Personality at Work: The Drivers and Derailers of Leadership

The Link Between Leadership and Personality

Organizations are shaped not only by products and marketing but also by the characteristics and traits of their leaders.

Organizational psychologist Ron Warren in his new book, Personality at Work: The Drivers and Derailers of Leadership, discusses the impact of a leader’s personality on an organization. He created the LMAP 360 to help leaders have a perspective of their impact.

I recently spoke with him about his research.

 

“Personality is to a man what perfume is to a flower.” –Charles M. Schwab

 

You’ve been researching personality and leadership for decades. What are some of the more surprising conclusions you’ve reached?

Surprisingly, that the same traits that drive individual and team performance and those that derail effectiveness haven’t changed in the last 50 years. While almost everything associated with the world of work now evolves very quickly as technology transforms every 18 months per Moore’s Law, humans are quite similar to Stone Age humans.

There are four key domains of personality in play: Grit: the Task Mastery Traits, EQ: the Teamwork Traits, Dominance, and Deference. Broad research identifies behaviors associated with Grit and EQ as key drivers for leadership, teamwork and communications. Fortune Magazine editor Geoff Colvin calls them “high-value skills.” Broad research also identifies behaviors associated with Dominance and Deference traits that derail leadership, teamwork, and communications. Others refer to these derailers by different names like over-aggression, difficulty managing emotions, failure to build teams, excessive caution, but they are rooted in basic dominance and deference behaviors.

Interestingly, Grit and EQ appeared latest in human evolution – called phylogeny – and also appear latest in individual development – called ontogeny. And a basic law of human development is ontogeny follows phylogeny. Neuroscience shows that for many people, the full maturation of the frontal cortex goes on into the mid-twenties … and for many people, this might be required for their full maturation and thus ability to access Grit and EQ. In contrast, Dominance and Deference behaviors are almost inborn and evident in toddlers – and in other animals. Some people develop Grit and EQ, but many do not.

One lesson for emerging professionals is to be aware of a need to think before they act to summon and leverage Grit and/or EQ – which may not be abundant naturally. One way is to suppress Dominance and/or Deference habits and behaviors if they are prominent, as they actively interfere with Grit and EQ. Grit requires planning and thinking about projects and work; EQ requires attending to and considering people and relationships.

 

“Personality is an unbroken series of successful gestures.” –F. Scott Fitzgerald

 

How Personality Impacts Leadership

Share an example of a personality trait and how it impacts leadership.

Sure. Consider someone very high on Need to Control, a Dominance trait. They are domineering and bossy, opinionated and like to advocate ideas rather than listen or seek collective intelligence; they get impatient and are vulnerable to the confirmation bias; they may act before thinking it out. Not too surprisingly, Need to Control is negatively associated with leadership, teamwork and communications … Now, Skip, of course personality traits do not operate in isolation, so what also matters are the other traits in a Profile with Need to Control!

The LMAP assessment is a Circumplex model where traits are organized on a circular chart that represents how they interact with and are influenced by the presence or absence of other traits. I’ve been building systems like this since 1984 – how weird is that!  Anyway, in my book and in our assessments, the focus is on overall Personality Profile – combinations of 13 personality traits – rather than one trait.

So consider High Control and:

  • Add high Rigidity, Hostility, Competitiveness (Dominance traits) and I can guarantee there will be problems and it will be unpleasant.
  • Or add in Achievement Drive and/or Conscientiousness and/or Innovation – better yet, all three Grit traits – and you get a high performer, great at cranking results but not to lead and positively motivate a team – without at least average EQ.
  • Finally, take away Hostility and add in even-average Helpfulness or Sociability and it looks like the Profile of a super effective Managing Editor of a major newspaper I assessed, an introvert with high Control, Conscientiousness, Achievement Drive, Innovation and about-average Helpfulness: a great editor and leader in a tough business and a journalist coach and mentor for his direct reports.

For this fellow, the prominent Dominance wasn’t a derailer because he had just enough EQ traits to temper it… And managing editors of major newspapers must have strong opinions.  But take away his average EQ and mentoring style and then his dominance would go unchallenged and impair his leadership effectiveness.  I like how Angela Duckworth, the University of Pennsylvania Professor and Macarthur Genius Grant winner, says in her book Grit: “As a psychologist, I can confirm that grit is far from the only—or even the most important—aspect of a person’s character . . . There are many other things a person needs to grow and flourish. Character is plural.”

