Recently on The Science of Personality, cohosts Ryne Sherman, PhD, and Blake Loepp spoke with Ty Wiggins, PhD, who is the lead for the CEO and executive transition practice at Russell Reynolds Associates. He is the author of The New CEO: Lessons from CEOs on How to Start Well and Perform Quickly (Minus the Common Mistakes).

Ty was inspired to write The New CEO due to his extensive work on the underexplored topic of CEO and senior leadership transitions. He interviewed 35 new CEOs for insights on navigating this challenging process.

Keep reading to learn the goals for a first-time CEO’s first six months, what personality characteristics support CEO success, and three variables that can make or break a CEO transition.

The First Six Months for New CEOs

The first 90 to 100 days for most new CEOs are often overemphasised in terms of the impact CEOs can have in that period. Ty suggested that their time is better served by listening, learning, and avoiding major errors rather than making significant or radical changes. Instead, one of the key priorities of the first six months of a new CEO—especially a first-time CEO—is to assess the true state of the business.

Ty asked CEOs what surprised them about their first few months. “One of the top responses was that the state of the business was a negative surprise in that it wasn’t quite what was written on the can,” he said. Other priorities within the first six months are to align the senior executive team, build relationships with the board to gain support, and understand the company culture.

The New CEO’s Senior Executive Team

“The top regret is always, ‘I would have moved faster on that executive team,’” Ty reported. “Getting the team right is a key lever for a CEO’s ability to perform, change, and deliver.”

Data from The New CEO indicate that it took an average of 2.8 months before the CEO made the first change to the executive team. It took 9.2 months before the final team was in place. It took 11 to 14 months before the CEO considered the team to be high performing. A common CEO error is to work hard to recruit the right people for the team but overlook development. According to Ty, “When CEOs double down on team development activity early on, they tend to shorten that timeline to high performance.”

Now, these averages don’t often align with expectations from CEOs and their boards about how long it takes to get an effective senior leadership team in place. “This reinforces the opportunity for CEOs to use psychometric data and assessments early to get an objective read on the individuals’ capabilities and potential,” Ty said.

CEOs particularly need to execute a mindset shift around their new role in creating culture. Before, on the senior executive team, they were culture carriers, but now as CEOs, they are the mastheads of organisational culture. New CEOs should also recognise that changing an organisational culture takes a long time, far more than that first six months.

The Personality of a Successful CEO

A successful first-time CEO has good judgment, particularly as it relates to risk. “At the level of CEO, often the judgments that they need to make are the ones that only they can,” Ty pointed out. Their ability to consider long-term risk is crucial. “CEOs are rarely judged today on the decisions they made yesterday. They’re normally judged in two, three, five, 10 years,” he added.

CEOs should be constant learners. How quickly and how easily they learn contributes to their ongoing success. There is also a component of humility in their learning agility—are they able to learn from a variety of people, or do they tend to assume they already know? Recognising that they may never have all the answers keeps a CEO curious and openminded.

A first-time CEO also needs to have empathy for the organisation, recognising the anxiety that comes with leadership change. “You should have empathy for the people that have been there before you in those senior roles, diligently working with best intentions for the betterment of the organisation,” Ty said.

Stress Tolerance and Resilience

Navigating the stress and high expectations of the new CEO role is a key challenge. How the CEO tolerates stress can impact their effectiveness in the transition. New CEOs may feel pressure to prove themselves quickly. “The pressure on the CEO to be the right choice is high,” Ty said. This perceived pressure can work against them in the early months when they should be focusing on learning the business, not making hasty decisions.

First-time CEOs can be susceptible to confirmation bias by looking for the problems they expected to find rather than discovering the real state of the business. One symptom of this pressure for first-time CEOs is to have frequent, short meetings; more experienced CEOs take longer meetings of one and a half to three hours to focus on gaining nuanced knowledge about their people and culture. Consequently, they should reserve their opinions and stay curious about the organisation.

Three Variables That Influence CEO Transitions

Every single CEO was a first-time leader at some point in their career. First-time CEOs need to address each of these three variables:

1. Internal vs. external succession – Is the new CEO internal or external? Internal CEOs have inherent knowledge of the business and culture but may struggle to lead their former peer group. External CEOs have objectivity but may take longer to learn the company and establish their reputation.
2. The outgoing CEO – Where’s the outgoing CEO now? Whether the former CEO is chair, board member, shareholder, or no longer associated with the organisation impacts their level of involvement. As well, perception of the outgoing CEO as a hero or villain strongly affects the transition of the new CEO.
3. The state of the organisation – Is the business performing or underperforming? Either condition will determine speed of action, making decisions with limited information, making constant adjustments, and pressure from the board or the senior executive team.

The CEO position is inherently isolating, making robust support networks crucial. Without strong relationships with board members and team members, the CEO’s decision-making and performance could suffer. “Once you step into the role of CEO, if you’re not well equipped with support, loneliness can result,” Ty said.

He advised new CEOs to approach the role with humility and to recognise they will never be fully prepared. They should expect surprises during the transition because leadership challenges will likely be more complex and demanding than anticipated. “It will be different than what you expect, so don’t be shocked,” he said.

Listen to this conversation in full on episode 113 of The Science of Personality. Never miss an episode by following us anywhere you get podcasts. Cheers, everybody!

*This blog was originally published on Hogan Assessments

The post Navigating Leadership Transitions: Advice for New CEOs appeared first on Peter Berry Consultancy.

Recently on The Science of Personality, cohosts Ryne Sherman, PhD, and Blake Loepp discussed how a nice corporate culture can be costly. “Talking about performance requires focusing on results and holding people accountable,” Ryne said. “The risk for having a nice culture is that the organisation can go under.”

Let’s dive into corporate niceness—and an alternative approach.

How Nice Is Too Nice?

In a nice corporate culture, people get along with each other really well. Everyone’s pleasant, polite, and easy to work with. On the surface, an organisation with a nice culture seems like a good place to work. “The overall definition of a nice culture is one where people try to create an environment where everyone feels like everyone else is nice to them,” Ryne said.

That sounds great, right? Well . . .

The drawbacks of a nice culture relate to performance, feedback, and accountability. It’s hard to create accountability for poor performance when people are unwilling to challenge each other or deliver feedback.

Cultural norms around niceness can be influenced by region of the globe and other societal factors. Expectations around hiring, feedback, performance, promotion, and firing vary greatly. Ryne pointed out that in some places, it can be difficult to remove a poor performer. Under such circumstances, focusing on accountability can seem detrimental.

Disadvantages of a Nice Culture

Ryne identified several signs that a nice organisational culture might be too nice. These are based on conversations he held with distributors and clients about their various global markets.

