jack concluded: “Kelley’s position was that not everyone is capable of horribly evil acts, but it’s a condition of the human race that people like that are always among us, a measurable percentage of our species. And that Nazism, fascism, authoritarianism—these are not German things [. . .]. They are just human things, and we have to learn how to deal with it.”

Listen to this conversation in full on episode 146 of The Science of Personality. Never miss an episode by following us anywhere you get podcasts.

Note

1. “Normal” here does not imply that their actions were acceptable or ordinary. Kelley’s point was that the capacity for evil is not the exclusive province of a recognizable “type” of evil personality, which is precisely what made his findings so difficult for the public to accept.

*This article originally appeared on Hogan Assessments.

The post The Personality of Evil: Authoritarian Leaders and the Dark Side of Personality appeared first on Peter Berry Consultancy.

One of the most common questions even experienced HR leaders ask is, “How do we avoid overwhelming evaluators with lots of surveys?”

If you are planning to implement the Hogan 360 at scale, there are several practical considerations that can help keep the process manageable, fair, and meaningful for participants.

Quick Guide to Terms

• Subject: The leader who is participating in the 360 & asking colleagues to evaluate them
• Evaluators: The colleagues, typically manager, peers, and direct reports providing feedback
• Manager: The person(s) the Subject reports into
• Nomination Process: The steps followed to choose which evaluators are asked to provide feedback by completing the Hogan 360 Survey.

Clearly Communicate Evaluator Time Commitment

One of the most important starting points is to clearly communicate to evaluators  the time required to provide feedback.  Given the variety of 360s on the market, leaders may be accustomed to assessments that take an hour or more to provide feedback for each subject.

The Hogan 360 is designed to be both concise and meaningful, and typically takes around 15 to 20 minutes to complete per subject. Even for busy leaders, this translates into a manageable amount of time over a typical two week window.

For example, if a Manager is asked to provide feedback for eight people, this equates to approximately 60-90 minutes per week spread across 2 weeks.

PBC Best practice: Subjects should email their evaluators to explain why they are completing the process and ask them to provide feedback. Provide a template that also includes information on how long the survey will take, to help set expectations and increase likelihood of evaluators providing feedback.

Provide Clear Guidance on Evaluator Nomination

The process for selecting evaluators is one of the most important factors in the quality and credibility of 360 feedback data. You can ensure the success of your program by giving Subjects clear guidance on who should or should not be included in the process based on roles and organisational structure.

• Direct Reports: All immediate direct reports should generally be included. However, reporting structures are not always straightforward, and in some organisations participants may incorrectly include indirect reports. Defining what your organisation considers a “direct report” can help reduce the amount of overlap across leaders.
• Peers: Peers are typically defined as those who sit within the same team and report to the same manager. However, that definition may not always suit the context. In high-volume projects, it may be more practical to focus on peers with whom the participant interacts most regularly, rather than applying a rigid structural definition.
• Manager(s): For Subjects who are eager to know how they are perceived by senior leadership, there is often temptation to include their manager’s manager. While this input may be seen as valuable, it can become impractical in large-scale programs. Unless senior leaders are highly committed to the process and willing to dedicate substantial time, this category is often best excluded. When not excluded, HR should review the nominations to ensure that no senior leader is responsible for feedback for no more than 8 subjects.
• Additional Stakeholders: Where organisations choose to include additional stakeholders, it can be useful to set a recommended limit, such as no more than three. This group is often highly valuable for more senior or cross-functional roles, but without limits the category can quickly become too broad and difficult to manage.

PBC Best Practice: Subjects should nominate people they genuinely work closely with, even where (and especially when) those relationships may involve regular challenge or conflict. Staggering the process or managing volume should not create an incentive for people to cherry-pick only favourable raters.

Consider an HR Review Before Finalising Rater Lists

In larger programs, it can be very helpful for HR to review evaluator lists before they are finalised. This additional step can reduce unnecessary overlap, identify gaps, and ensure greater consistency across the process.

HR may also be well placed to suggest more relevant alternatives where nominations appear misaligned or overly repetitive. In complex organisations, this can improve both efficiency and the overall quality of the feedback pool.

PBC Best Practice: The 360 Evaluator Upload Form makes it easy to see all nominations in one place before submitting your order.