How Innovation Really Works

U.S. Companies are failing at innovation!

That bold statement was at the top of a letter I received, and it got my attention. I started to read about the reasons many organizations are struggling to innovate. It led me to the research by Anne Marie Knott, PhD. She’s a Professor of Strategy at the Olin Business School of Washington University. She was previously an Assistant Professor at the Wharton School. Her research is focused on innovation ranging from entrepreneurship to large-scale R&D. Her new book is How Innovation Really Works: Using the Trillion-Dollar R&D Fix to Drive Growth .

I followed up with her to talk about innovation, R&D, and what can be done about the current problem.

 

Companies Have Become Worse at Innovation

You say that companies have become worse at innovation despite the fact that it’s more important than ever. Why is this?

While companies have become worse at innovation, I don’t actually argue that innovation is more important than ever. It has always been the chief source of companies’ as well as the economy’s growth. I think the reason if feels innovation is more important is that companies’ R&D is only 1/3 as productive as it was in the past. Therefore, they need to do three times as much to generate the growth they used to enjoy–actually more than three times because each additional R&D dollar is less productive.

 

Research: Companies’ R&D is only 1/3 as productive as it was in the past.

 

What’s RQ?  

The catchy answer is that RQTM (short for research quotient) is the company equivalent of individual IQ—it’s how smart companies are.  The precise answer is that RQ is the percentage increase in revenues a company gets from a 1% increase in R&D investment.  So companies that have high RQs derive more revenue, profits and market value per dollar of R&D than low RQ companies.

 

How was it developed?

I didn’t set out to develop RQ (though I knew I needed such a measure from my time in industry).  I actually stumbled upon it while trying to solve an academic puzzle, in much the same way that Percy Spencer stumbled on microwave cooking while working on combat radar systems for Raytheon.

Once I discovered RQ, however, I went through a similar process companies go through with their R&D.  I worked out the theory to characterize how it related to growth; I tested alternative versions; then I validated that the current version matches theoretical predictions using 47 years of data across the full spectrum of US companies conducting R&D.

 

What are its implications?

RQ has a number of implications.  First, by tracking their RQ over time, companies can determine whether their R&D capability is improving or deteriorating.  If companies could have done this 30 years ago, it’s likely R&D capability wouldn’t have deteriorated so much.  Second, because RQ is derived from economic theory, companies can use RQ to determine how much an additional dollar of R&D should increase revenues, profits and market value—this helps them set their R&D budgets.  Third, RQ provides investors a way to value R&D, so now even Warren Buffet can invest in technology firms.  More importantly, when investors know how to value R&D, they won’t pressure companies to cut R&D in pursuit of current profits

 

Why Most Companies Fail at R&D

Why do most companies fail at R&D?
“Failing” probably applies more to projects than to entire R&D systems (which is where RQ applies), but if you’re asking why companies have gotten worse at R&D, I have a few thoughts.  I’m going outside the range of my evidence with this answer, but I believe the demise began with the “financial management” trend in the 1980s.  This was the idea that any company could be managed by anyone simply by controlling “the numbers” (think T. Boone Pickens and Carl Icahn). “The numbers” meant cost reduction in the case of operations and rank ordering investments by ROI (return on investment) in the case of new investment.  R&D can’t be managed that way.  A good R&D system has many longshots.  On average Industrial Research Institute (IRI) member companies report that it takes 125 funded projects to achieve a single commercial success.  The problem is that no “number” can identify the single success up front.  Companies have to carry portfolios of projects with the hope that that the “1 in 125” is in there.  If you throw out all the projects whose ROI can’t be quantified with confidence, you throw out all the lasers, geosynchronous satellites, and other exciting things we developed at Hughes.

 

“The most widely held misconception is that R&D should be more relevant.” -Anne Marie Knott

 

Your book walks through several misconceptions about innovation. Let’s talk about just one.