• Flatlining growth – When productivity, performance, engagement, or profitability stall or decline, a nice culture might be the root cause.
• Low accountability – Failing to hold someone accountable for their work can result in retaining poor performers, facilitating complacency, and damaging employee engagement.
• Avoiding difficult conversations – People may struggle to have difficult or uncomfortable conversations because they want to be seen as nice, pleasant, and easy to get along with.
• Avoiding critical feedback – Giving critical feedback could have organisational consequences based on the behaviour of the person receiving feedback.
• Overemphasis on cohesion – Putting too much emphasis on the importance of unity in direction, purpose, and ideas can be damaging to a culture whenever someone disagrees.

The Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI) scale Interpersonal Sensitivity is likely a key driver of these drawbacks to a nice culture. People who score high on Interpersonal Sensitivity tend to be described as rewarding to deal with, pleasant, nice, and friendly. “But by creating a reputation as nice, we often avoid doing things that might make us seem not nice, including giving someone direct feedback, criticising someone, or holding someone accountable for hitting their targets,” Ryne explained. The desire to seem warm and welcoming can cause people to avoid interpersonal conflict.

The Difference Between Nice and Caring

The critical distinction between being nice and being caring has to do with intention. Someone who wants to be nice will come across as friendly, polite, and respectful. A nice person will say, “Great job with the presentation!” no matter what. Someone who wants to be caring will feel a responsibility to improve others and the organisation. A caring person will say, “Great job with the presentation! If I could give one piece of feedback, this would be it.”

Giving no critical feedback at all isn’t constructive, and neither is giving critical feedback in an overly harsh manner. “Give feedback in a way that’s caring and also nice,” Ryne said. He pointed out that sincerity was a major component of feedback that doesn’t hurt or offend.

Feedback that is motivated by caring and delivered effectively can lead to a more successful product or outcome. Building a caring culture means helping others improve. “The alternative approach is a model that replaces nice with caring,” he added.

An athletic coach’s job is to improve an athlete’s performance by helping them progressively improve. This involves critiquing the athlete but stems from a commitment to the athlete’s development and growth. A good coach, whether athletic or executive, pushes others to help them perform better. The best coaches know how to balance being critical and helpful with being respectful and caring.

How to Implement a Caring Culture

Changing a nice corporate culture is not a quick or easy endeavour, but the ROI can be extreme. Ryne named a few things to consider before making a change from a nice culture to a caring culture: 1) legal concerns, 2) rules and policies, and 3) psychological safety. In some regions of the globe, certain kinds of feedback could lead to legal ramifications, so it’s important to research the legal nuances of critical feedback. It’s also important to assess the current organisational rules and policies about feedback and whether they are being enforced. Finally—and perhaps most importantly—building psychological safety empowers leaders and employees to provide sincere, meaningful feedback. “A psychologically safe environment is one where you can give people critical feedback and yet still feel safe in in the consequences of delivering that feedback,” Ryne said.

Hogan Scales and Niceness

Personality data are also a helpful tool in implementing a caring culture. People with high Interpersonal Sensitivity scores tend to seem agreeable and avoid conflict but risk coming across as overly sensitive. Those with low Interpersonal Sensitivity scores likely have a more straightforward, candid communication style but risk seeming abrasive or confrontational. An organisation that values caring should ensure that directness can be as rewarding as niceness.

In addition to Interpersonal Sensitivity, the MVPI Altruistic scale also influences a caring culture. Someone with a high Altruistic score likely wants to help others; someone with a low Altruistic score likely wants to help others help themselves. This is the proverbial difference between giving someone a fish to feed them for a day and teaching someone to fish to feed them for a lifetime. In other words, it relates to the impulse to give someone a hand up or a handout. The organisational perspective on this scale can affect whether people avoid delivering feedback because they’re afraid to damage their reputation as helpful.

Getting Started

Organisations need to recognise that cultural change is a long-term process. Transforming from a nice corporate culture to a caring corporate culture takes time and effort.

Organisations also need to focus on building psychological safety. Ironically, Ryne said, some organisations have a nice culture because it’s not a psychologically safe environment to hold people accountable.

Cultural change begins at the leadership level. “Leaders have to set the example of receiving and providing feedback,” Ryne said. “They have to be willing to take feedback in a way that isn’t defensive and to use that feedback to grow. Then they have to be willing to deliver that same kind of caring feedback to others.”

Assessment data help leaders at every organisational level understand the type of culture they tend to create by default. It also helps them to understand where they may need to shift their behaviour to build a culture of caring, critical feedback, and continuous improvement.

Listen to this conversation in full on episode 110 of The Science of Personality. Never miss an episode by following us anywhere you get podcasts. Cheers, everybody!

*This article originally appeared on Hogan Assessments.

The post The Hidden Drawbacks of a Nice Corporate Culture appeared first on Peter Berry Consultancy.

Recently on The Science of Personality, cohosts Ryne Sherman, PhD, and Blake Loepp discussed the definition, measurement, and impact of IQ and EQ.

Can we improve IQ or EQ? Read on to find out.

What Are IQ and EQ?

IQ is a long-studied topic built on the assumption that individual differences in intelligence are measurable. Early measurement was based on dividing a numeric test score by age, resulting in a quotient. This was intended to show how smart someone was relative to their age. “Modern IQ tests don’t have that quotient part to them,” Ryne said. “They are standardised to score on a normal distribution.” Broadly, scores between 85 and 115 are average, with 100 as the mean.

Intelligence tests differ in what they measure. Verbal knowledge, mathematical knowledge, spatial reasoning, logical reasoning, abstract problem-solving, and other metrics all contribute to a general factor of intelligence. Scores on intelligence tests are related to many different outcomes, such as longevity, social status, income, identity, and learning ability. (Not all IQ tests are equitable or scientifically validated, however. More on this later.)

Emotional intelligence is our ability to identify and manage our own and others’ emotions. Just as intelligence test scores are related to different outcomes, emotional intelligence test scores can predict many outcomes as well. EQ relates to longevity, academic achievement, career advancement, job performance, mental well-being, and leadership effectiveness.

What Factors Influence IQ and EQ?

Where does IQ come from? IQ develops during childhood and eventually stabilises, similar to how our personalities develop. Intelligence is influenced by genetics, as well as childhood environmental factors that affect brain development. Environmental factors include our needs for physical well-being, safety, and attachment and belonging. Yet researchers haven’t identified exactly how intelligence develops or what causes individual differences in intelligence.

Where does EQ come from? As with most matters of personality, EQ has a genetic component. Second, a nurturing and structured environment during childhood also helps EQ develop. Finally, we learn emotional intelligence from feedback we receive in our social interactions. “We spend a huge amount of our lives in interpersonal situations trying to deal with interpersonal problems, understanding and evaluating other people’s emotions and motivations,” Ryne said. “All of that is putting EQ into practice.”