Consider Using Cohorts to Improve Time Management

From a project management perspective, HR leaders can choose between running one large 360 project or splitting the rollout into multiple smaller waves.

Running multiple smaller projects can make it easier to manage staggered participation. This approach is often more practical when trying to balance leader workload and reduce survey fatigue.

However, there are trade-offs. Tracking timelines and completion rates across multiple project logins can be more complex, and if the organisation later wants to aggregate reporting across projects, additional costs may apply depending on the pricing structure.

There is no universal right answer here, but the choice should be made with both operational ease and reporting requirements in mind.

PBC Best Practice: Don’t go at it alone. Work with your 360 Advisor or Consultant to determine the structure and support model that meets your organsation’s needs.

Communicate Clearly About Data Use and Access

In any 360 process, especially one with high visibility, trust is critical. Participants need to feel confident not only in the process itself, but also in how their data will be used and who will have access to it.

The project lead should communicate very clearly and explicitly about confidentiality, reporting, access permissions, and the intended use of results. Ambiguity in this area can quickly undermine confidence and reduce openness in responses.

If the organisation has experience running 360 processes, participants may already have some sense of what to expect. Even so, assumptions should never replace clear communication. Reconfirming expectations helps build confidence and psychological safety.

PBC Best Practice: Designate a leader to be accessible if Subjects or Evaluators have privacy concerns, and ensure that all involved in the process know who that is.

Use 360 Data in Offsites Carefully and Transparently

Incorporate 360 feedback into team or leadership offsites can be highly powerful and enjoyable when handled with care.

Used well, 360 data at the team or cohort level can support rich reflection, shared learning, and meaningful development conversations. It can add depth to offsite discussions and help leaders engage more honestly with their own impact and growth areas.

Data can be provided in a way that is deidentified, and focuses on the average trends across the group, rather than scores from any one individual. The Hogan 360 offers several group reporting options.

However, transparency is essential. Participants should know in advance if and how their data may be referenced in an offsite setting. Nobody should feel caught off guard, surprised, or misled. Giving people clear notice helps preserve trust and ensures the process remains psychologically safe.

PBC Best Practice: Ask offsite participants to come prepared to share their top 3 Strengths & Opportunities (just the item, not the score). Create breakout groups to support shared Development Areas or learn from complimentary strengths.

Final Thoughts

A large-scale 360 rollout is a highly visible leadership intervention that can strengthen self-awareness, improve leadership effectiveness, and support development in a meaningful way for an influential group of leaders. Although the logistics can be intimidating, thoughtful process design can make large group 360s run just as smoothly as small projects.

Keeping the workload manageable, clarifying nomination guidelines, reviewing rater lists, choosing the right project structure, and communicating transparently all contribute to a better experience and stronger outcomes. When organisations also think carefully about how results are shared and used, they create the conditions for 360 feedback to be both credible and developmentally valuable.

*This article is authored by Kate Modic, Associate Director at PBC.

The post Avoiding Manager Overwhelm: Large-scale 360 Program Management appeared first on Peter Berry Consultancy.

Self-confidence is a beneficial personality characteristic . . . right until it goes too far. In Hogan terms, confidence to the point of arrogance is described by the Bold derailer. So, how can we mitigate problems stemming from overconfident leadership? Let’s examine personality characteristics, potential consequences, and development strategies to help leaders discern the difference between confidence and arrogance.

Characteristics of Confident Leaders

The three core Hogan assessments describe a leader’s everyday strengths, counterproductive tendencies, and values. The Hogan Development Survey (HDS) measures 11 characteristics that can become counterproductive when overused. These are called derailers, or dark-side personality characteristics. It is common for one or more derailers to cause problems during times of stress, anxiety, complacency, or boredom.

The Bold derailer describes behaviours ranging from modest self-restraint to assertive self-promotion. Bold leaders are typically willing to champion themselves; they pursue their goals and ambitions with energy and drive. Bold leaders may seem unusually self-confident and entitled. They may also be reluctant to own their mistakes or accept advice or feedback.

Leaders who score high on the Bold scale often achieve success and power. Think of Mary Barra, MBA, chair and CEO of General Motors; Sheryl Sandberg, MBA, former COO of Meta Platforms and founder of LeanIn.org; and Dame Anna Wintour, media executive and former editor-in-chief of Vogue. But boldness can have a dark side. Confident and competitive on one hand but arrogant and demanding on the other, leaders with unchecked Bold behaviour can stand in the way of their own success.

