The new realities shaped by the disruptive and complex moment we are experiencing are completely different for each organization. This situation is forcing some companies to completely reinvent themselves, while others are unable to operate as needed. Others are seeing turnover grow at unexpected levels. The personality characteristics of the CEOs of the companies influence the consequences that each of the companies is experiencing as a result of the pandemic.

The Leader in Times of Crisis Program

This article will focus on how the CEOs scored on the Hogan Personality Inventory (bright side of personality), or HPI, which evaluates seven aspects of personality that tend to appear during everyday situations and the Hogan Development Survey (dark side of personality), or HDS, measures the 11 aspects of personality that can derail performance during times like these.

A global and local research on HR leaders personalities and implications

The primary task of human resources has historically been to handle employee benefits and grievances. As such, HR played a very minimal role in corporate strategy and an organization’s success or failure. Modern organizations now realize the critical role that talent (i.e., the people in the organization) plays in its success. That is, people aren’t just replaceable cogs in a machine; some employees are better than others, and employing top talent is a major factor in organizational success.

The role of HR has grown over the past decade and has become particularly important now, during these unprecedented times. HR has, in time, taken a more prominent role in organizations through building a sustainable competitive advantage acquired through management and acquisition of top talent. However, the pandemic has brought on even more critical functions: offering support to employees and leaders in managing their anxiety, forecasting in unpredictable times and offering strategic support to the business.

To understand how are HR leaders equipped to deal with all of these challenges, Hogan assessments looked at the personalities of more than 1,000 HR managers to see how they stack up against other workers around the world.

Un studiu global si o cercetare locala asupra personalitatii liderilor de HR si implicatiile acestora

Rolul principal al departamentului de resurse umane a fost, pentru mult timp, gestionarea beneficiilor angajatilor si rezolvarea problemelor acestora.

Astfel, echipa de HR avea, in trecut, doar un rol mic in formularea strategiei organizatiei, iar impactul asupra succesului sau esecului companiei era, de asemenea, minim. Organizatiile moderne, insa, au inteles, prin prisma experientei, ca potentialul oamenilor din organizatie este un aspect critic in economia supravieturii si a succesului unei firme.

Rolul echipei de HR a crescut in ultimul deceniu si a devenit deosebit de important acum, in aceste timpuri fara precedent. Departamentul de resurse umane detine in prezent un rol mai important in organizatie, deoarece el este cel care ofera un avantaj in fata competitiei prin atragerea si gestionarea persoanelor cu potential de performanta. Insa pandemia de COVID-19 a adaugat si alte functii critice printre sarcinile acestui departament: oferirea de suport liderilor si echipelor in gestionarea anxietatii, formularea de predictii pe termen scurt si mediu, chiar si in perioada aceasta imprevizibile, precum si oferirea de suport strategic business-ului in ceea ce priveste planificarea fortei de munca, strategiei de retentie si beneficii etc.

Pentru a intelege cum sunt echipati liderii de HR pentru a face fata cu success tuturor acestor provocari, Hogan Assessments a realizat un studiu global, analizand profilele de personalitate a peste 1,000 de manageri de HR.

Crises tend to bring out both the best and the worst in people. On one hand, the COVID-19 pandemic has people picking up groceries for their elderly neighbors, sewing masks, and sending hand sanitizer to those in need. At the same time, others are hoarding toilet paper, spreading conspiracy theories on social media, and failing to follow health directives from authorities.

Hardly anyone is going through the normal routine of getting ready for work, commuting to the office, spending the day with colleagues, returning home, and enjoying the evening with family and friends. People are struggling to work from home while simultaneously providing education and day care to their children. Healthcare workers and others deemed essential are working longer hours than ever before, whereas those in the restaurant, bar, entertainment, fitness, hospitality, airline, and cruise industries sit idle.  Consultants and gig economy workers have seen most sources of income dry up, and those who are still employed have no idea whether their companies will be in business next year.

The disruptions to our daily routines, uncertainty about finances, concerns about becoming infected or losing loved ones, and isolation are creating unprecedented levels of stress. No one is going to be at his or her best under these circumstances; the COVID-19 pandemic has created a perfect storm for our dark sides to emerge.

Crizele tind sa scoata la iveala din oameni tot ce este mai bun, dar si tot ce este mai rau… Pe de o parte, pandemia de COVID-19 ne-a impulsionat sa dam mai des o mana de ajutor, sa facem cumparaturi pentru vecinii mai in varsta, sa confectionam masti si sa trimitem dezinfectant catre cei care au nevoie. Pe de alta parte, unii dintre noi facem stocuri imense de hartie igienica, impartasim teorii ale conspiratiei pe retelele de socializare si nu urmam asa cum ar trebui indicatiile autoritatilor privind distantarea fizica.

Putini dintre noi mai avem parte de vechile rutine – de a ne trezi dimineata si a merge la birou, de a interactiona in pauza la o cafea cu colegii, de a ne intoarce acasa si de a petrece seara cu familia sau prietenii.

Multi dintre noi ne “luptam” cu a crea un echilibru intre a lucra de acasa, in timp ce trebuie sa ne ocupam si de copii sau de treburile gospodaresti.