How Is Intelligence Measured?

Many different IQ tests were developed throughout the 20th and late 19th centuries. Among the best known are the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, Raven’s Progressive Matrices, and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. Unlike personality assessments, which have no right or wrong responses, problems on IQ tests usually have only one right answer out of multiple options.

Although intelligence itself can relate to job outcomes, IQ tests tend to show group differences across ethnicity, race, and gender. “Depending on the test that you use, certain groups tend to score higher than others,” Ryne explained. “What you’re faced with as an employer is the potential for adverse impact, the potential that you will be selecting one group unfairly over another group in a selection context.”

Tests to measure EQ tend to be based on either personality or behaviour. On personality tests, test takers respond to statements with agreement or disagreement. For example, they might strongly agree that they try to see others’ points of view. Using scales from the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI), we could describe someone with higher Adjustment and higher Interpersonal Sensitivity scores as likely to have higher emotional intelligence. In terms of the five-factor model (FFM), higher emotional stability and higher agreeableness would correspond to higher emotional intelligence.

On behaviour-based EQ tests, test takers might identify emotions on a series of faces or in a video clip. They would be tested on which expression showed the most happiness or frustration. Although behavioural EQ tests can show positive prediction, this type of test might just tend to measure the degree to which people are good at taking tests, Ryne quipped. “With these behaviourally based measures of emotional intelligence, because they tend to be correlated with IQ, you often see adverse impact,” he added.

A Note on Adverse Impact

Local validation is necessary to ensure that an IQ test is predictive in its intended setting or context. Ryne explained the importance of local validity this way: “You need to do a local validation study, otherwise you run the risk of having adverse impact, which itself is not illegal. But if you have adverse impact and you can’t justify the test you’re using to make those selections, then that is illegal.”

Can You Improve IQ or EQ?

Whether it’s possible to improve IQ is a loaded question. You can certainly learn to perform better on an IQ test, but that may just mean you got a better score. It doesn’t necessarily mean you have become more intelligent.

Fortunately, people can improve EQ. “You can develop specific behavioural strategies for using your emotions, but it comes through practice, feedback, and coaching,” Ryne said. A leader who may mismanage their emotions during a meeting can get feedback, learn how to respond differently in the future, and try again.

Listen to this conversation in full on episode 103 of The Science of Personality. Never miss an episode by following us anywhere you get podcasts. Cheers, everybody!

*This article originally appeared on Hogan Assessments.

The post Measuring IQ and EQ appeared first on Peter Berry Consultancy.

Recently on The Science of Personality, Christopher J. Duffy, MBA, managing partner at Hogan Assessments, spoke about high-potential employees—a group that organisations spend a tremendous amount of time and resources to define, identify, and develop.

“There is no silver bullet to this equation,” Christopher said. “The most effective high-potential programs usually take considerable resources and support.”

Let’s discuss who high-potential employees are, how to identify them, and how to develop them.

Who Are High Potentials?

When organisations talk about high-potential employees, they usually mean people with the potential for leadership succession. Organisations are looking for people to step into critical upper leadership roles.

The search for successor talent starts with making an accurate evaluation of the readiness that employees show in their current positions. Organisations must effectively prepare and develop those individuals for whatever their destinations might be.

Every organisation has a slightly different definition of what counts as potential, which makes identifying high potentials more complex. To some, the criteria for high potentials are related to workplace politics, reputation, or even a golf handicap. To others, the criteria come from performance metrics and other analytics.

“Multimodal high-potential programs are the most effective,” Christopher said. They tend to combine contextually specific expectations for the future role, as well as clear psychometrics and past performance data. Finding successor talent isn’t a quick or standardised process. Identifying characteristics of high-potential talent to align with organisational needs requires intention.

Personality Characteristics of High Potentials

The specific definition of a high-potential employee differs based on the organisation and role. Nevertheless, our personality data have shown three broad skill groups that help high potentials become successful leaders.

• Functional – A high-potential employee has mastered the core foundational characteristics of following processes and being rewarding to work with.
• Social – A high-potential employee excels at creating and inspiring followership within their group and can self-manage the dark side of charisma.
• Effective – A high-potential employee shows the ability to build and maintain a high-performing team related to their leadership role. They engage and influence that team to achieve collective outcomes.

High potential isn’t just one metric. It’s a combination of characteristics related to job competence, socioemotional skills, and team performance.

How to Identify High Potentials

Ideally, a successful high-potential program would begin with psychometric data from the Hogan assessments. A multimodal approach brings personality data into the discussion for individual development. It adds scientific rigor to what has traditionally been a subjective process.

“If you can put the assessment as part of the identification process at the front end, it can be a fantastic way to make sure that you’re not missing something,” Christopher said. Organisations might fail to identify high potentials, especially if they seem quiet. Excellent high potentials can sometimes get passed over because they may not have a strong drive for self-promotion. Organisations might also misidentify high potentials, especially if they seem loud. People who act charismatic can sometimes lack the leadership skills to succeed in strategic roles.

Even if the pool of high potentials is already predetermined or fixed, Hogan assessment data are extremely beneficial. Psychometric data effectively identify gaps that could emerge as high potentials advance along the leadership track. Organisations should identify a targeted, personalised plan to address each high potential’s specific development needs. “The most effective component of the high-potential program is making sure we have a clear plan for what to do next with these individuals and really help them prepare for that destination role,” Christopher added.

Goals and Mistakes of High-Potential Programs

“Leaders are able to adapt through strategic self-awareness to ensure they’re effective,” Christopher said. “We need high potentials to be able to recognise and understand where they might have to flex their natural style to be most successful.”

High potentials who may have low social energy might nevertheless build reputations as connected leaders by going out of their way to be present with their teams, making specific efforts to build cross-departmental relationships, and being mindful about how they solicit and implement feedback. A high-potential program shouldn’t convert everyone into an extravert; instead, it should create awareness of how successful leaders show up in their organisation.

Where high-potential programs go wrong is a lack of long-term focus and direction. Putting too much effort into identification and too little effort into development will not yield a successful outcome. “I encourage clients to think along a three- to five-year horizon for developing high-potential employees,” Christopher said. He also challenged organisations to define a clear, transparent path for a future leader’s advancement to reduce turnover at higher levels of seniority.

How to Develop High-Potential Employees

A good high-potential program is a process, not an event. “At Hogan, we’re in the business of assessing individuals and providing them with insights around who they are, how they lead, and how they can develop. The worst thing you can do is put those insights on the shelf and forget about them,” Christopher said. Personality insights are extremely relevant throughout a person’s entire career—but especially when they are making transitions.