Potential Consequences of Self-Confidence

The HDS measures behavioural patterns that can become unproductive and unsustainable, especially if taken to extremes. For Bold leaders, belief in one’s self-worth is a positive characteristic, but overconfidence can have negative effects if it creates problems with teamwork and collaboration.

Other expressions of Bold behaviour include seeming impulsive, self-promoting, and demanding. Bold leaders may overestimate their talents and accomplishments, ignore their shortcomings, and blame others for their mistakes. So, that leader who acts as though they’re never wrong? They likely believe that they deserve their leadership role, that they were born for greatness, and that they will always succeed.

As talented and successful as a Bold leader might seem, their arrogant behaviour can make them hard to work with. They tend to ignore feedback, test limits, and intimidate others. Without strategic self-awareness, leaders who lionise their own egos can double down on risk and leave ruined relationships in their wake.

Tips for Managing Overconfidence

Bold leaders may be content with their performance, an effect of their robust self-confidence. But, lest they follow in the example of Elizabeth Holmes, an entrepreneur convicted of defrauding investors, it can be helpful to consider some Bold actions to keep doing, start doing, and stop doing.

Bold leaders should maintain their push to achieve greatness. Their ability to view setbacks as opportunities brings an optimism that lifts teams. They should also keep directing their competitive drive outward while moderating their competition within their organisation. Bold leaders should start considering the extent to which their communication style affects their team’s performance. Leaders who seem belligerent or arrogant can unintentionally alienate their staff. Finally, Bold leaders should stop denying their mistakes, which can make them appear unable to learn from experience. The ability to acknowledge faults, apologise, and pivot is crucial in volatile, high-stakes leadership roles.

Expert Contributor

Erin Lazarus, MS, senior director of business development, leads corporate solutions consulting and commercial organisation at Hogan Assessments.

*This article originally appeared on Hogan Assessments.

The post How Overconfidence in Leadership Can Sabotage Success appeared first on Peter Berry Consultancy.

Too often, coaching begins with broad conversations, subjective impressions, or goals that are not clearly anchored in evidence. While these discussions can be valuable, they do not always lead to meaningful or measurable change. For organisations investing in leadership capability, that creates a challenge. The question is no longer whether coaching is helpful, but whether it is focused enough to drive the outcomes that matter. That is what stands assessment-based coaching apart from the rest.

Assessment-based coaching turns insight into action—helping leaders make meaningful, measurable shifts in how they show up at work. By combining validated assessment data with skilled coaching, organisations can create a clearer, more personalised path to development. The result is coaching that is more targeted and better aligned to business priorities.

What Is Assessment-Based Coaching?

Assessment-based coaching is a development approach that uses psychometric, behavioural, or leadership assessment data to inform and guide coaching conversations.

Rather than relying only on self-reflection or informal feedback, this method starts with objective insights into how an individual is likely to lead, respond under pressure, engage with others, and approach work. This creates a much stronger foundation for development.

Assessment-based coaching gives every leader a clear, evidence-backed path to improving performance and unlocking potential. It helps identify strengths to build on, risks to manage, and areas where focused development can create the greatest impact.

Why Traditional Coaching Can Fall Short

Traditional coaching often depends heavily on what the participant chooses to share, what the coach observes, and how both parties interpret the issues at hand. While this can still be useful, it may miss important blind spots or fail to uncover the underlying patterns affecting performance.

Without robust data, coaching can become too general, too reactive, or too difficult to measure. Participants may leave with greater awareness, but not necessarily with a practical roadmap for sustained behaviour change.

For organisations, this can make it harder to evaluate return on investment or connect coaching to broader leadership and business outcomes.

How Assessment Data Improves Coaching Outcomes

The strength of assessment-based coaching lies in its precision.

When coaching is informed by valid assessment data, the conversation becomes more focused from the outset. Leaders gain richer insight into their behavioural tendencies, leadership style, motivators, and potential derailers. Coaches can then use this information to shape a development approach that is highly relevant to the individual and their context.

By personalising development through assessment data, coaching accelerates growth and delivers results that matter. Instead of taking a generic approach, leaders receive support that is tailored to who they are, how they operate, and what success requires in their role.

This makes coaching more practical, more efficient, and more likely to create lasting change.