The most widely held misconception (80% of consultants and 90% of investment analysts/managers) is that R&D should be more relevant. This seems completely plausible.  After all, who wants to be “irrelevant.” The problem with that logic is best captured by the Steve Jobs quote, “A lot of times, people don’t know what they want until you show it to them.”  He’s entirely correct, as the iPod, iPad and most especially iPhone attest.  Work done by researchers at Duke supports his intuition.  Ashish Arora, Wes Cohen and John Walsh found that while customers are the most prevalent source of external ideas, those ideas have the lowest ability to increase sales.

 

“People don’t know what they want until you show it to them.” -Steve Jobs

 

Companies need more radical innovation. Would you share some context about this misconception?

3 Keys to Negotiating Success

3 Keys to Negotiating Success

 

Do people take advantage of you?

Do you let your emotions get in the way of your negotiations?

Do you want to be a better negotiator?

 

Corey Kupfer has negotiated successful deals for over 30 years as an entrepreneur and lawyer, and is committed to inspiring authenticity in business. Kupfer runs his own firm, Kupfer & Associates, PLLC, and founded a speaking, training and consulting company called Authentic Enterprises, LLC. He’s the author of Authentic Negotiating: Clarity, Detachment & Equilibrium – The Three Keys to True Negotiating Success & How to Achieve Them.

I recently spoke with him about the three keys to authentic negotiations.

 

“You do not get what you want. You get what you negotiate.” -Harvey Mackey

 

Authentic Negotiations

Your book title starts with the word authentic. That’s not usually a descriptor of negotiating styles. I’d love to know more about your approach and this uniqueness.

My teachings, based on over 30 years of day-in and day-out professional business negotiating, are mainly focused on the personal and deep internal work you need to do to become a great negotiator: Clarity, Detachment and Equilibrium (or CDE).  A lot of negotiating training is on the level of techniques, tactics and counter-tactics.  Some of those are very manipulative, lack integrity, and are ultimately ineffective – so they should never be used.  Some are okay, but they are not at the core of true negotiating success.  At best, they are good to know as additional tools beyond the deeper and more important work of authentic negotiating.  Without Clarity, Detachment and Equilibrium, tactics and counter-tactics will be of marginal impact at best.

Authentic negotiators get total clarity on what will work and won’t work for them on every significant term and what their true bottom line is – from a place of clarity, not ego. They then stay detached from the outcome. They have no hesitation to walk away from a negotiation – not from a place of anger or ego but, instead, from a place of clarity with no upset, judgement or hard feelings.  Finally, they maintain their equilibrium throughout the negotiating process and don’t let their emotions throw them off so that they are able to stay present to and maintain their clarity and detachment.  Although, of course, leverage matters, in over 30 years of professional negotiating, I found that the most impactful common controllable elements are those three things – not the negotiating tactics and counter-tactics that many of us have been taught.

I’ve actually created a quiz where people can learn if they are an authentic negotiator, which can be found at CoreyKupfer.com.

 

“Authentic negotiators determine their true bottom line from a place of clarity, not ego.” –Corey Kupfer

 

The Top 6 Reasons for Negotiation Fails

What are some of the most common errors people make negotiating?

The top six reasons negotiations fail are:

  1. Lack of preparation – external preparation and, the often overlooked, internal preparation which requires doing the deep inner work to get clear on your objectives and determine your true bottom line on every material deal point.
  2. Ego – including avoiding the pitfalls of pride, wanting to be liked, wanting to win and talking too much.
  3. Fear – including fear of losing, failure, success, the unknown and looking bad or letting someone down.
  4. Rigidity – including pre-conceived notions and the danger of inflexibility.
  5. Getting emotional/losing objectivity – which can kill a deal because you fall in love with a bad deal or it can push you in the wrong direction.
  6. Lack of integrity – with others and, less talked about but as important, with yourself.

Here are some additional specific reasons that fall under the various larger categories above:

  • Talking too much which is most often triggered by either ego or fear.
  • Not listening.
  • Thinking of negotiation as a game.
  • Being focused on winning instead of achieving objectives.
  • Letting emotions get in the way of your clarity, detachment or equilibrium.
  • Not getting connected to a powerful context.
  • Not knowing your purpose for the negotiation.
  • Not determining the measurable results you want to achieve.
  • Not holding high expectations.
  • Having unreasonable expectations.
  • Not understanding the natural negotiating rhythm and moving either too fast or slow.
  • Not being aware and prepared for cultural differences.