A high-potential program ought to be a long-term development program that continually reinforces the insights that were created through the high-potential identification process. Developing high-potential employees also tends to be successful when peers are encouraged to collaborate. Peer development can help high potentials stop viewing each other as competitors and invest in each other’s progress.

Insights for Coaching High Potentials

Having a certified Hogan coach is essential to help high potentials realise they will likely need to evolve or change. “High potentials think more of the same will produce results,” Christopher said, calling that belief a common mistake. Being conscientious, detail oriented, and hardworking brought high potentials success and recognition to a certain point in their careers. Those skills may not serve them well as successor talent, though. Leaders need to think strategically, learn to delegate, and understand their new scope and scale.

“Strategic self-awareness is absolutely critical for individuals to make that bridge to doing things in a different manner,” Christopher said. High potentials need coaching to help them deconstruct what has worked for them in the past and think differently about how to evolve or change their approach in the future. Leaders who are effective know when to resist their natural tendencies and apply different behavioural strategies to benefit their teams.

Organisations must provide ongoing development for a high-potential program to be effective. “The advice I leave with our audience is there is no one-size-fits-all for high potentials. I fully believe in being mindful of the programs that you create,” Christopher said.

Listen to this conversation in full on episode 101 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 How to Develop High-Potential Employees appeared first on Peter Berry Consultancy.

The Stress-performance Curve

The relationship between stress and performance level can be summarised by the bell-shaped stress-performance curve, also referred to as Yerkes-Dodson law (figure 1).

At very low levels of stress, a person may feel lethargic and not very motivated. This is a zone of too little stress. As a person climbs the stress-performance curve, the amount of stress increases, and the level of productivity also climbs. This is a zone where the level of stress may be motivating and energising. A positive relationship exists between the level of challenge and the positive reward cycle of getting things done, accomplishing things, concentration, and feedback. One may experience in this zone even a state of optimal experience or what Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi calls flow.¹

However, as the amount of stress continues to rise, performance level ultimately peaks and then begins to decrease. When a person enters a zone of too much stress, his or her performance can be characterised by reduced capacity and narrowed judgment and behavioural resources. A person in this zone tends to rely on habitual patterns and go-to behaviours with limited attunement to circumstances and to others. As stress continues to increase, a person will increasingly enter a state of overwhelm and the range of resources contract to fight, flight, or freeze responses in order to address and minimise perceived danger.

The Hogan Development Survey (HDS)

Helping people understand where they are on the stress-performance curve is a starting point for helping them manage their derailing behavioural tendencies and their reputations under conditions of stress.

The Hogan Development Survey (HDS) captures common patterns of behaviour and coping mechanisms that emerge under stress and pressure. Each behavioural pattern, or HDS dimension, has an adaptive and functional feature. Each also has a maladaptive quality, which is typically an exaggerated response or an automatic, inflexible response to situations. The top of the stress-performance curve is a place where these behaviours become more prominent and tend to dominate responses. As an important note, HDS behaviours can also be present when someone is relaxed (i.e., not self-managing), and some people might even have HDS traits present most of the time. The focus for this article, however, is on behavioural responses triggered by stress.

What happens for a person at the top of the stress-performance curve has a significant impact on that person’s ability to lead and collaborate. This is because each HDS tendency has a way of hindering the ability to “get along” with others and maintain effective interpersonal relationships. This is a zone that is important for awareness, and it can be a gateway into greater versatility and effectiveness.

Behavioural Modification

Many people talk about behavioural modification, yet behaviour does not change because someone wants it to. In other words, it isn’t a matter of will. Behavioural modification comes from shifting patterns and responses to habitual stimuli. This involves a change in perceptions and a change in the internal responses that drive behaviour. It is only the latter can be observed by others.

Working with the Hogan Development Survey (HDS) in combination with coaching techniques of self-observations and practices can be powerful methods for growing self-awareness. This makes it possible to shift into more effective responses and behaviours under pressure.

The Role of Coaching

I am trained in Integral Coaching, an approach that uses self-observation and practices for developing ways of responding to situations and developing more versatile ways of being in the world.

To describe these two techniques,

• self-observations involve a semistructured process for taking time to observe oneself and reflecting on what behaviours arise in particular situations, and
• practices are repetitive and intentional actions aimed at building a new ability.

Self-observations are effective in discovering unconscious behavioural patterns and habitual responses. Practices allow a person to introduce and build familiarity with a new behaviour.

HDS behaviours can be challenging to work with, in large part because most stress responses lie below the level of conscious awareness. The power of self-observation and practices is that, once we can see how we are disposed to respond, we have the opportunity to introduce alternatives.

Working with Stress and Derailer Tendencies in Coaching

In working with a client, I may introduce the stress-performance curve and ask the person to mark an X on the part of the curve that matches his or her stress level. I may have the person take this diagram into the workday and stop multiple times a day (e.g., three times a day) for a fixed period of time (e.g., two weeks) to mark the stress-performance curve. The exercise gets a person to stop and notice their regulation state. It also creates familiarity with the concept of the curve. Through this activity, people are usually able to start to see where their energy and stress levels are during the day and bring this into discussion. This can help determine which behaviours a client may want to focus on based on their actual experiences.

Once someone can notice their state, then they have the possibility to look more closely at stress-based patterns. Here is where I may introduce a self-observation. I may ask the person to observe themselves in a specific stress behaviour-inducing situation. I ask them to take notes afterwards on three areas: the context (i.e., who was there and the kind of event), their perceptions (i.e., their thoughts, interpretation, and emotions), and the kinds of actions that the situations provoked them to want to take. These reflections are often insightful to the client and increases their awareness about internal perceptions, habitual responses, and contextual triggers.

This process of self-observation creates a space to possibly introduce a new behavioural practice. A coach can help design a customised practice for a person and gauge readiness.

Practices may include the following:

• A productive alternative and a new behaviour to use more frequently (“do more of”)
• A repair behaviour (to mitigate impacts of habitual patterns)
• A stress management practice to re-regulate and move down the stress-performance curve (to recharge and minimise spending time in the too-much-stress zone)

As an example, a leader with a high Bold tendency, who is known for not listening to feedback during meetings, may benefit from a self-observation in instances when they are the only person in the room talking. Via a semistructured self-observation, they may look to see if they could self-observe in a real instance. Using the three questions, they can independently reflect on what this observation reveals. Observing first on their own and then discussing this in session may open up new awareness and catalyse greater choice in how to respond (versus react). One example practice which may be fruitful would be to experiment with asking one to three questions, listening, and corroborating prior to sharing a new idea. A component of the practice would be to observe the impact of this new behaviour on themselves and others in the real-time behaviour practice.

Developing awareness of patterns and stepping into practicing new behaviours is an individualised process. It is supported by curiosity, experimentation, and nonjudgment. New patterns require multiple forms of feedback to develop. The attention of a focused coach and a big dose of curiosity can allow a person to work with derailers and have significant payoffs.