The Link Between Assessment-Based Coaching and Behaviour Change

One of the most important benefits of assessment-based coaching is that it supports real behaviour change, not just reflection.

Insight is only valuable if it leads to action. When leaders understand the specific behaviours that are helping or hindering their effectiveness, they can work with a coach to translate that insight into clear, realistic development goals. This might include strengthening communication, improving decision-making, managing stress responses, or adapting leadership style to different stakeholders and situations.

Combining rich assessment insights with expert coaching creates targeted development that drives real behaviour change. With a clear starting point and a structured focus, coaching becomes more than a conversation. It becomes a disciplined process of growth.

Why Assessment-Based Coaching Is More Strategic for Organisations

For organisations, leadership coaching should not sit in isolation from business goals.

Assessment-based coaching offers a more strategic approach because it can be aligned to leadership frameworks, succession priorities, team effectiveness, and organisational capability needs. It allows businesses to support leaders in ways that are both individually meaningful and organisationally relevant.

Assessment-informed coaching ensures every conversation is focused, personalised, and aligned with organisational goals. This helps organisations move beyond ad hoc development and invest in coaching with greater confidence, consistency, and clarity.

It also supports stronger evaluation. With assessment data as a benchmark, organisations can better understand development needs, track growth over time, and connect coaching outcomes to broader performance objectives.

The Value of Objective Insight in Leadership Development

Leaders do not always receive clear or honest feedback in the workplace. Seniority, organisational dynamics, and competing priorities can limit how much useful feedback people receive about their leadership impact.

Assessment tools help bridge that gap by providing objective insight that may not surface through day-to-day interactions alone. They can uncover patterns that leaders may not recognise in themselves, particularly under pressure or in complex environments.

This objectivity strengthens the coaching process. It reduces guesswork, surfaces blind spots earlier, and ensures development is grounded in evidence rather than assumption.

Why the Human Coach Still Matters

While assessment data is powerful, it is the quality of coaching that helps bring it to life.

A skilled coach helps leaders interpret their results in context, make sense of patterns, challenge unhelpful habits, and commit to practical action. They create the space for reflection, accountability, and sustained development.

Assessment-based coaching works best when robust data and expert coaching are brought together. The assessment provides clarity. The coach helps convert that clarity into meaningful progress.

Final Thoughts: A Smarter Approach to Leadership Coaching

Organisations are under increasing pressure to invest in development that is evidence-based, targeted, and capable of delivering measurable value.

Assessment-based coaching meets that need. It offers a more focused and personalised approach to leadership development, grounded in objective insight and designed to support real change. Rather than relying on broad conversation alone, it helps leaders build self-awareness, improve performance, and develop in ways that align with both personal and organisational goals.

For organisations seeking a stronger return on their coaching investment, assessment-based coaching is not just a better option. It is a smarter one.

Ready to Make Coaching More Targeted and Impactful?

At PBC, we combine robust assessment insights with expert coaching to help leaders grow in ways that are practical, measurable, and aligned to organisational priorities. Our evidence-based approach supports deeper self-awareness, sharper development focus, and meaningful behaviour change over time.

If you are looking to strengthen leadership capability through a more personalised and data-informed coaching approach, get in touch with PBC to explore how assessment-based coaching can support your people and your organisation.

The post Why Assessment-Based Coaching Delivers Better Leadership Outcomes appeared first on Peter Berry Consultancy.

On episode 144 of The Science of Personality, cohosts Ryne Sherman, PhD, and Blake Loepp spoke with Nigel Nicholson, PhD, emeritus professor of organisational behaviour at London Business School, about the theories behind his newest book, Unique You. Nigel said, “In psychology, individuals are mostly regarded as a nuisance, a disturbance, error variants. Whereas for me, everybody’s an exception. That’s the only approach that makes sense.”

Read on to learn more about the four laws of unique individuality, why it matters to be unique, and the threats and opportunities that AI poses to individuals and society.