 

“Diplomacy is the art of letting someone else have your way.” – Sir David Frost

 

Do skilled negotiators often exploit these errors? If they know the issue is “getting emotional/losing objectivity” do they deliberately work to have one side off balance in this way?

Absolutely!  Manipulative negotiators are going to look to take advantage of every weakness they see in you and use it to their advantage.  They will leverage that emotional imbalance the most they can even though it would be shortsighted to do so, especially in one of the many negotiations that results in an ongoing relationship.  Authentic negotiators will use these errors to their benefit as well, though.  There is a way to do that which is authentic and not manipulative.  It is the difference between paying attention to the information and leveraging opportunities that emotion reveals to help attain your objectives vs. actively manipulating people’s emotions.  For example, if somebody is the type of person who emotionally needs to feel like they have won a negotiation, I will design my negotiating strategy with that in mind.  As long as I achieve my objectives, I am happy to have them feel like they have won.  The difference in the authentic approach is that my focus is achieving my objectives, not using their need to win to take advantage of them and manipulate that need to get as much as I can at the expense of the ongoing relationship or getting a reputation as a negotiator who takes advantage of others.

 

“Manipulative negotiators leverage emotional imbalance.” –Corey Kupfer

 

Use Context – Purpose – Results

Discover Your Unique Communication Style

Know Your Presentation Persona

 

What if each of us has a unique presentation style?

What if you could discover what it is and use it to your advantage when giving a speech?

 

FACT: 30 million speakers take the stage every day

 

Have you ever messed up a presentation or speech?

It could very well be because you didn’t know your natural style. By not knowing your unique strengths, you missed the opportunity to tap into what works for you.

If you want to be a better speaker or just improve your comfort level in front of groups, this post is for you.

Scott Schwertly is the founder and CEO of Ethos3, a presentation design and training company with clients ranging from Guy Kawasaki to Fortune 500 Companies. In fact, I personally utilized Ethos3 for two major keynote presentations. I can speak from personal experience that Scott and his team are exceptionally talented at creating memorable presentations.

I recently spoke with Scott about his new book, What’s Your Presentation Persona?

 

Build Your Self-Awareness

Why is self-awareness so important for presenters?

Self-awareness is absolutely critical for presenters because it means they are aware of their strengths and weaknesses when giving a presentation. It also showcases that they are clearly aware of which audiences will adore them or challenge them. Without this knowledge, a presenter can only guess and assume, which is a dangerous situation.

 

“Self-awareness is probably the most important thing toward being a champion.” –Billie Jean King

 

There are sixteen different types of personas. Would you share just a few of them? (would love to include the graphic of the 16 if it is available).

That’s correct. There is a total of 16 presentation personas. All are different and each consists of its own unique set of advantages and disadvantages. A few of my personal favorites are the Liberator, Activator, and Scholar. The Liberator is someone who is incredibly well rounded where they score high in all 4 quadrants of the Badge assessment. The Activator is your classic sales personality where this type of presenter excels in front of a room, and people love them. The Scholar is the exact opposite of the Activator where they are a verified expert and have a durable message but they may not be great in front of a room.

 

Where can I take the assessment?

Anyone can discover their presentation persona right now. They can do so by visiting Ethos3’s Badge page. The assessment takes about 10-12 minutes to complete. It’s super-fast. Also, readers should pick up a copy of What’s Your Presentation Persona? to understand their results/profile.

 

Stop One Thing

What’s a presentation stop-doing list?

Most people today are constantly trying to add items to their plate. They want to read more books, take more courses, exercise more frequently…the list goes on and on. Most presenters are no different. They are trying to do too much, and it simply is not sustainable. Instead, I would suggest instead of adding 7-8 proactive items, why not just stop one. Let’s say a presenter wants to read one presentation book a week, subscribe to 30 presentation blogs, practice 10 times before every presentation, and attend a presentation training course every quarter. That’s admirable, but it may not be doable. Why not just stop being lazy with your presentations or stop short-cutting your content development process? Stopping one thing is much easier than adding ten items.

 

Speaking Tip: stop one thing to improve your presentations.

 

What are some common presentations mistakes you’ve seen over and over?