Summary

Managing one’s derailers means growing a capacity to observe oneself, respond differently, and develop practices that are more productive. Growing this capability will increase a person’s effectiveness and their ability to work with others under pressure.

While behavioural change takes attention, self-reflection, and ongoing practice, it is something people can take with them into their lives outside of work, and derailer behaviours are a powerful area to target. The HDS in combination with coaching can help to build this capacity and improve performance.

*This post was authored by Rebecca Ghanadan, PhD, founder of Aspis Coaching Group member of the Hogan Coaching Network.

*This post originally appeared on Hogan Assessments

The post Working with Derailers: Coaching Insights at the Top of the Stress-performance Curve appeared first on Peter Berry Consultancy.

By understanding characteristics that might dispose people to feedback resistance, Hogan practitioners can strategically direct a feedback session toward a positive outcome. Our earlier blog post about predicting feedback resistance discussed scale scores that can help practitioners anticipate the likelihood of feedback resistance when they are interpreting results. During a debrief or ongoing development conversation, a practitioner needs insights and strategies for overcoming feedback resistance as it may occur.

Read on to learn ways to turn resistance into receptivity.

How to Overcome Feedback Resistance

How can Hogan practitioners help developing leaders move from resistance to receptivity? Arlene Pace Green, PhD, principal and founder at Enelra Talent Solutions and member of the Hogan Coaching Network, provided insight and advice for overcoming feedback resistance.

Set Expectations

Even before meeting with the leader, it is wise to set expectations for what the session is intended to achieve. People who have never been coached before might have incorrect assumptions about the purpose or scope of development. Because many organisations provide coaching for leaders who are in or will be in role transition, acknowledging changes in circumstances is a good way to begin discussing change and adaptation. Leaders may be less likely to resist developmental change if they perceive it as a positive association with their new role.

Dr. Green often uses a questionnaire before her first session with a leader to help set expectations as well. Some of the questions concern reputation, values, career objectives, and even life goals. The self-reflective mindset helps leaders recognise that coaching is about them and for them, which can excite their curiosity and minimise resistance.

Get Buy-In

During a feedback session, it is important for Hogan practitioners to find a hook to capture the interest of the leader. The hook is the answer to the question “What’s in it for me?” from the leader’s perspective. A leader’s openness to receiving feedback is enhanced when they recognise the value of the process.¹

Dr. Green suggested looking at their Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI) results for the hook. “You have to connect the feedback to their values,” she said. “It has to be something they care about.”

Helping a leader understand how their reputation relates to their values is a key technique in overcoming feedback resistance. A leader who scored high on the Recognition scale may be more willing to address her performance risk of lack of focus (high Imaginative) if she believes that she might be distracting her team from gaining a high company ranking. A leader who scored high on the Affiliation scale may be more willing to acknowledge his overused strength of self-promotion (high Colourful) if he realises he could be creating resentment among his peers.

In addition to values, another motivation that practitioners can use to overcome feedback resistance is the influence of stakeholders like bosses, clients, or teams. A leader who tends to withdraw in social situations (high Reserved) might decide to prioritise socioemotional skills if she realises that her clients want her to participate actively in their network.

When giving feedback, especially about the performance risks in the Hogan Development Survey (HDS), address elevations in the context of impact on performance. If a leader is unaware of or in denial about performance impact, buy-in is especially necessary to encourage the leader to receive developmental feedback about minimising negative performance implications.²

Avoid Derailment During Sessions

Dr. Green recommended using a strategic structure for the feedback session to place developmental feedback in context. She gives an overview of the assessments and then discusses results from the MVPI, the HPI, and the HDS, in that order. “I tell them that the assessments show what they want, what will get them there, and what could hold them back,” Dr. Green said. This framework places the leader and their motivations at the centre of the conversation.

To lessen the possibility of derailment during a feedback session, Hogan practitioners should establish an atmosphere of collaboration and openness. According to Robert and Joyce Hogan, PhD, our founders, and Rob Kaiser, president of Kaiser Leadership Solutions, “Derailed [leaders] are often self-absorbed, unwilling to take responsibility for their shortcomings, and unable to learn from their mistakes—factors that make them resistant to performance enhancement.”³ Whether or not a leader is disposed to resist feedback, it is good practice for practitioners to be prepared to respond to signs of derailment during a session.

When debriefing assessment results, practitioners should be sensitive to verbal and nonverbal cues that a leader is disengaged, ambivalent, or defensive. As a best practice for delivering Hogan feedback, a practitioner should neither overreact nor underreact to feedback resistance. Resistance likely reflects a gap between the leader’s identity and their reputation.

One excellent strategy for addressing resistance during a session is the PAUSE method: (P) point out the resisting behaviour you have observed, (A) ask the person to explore the reaction using neutral language, (U) understand and acknowledge what the person is saying, (S) suggest a new focus or reframe the feedback, and (E) exercise judgment about when to explore further or move on. Asking questions that provoke reflection and approaching the conversation without judgment will help defuse strong emotions.

Create a Meaningful Development Plan

Development isn’t just about helping to mitigate derailment, but it’s also about helping people to learn to leverage their strengths. As Dr. Robert Hogan wrote, “Development consists of adding behaviours or skills to one’s repertoire as the skills become necessary.”⁴ A meaningful development plan is one that outlines actionable short-term objectives that serve a leader’s overarching, long-term professional goals.

A skilled Hogan coach can help maximise development outcomes by helping the leader understand assessment insights in the context of their job and the impact their reputation has on their performance. Ongoing development for leaders means support from a coach while the leader practices new adaptive behavioural skills. An investment in ongoing coaching also allows the coach to monitor the leader’s progress over time and adjust the development plan as needed.

The leader-coach relationship also influences how resistant or receptive leaders are to feedback over time. Successful coaching relies significantly on rapport. A study of executive coaching outcomes found that “eighty-four percent of participants identified the quality of the relationship between executive and coach as critical to the success of the coaching.”⁵ Feedback resistance fades and disappears when leaders see how much coaches care about their success.

Acknowledge Personal Lives and Challenges

Don’t take feedback resistance personally.

Occupational development is the purpose of professional coaching, but this often overlaps with personal development. Strategic self-awareness necessarily touches upon a leader’s personal life too. Feedback resistance might have nothing to do with work at all. Perhaps the leader is worried about the political situation in their home country, or an injury has kept them away from their habitual exercise routine for months. It’s impossible to always know all the circumstances or challenges that might contribute to feedback resistance.