The Four Laws of Unique Individuality

“Individuality is the stuff of life,” Nigel said. He sees individuality not as lonely but as full of exciting potential. According to Nigel, these four laws of unique individuality apply equally and inescapably to everyone:

1. No one like you has ever existed before or ever will again. Our DNA and brain are uniquely configured so that no person is exactly like another.
2. You are a stranger to yourself. We aren’t always self-aware because so much of our processing occurs in the unconscious. This hidden layer of our consciousness makes us inherently unpredictable.
3. You don’t really know anyone else, and they don’t really know you. We may imagine what someone else’s experience is like, but we can never have their experiences ourselves.
4. The reason for your existence is to connect with others. Cooperation, or getting along with others, is not only important and valuable but also the heart of most social processes. “We magnify the diversity of our individuality because we cooperate in so many different ways,” Nigel said, naming fun, productivity, and love as reasons for connection.

Nigel explained that free will and choices affect our behaviour and thus our reputations, or how others see us. “For example, thinking of yourself as an attractive person or an unattractive person will set you on a completely different set of experiences,” he said. “You only have to think of yourself in a different way to fundamentally change lots of aspects in your behaviour.” Assessment-based coaching and many other strategies for gaining strategic self-awareness can lead to successful behavioural modification.

Why Does Individuality Matter?

Nigel quoted the Victorian-era Canadian physician Sir William Osler: “It is much more important to know what sort of a patient has a disease than what sort of a disease a patient has.” This speaks to the fact that people’s reactions and experiences are purely their own, even during shared events and despite other commonalities.

“All lived experience is qualified by who you are,” Nigel said. Unique individuality implies that people must be understood separately, not as part of a group or set of personality types. “My thinking on this upends a lot of leadership development presumption, which is the concept of the average manager. But there is no average manager,” he added. “You have to deal with the raw material in front of you.” In fact, the Hogan assessments have 72 quadrillion profiles, more than enough for one per person who has ever lived.

Understanding Your Unique Story

To Nigel, understanding individuality requires a biographical approach. He described a 4D framework that complements psychometric assessment: (1) destiny, (2) drama, (3) deliberation, and (4) development. “Using these four elements, you can tell the story of a human life,” he said.

Destiny

Destiny refers to the given, unchangeable facts about a person, such as DNA, place and time of birth, childhood environment, and the underlying temperamental basis for adult personality. Identical twins start with the same DNA but instantly diverge in experience. These facts of destiny affect behaviour in the workplace and elsewhere.

Drama

Drama relates to the continually unpredictable nature of life. It makes life fun but also at times dangerous and difficult. How we adapt to the events in our lives is where personality comes in. Personality assessments can predict what kinds of reactions and responses individuals are likely to have to the dramas that may happen in life.

Deliberation

Deliberation refers to free will, the point at which someone stops and says, “Wait a minute!” Deliberation helps us answer the question of why we are here and what we are trying to do. In his executive coaching career, Nigel has observed successful leaders who want to change both their identity, or how they view themselves, and their reputation, or how others perceive them.

Development

Development connects to the idea that people never stop learning. Some learning is beneficial, while some is detrimental, such as responding to betrayal with resilience or mistrust. Personality assessment can support learning by describing a person’s strengths, how they tend to respond to stress, and the values that determine what they seek in life.

Uniqueness and Human Connection

Unique individuality is driven by both physical and psychological factors. Briefly, humans consist of a body and a mind, a concept called mind-body dualism (formalised by Descartes and later reframed by Freud and others). Most of the time, we tend to view the body as subject to the mind, but Nigel suggested this is backwards. “The mind only exists for the sake of the body; the body has this mind to look after itself,” he clarified.

Consequently, when we say that humans are biologically wired to form connections with other humans, we mean that our bodies and minds both crave human interaction. We find people who complement us, and we combine our skills to do something completely new. Relationships help us learn about ourselves when we see how others react to us, feedback that reveals our reputation.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Unique Individuality (UI)

“UI is our last line of defence against AI,” Nigel said. Artificial intelligence performs brilliant mimicry and simulation, yet computers and AI cannot simulate human thought processes. Nigel referred to the neuroscientific concept that human perception is a controlled hallucination. What we see of the world is a mental construction; we’re predicting the stimuli that we see in the moment. Our unconscious adds randomness, chaos, and improvisation. “We have supreme gifts of quixotic strangeness that AI can’t come close to,” he said.

AI represents certain psychological threats and opportunities. If we let machines make decisions for us, we may become intellectually lazy. If we ascribe human motives, such as friendliness, to AI interactions, we may become emotionally gullible. If we give too much importance to facts and too little credit to human ingenuity, we can become fatalistic and feel powerless. For example, focusing on data about athletic limitations can deter someone from striving to compete.