Cei care lucreaza in domeniul medical, dar si in alte industrii, simt ca lucreaza mai multe ore ca niciodata, in timp ce altii din domenii precum cel al ospitalitatii, nu mai au activitate. O buna parte dintre angajatii la nivel global se intreaba daca organizatiile pentru care lucreaza vor mai functiona si anul urmator si daca ei vor mai avea un loc de munca.

Schimbarilor din viata de zi cu zi, nesigurantei cu privire la aspectele financiare, ingrijorarii de a nu fi infectati sau de a pierde pe cineva drag, se adauga sentimentul profund de izolare cu care ne confruntam, ducand, astfel, la un nivel fara precedent de stres. Nici unii dintre noi nu functionam optim in astfel de circumstante, iar aceasta criza a creat mediul perfect pentru ca “partea intunecata” a personalitatii sa iasa la iveala.

Even during the best of times, research shows that absentee leadership is quite common and destructive to teams and organizations. What’s an absentee leader? One who displays neither actively positive leadership nor actively negative leadership; an absentee leader seems uninvolved and uncommunicative. For leaders whose teams are all working remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic, the possibility of showing up as an absentee leader increases, even for leaders who typically are engaged with their teams in the office.

Employees whose leaders are absentee report less direction, delayed decisions, and a lack of feedback and involvement. Role ambiguity results, along with decreased job satisfaction, higher intentions to leave, and added conflicts with co-workers. Add to that the increased stress of the pandemic, and negative outcomes for organizations and employees could be exponentially increased.

Communication is key. There are many readily available tips for managers regarding the common pitfalls resulting from virtual distance between workers and leaders. There are also many useful aids for communicating more effectively with remote teams. A focus on communication undoubtedly is critical for managers at all times, especially now.

On April 17, 2017, Southwest flight 1380 from New York to Dallas was in serious danger. A failed fan blade had struck the plane, creating a window-sized hole on the left side of the plane. Oxygen masks were deployed and, unsurprisingly, the passengers began to panic. Captain Tammie Jo Shults remained calm, took command of the situation, adapted to the circumstances, and safely landed the plane in Philadelphia, saving hundreds of lives. Her audio call is worth a listen.

More recently, the Diamond Princess cruise ship was quarantined with more than 700 passengers testing positive for COVID-19. Captain Gennaro Arma was credited for preventing panic with his calm and reassuring leadership style. There are many examples of extraordinary leaders rising to the occasion in crisis situations. Because many organizations are currently facing the crisis caused by COVID-19, we thought it would be a good time to review what we know about organizational crisis and what makes a leader most effective during such times.

“Femeile sunt mai empatice si de aceea mai bune in a conduce oameni”. „Barbatii sunt mai dominanti, mai carismatici, au mai multa forta si de aceea ei ar trebui sa se afle in varful ierarhiilor”. „Femeile trebuie sa isi asume mai mult rolul traditional de mama si sotie”. „Barbatii trebuie sa aduca bani, sa aiba un statut social mai inalt si sa ofere stabilitate in familie”.

De cate ori se iveste ocazia de a discuta despre subiectul femei versus barbati in business si mai ales despre femei si barbati aflati la conducere, am auzit asumptiile de mai sus, dar si multe altele in plus. Brusc, pare ca toata lumea devine experta si are o opinie ferma cu privire la cine ar trebui sa se afle la conducere, cu privire la rolul femeii si al barbatului in societate.

The English philosopher Gilbert Ryle famously distinguished between two forms of knowing. The first involves knowing that something is the case and concerns factual knowledge; the second involves knowing how to do something and concerns procedural knowledge.

Organizational psychologists know that there is a right way and a wrong way to choose people who can perform well in specific jobs. Moreover, there is no difference, in principle, between the method for choosing good CEOs and the method for choosing good janitors—although the consequences of choosing a bad CEO are much more severe than the consequences of choosing a bad janitor. However, tested knowledge and proven methods for making good selection decisions are all but ignored when it comes to how CEOs are hired.

A friend of ours, an expert in employee selection, consulted with a franchise in the National Basketball Association. To his dismay they hired player after player based on technical ability, and each of these players was subsequently released—at great cost—for reasons of bad conduct. We asked our friend why the franchise owners ignored his hiring advice, and he said, “There is so much money and ego involved in these decisions that no one cares what I think.” Much the same sentiment seems to apply in the process of selecting CEOs. CCL’s research on executive selection confirms that little rigor is used when appointing top leaders.

CEO selection is prone to three recurring problems.

Globalization and the expansion of organizations across international borders have created opportunities and challenges for current and future leaders. As a consultant, psychologist, and coach, I am excited to see more organizations around the world investing in psychometric and multi-rater feedback data for leadership development.

Having reputational data available can be tremendously helpful to leaders for understanding and narrowing down key areas to focus on for development. Many multi-rater assessments allow leaders to compare themselves to other leaders around the world using global benchmark scores (for example, the Hogan 360°, powered by PBC, does this). Having the ability to use benchmarks to understand how leaders differentiate themselves is great, considering how globally connected we are. But given how diverse we are from country to country and culture to culture, are we missing any critical nuances that need to be considered when supporting our leaders and managers in their development?