Keep a positive perspective, even in the face of resistance. Development is hard and often requires a concert of factors working together before a leader will express sincere interest in implementing behavioural change.¹

*This post was originally published on Hogan Assessment

The post From Resistance to Receptivity: Overcoming Feedback Resistance appeared first on Peter Berry Consultancy.

Recently on The Science of Personality, Robert Hogan, PhD, founder and president of Hogan Assessments, spoke about the importance of values. “Values have shaped human history,” he said.

In this article, we cover what values are, how organisations establish values, and the relationship between values and organisational effectiveness. Let’s explore the impact of values.

What Are Values?

Values refer to the interests, motives, and drivers that shape what a person strives to attain in life. A group’s values are determined by the shared individual values of group members. “The values of the group determine all sorts of outcomes, particularly at the level of group functioning,” Dr. Hogan said.

Dr. Hogan has been studying values since the 1980s. “To have a proper understanding of people and their organisations requires saying something about values,” he said.

Values are very important for group success. Some values, in fact, are more valuable than others at fostering organisational success. Greed and selfishness tend to ruin organisations, while cooperation and innovation can improve them. A group’s values are therefore more significant to group outcomes than any one individual’s personality.

Values Are Unconscious

Dr. Hogan asserts that values are largely unconscious. In personality psychology, the unconscious is a concept that means that we sometimes behave in ways we don’t understand.

There are three ways of looking at the unconscious: (1) The personal unconscious is a Freudian concept that refers to repressed thoughts and desires. An example would be forgotten early childhood trauma. (2) The collective unconscious is a Jungian concept that refers to the history and survival of the species. An example would be fear of the dark. (3) The sociological unconscious refers to the values, precepts, opinions, and assumptions that we gain from our childhood environment. “You internalise them as a little kid at your parents’ dinner table, and you believe this is just how life is supposed to be lived,” Dr. Hogan said. An example would be overeating out of thriftiness or aversion to waste.

Personality and Values

Personality characteristics are always active and influential. For instance, extraverts seek opportunities for interaction, and introverts seek opportunities for solitude. Values, on the other hand, come into play when we make decisions. “The decisions you make are a reflection of your values. Your values generate your fate,” Dr. Hogan said.

When we are presented with a choice, we follow our values. They represent our guiding philosophy in life. If offered identical roles in two different work environments, we’ll very likely choose the organisation with values that align with ours.

How Organisations Establish Values

Organisational culture equates to the values that prevail in an organisation. Those values come from the shared values of the senior leadership team. Leaders impose their values on the rest of the group through reward and punishment. As a simple illustration, a leader who values punctuality will reward people who arrive at work on time and punish people who are late. “The behaviours that they reward get implemented, and the behaviours that they punish go away,” Dr. Hogan explained.

Since values are unconscious, leaders aren’t always aware of how their values affect organisational culture. Who gets hired, promoted, or fired is often a consequence of leader values. Leader values might also differ from the stated values of the organisation. Misaligned values between organisations and leaders, organisations and teams, or organisations and individuals can all cause workplace conflict.

The brand reputation of an organisation typically reflects the values of the founder. Dr. Hogan used the Hogan Assessments brand as an example. “It’s [high] Science and Aesthetics,” he said, referring to two scales on the Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI). “There’s a strong emphasis on data, but there’s also striving for quality.” He added that the MVPI scales of Altruistic, Power, and Hedonism also influence the Hogan brand identity.

The Importance of Values to Organisational Effectiveness

Leaders drive the values of an organisation. Certain values tend to create more effective organisations than others.

Knowing what values an organisation does endorse isn’t as effective as knowing what values it should endorse. This marks the difference between descriptive and prescriptive values. “The real question to ask is, ‘What are the values that characterise successful, high-functioning organisations?’” Dr. Hogan said.

Values that support organisational effectiveness include equal opportunity, downward delegation, minimal hierarchy, innovation and change, and data-based decision-making.

Two more important values for organisational effectiveness are implementing accountability and defining success. Holding people accountability for results is essential for accomplishing goals. It’s also necessary for the goals to be clearly outlined so everyone knows the criteria for winning. Leaders who drive success don’t always make passionate vision statements. Instead, they pay close attention to processes and measuring milestones for achievement.

“The best single predictor of people getting along is the degree to which they share values,” Dr. Hogan said. It’s the same with predicting how people and organisations get along too.

Listen to this conversation about the importance of values in full on episode 100 of The Science of Personality. Never miss an episode by following us anywhere you get podcasts. Cheers, everybody!

*This post originally appeared on Hogan Assessments

The post The Importance of Values appeared first on Peter Berry Consultancy.

At PBC Hogan, the work that we do is at the forefront of change initiatives. Supporting leaders to develop their skills and capabilities to lead people and teams through times of change. Effective leadership as a multiplier of business impact is critical in leading and communicating change to secure supporting staff trust and engagement. When it comes to undertaking leadership development work, Trust is critical in securing a leader’s conscious effort to develop their leadership capability to be able to lead the organisation effectively, unlocking performance.

By taking a structured approach our work with clients, we are able to deliver an environment of trust on two key levels so organisations can work with their leaders with increased engagement and raising the likelihood of meaningful behaviour change and capability development:

Personal Trust

People are at the core of all of our businesses and so ensuring individual candidate confidence in the environment and the development work they are undertaking is critical to support their ability to change. Key drivers in this context are:

• Development is personal, each individual is to be supported with the insights and development plans and pathways unique to their needs
• Candidates have a sense of being treated with respect and dignity through the development process
• They are able to trust the insights and guidance they are given regarding development areas and actions
• Personal data is secure and well managed

Similarly, organisations have a fiduciary duty to their employees as well as an interest in creating an environment of trust that can support meaningful change to drive the strategic and change outcomes the organisation is seeking. Accordingly we ensure organisations can be confident that:

• They are being respectful of their employees psychological safety during the development process
• Risks are being well managed, for example data security and privacy
• the development activity is aligned with best practice and the organisations strategy so leaders can be confident that the changes they are making are impactful and meaningful to performance

We build this environment by way of:

• Considered program design that supports the alignment of individual candidates development needs with organisational strategy and objectives
• A consulting team of organisational psychologists, trained in mental health first aid undertaking candidate debriefs in a private 1:1 setting to support their engagement, understanding and internalisation of their development needs

• Development program communication strategies that build candidate confidence in the approach and methodology as adding to their careers and capability
• Demonstrable evidence of the highest privacy and data security standards

Structural Trust

Underpinning the ability to build personal trust, there are a number of structural elements to developing a transparent, consistent and trusted development program including:

• Clear and evidence based selection of behaviours that are aligned and correlated to achieving the strategic outcomes and the objectives of the organisation. These are not generic capability frameworks, or qualitatively developed idealised behaviours. They are either custom selected behaviours based on the organisations unique strategy, or there are a researched and validated model that targets core capability uplift
• Using these behaviours as the baseline against which we are objectively measuring individual and aggregated organisational capability to understand areas for development and strengths with direct impact on strategic outcomes
• Leveraging a research backed and profession reviewed suite of valid and reliable tools, like the Hogan suite of assessments, to provide that objective measurement of a candidate’s current capabilities and a consistent common data taxonomy that allows assessment results across the organisation to be pooled and aggregated for analysis and insight to support organisational decision making
• The ability to repeat measures across time supporting considered evaluation of return on investment of development interventions, demonstrate capability change over time at the individual and organisational level and to provide forward development horizons for candidates to encourage conscious engagement with the development program as an intentional capability build with expectations regarding the development of a candidates capabilities

With a foundation in place of strategy aligned to key behaviours, objective measurement, specific interventions and commitment to intentional capability build over time, leaders are enabled to trust in what they are being asked to do when considering leveraging their strengths and working on their development areas. Organisations can trust that their spend and development activities will deliver the business performance they are seeking, support decisions regarding further investment, talent identification and succession choices.

Taking these key considerations into account to develop an environment of trust for your development projects, programmes and strategy across the organisation will drive the quality of the candidate engagement, impact on the organisation and the quality of data to inform your leadership decision making. Trust is a key feature of the way that we work with clients connecting our depth of business and strategy consulting, the professional expertise of our Assessment Research Team, valid and reliable Hogan assessments and our team of organisational psychologists to engage with your people 1:1.

Contact us for more information

Get Certified

The post Environment of Trust is key to development programs delivering better performance outcomes appeared first on Peter Berry Consultancy.

The short answer is that both the employer and the employee have a stake in employee well-being. The pandemic and its economic effects have caused a permanent change in how we work—and how we feel about work. In their endeavors to bring people back into the office, 83% of employers say that employee well-being is a significant part of their return-to-work strategy. Yet burnout has risen by 17% while workplace happiness has decreased by 6% over the last two years.

Employees remain stressed out and burned out despite employers’ focus on well-being. In a recent survey from the American Psychological Association, 79% of 1,501 respondents reported experiencing work-related stress in the previous month.” There seems to be a huge disconnect between employers wanting to improve employee well-being and employees reporting workplace stress. Is that the fault of leaders? How much accountability should organisations really have for the well-being of their workers?

Read on to explore the extent to which organisations should be responsible for employee well-being and ways that organisations can take effective action to improve workers’ wellness.

Whose Responsibility Is Well-Being, Anyway?

Employers and employees have a shared responsibility to communicate with each other about work and well-being. In that sense, both parties must be fully committed to the employer-employee relationship. Like any relationship, it should be reciprocal and rely on clear communication for success.

Because well-being is unique to each person, employees need to tell their employers about their needs. Likewise, employers need to indicate their expectations for work and respond to employee communications appropriately. Faltering communication can create circumstances for burnout.

In addition to a mutual responsibility to communicate, employees and employers also have different obligations to one another.

Employee Responsibility

Individuals have full responsibility for their personal well-being. Only each person can manage their own physical, emotional, and mental health. Employers should not be accountable for employee well-being in that way.

Individuals are also responsible for reasonably safeguarding their well-being at work. Employees’ actions can affect the safety of the work environment. If eye protection is a safety requirement, but some employees won’t wear goggles, they have chosen not to uphold safety standards. If others’ behaviour causes a workplace hazard, employees should report risks to their safety. Compliance and communication fall firmly within the purview of employee responsibility.

Employer Responsibility

Employers are responsible for providing well-being support, mitigating stressors, and creating an environment conducive to workplace happiness. Their approach to employee well-being should be guided by an intention to treat people the way people prefer to be treated—an empathy-driven variation of the Golden Rule. Treating employees like individuals by honouring their needs and their wants is an employee well-being philosophy that strengthens the employer-employee trust relationship.

Employers should also provide physical health support, mental health support, and a culture established by leaders that facilitates well-being and reduces the likelihood of burnout. Any well-being programs and policies will likely need to be tailored to the organisation’s location, size, and industry.

Physical health – Employers are accountable for providing physical safety. In the US, those standards are governed by the Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration. It is a legal requirement for workplaces to be free of major hazards and compliant with other such standards. Expressions of physical health support might include safety training, flexible work schedules and paid time off, health stipends, wellness programs, and robust health benefits.

Mental health – Just as employers are legally obligated to provide physical health support, they ought to provide mental health support as well. Mental health support might include access to mental health resources, opportunities for learning and development, education in mitigating bias and harassment, generous leave policies, and commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. In fact, DEI and well-being are inextricably linked; organisations should integrate both initiatives to improve their joint efficacy.

Culture of well-being – Leaders are responsible for establishing the culture of their teams, departments, and organisations. Because their values influence the values of the group, a culture that values individual well-being starts with leaders. To address burnout and promote a culture in which employee well-being is a priority, leaders need to commit to systemic change rather than wellness programs alone. According to the McKinsey Health Institute, “Taking a systemic approach means addressing both toxic workplace behaviour and redesigning work to be inclusive, sustainable, and supportive of individual learning and growth, including leader and employee adaptability skills.”

Meaningful organisational change begins with leader action. Keep reading to learn what steps leaders can take to promote employee well-being.

Organisational Action Steps for Employee Well-Being

Employee well-being is a shared responsibility. To better fulfill their part, employers should administer personality assessments to leaders and employees, develop leaders who value well-being, and understand employee motivation, values, and preferences.

Conduct assessments – Achieving employee well-being goals can be nearly impossible without collecting data that describe the current context. A personality assessment provides data-driven insights about how well people may tolerate stress and change, how they may respond to burnout, and what motivates them to work. After assessment shows leader and employee characteristics, potential derailers, and values, organisations may establish or adapt well-being initiatives specific to their talent. (Of the numerous excellent employer guides available, we were particularly impressed with the thoroughness of this one from the Society for Human Resource Management.)

Develop leaders – Using assessment results, organisations can develop leaders who value and excel at supporting employee well-being. Personality characteristics can indicate strengths, such as building team psychological safety, setting vision, and using active listening. They can also indicate overused strengths that may derail leaders and the kinds of behaviours that stress might trigger. When people understand their assessment results, they can make deliberate choices to leverage their strengths, moderate their overused strengths, and even learn new or different behaviours. This strategic self-awareness empowers leaders to effect reputational changes that positively influence employees’ workplace wellness.