The opportunities presented by AI, however, relate to the concepts that underlie its potential threats. It can help us personalise how we communicate, analyse and process information, and improve how we make decisions. For instance, Nigel used AI tools to write his book—not the actual words but finding resources and exploring questions. “The recognition of unique individuality as something to be reckoned with in the context of the tech revolution is absolutely central,” he said.

Nigel emphasised that the four laws of unique individuality come with moral imperatives. First, be yourself. Second, be humble and forgiving. Third, reach out to other people. Fourth, find the best way of connecting with people. Personality assessment gives us the tools to act on these imperatives by measuring what makes each person unique so we can build stronger, more meaningful connections. “My hope is that unique individuality takes us in the direction of more genuine communality with the diversity that exists between any two people in their makeup and their orientation to the world,” he said.

Listen to this conversation in full on episode 144 of The Science of Personality. Never miss an episode by following us anywhere you get podcasts.

*This article originally appeared on Hogan Assessments.

The post Why Uniqueness Matters: Personality and Individuality appeared first on Peter Berry Consultancy.

At the same time, retention has emerged as the other half of the equation. Hiring more people does little good if high performers disengage or exit within their first 12–24 months. In today’s market, talent attraction and talent retention are inseparable challenges—and both require a more deliberate, insight-led approach.

This article explores why the talent shortage persists, why traditional retention strategies are falling short, and how organisations can shift from reactive hiring to building a workforce that is resilient, engaged, and built to last.

Why the Talent Shortage Isn’t Going Away

Many organisations hoped the talent crunch would ease as markets stabilised. Instead, it has become more complex.

Several forces are converging:

• Skills are evolving faster than job titles. Digital transformation, automation, and AI have reshaped roles faster than most workforce planning models can keep up.
• Candidate expectations have changed. Flexibility, meaningful work, growth opportunities, and leadership quality now outweigh compensation alone for many professionals.
• Mobility is higher than ever. High performers know they have options—and they are prepared to use them.

As a result, organisations are competing for smaller pools of highly capable talent, often using similar attraction tactics and employer branding messages. The differentiator is no longer who hires fastest, but who hires wisest.

The Hidden Cost of Focusing Only on Hiring

When talent is scarce, it’s tempting to double down on recruitment: more advertising, more agencies, more interviews. But this approach often overlooks a critical reality—retention failures amplify talent shortages.

Every regretted departure creates a chain reaction:

• Loss of institutional knowledge
• Increased workload on remaining team members
• Higher recruitment and onboarding costs
• Reduced morale and engagement

In many cases, the roles organisations struggle most to fill are the same ones with the highest turnover. This signals not a supply problem alone, but a fit and experience problem.

Why Retention Strategies Commonly Miss the Mark

Most organisations are not ignoring retention—but many are addressing it too late.

Common pitfalls include:

• Relying on engagement surveys without action. Data without follow-through erodes trust.
• Treating retention as a benefits problem. Perks matter, but they rarely compensate for poor leadership or unclear expectations.
• Assuming high performers will self-manage. Top talent often receives less support, not more, until they resign.

At its core, retention is less about keeping people happy and more about ensuring people are aligned, supported, and able to do their best work.

The Role of Fit: Beyond Skills and Experience

One of the most powerful levers in both attraction and retention is role fit.

Traditional hiring processes tend to prioritise:

• Technical competence
• Past experience
• Immediate availability

While these factors matter, they are poor predictors of long-term success on their own. Many early exits occur not because someone can’t do the job, but because the role environment clashes with how they naturally work, communicate, or handle pressure.

When individuals are placed into roles that misalign with their strengths or derailers, the organisation absorbs the cost—often quietly at first, then suddenly.

Improving fit at the point of hire reduces downstream retention risk and shortens the time it takes for new hires to contribute meaningfully.

Retention Starts with Leadership Capability

Ask employees why they leave, and the answer is rarely the organisation as a whole. More often, it’s the immediate experience of leadership.

Managers play a disproportionate role in retention through:

• Setting clear expectations
• Providing feedback and coaching
• Creating psychological safety
• Managing pressure and change

In talent-short markets, leadership capability becomes a competitive advantage. Teams led by self-aware, adaptable leaders are more resilient—and far less likely to lose critical talent.