Understand motivation – Assessment results also provide talent insights into people’s motivations for work. Motivation relates to well-being when our work satisfaction meets our deep-seated human need to find meaning. At Hogan, we use the 10 scales of the Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI) to measure the core values, drivers, and interests that reveal motivation factors and preferred work environments. Of course, what constitutes meaningful work will differ from person to person. Some prefer public recognition while others prefer private acknowledgement (the Recognition scale); some prefer a high level of decision-making responsibility while others prefer to execute processes and tasks (the Power scale). Knowing the specific drivers for each person enables leaders to position employees in roles that the employees feel are most rewarding and to provide them with environments where they are likely to be most productive.

When employers understand the impact that leaders have on employee well-being, they can take actions to build a safer environment, encourage purpose and fulfillment, and protect against burnout by creating a culture of well-being.

Contact us for more information Learn about the Hogan 360

The post Employee Well-Being: Whose Responsibility Is It, Anyway? appeared first on Peter Berry Consultancy.

Who Is Elon Musk?

Musk was born 28 June 1971 in Pretoria, South Africa. His father, Errol, was a wealthy engineer, entrepreneur, investor, and property developer, and half owner of an emerald mine in Zambia. His mother was Canadian, which allowed him to immigrate to Canada in 1989, and then move to the US in 1991 where he attended the University of Pennsylvania, earning degrees in Physics and Economics.

In 1994, Musk moved to Palo Alto to attend graduate school at Stanford University, but quickly decided to join the “internet boom.” With his rich and talented brother, and a loan from his father, he founded Zip2, a kind of travel search engine (for which Musk did the coding) and later sold to Compaq for $307 million in cash. He then founded X.com, an online financial services business, merged with Confinity, an online bank that owned PayPal, and then became CEO. Musk fought with Peter Thiel over search engines, was ousted by the board, but made $175.8 million when Theil sold PayPal to eBay in 2002.

In 2002, Musk founded SpaceX, a commercial spacecraft business. After a rocky start, a $1.6 billion contract with NASA launched it properly. In 2015 SpaceX started Starlink, a chain of satellites intended to bring internet services to remote locations, and which has been a major resource for the Ukrainian military in their war with Russia.

In 2004, Musk invested $6.5 million in Tesla, an electric car startup, and then became CEO and product architect in 2008. This move met criticism from those who argued the electric vehicle market had no future and that the larger automotive market was already heavily saturated. At the time of this writing, Tesla is the 6^th most valuable company in the world, just behind Amazon (5^th) and ahead of Berkshire Hathaway (7^th). In 2016, Musk founded Neuralink, a company intended to explore connections between computer driven artificial intelligence and neuroscience. In 2017, Musk founded the Boring Company, a high-tech tunnel boring business. In 2017, Musk expressed interest in buying Twitter, his favorite on-line messaging platform, widely regarded as a valuable but poorly managed business. In 2022, Musk completed the purchase of Twitter amidst huge fanfare and business news chatter.

Although it is too early to tell how Twitter will perform under Musk’s leadership, we see here an astonishing series of large-scale business development successes. This raises the obvious question:  what sort of person is Elon Musk, the world’s richest person? More specifically, what are the psychological keys to his success?

What Sort of Person Is Elon Musk?

We think there are three keys, and they fall under the headings of power, structure, and style. Power has to do with cognitive capability; structure has to do with cognitive orientation, and style has to do with interpersonal impact. Concerning power, Musk is very smart and, with a background in physics and economics, and he knows more about numbers, technology, and finance than most people. In addition, his business associates say he is remarkably perceptive about forecasting business trends and detecting flaws and biases in other peoples’ reasoning. So, he is very smart has the capacity to make good decisions – not all otherwise intelligent people do. He is not big on planning; he takes action and evaluates his decisions. Or as he Tweeted on November 9^th:

As for structure, Musk has the same orientation as most entrepreneurs—for whom Hogan has a lot of data. Entrepreneurs, relative to the average person, are analytical, data-based problem solvers, energetic and hardworking (100-hour work weeks are normal), fearless about risk, competitive, and focused on making an impact and a difference. Hard working, fearless, competitive, and achievement oriented—key ingredients for success regardless of cognitive ability.

Musk describes himself as having Asperger’s syndrome, which has been consolidated under autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and this neurodivergence may affect his interpersonal style. In our experience, ASD is common among engineers, mathematicians, chess players, and entrepreneurs. People who know Musk describe him as “the life of the party,” and as further testimonial of his vivacity, he hosted the sketch comedy show Saturday Night Live. Outside of work, he often seems witty, irreverent, and mischievous.

As for Musk’s leadership style and effectiveness, this raises a very interesting question.  Leadership is about building high performing teams, and good leaders are people whom others want to follow. Entrepreneurs as a group are bad leaders—like most managers in finance and engineering, they are interested in results and not peoples’ feelings. Musk describes himself as a demanding “nano-manager,” impatient and quick to find fault. He is action-oriented and doesn’t worry much about staff sensitivities.

Musk isn’t the first leader in the public eye to have a reputation of being difficult. Elsewhere we have talked about “the Apple Paradox”: how can someone as duplicitous and unpleasant as Steve Jobs build a business as successful as Apple? Our answer is twofold. On the one hand, the most critical capacity for CEOs is to make good decisions about products and markets, not worry about peoples’ feelings. On the other hand, good managers below the level of the CEO often protect the staff from the bad behaviour of abusive CEOs. We know that Musk is an immensely successful entrepreneur and a mediocre leader—but a mediocre leader compared to whom? Zuckerberg? Bezos? Gates? Welch? Rockefeller?

Finally, then, there is Twitter and how Musk’s recent actions to restructure an underperforming and badly managed company have affected it. Although the previous CEO admitted that Twitter was overstaffed, it seems clear that it was a mistake to fire half the workforce without first evaluating their function and performance. This kind of hasty downsizing creates unnecessary worry and confusion among employees, which is unlikely to contribute to high performance. On the other hand, Musk and his engineers have begun a detailed and granular review of every aspect of the Twitter business and that effort is the essential first step in improving processes and products. Musk himself told his new staff “Revolutions are not done with caution. So we want to try things, ideally things that don’t break the system, but…as long as we’re agile, and we react quickly to improve things and correct mistakes, I think it’ll be fine.”

In response to Musk’s takeover and layoffs, many individuals impersonating Musk on Twitter engaged in mocking the new owner. It is worth pointing out that, if the target weren’t the Twitter CEO and richest person in the world, some of this mocking would be declared cyberbullying. Regardless, much of the criticism seems to be inspired by critics of Musk’s political views. But like most entrepreneurs, especially very successful ones, Musk is not backing down. Instead, he’s firing back with his own sarcastic Tweets and changing the rules regarding impersonation accounts. It is difficult to say how the Twitter acquisition will work out for Musk, but if his past business ventures are any indication, it would be hard to bet against him.

Contact us for more information Learn about the Hogan 360

The post Understanding Elon appeared first on Peter Berry Consultancy.