Investing in leadership development is not a “nice to have” retention strategy; it is one of the most direct ways to stabilise the workforce.

Shifting from Reactive to Strategic Workforce Planning

Organisations that navigate talent shortages successfully tend to share one trait: they think longer-term.

Rather than asking, “How do we fill this role quickly?”, they ask:

• What capabilities will we need 12–24 months from now?
• Which roles are mission-critical, and which are evolving?
• Where are we over-reliant on a small number of individuals?

This shift enables smarter decisions around succession, internal mobility, and targeted development—reducing reliance on external hiring alone.

What a Sustainable Talent Strategy Looks Like

In practice, organisations making progress on both shortage and retention tend to focus on five interconnected areas:

1. Clarity of roles and expectations – People stay longer when success is clearly defined.
2. Better hiring decisions – Emphasising fit and potential alongside skills.
3. Intentional onboarding – Supporting new hires beyond their first few weeks.
4. Manager capability – Equipping leaders to coach, not just manage.
5. Ongoing insight – Using data to identify risk before disengagement turns into attrition.

None of these are quick fixes—but together, they create a system that attracts the right people and gives them reasons to stay.

Turning Talent Pressure into Opportunity

Talent shortages are forcing organisations to confront long-standing assumptions about how they hire, lead, and develop people. While the pressure is real, it also presents an opportunity.

Organisations that respond thoughtfully—by improving fit, strengthening leadership, and aligning roles with people—can emerge stronger, not just staffed.

In a market where talent has choices, the organisations that thrive will be those that offer more than a role. They will offer clarity, growth, and an environment where people can do their best work—and choose to stay.

The post From Shortage to Strength: Rethinking Talent Attraction and Retention in 2026 appeared first on Peter Berry Consultancy.

What Is the Hogan Competency Model?

The Hogan Competency Model was developed to identify the relationship between personality and the competencies that matter most at work. It includes 62 competencies organised into four domains:

• Intrapersonal – Self‑management skills such as self‑esteem, resiliency, and self‑control. These form the foundation for career success.
• Interpersonal – Skills that enable relationship building, collaboration, and influencing others.
• Business – Analytical and operational skills such as comparing, analysing, coordinating, and innovating.
• Leadership – The ability to direct, motivate, and align others toward organisational goals

This model reflects the most scientifically valid competency framework available in the market, offering clients “efficient competency‑based solutions” grounded in personality science.

The Science Behind the Model

Every competency in the HCM is tied to measurable personality characteristics captured through the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI), Hogan Development Survey (HDS), and Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI). The model’s reliability and validity are widely recognised:

PBC research shows strong correlations between Hogan personality scales and key leadership behaviours measured in the Hogan 360. The model allows organisations to compare “the public person with the private person,” building strategic self‑awareness and improving career success. It provides a data‑driven foundation for leadership development, talent decisions, succession planning, and capability uplift. Simply put: Hogan connects who leaders are, how they behave, and how they perform — in one integrated framework.

Competencies Organisations Should Focus On

While all 62 competencies provide a comprehensive foundation, research across thousands of leaders shows that some competencies consistently predict high performance:

1. Achievement Focus – Striving to exceed expectations and driving results.
2. Strategic Skills – Big‑picture thinking, innovation, and long‑term decision‑making.
3. Inspiring Others – Motivating and engaging teams to perform at their best.
4. Emotional Intelligence – Resilience, people skills, integrity, and managing stress effectively.
5. Communication & Influence – Communicating clearly, building relationships, and persuading others.

These competencies consistently differentiate high‑performing leaders and are central to building strong teams, engaged cultures, and high‑performing organisations.

Why the Hogan Competency Model Matters for Your Organisation

Whether you are designing a leadership framework, developing talent, or making strategic hiring decisions, the HCM:

• Provides a scientific, validated foundation for understanding leadership behaviour.
• Ensures your competency framework is aligned with measurable data, not subjective impressions.
• Enables predictive and repeatable talent decisions, improving both performance and retention.
• Links personality, behaviour, and outcomes — the “causal chain” that drives engagement and organisational success.

In a world where leadership shapes up to 70% of team engagement, ensuring your competency model is rooted in science is essential. Download the Hogan Competency Model here.

The post Understanding the Hogan Competency Model: The Science Behind Great Leadership appeared first on Peter Berry Consultancy.